How to rig elections [video](media.ccc.de)
media.ccc.de
How to rig elections [video]
https://media.ccc.de/v/why2025-218-how-to-rig-elections
https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04535
142 comments
Watching this brings back memories of Nigeria's 2023 elections. It was (one of a series of) turning point(s) for me when it slowly sank in that the country wasn't worth building a life in. Working remotely & spending in a local currency meant that for the past couple of years, I was insulated and could accumulate savings with little effort. But, the blatant corruption pushed me off the edge.
Quick scan of my social network just confirms the same: anyone extremely agentic, intelligent, or educated I know has either left, is in the process of leaving, or is considering leaving.
Last person out of Nigeria can turn the lights off.
Quick scan of my social network just confirms the same: anyone extremely agentic, intelligent, or educated I know has either left, is in the process of leaving, or is considering leaving.
Last person out of Nigeria can turn the lights off.
This is why my dad left Bangladesh in 1989. Over the years he developed hope that maybe things had turned around. For awhile, the government wasn’t quite so corrupt and GDP was growing at a fast clip. Then the people overthrew the government and now who knows. I could see that he was upset about having believed for the moment in the country getting better.
I've been through your comment history and I can relate. If you're highly placed enough as an elite, you can form a counter-elite and stage a change of government.
But, in most cases, if you have portable, in-demand skills, it's more reasonable to decamp to a better team than try to fix a failing one. The ones with enough proximity to make any change are usually co-opted, driven into exile, threatened into compliance, or straight-up murdered.
Based on what I read about her and the Awami League, I think removing Hasina will be a net-positive for Bangladesh. Yunus is a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist and widely-respected, and if they can keep AL out of power, and pacify any extremists, I think Bangladesh will quickly continue growing.
But, in most cases, if you have portable, in-demand skills, it's more reasonable to decamp to a better team than try to fix a failing one. The ones with enough proximity to make any change are usually co-opted, driven into exile, threatened into compliance, or straight-up murdered.
Based on what I read about her and the Awami League, I think removing Hasina will be a net-positive for Bangladesh. Yunus is a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist and widely-respected, and if they can keep AL out of power, and pacify any extremists, I think Bangladesh will quickly continue growing.
Awami League started as a socialist party, but had become pretty neo-liberal by the 2010s. The uprising ended up with Yunus in power, but the students had no real ideology. And Yunus id a smart guy who has no skill as a leader. That’s created a power vacuum that will be filled by Islamists, who Hasina had banned. The opposition party, BNP, definitely doesn’t have a majority, and they can’t win a fair election without the Islamists.
That's very sad to hear. I've been to Lagos and I always have wished I could have visited longer. As an American I found it an absolutely fascinating place.
I'm happy (?) you found it fascinating, but only because you were visiting. If you had to live in Lagos for, say, 1 year, your opinion would change drastically and you'd be eager to leave.
In many ways it seemed to be a very chaotic place, where money makes the rules, and most people get by however they can, some in the direst of circumstances. I can understand not wanting to live there long-term. But it's also a city of over 10 million people, so I can only image there's so much more to it. I'm just genuinely glad I had the opportunity to visit, because it made real to me the place and the people that I would otherwise only hear about on the news.
Brazilian here. Similar feelings.
At least people can actually audit paper ballot elections. In my country we use electronic voting machines. Attempts to add a paper trail were declared unconstitutional.
At least people can actually audit paper ballot elections. In my country we use electronic voting machines. Attempts to add a paper trail were declared unconstitutional.
Considering the population growth of Nigeria I find it hard to believe that one of the most populated countries in the world will ever run out of talented people.
Population may also be misreported because allocations and power for some depend on the population numbers.
The systems eroding the country & making the educated & talented leave will make any new batch raised to self-select out of the country. In fact, successive generations of talented kids won't even be raised (or, only at a significantly reduced rate) because of poor investment in education.
Or, to be blunt: a syndicate of evil clown politicians have seized control of the ship of state, looting it of anything not bolted down, and murdering anyone who challenges them.
Fixing it is an extremely high-cost endeavor, so leaving is just the only logical option if you have a portable, in-demand skill.
Perfect example would be 1940s China vs. modern China. Same people, but went from a pre-industrial hellhole to a technological superpower because the gov. deliberately invested into creating a sustainable STEM pipeline and creating a nation where their talented young people are happy to live and work. Nigeria isn't doing any of that in any significant capacity.
On the population angle, Nigeria's politicians have a thing for fudging population numbers and realistic figures are closer to 120M to 140M, vs. the 240-260m Western demographers take at face value. I explained in detail in this comment here. [0]
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44870564
Or, to be blunt: a syndicate of evil clown politicians have seized control of the ship of state, looting it of anything not bolted down, and murdering anyone who challenges them.
Fixing it is an extremely high-cost endeavor, so leaving is just the only logical option if you have a portable, in-demand skill.
Perfect example would be 1940s China vs. modern China. Same people, but went from a pre-industrial hellhole to a technological superpower because the gov. deliberately invested into creating a sustainable STEM pipeline and creating a nation where their talented young people are happy to live and work. Nigeria isn't doing any of that in any significant capacity.
On the population angle, Nigeria's politicians have a thing for fudging population numbers and realistic figures are closer to 120M to 140M, vs. the 240-260m Western demographers take at face value. I explained in detail in this comment here. [0]
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44870564
See also the last presidential elections in Venezuela, where they did not even bother to pretend they did not steal the election, even under overwhelming evidence. A year later, we are still waiting for the official ballots.
That's almost the final level. The final level would be not even holding elections...
That's almost the final level. The final level would be not even holding elections...
If you'd rather read about it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04535
We'll put that link at the top as well. Thanks!
In Bulgaria, the EU officials know that elections are rigged, too, but because they are rigged by their buddies, it's fine.
The Pumpkin has been bribing EU officials for 15 years. Angela Merkel raised him this way.
So to summarize, people did vote for Putin, major opposition was blocked, local elections are rigged.
How to rig elections?
Simple: you just need the wille to rig and the power to manifest your will freely. No fancy technology, counting systems, or statistical anomalies can stop you. Quantum cryptography is useless in such a case.
Sad but true—if there isn’t enough power to balance that wille.
Simple: you just need the wille to rig and the power to manifest your will freely. No fancy technology, counting systems, or statistical anomalies can stop you. Quantum cryptography is useless in such a case.
Sad but true—if there isn’t enough power to balance that wille.
Wild that he even had the opportunity to ask these questions and do his own investigating. The exact same issues happened in a recent US election, but in ours no one was allowed to examine any of the things he was able to.
Sounds like elections in both Russia and the US are rotten these days. Curious to note which party has no desire to rectify these issues.
Sounds like elections in both Russia and the US are rotten these days. Curious to note which party has no desire to rectify these issues.
What issues in the US? I know in the last election the counts had anomalies but I don't think I've seen much beyond that.
It doesn't really help that this line of thought is completely banned by one party though.
It doesn't really help that this line of thought is completely banned by one party though.
In the video he shows actual footage of him observing ballot counts by hand. In the 2020 election several precincts in urban areas actively prevented observers from viewing the counting, in violation of state law.
During the hand count they discovered series of ballots that all were marked identically for the United Russia party. Hundreds of them. In the US, tens of thousands of ballots get run through tabulation machines and the result is accepted as accurate simply because the machine counted a known batch of ballots accurately. You can’t see patterns like this with electronic tabulation machines.
He also discusses voter turnout numbers in precincts that broke for Putin’s United Russia party being 80% or greater whereas most other precincts had turnout of 30-40%. He just as easily could have been describing some Detroit precincts that had 90%+ turnout in 2020.
He spends a lot of time discussing security features on ballot bags that reveal evidence they have been tampered with. He discusses chain of custody at length and describes how and when he suspects ballot bags were tampered with. In 2020, mail-in ballots were accepted without any evidence they were actually returned by the voter named on them.
This video is interesting because it describes a lot of the same issues that plagued the 2020 election but for some reason we all expect Russian elections to be rigged, but can’t conceive of ours being anything but squeaky clean.
During the hand count they discovered series of ballots that all were marked identically for the United Russia party. Hundreds of them. In the US, tens of thousands of ballots get run through tabulation machines and the result is accepted as accurate simply because the machine counted a known batch of ballots accurately. You can’t see patterns like this with electronic tabulation machines.
He also discusses voter turnout numbers in precincts that broke for Putin’s United Russia party being 80% or greater whereas most other precincts had turnout of 30-40%. He just as easily could have been describing some Detroit precincts that had 90%+ turnout in 2020.
He spends a lot of time discussing security features on ballot bags that reveal evidence they have been tampered with. He discusses chain of custody at length and describes how and when he suspects ballot bags were tampered with. In 2020, mail-in ballots were accepted without any evidence they were actually returned by the voter named on them.
This video is interesting because it describes a lot of the same issues that plagued the 2020 election but for some reason we all expect Russian elections to be rigged, but can’t conceive of ours being anything but squeaky clean.
The last election was 2024.
There have already been dozens of court cases about the 2020 election.
There have already been dozens of court cases about the 2020 election.
Yes, that is how time works. And your point is?
Which party?
The party that isn't constantly accusing their opponents of election fraud.
I want to see his talk on quantum cryptography (referenced early in the video). Anyone have the link?
So this is the russian interference Hillary was talking about?
Well this starts off with a bang:
>In germany we just saw very public rigging of an election for the federal high court of justice.
Not familiar with that but I imagine that is going to be a controversial statement.
Using Russia as a subject is interesting. A western audience is probably a lot less defensive against the idea that Russia rigs their elections. The video looks interesting.
>In germany we just saw very public rigging of an election for the federal high court of justice.
Not familiar with that but I imagine that is going to be a controversial statement.
Using Russia as a subject is interesting. A western audience is probably a lot less defensive against the idea that Russia rigs their elections. The video looks interesting.
> Not familiar with that but I imagine that is going to be a controversial statement.
I'm not sure if it's fair to call it rigging, but there was a massive smear campaign against a judge nominated for their constitutional court. Leading to the nomination being withdrawn when it really should've been an appointment as usual. Which is likely the first massive step toward Germany politicising one of the foundations of their democracy, similar to how the USA supreme court seems like it's red vs blue when looked on from the outside.
I'm guessing this conference is rather left leaning, which is why they'd called that rigging, but there wasn't election fraud. It's an issue of course, since this means that rich people can essentially buy massive influence on the German democracy by clever use of social media and lies. Which may seem like the norm to a lot of people on HN, but that's not how it has traditionally been in Germany.
I'm not sure if it's fair to call it rigging, but there was a massive smear campaign against a judge nominated for their constitutional court. Leading to the nomination being withdrawn when it really should've been an appointment as usual. Which is likely the first massive step toward Germany politicising one of the foundations of their democracy, similar to how the USA supreme court seems like it's red vs blue when looked on from the outside.
I'm guessing this conference is rather left leaning, which is why they'd called that rigging, but there wasn't election fraud. It's an issue of course, since this means that rich people can essentially buy massive influence on the German democracy by clever use of social media and lies. Which may seem like the norm to a lot of people on HN, but that's not how it has traditionally been in Germany.
You are talking like this is the first time judges have been blocked for political reasons. See Horst Dreier in 2008 as a high-profile example.
> similar to how the USA supreme court seems like it's red vs blue when looked on from the outside.
It's not just the outside who see it that way!
It's not just the outside who see it that way!
Thank you for the context. Everyone can draw their own conclusions but its helpful having more context on what they were talking about.
Not to mention that one of the major issues in that debate (for the supposedly "centrist" party) was abortion rights - even though most of her views on the topic were fairly in line with other sitting judges.
It's now alleged that this was caused by a disinformation campaign targeting MPs of that party.
https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/brosius-gersdorf-union...
It's now alleged that this was caused by a disinformation campaign targeting MPs of that party.
https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/brosius-gersdorf-union...
There's no "seeming": the current US Supreme Court is nakedly political.
Well, they're just people, so of course they are. Thankfully, there are folks representing both parties to keep it fair.
Thankfully??? Did I miss the /s at the end of that? Do you honestly believe it is fairly representing?
I am shocked, shocked I say, at discovering the US Supreme Court engages in politics! I got bad news for you friend: it always has been. That, or maybe you’re one of those knaves who thinks it’s only fair when your side gets to rule.
I don't think you read his comment for comprehension. Whatever prompted your response does not follow from what the parent comment said.
What part of my comment leads you to take away whatever is in your head? I just pointed out that SCOTUS is not a fair representation. You've clearly read somethings in between the lines or are confusing other threads.
I see this so often it gets old especially from a certain side of the aisle. If I make an intentionally contained and concise argument someone always seems to interpret it as if it was part of some larger point I'm making. I used to believe it was a tactic to draw you in. But more and more I believe it's reading comprehension and a good bit of built-in bias.
It is by definition representative and fair: Senators chosen by the people approved thier nomination to the court. You’re not this uninformed about how US politics work, are you?
So they Kavanaugh'd him, but it actually worked!
If Kavanaugh has become a verb, shouldn't Garland'd be a thing too when the Senate denies POTUS his constitutional right?
Since Garland didn't even get to a vote, it wasn't necessary to Kavanaugh (or Bork) him to the same degree. Abe Fortus got denied a vote via filibuster in '68, so you could say that Merrick Garland was Fortused.
But a filibuster is an accepted way for the minority to fight back. That's not the same thing as making up a new rule and denying a vote because it's a lame duck year. To equate the two is just strained logic at best.
[deleted]
Borked was the original
TIL; I'd always used it for broken/stopped working but I looked it up - neat!
> Origin 1980s: from the name of Robert Bork (1927–2012), an American judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court (1987) was rejected following unfavorable publicity for his allegedly extreme views.
> Origin 1980s: from the name of Robert Bork (1927–2012), an American judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court (1987) was rejected following unfavorable publicity for his allegedly extreme views.
This is the correct answer. More memorable and better number of syllables. Although I'm sure he wasn't the first either.
Is "Kavanaugh"ing someone to direct the FBI not to investigate or interview witnesses?
> Wray: "I apologize in advance that it has been frustrating for you. We have tried to be clear about our process. So when it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have.[180] So when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House."
> Whitehouse asked: "Without investigation?" After a long pause, Wray answered, "We reviewed them and then provided them to..." Whitehouse interjected: "You reviewed them for purposes of separating them from tip-line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?"[180] Wray confirmed that process. Whitehouse asked, "Is it also true that, in that supplemental B.I. (background investigation), the FBI took direction from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?"[180] Wray confirmed that process.[180]
> Kavanaugh had Eighty-three ethics complaints brought against him regarding his behavior during those Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed a special federal panel of judges to investigate them. In December 2018, the panel dismissed all the complaints, calling them "serious" but deciding that lower court judges are without any authority to investigate Supreme Court appointees.[181]
> In October 2024, Whitehouse published a final report supporting the view that the supplemental investigation was heavily curtailed by the Trump administration. [182]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_...
> Wray: "I apologize in advance that it has been frustrating for you. We have tried to be clear about our process. So when it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have.[180] So when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House."
> Whitehouse asked: "Without investigation?" After a long pause, Wray answered, "We reviewed them and then provided them to..." Whitehouse interjected: "You reviewed them for purposes of separating them from tip-line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?"[180] Wray confirmed that process. Whitehouse asked, "Is it also true that, in that supplemental B.I. (background investigation), the FBI took direction from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?"[180] Wray confirmed that process.[180]
> Kavanaugh had Eighty-three ethics complaints brought against him regarding his behavior during those Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed a special federal panel of judges to investigate them. In December 2018, the panel dismissed all the complaints, calling them "serious" but deciding that lower court judges are without any authority to investigate Supreme Court appointees.[181]
> In October 2024, Whitehouse published a final report supporting the view that the supplemental investigation was heavily curtailed by the Trump administration. [182]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_...
It shouldn’t be that controversial a statement. It’s an accurate assessment of what happened this summer in Germany. A judicial candidate was destroyed by false claims online. To me it seemed like German politicians were reading too much US news and wound up aping patterns seen there.
> imagine that is going to be a controversial statement.
not really
but compared to what seems to be happened nearly daily in the US it really is not a big deal
but compared to what is supposed to happen it was a big deal
which seems to be a common trend, being very pissed of about what happened in German politics, then looking to the US and being "they did what now!?", oh it seems things are still fine here
not really
but compared to what seems to be happened nearly daily in the US it really is not a big deal
but compared to what is supposed to happen it was a big deal
which seems to be a common trend, being very pissed of about what happened in German politics, then looking to the US and being "they did what now!?", oh it seems things are still fine here
>but compared to what seems to be happened nearly daily in the US it really is not a big deal
Can you clarify what you're talking about? The most analogous situation I can think of is the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing which is basically the complete opposite outcome. Tremendous pressure applied against his confirmation which ultimately didnt influence the outcome.
Can you clarify what you're talking about? The most analogous situation I can think of is the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing which is basically the complete opposite outcome. Tremendous pressure applied against his confirmation which ultimately didnt influence the outcome.
Maybe pick a functional democracy as your yardstick?
Can you provide an example? Are there any left?
France, UK, Norway, Spain, Canada.. here's your list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
France is worse in the index.
UK, Canada, Spain are similar ranked.
Norway is better ranked, sure so are most other Nordic countries.
But the difference between a (using their terms) "full democracy" and a noticeable better (in the index) "full democracy" is much less noticeable then the difference between a "full democracy" and a "flawed democracy".
The other thing is that is a more then imperfect index. To be able to create such an index you need to select metrics and criteria which are strongly oversimplified. Weather or not this can lead to a bias. Also there is a time delay e.g. 2025 stats are not yet out.
Anyway I'm really getting off topic. The more relevant thing is, that it doesn't matter too much if there are better (or worse) of countries in the index. What rally matters is that you see where your country can improve an try to push for it, even if it's just with voting, otherwise you will stagnate improvements once you reach a relative high standard.
UK, Canada, Spain are similar ranked.
Norway is better ranked, sure so are most other Nordic countries.
But the difference between a (using their terms) "full democracy" and a noticeable better (in the index) "full democracy" is much less noticeable then the difference between a "full democracy" and a "flawed democracy".
The other thing is that is a more then imperfect index. To be able to create such an index you need to select metrics and criteria which are strongly oversimplified. Weather or not this can lead to a bias. Also there is a time delay e.g. 2025 stats are not yet out.
Anyway I'm really getting off topic. The more relevant thing is, that it doesn't matter too much if there are better (or worse) of countries in the index. What rally matters is that you see where your country can improve an try to push for it, even if it's just with voting, otherwise you will stagnate improvements once you reach a relative high standard.
It isn't. A right wind millionaire and his media outlet started a fake campaign against the potential judge. Other media and social media jumped on it as well and the "normal" conservative party was "concerned". A lot of heel-dragging later, the judge had enough and withdrew herself from consideration.
In Germany it's often illegal to make strong statements like this unless they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that the case?
(That's partly why Germany is getting infested with Nazis again. You can go to jail for calling them out.)
(That's partly why Germany is getting infested with Nazis again. You can go to jail for calling them out.)
Can you provide some sources to back up your claims?
German criminal code aka Strafgesetzbuch. A semi-official English translation is available.
It's a civil matter, but yes. Sadly, courts are slow and the whole story was "there might have been plagiarism in her thesis". Even as traditional media started to explain the story as baseless, social media is a different beast.
Are there center or organizations that focus on studying election fraud and manipulation and how to identify it? In a rigorous nonpartisan (to the extent that's possible) way? Organizations that would regularly support and disseminate the sorts of papers being discussed?
[flagged]
The funny thing is after Trump cried wolf so hard about the 2020 election even if that were true no one would take any Democratic attempt at an investigation seriously.
And Trump has even made statements which can easily be interpreted as admission[0].
But it doesn't matter.
[0]https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/user-clip-trum...
And Trump has even made statements which can easily be interpreted as admission[0].
But it doesn't matter.
[0]https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/user-clip-trum...
That’s right. Cry wolf, no foul, cry wolf again but this time, commit foul. Cry wolf one more time for good measure and unleash the military on the citizens.
I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea that Trump stole the election, especially when stuff like that video is used as evidence. Trump is clearly referring to the 2020 election. He is saying that if that election wasn't "rigged", his second term would be over by now, but since it was (in his opinion) "rigged", he will still be president during the World Cup.
All that said, one thing I can't get out of my mind is perhaps the most consistent trait of Trump's political career is him projecting his weaknesses and crimes on others as a preemptive defense for when those same criticisms are made about him. So any time he accuses his opponents of something, it should probably raise red flags for his own behavior.
All that said, one thing I can't get out of my mind is perhaps the most consistent trait of Trump's political career is him projecting his weaknesses and crimes on others as a preemptive defense for when those same criticisms are made about him. So any time he accuses his opponents of something, it should probably raise red flags for his own behavior.
Right. And Epstein… don’t even get me started. DJT ran miss universe during this time. Coincidence? Nope.
From 2016 Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/a-ti...
From 2016 Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/a-ti...
clownworld1(2)
softwaredoug(4)