The 2016 election was hacked for Pete's sake. nt

[mobeau69]

[musette_sf]

1. Of course it was.

[stopdiggin]

2. influenced certainly

"hacked" perhaps in terms of social engineering ...
Hacked in terms of changing vote totals? Nope. Sorry -- no creditable evidence that it happened.

(and we might want to take a look at the baseless claims that have been thrown up over the 2020 results. machine tampering, etc. none of it bearing up under repeated scrutiny.)

[stillcool]

4. Sorry...no creditable evidence because

no one ever looks. Some states do an automatic random recount of a percentage of the vote. Some states couldn't do it if they wanted to, which they definitely do not want to. There is nothing wrong with 'taking a look' or auditing election results. The bullshit that surrounds the simplicity of casting and counting in some states is ridiculous. Others...no problem.

[stopdiggin]

7. or -- it could be that credible evidence is lacking

because it didn't happen. And the burden of proof is on the affirmative statement.

[BruceWane]

3. That's a poor choice of words.

"Hacked" has a specific meaning in information technology. It is an unauthorized incursion into a computer system.

The 2016 election was affected by illegal influence of foreign powers. Sure, if you really get into the deeper aspects of it (Cambridge Analytica) you might say the electorate was psychologically hacked in that they preyed upon human tendencies and weaknesses to implant and spread falsehoods.

But the real problem with using the word "hacked" here is that conservatives leverage the traditional IT usage of the term in order to stoke outrage among their base, i.e. "democrats lie when they say the 2016 election was hacked, there is no evidence that any voting systems were breached !". It allows conservatives to avoid and obscure the fact that the election was illegally influenced by foreign actors, with assistance from domestic co-conspirators.

So....... don't use the term "hacked" that way.

[stillcool]

5. Election offices were most definitely hacked...

The problem with every aspect of elections in some states, is that no one ever does an audit, on any of it. As far as not using the word "hacked" because of Conservatives? You worried about conservatives saying someone on DU said 'hacked' in relation to any election since 2000?

[stopdiggin]

6. "no one ever does an audit"

also simply not true. Some states better than others (as is bound to be the case) .. but the assertion that there isn't any auditing .. just not true.

Edit: Partial retraction. You did say "some" states. Still -- for the assertion to hold up -- nefarious deeds were only attempted -- in places that had lesser levels of oversight or auditing. Thus evading 'detection' in all areas where it might have been possible. Seems unlikely.

[stillcool]

8. the same states have had the same problems...

with their elections for decades, and there have been so many studies done on the problems of our voting systems. There is no argument to be had.
https://verifiedvoting.org/

[stopdiggin]

9. perhaps. but the OP started out with the brute statement

that the 2016 elections were hacked. "Problems with our voting systems" is not quite the same claim -- while at the same time a position I find much less debatable.

Like everyone else I'd like to see improvements -- and of course the hodge-podge of every state "doing their own thing" -- makes it hard to do any more than make "suggestions" from a national level. But even there -- you immediately run into problems because I don't think there is any real true consensus on what reforms and standards would look like. (throw a hundred experts on the subject into a room -- and three hours later you have bloodied noses, simmering tempers, and five different street gangs wearing separate colors) Just my two cents.