25% of America's voting machines were hackable in the 2016 elections

[L. Coyote]

Fmr Intel boss James Clapper said 25% of America's voting machines were hackable in the 2016 elections.

Link to tweet

US election 'hacking': Russian man arrested in Spain at request of American authorities
Arrested man reportedly told wife he had created a computer virus 'linked to Trump's election win'
Samuel Osborne 7 hours ago
Russian broadcaster RT raised the possibility it was linked to the US presidential election.

Pyotr Levashov was arrested in Barcelona at the end of last week on a US computer crimes warrant, a spokeswoman for Spain's National Court, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with court rules, told the Associated Press.

Levashov's arrest drew immediate attention after his wife told RT he was linked to America's 2016 election hacking. ............

Link to tweet

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. I was surprised the percentage so low. no wonder clintons and obama's are warming

up to the Bush family. good strategy - since Jeb orchestrated the election hack in 2000 and tried again to cull dem voters.

[Jonny Appleseed]

2. Yeah but it needs to be done machine by machine.

An op of that size would leave a lot more evidence than we currently have. Risky too. It's easier and cheaper to hire 2000 more twitter trolls and gain the same net votes.

I'm all for making voting machines more secure. I'd actually rather not have voting machines at all.

[L. Coyote]

4. That simply is not true.

[Jonny Appleseed]

6. Elaborate?

Voting machines do not send or receive signals. They cannot be accessed remotely.

[Crash2Parties]

17. The touchscreen models are connected to a unit that tallies them locally.

That unit then connects via modem or network to a PC in the county office and sends its totals when instructed to do so. The county official then manually sends their totals to a state office.

The whole system is so full of holes & relies on simple trust that no one will tamper with the totals anywhere along the path. There is no audit trail, no tamper-triggers, no checksums...nothing.

We live in a nation that takes our grocery store transactions seriously enough that they can be audited & an entire day's worth replicated if the sytems fails.

We as a nation do not take our voting as seriously as the purchase of a candy bar with an ATM card.

[Jonny Appleseed]

35. That doesn't nullify what I said

It essentially is
Machine gets votes -> Machine is manually connected to a PC to tally votes

Meaning they don't receive signals. They transfer via wire. Which means you can't hack the machines en masse with a magic wand of malicious code. You can hack Joe the county clerk's Windows 2000, but that's not what we're discussing.

[TheFrenchRazor]

29. says who? no doubt the public is not allowed to see the hardware of these machines.

[Jonny Appleseed]

36. Why would you want them to?

That'd just make it easier to do exactly what you're arguing happened. If you showed every dick on 4chan the source code for the OS of a machine that counts our votes you're just asking to have them hacked.

[TheFrenchRazor]

31. too risky? how precisely would a hacker be ID'd, caught, and sufficient evidence found to convict sa

to convict said hacker, and all before election results are certified? seems to me that for a moderately skilled hacker, the operation would carry very little risk, while the presidency of the US stands to be gained.

[Jonny Appleseed]

34. You have to do some b&e to actually get to the machines and install the malware.

[sarah FAILIN]

3. You don't have to hack the machines individually.

Hack the program telling the machine what each vote is. Make it impossible to vote for Clinton unless you touch a very small spot, everything else goes to Trump.

[pnwmom]

5. I have had even people here telling me they weren't hacked because there is no evidence

that they were hacked.

But because no one LOOKED systematically looked for evidence of hacking, so of course we don't have any.

[Jonny Appleseed]

7. That's asking to prove a negative.

Tinfoil hatting and then asking for someone to find evidence for said tinfoil hat claim is something I expect a republican to do.

[TheFrenchRazor]

27. when you can't find evidence that the vote is legit, THAT is a problem. do you truly just expect peo

to have faith that their invisible computer votes were accurately counted, with no evidence whatsoever to prove that? i'm sorry, i am not nearly that trusting. the very fact that there is a built-in lack of evidence with these voting machines should be reason enough to disqualify them.

[Jonny Appleseed]

32. Why do you have faith that the votes cast using dead trees were accurately counted?

[pnwmom]

39. Because of how they do it here. We had a paper recount when the Gubernatorial vote was very close

and it was conducted in full view of observers, with two counters agreeing on each ballot. It was a tedious process but the results could be trusted.

[mythology]

41. The recount in Wisconsin provides the evidence

Some counties were recounted by hand, some by machine. And there was no significant difference between the two with most errors being people who did stupid things like fill in the circle for a candidate and then write the candidate's name which registers as a double vote.

The vote in Wisconsin demographically matches the vote elsewhere. Hard to claim fraud in that case.

[Crash2Parties]

18. The older Diebold style machines have no way to tell if their totals have been altered.

Guess which states prefer them?

[pnwmom]

21. And the newer optical scanners come with an optional feature that allows

internet connectivity and no one knows if any were connected.

And no one's counting a sample of the paper ballots by hand.

[TheFrenchRazor]

26. that doesn't even take into account unknown "back doors" and such. nt

[Crash2Parties]

30. Why, it's almost like the election was just a charade in some states...

[Crash2Parties]

33. The really, really frustrating part is that such as system could be exceedingly secure and reliable.

But all those states where Clinton performed so much worse than expected, well, they don't want secure and reliable.

[mythology]

42. The national polls were more accurate than in 2012

It's also intellectually dishonest to talk only about states where Clinton underperformed her state poll numbers. She overperformed in many states as well, but it happens that she overperformed in states she was already going to win. So she won California by more than Obama in 2012, that gets no more Electoral College votes. Just because you don't like the outcome, it doesn't mean cheating was involved.

[TheFrenchRazor]

28. exactly, and you can't get a recount, until you prove that you need one, and you can't prove

prove that you need one until you do a recount; so it's pretty much a catch-22.

[dlk]

8. How Much Do We Really Value Our Democracy?

If we truly valued our democracy, it would seem reasonable to have invested sufficient funds in our voting systems. The patchwork hodgepodge we currently use is pathetically outdated, underfunded, and could easily be highly inaccurate. We can do better.

[TheFrenchRazor]

25. clearly the PTB like the current system. nt

[triron]

9. What is equally ominous was the hacking into several state

voter registration databases. So the hackers supposedly stopped at just getting information on voters??

[LakeArenal]

10. I have a relative that works for Diebold...

This relative says the machines are easy to hack. I'm not a techie but I believe it.

[oasis]

11. K and R

[C Moon]

12. There was something going on. Some say it's not possible to hack those machines.

But while watching the results unfold in the last election, and seeing all the predictions failing left and right in real time; and the experts completely befuddled by what was happening; and DU being shut down for days by hackers; etc; etc; I believe 100% there was something illegal going on with those machines.

[Crash2Parties]

19. There is no need to hack the machines; the chain from the machines to state totals is the problem.

Some systems take in the precinct machine totals and add them into an Access database! There's no audit trail, no way to know if a county official changes the numbers before sending on to the state level.

[TheFrenchRazor]

22. i think there are multiple possible points of compromise in the system; one doesn't rule out

the other.

[dchill]

13. In my state (PA), that percentage is pretty low.

Over 80% of the voting "machines" in PA are paperless, which means that their output is unverifiable, and recounts meaningless. Over 80% gets you, among other things, vote totals that DO NOT remotely jibe with polls or exit polls. They also get you an illegitimate President and Senator.

[L. Coyote]

15. Dingh, ding, ding, we have a winner.

[TheFrenchRazor]

23. you're just supposed to "trust" that your invisible vote is accurately counted. nt

[Amishman]

44. PA is actually pretty secure

As I've posted in several other threads, most of PA's machines are old Elect-Ronic machines from the 80s. No external connections, they predate the internet. And while the machine itself doesn't have a paper record, the vote totals from the machines is matched with the recorded number of voters who signed in on the paper ledger.

[dchill]

45. I'm sorry, but without a separate, verifiable paper trail...

There's no way to know if the vote counts are the same as what was actually intended by the voters. 40 + 60 =100. So does 60 + 40. I've been voting on a paperless touchscreen computer type machine for many elections now, and do not trust it as far as I could throw it.

[YOHABLO]

14. You can't hack paper ballots.

[L. Coyote]

16. You can hack tabulators.

[Crash2Parties]

20. Pretty tough in California; ours are expected to be able to pass stringent audits & certifications.

And the records are open to the public.

[TheFrenchRazor]

24. that's why the paper ballots should be counted by hand/eye, all the time. nt

[butdiduvote]

37. You know when you have a STRONG intuition about something but can't prove its validity?

That's how I feel about this entire topic of a bit of tweaking going on to straight up change the vote tallies in the 2016 election. I don't have any evidence, just a strong nagging feeling that probably won't go away for the rest of my life.

[Jonny Appleseed]

38. Call me a naysayer but I can't get behind this stuff.

Because we'd see the exact same articles with different names and quotes if HRC had won on rightwing websites. The election influence and manipulation by Russia is so resounding because it WASN'T some spy movie shit. It was a bunch of royal dumbasses not even trying to hide their collusion and preying on mutual stupidity and irresponsibility between them and the American electorate.

It wasn't sophisticated and we should feel really really really bad that our entire election could be swayed because some of us chose to be ill-informed and complicit. We should take that as a sign for introspection, not to absolve our collective nationwide stupidity by finding an easy way out.

[L. Coyote]

46. That's like saying the tree can have only one apple.

You know the tree is there, you know there is one apple, you're tasting the very bitter fruit right now, yet you deny there could be one more apple on the same tree.

Cheaters cheat in every way they need to to achieve their ends. In for one felony means you are in for the next one too if that's what it takes to pull off the crime.

[Jonny Appleseed]

48. I'm not saying people shouldn't look into it

But a lot of people come across as in denial about how stupid we are as a country so they need to find the easiest answer that absolves them of responsibility.

I see it as our equivalent of "dead people are on voter rolls so immigrants MUST'VE used every single identity to vote illegally". You can look into it but you'll only find what-ifs and tinfoil.

[sagesnow]

40. Trust but Verify.

Audit the Vote.

[Vinca]

43. If a voting machine was hooked to a network in any way, it would be hackable.

I remember the 2004 election. The machines in southern Ohio were suspect and the data from them was transmitted to another location for counting. I still think Kerry probably won the election.

[L. Coyote]

47. How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis

Ohio 2004 votes were switched before counting in urban areas, liberal strongholds with lots of Kerry votes to steal. The counties counted their vote, recorded the totals, sent them to the State of Ohio, and reported their amended totals directly to the State after official counts were completed. There were no discrepancies found in that process.
The 2004 Ohio recount reported the same numbers as the vote because the ballots were switched before the first count. That was evidenced by the stacks of ballots with all Bush votes in sequence.

Download precinct_switching.ppt featuring evidence of election fraud