General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEvidence suggests votes were changed
Sorry for only a link. I'm not able to post more right now
https://www.theroot.com/evidence-shows-hackers-changed-votes-in-the-2016-electi-1827871206
dlk
(11,576 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)In brief, we find no evidence that the voting technology favored one candidate more than the other.
Nor could we find any statistical differences correlated with accessibility technologies or with different voting technology vendors.
The tests uncovered nothing suspicious. That supports a conclusion that voting machines themselves were not hacked.
Looking at actual votes. There is zero evidence of voted being changed. Desperately falsely claiming there was is the same as Republicans claiming in person voter fraud is a thing. I don't get the obsession here. Is it really so hard to admit that a roughly equal number of people back each party and that given the electoral structure we can in fact lose elections? Are we really that insecure?
Squinch
(51,004 posts)numbers that may have changed the state results. You keep citing that as proof of no tampering, but the article does not really prove that.
brush
(53,853 posts)And has it ever occurred to you that that all the denials of no evidence of changed votes read curiously like glomar responses?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)snip//
But when it comes to whether or not Russin operatives actually changed votes or voter rolls, no one will admit to it, regardless of the mountain of circumstantial evidence.
Hopefully, there Will be More than circumstantial one fine day! Thanks, NewJeff
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)triron
(22,020 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)extraordinary evidence is in yet!
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)coti
(4,612 posts)Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Votes were changed, and they won't admit it bc they're going to change JUST enough in the fall, to not allow a clean sweep or bombastic change against dt. Can't let the cat out of the bag until they can say.."both sides do it" and have some stupid story that somehow alludes to the dems getting a benefit as well. You watch.
Cha
(297,655 posts)some even on this thread won't admit it.
Cha. Our Beloved Leader admonished us in a tweet just today that we cannot believe anything that we read or hear. So he's got this covered.
nature-lover
(1,470 posts)Glad I get a paper ballot. I do wonder about the counting machines.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)coti
(4,612 posts)Though, yes, it does raise a suspicion.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)coti
(4,612 posts)I spent the first half of the article saying, "OK, enough with the rhetoric... and I know this, present the evidence." When he finally got to the point, there wasn't much. The evidence was basically:
1) There was an easy target in Georgia with a centralized server
2) Voting machines really can be hacked
3) The Russians did other stuff, why wouldn't they have changed votes when they possibly could have?
There's certainly enough there to raise the suspicion that we all already have, but nothing to me that even comes close to necessitating the conclusion that votes were changed.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)Abramson used to work as prosecutor.
Link to tweet
There is COMPELLING circumstantial evidence suggesting votes were changed by Russian hackers and Trump may not have been elected president. The type of evidence discussed here is the same type of probative evidence used in EVERY criminal case. A MUST-READ.
coti
(4,612 posts)Circumstantial evidence works on the proposition that, given the truth of the evidence, the opposing truth value (i.e., the guy didn't do it) is exceedingly unlikely. Explain to me how, given the information in the article, it is so exceedingly unlikely that the Russians didn't actually change votes.
Exceedingly unlikely they did not change votes vs. raised suspicion, i.e. a distinct possibility that they changed votes has been raised, which we obviously have here.
spanone
(135,873 posts)KT2000
(20,587 posts)what happens to those. We know there are people who went to vote but were not on the rolls. What happens to the ballots they fill out? I think this is a dark hole that votes may have fallen into. How is the discrepancy worked out and are the people informed whether or not their votes were indeed counted.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)if you show up as a registered dem. in farm communities etc.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Apparently she was too stupid to realize what some bloggers figured out. Because she never claims it happened; Kaine never claimed it happened; Podesta never claimed it happened; DNC Chair never claimed it happened...
judesedit
(4,443 posts)You're not that naive, are you, to think any electronic device is secure? We're still using those same ES&S and Seqouia machines. And not even a paper trail. Wake up. Paper ballots, people! At least there's a slight chance our votes will count. Gerrymandering can't even keep us from winning if enough of us vote
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)kicks it up a notch. But, people get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. EVERYDAY.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)ancianita
(36,133 posts)Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)I know one thing...in the case of treason against dt...it's enough for me.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)There is a lot of it. So why oh why are Democrats so silent on this issue? You'd think that if there was even a hint that machines could be tampered with, they should be, and SHOULD have been, yelling about this for years already. Insisting on paper ballots until the public can be assured in machine security.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Do lawyers even sift through these semantic and verifiable differences?
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)Democrats were roundly criticized for being Sore Losers
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)They should have been sore losers.
In fact the way I remember it they weren't sore enough. They relinquished power too easily in the desperate attempt to NOT look like sore losers. They went out of their way to make sure that history would record how by-the-book they acted, complete with Gore himself pounding his speakers gavel down loudly to shut down the black caucus as they came up one by one to declare it the sham it was. How the SCOTUS shut down the recount that the State of Florida's Democrat leaning court ruled for on a technicality. Giving then not enough time to do a recount, and then declaring that it wasn't done in time. A recount that showed Gore would have won.
They weren't sore enough then, or about the Ohio shenanigans during Kerry's run. Nor quite frankly now about voting machines.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)It was evident on election night.
onetexan
(13,058 posts)Russian meddling & textbook GOP manipulation.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)strict human checks on any machine counts.
Phoenix61
(17,019 posts)Hacking and reading what's there is one thing. Changing what is there is a completely different thing. It's not that easy. Seriously, this ain't a movie. Do you really think 17 national Intel agencies would have missed this? Really? Get a grip.
Omaha Steve
(99,709 posts)marlakay
(11,491 posts)who ever did it or was a part of it. Not so much for money as for the principle so it will never happen again, like have a verdict in the billions and she could donate most of the money to safety of future elections.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)triron
(22,020 posts)caraher
(6,279 posts)Currently the link to The Root's article says just this: