He was sober.
It was a really shitty thing to do. How do you feel about Roger Stone’s “Vote Protectors”?
Do you have an actual argument, or anything to do with the topic at hand? Like, at all? A hostile foreign power is doing whatever is in their power to throw the elections towards the republican party, and the republican party is actively making it easier for them. Please try to keep up.
Not that I disagree at all with the main thrust of your point, but I can’t help wondering about this part of the article:
bolding mine.
Why?
But, black people.
Cyber Security in the 2016 election was a Democratic problem under Obama. The Russians, Chinese, and other nations always they to hack the USA.
Both sides meet with leaders from other nations. Unless this is defined as modern-day collusion, nothing is wrong with that, nor is getting political dirt on an opponent anything new.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Even if the Russians hacked servers, how was a single vote changed? It wasn’t. The entire state of Wisconsin was recounted. Trump actually picked up votes. Those are the facts.
What did they the Russians do? Are you aware the Russians actually gave more money to Clinton?
Are you also ware Obama said a rigged election was nonsense, and told his cyber security chief to back down? Yes- that happened.
You can find that on Wikipedia, although I would note that it occurred on GWB’s watch before Obama as elected.
Cite that Obama said a rigged election was “nonsense”. But suppose he did, would that make Russian interfering in future elections ok?
Next you’re going to start saying that the peepee tape has Hillary in it!
Wisconsin was re-counted, which was possible because there was a paper trail. What happened in the states where there was no paper trail, just voting machines which are known to have had remote-access software installed on them?
What the Russians did is currently under investiation.
Please cite which candidates recieved how much money from which Russians. Cite all of it, or wait for the investigation to wrap up.
Rigging something means that the outcome is fixed. That is not the same as “fucking with”.
As long as Republicans aren’t too afraid to let the investigation wrap up, you’ll have all of your answers.
Those electronic voting machines have a button which, when pressed, displays the totals a second time. Silly as it may seem, I think this is touted as a “recount” by proponents of those machines.
I’d not be surprised if significant fraud involving those machines has already required. Very credible allegations of suspicious results have been raised, and easy hacking methods have been demonstrated. And recall that Diebold (touch-screen voting machine) CEO Walden once said “I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president [Bush].”
The stupid rush to these easily-hacked machines is partly due to a confused response to the “hanging chads” of 2000.
And that’s the real problem with having all the records based on computers, with no paper trail.
If they are hacked, how would we know?
We have no evidence that any vote tallies in the 2016 election were altered, but if they were, we’d still have no evidence. Problem with a successful hack is that you don’t know about it.
This is a two fold problem. The first is obvious, other entities could be selecting our representatives against the will of the people. The second is related, in that, if we don’t know that the vote tallies reflect the will of the people, then we lose confidence in our electoral system, and consider any regime we do not like as potentially illegitimate.
Should democrats pick up big gains, I can see the lack of electoral security being a way of delegitimizing their right to govern, and to be quite honest, if the do not make reasonable gains, or if the republicans pull greater votes, then I would be suspicious of those results myself.
I’ve wondered if the hanging chad stuff was intentionally emphasized precisely to cause that.
Hanging chads weren’t nearly as significant as the butterfly ballot, which was completely independent of the paper vs. computer question. That is to say, you could make a 100% electronic butterfly ballot, or you could make a non-butterfly paper ballot.
I never understood the chad controversy. When I was active in Santa Clara (Cal.) county in the late eighties, we used the exact same cards as were used in Florida without any controversy. One factor was that the ballots weren’t butterflied – that is some of the candidates’ names were on the right page and some on the left of the ballot holder. Instead everyone was on the right and if that meant not so many voting spots were to be had in a particular column, so be it.
I would volunteer to be on the Observation Panel. Each of the recognized parties could have up to three; I was always the only one there. The panel’s unpaid job was to oversee the process where ballot boxes were taken in, identified, and the ballots made ready for the card readers. During the crush incoming ballots would come in faster than they could be processed and stack up on tables. From there a Registrar worker would grab one and deliver it to a pair of inspectors, one of hundreds. The inspectors were paid about $15 for an evening’s work and generally were church members or part of a charitable organization and would donate their pay to the org.
The inspectors would check that a plastic seal was intact and note the number on it, cut the seal and compare the number against one recorded on a card signed by the precinct officials. A signed and sealed cardboard box containing the ballots was checked and the seal broken. The deck of ballots was divided in two, each inspector taking one.
The inspector would riff through the half-deck twice, holding one end then the other, looking at the back of the cards. Voters would be told to check for hanging chad and most of them did so but if there was some, it would easily be visible against the plain white on the back of the deck. If some chad was visible – if a card had one, it usually had about a dozen – the card would be pulled from the deck and examined closely. The rule was one free corner, or two that were not adjacent (i.e diagonal) was no good; the offending chad would be pressed back into the card. If there were two adjacent corners, the inspector would use a modified strawberry huller to pluck it from the card. The modification was to grind the business at an angle on both sides to make a narrow tip.
The two inspectors would swap their halves and do the same thing. When that was done, everything but the ballots would be dumped back into the tin box which was latched shut, and the deck held overhead. A pair of Registrar workers would descend upon them, one to take the ballots and put them in a card tray at the end of the table row, the other to take the tin box and put it in its specific, numbered spot in the warehouse while a third plunked down another tin box within a few seconds.
Truly, it was a well-oiled machine. The polls closed at seven, thing were fully underway by eight, and except for a handful of precincts straggling in from the outlying parts of the county, it was all done by ten-thirty or eleven.
Heavy lobbying by voting machine manufacturers. Our Secretary of State here in RI fell for this and ordered a bunch of new voting machines using the justification that they were old and needed replacing because any person would replace an 18 year old appliance in their home, right? Except even if it’s 18 years old I wouldn’t feel the need to replace an appliance that had been used a most twice a year for 18 years.
Paper ballots are the solution, they can be verified.
Three questions; I’ll give you three answers.
- They meddled in the election to help Trump.
- No.
- No.
I think I speak for several Dopers when I say we are grateful for your presence here at SDMB. The Board is saturated with Bernie Bros and Hillary lovers, and we need more input from those who want to make America great again.
To give us maximum benefit, you need to answer questions as well as ask. However I see you often ignore the questions asked of you. Unless considering questions conflicts with your cognitive style, perhaps you’d be kind enough to address this question.
Thanks in advance.
…mother stabbers and father rapers…