Just when you thought things couldn’t get more stupid …
I know this is a stupid question from a dumb-ass European but what was wrong with a paper trail - you know, a bunch of very sweet middle aged ladies sitting down and counting piles of voting slips?
Piles of voting slips open at all times to the candidates to check …
Put another way, if you haven’t got a paper trail you aven’t got a democracy.
Actually, brilliant. The perfect defense against computer hacking and fraud is to not use computers. Just put a mark on a paper ballot (no punch cards, thank you very much). I could live with not knowing the results for a day or so if it increased my faith in the outcome.
Is connecting voter machines to the internet a wide-spread practice?
Your quote:
This is false. Your attempt at clarification does not change that. You can either correct your mistake or continue to cling to your erroneous statement. Up to you, don’t care either way.
AFAIK, it’s not done at all. That doesn’t mean hacking can’t be done, it just means it has to be done at the machine, which makes hacking an election to any great degree a bit of a Mission Impossible thing. If you’re interested there’s a bunch of examples on youtube of people showing the method for a couple of different types of electronic voting systems.
Michigan and Wisconsin do not use systems very susceptible though. They are entirely paper based. Wisconsin has a a lot of scantron/optically scanned systems where it would be possible to mess with the counting system but there is still the paper trail.
Yeah … kind of trying to imagine elections officials hire a bunch of undocumented Russians solely on that letter of recommendation from Putin …
Hmmm, what kind of accent did that shady janitor have?
I think I said it before: if the hack is well perpetrated, the paper trail does not matter. The votes on paper ballots are still counted by machines which, in this day and age, record the tallies on an electronic storage cartridge, which is delivered to the elections office to be read into the main computer. The cartridges can, apparently, be tweaked to report false totals. If the totals are not too far off what looks reasonable but generate a margin that exceeds the state or local threshold for automatic recount, the election appears decisive and the paper trail is never touched. Hacking hundreds or thousands of cartridges is not a minor undertaking, but if you have a large organization and control over the election office, it could be doable.
for historical reference -
(underline added)
(underline added)
Both posts suggested possible reasons why more (if there were any more) Hillary supporters did not vote.
And yes, I also have a slight objection, or criticism, to those who suggest that gerrymandering somehow effects a state-wide election for POTUS, or U.S. Senator, or State Senator. Unless the politicians are moving state borders, gerrymandering does not apply. IMHO, of course.
(post shortened)
Exactly. You didn’t have a quibble, you made an entirely different point. Hope you get it now. I could quote the dictionary again if you like.
I had a slight objection, or criticism, or quibble. You may quote the dictionary as often as you wish. I don’t believe it’s done often enough.
You didn’t quibble. You didn’t make an objection or criticism of his point. You raised another reason why Hillary didn’t get votes. Since no one said gerrymanding was the only reason, you aren’t making a objection. Why are you having trouble with this?
You have to ask?
Out of curiousity, how does this math of yours (or David Packman’s, if you prefer, whoever that is) that “Suggests Election Fraud Against Hillary Clinton” stacks up against a recent recount in, say, Wisconsin, where Donald Trump gained a few extra hundred votes after 3 million ballots were manually processed?
Do you think the next level of denial might, perhaps, be concentrated on those pesky and elusive Russian hackers?
No election is completely safe unless there is a paper trail at the end, and decent vetting of voters at the beginning.