[Pete Svarrior]

They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.

Saddam, do you understand how software works?

Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.

Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.

[Lord Dave]

They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.

Saddam, do you understand how software works?

Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.

Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.

I think the biggest issue is delivering the software.
Some, for example, us a memory card.  But that means you'd have to alter the memory card on each machine, which takes time and effort.  Sure, you can prep them before hand but getting the manpower needed to stick enough of those altered cards in to ensure victory isn't easy.

And then you have the original votes which can be recounted by hand if there's a dispute. (See Florida 2000)

[Pete Svarrior]

I think the biggest issue is delivering the software.

In an absolute doomsday scenario (the Democratic party are literally North Korea, intend to overthrow democracy and install a one-party system), the machines could come pre-packed with the "right" software. A massive foreign power could probably build up the numbers of corrupt officials necessary to pull something like that off too. It's not like the US hasn't installed puppet governments around the world before.

Otherwise, it does introduce a challenge, but with a few surgical strikes you could probably swing a close election.

Some, for example, us a memory card.  But that means you'd have to alter the memory card on each machine, which takes time and effort.  Sure, you can prep them before hand but getting the manpower needed to stick enough of those altered cards in to ensure victory isn't easy.

And then you have the original votes which can be recounted by hand if there's a dispute.

I believe 5 states don't have a paper audit trail at all. Add to that numerous counties in the remaining states. Again, I doubt you could rig an election as clear as 1996 or 2008, but 2000, 2004 and 2012 are just about within the realm of slim possibility.

[garygreen]

They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.

Saddam, do you understand how software works?

Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.

Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.

genuine question from someone who doesn't understand software/programming/whatever on the same level as you: could these things be done without getting caught?

[xasop]

genuine question from someone who doesn't understand software/programming/whatever on the same level as you: could these things be done without getting caught?

In principle, always. In practice, it depends on how good the oversight of the whole process is and how corrupt the officials doing the overseeing are. Honestly, I could see the US government being really good or really bad in this regard.

The important point is that corrupt officials can do a lot more damage with electronic voting than with paper voting, precisely because a single modification to the voting machine software at the point of origin is so easily distributed to every machine. It doesn't matter how the software gets onto the machines, if you modify it prior to distribution, then you don't need to corrupt the distribution process itself.

This is why there should always be a paper trail. Not because paper votes are infallible, but because it's so much more difficult to systematically influence them.

In other words, it may be true that this election is not being rigged, but it's extremely difficult to prove it because of the difficulty in verifying that the voting software is behaving as it should.

[Lord Dave]

Trump is winning by a landslide!

Just like Mitt Romney.

[Pete Svarrior]

Parsifal's answer to Gary's question is spot on, but perhaps I'd add this:

When it comes to corruption in paper voting, there is a considerable chance of some evidence emerging that anyone can look at and say "yep, that looks clearly wrong". You know, things like recordings of people stuffing the booths with a bunch of pre-prepared ballots.

A good rigged voting system would likely be indistinguishable from a legitimate one from the voters' or polling station staff's perspective. Because of that, it's much more difficult to completely wrap one's head around it. It would look like a duck, quack like a duck, and those who tell you it might actually not be a duck are probably the paranoid/wacky type.

[George]

Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

It does, unfortunately:

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/americas-voting-machines-risk

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pennsylvania-voting-paperless-20161020-snap-story.html

There are a million flaws and vulnerabilities to be found in these machines, but it all adds up to a system that's far too chaotic and unpredictable for the purposes of anyone setting out to deliberately rig the election.  There's certainly no one convenient point of origin where a conspiracy could slip a malicious software onto the machines prior to their distribution.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/trump-on-latest-accusations/

These are stories that are made up, these are total fiction. You'll find out that, in the years to come, these women that stood up, it was all fiction. They were made up. I don't know these women, it's not my thing to do what they say. You know I don't do that. I don't grab them, as they say, on the arm. One said, 'he grabbed me on the arm.' And she's a porn star. You know, this one that came out recently, 'he grabbed me and he grabbed me on the arm.' Oh, I'm sure she's never been grabbed before.

I didn't do it and it's not a big deal that I did it anyway

[Lord Dave]

This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."



I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.

[Rushy]

This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."

I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.

The difference being all of those women didn't magically appear twenty years after the incident to berate their assaulter only weeks before his campaign ends.

If someone sexually assaults you, I suggest not waiting twenty to thirty years, accusing the person during their presidential campaign, and then getting upset when people think you're a lunatic.

[George]

Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.

[Lord Dave]

This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."

I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.

The difference being all of those women didn't magically appear twenty years after the incident to berate their assaulter only weeks before his campaign ends.

If someone sexually assaults you, I suggest not waiting twenty to thirty years, accusing the person during their presidential campaign, and then getting upset when people think you're a lunatic.

Bill Cosby.


But George is correct.  Alot of sexual assault never gets reported for various reasons.  Add rich and powerful to the mix and you gotta ask: what's the point?

[sandokhan]

https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/2316 (voting machines changing votes in Texas)

[sandokhan]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-happening-again-voting-machines-are-switching-votes-from-donald-trump-to-hillary-clinton

[Rushy]

Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.

The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.

[trekky0623]

The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.

Unfortunately on that tape he is describing actions that other women have also described before the tapes were even released. Jill Harth, for one, made her allegations in 1997 of Trump fondling her private parts, and she stood by that story in July of this year, months before the Billy Bush tape came out.

[Lord Dave]

Most likely case of those wrong votes:

People who clicked the wrong thing.
Machines that didn't read their input properly.
Glitches.

If it were voter fraud, why would it show you the fraud right before submission?  That's just really, really stupid.

[Rama Set]

The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.

There is likely some criminality around his admitted behavior in the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant as well.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.

But I can certainly imagine many reasons why they would show up the last month of the presidential campaign.

[DuckDodgers]

Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.

But I can certainly imagine many reasons why they would show up the last month of the presidential campaign.

Such as the candidate saying he would never act the way he talked about acting, and them knowing differently so they come forward to call him out on his lie?