US elections are still vulnerable to hacking ... which unfortunately is only a small part of the problem!
No. Susceptible to Democrat run precinct cheating. But computer hacking from without - likely not. Don’t believe these people.
Go back to the mechanical voting machines with the little cranks.
I agree 100% we make the system completely cheat free. Is AP in favor of that?
You notice that as soon as they found cheating, they shut down the recount.
If they care about cheating, they’ll require a picture ID at the polls. And go back to mechanical vote counting machines.
Let’s deal with the largest issues having an impact on the elections:
issues:
1. Illegals voting
2. Multiple voting
3. Fraud voting by officials
4. Mail elections
5. ID voters fraud
99. Internet
...And gave Hillary Clinton a 2.9 million popular vote lead to show that they have a sense of humor.
Sounds plausible to me.
Any machine is vulnerable to hacking. But PA has a very elaborate and redundant security and audit process that would detect any kind of widespread hack. So this article is B.S. meant to sow doubt on Trump’s win in PA.
Honest elections are susceptible when Democrats are around. They cheated and still lost, but like all sore losers they have to point the finger of blame elsewhere rather than on themselves.
The news reports "hacking" when what was found was plain old garden variety cheating.
The left always manipulates language to mislead the public.
US elections are still vulnerable to hacking ... which unfortunately is only a small part of the problem!
Occam’s Razor.
Photo ID’s.
“Hacking” is not the problem. The problem is early voting, absentee and “provisional” ballots and the president telling illegal aliens and foreigners to go ahead and vote because nobody cares. Dead and “vote ‘til you drop” voters don’t help either.
“It not he who votes that counts, but he who counts the votes.” - Joseph Stalin (or Uncle Joe to liberals)
Easy....Just search people for floppies when they walk into the polling place.
They obviously don’t understand computer programming. A machine that prints a paper receipt could be hacked to print out what the voter had entered and then record something different in the official tally. The IBM executive’s statement that the paperless machines are harder to check is a fallacy. If the paperless machines can be hacked, the ones that produce a paper trail can be hacked as well. It would not be a complicated programming task to tally a vote one way and print out a different vote. That is why I never liked electronic voting. Without having non-electronic input into the machine, there is no way to prove how the voter really voted.
Plus, in my district in PA, we are given the choice to use a machine readable paper ballot or vote on the strictly electronic machines. I always choose the paper ballot, even though it takes longer to fill in all the little boxes. We get a tear off receipt from the paper ballot, but I don’t see the purpose of that. I would like to receive a machine printed receipt that shows how I voted, even though I know that it could be falsified. Most people choose the paperless electronic voting because it is easier to use than filling in little boxes with a ball point pen.
I think that, if we are going to vote using electronic machines, machine-readable paper balloting is the best method because the paper ballots are still available to be examined and cross checked. I think the paper ballots could be made easier to use by having a special marker to fill them out rather than just using ball point pens.
The ideal would be scannable, individually numbered paper ballots to be filled out by the voter. These would be scanned in and a second paper record printed, verified and retained in the scanner to make sure what was on the paper ballot matches the scanned result. Then both the original paper ballot, the electronic count and the printed result are retained. The individual numbering is there to prevent the poll workers from repeatedly scanning the "correct" ballots many times. At the end of the day the number of unused ballots, ballots cast, electronic ballot counts and number of signatures better match or the local precinct will get a butthurting audit by the state.
My county's ballots come close except the original voting is by touch screen so there is no original paper ballot, just the electronic count and retained printed verification copy.
Fake “news”.
Prove it.
I have posted several times about national voting day, where all states are voting at the same time. ALL polls open at the same time and close at the same time (except far flung places like Hawaii).
Everyone (except essential personnel) gets the day OFF so that the minor time restrictions are not a factor, plus other details.
This would reduce the opportunity for voting fraud and exit poll results should be banned although the ACTUAL votes could be tallied much sooner and mostly at the same time. A deadline could be imposed to diminish the chance of cheating. Polls would CLOSE on time. Still waiting in line?.. you should have taken voting more seriously AND we gave you the day OFF!
That was step one, THE VOTE
Now step two THE COUNT
I don’t have the answers for this, but I like the idea of verifying, online, for myself, how my vote was recorded.
I like paper trails. I like digital scanning machines to have ZERO, and I mean ZERO capability of connecting to the internet. Votes could be posted online separately after counting.
We have to get completely away from voting machines being able to be hacked or rigged. It just can’t be allowed to happen.
Hacking is only a small part of election fraud.