Voting machines rigged for Clinton

[DoctorStrongbad]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-reports-voting-machines-switching-votes-hillary-texas

in Amarillo, a woman was shocked to see her ballot flip from Republican to Democrat.

“Gary and I went to early vote today,” wrote Lisa Houlette on Facebook. “I voted a straight Republican ticket and as I scrolled to submit my ballot I noticed that the Republican straight ticket was highlighted, however, the Clinton/Kaine box was also highlighted!”

Meanwhile, in Arlington, Texas, another voter reported a similar experience.

“I had a family member that voted this morning and she voted straight Republican,” wrote Shandy Clark. “She checked before she submitted and the vote had changed to Clinton! She reported it and made sure her vote was changed back. They commented that It had been happening.”

The reports are alarming, especially given the fact that the media, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and even President Obama himself have all attempted to dismiss Donald Trump’s concerns about vote rigging as a baseless conspiracy theory.

[anvilpoundcake]

Democrats are at it again.

[aviewaskewed]

These concerns have largely been dismissed because the overwhelming evidence says it doesn't happen. I have no clue who this site is and what their credentials are. So until you can get someone a bit more credible and with some pedigree....I'd be very hesitant to start taking these reports seriously. This feels a lot more like the continuing groundwork of Trump and his people to try and pre-counter what could be a historic landslide defeat for him.

Edit: this would also be a terrible hack. Because if you're trying to commit voter fraud with your machine....then it would be more like what Diebold was accused of (and ultimately what got them barred from providing the software to these machines) where the vote is flipped on the sly between when the voter casts the ballot, and when the ballot is then subsequently counted. The idea in a scam of this nature is to avoid any sort of detection, because detection means the jig is up and the scam can't be carried out (if you can prove you voted the opposite of what the ballot says you voted, then the desired 'flip' can't be accomplished. Too much about this just isn't adding up for me.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 10/25/16 03:47 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: Democrats are at it again.

Only democrats would rig a machine for Clinton.

[anvilpoundcake]

At 10/25/16 04:58 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 10/25/16 03:47 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: Democrats are at it again.

Only democrats would rig a machine for Clinton.

Same tricks, different election.

[FinaLee]

At 10/25/16 04:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I have no clue who this site is and what their credentials are.

A more unmedicated version of RT, basically.

[RydiaLockheart]

Zero Hedge USED to be a really good site, is the thing. They're still top notch when it comes to economic analysis though.

PA doesn't have paper ballots, which is gonna freak out a LOT of people on both sides come election day. Even if no hacking's involved, there's always the chance of a power failure or a malfunction knocking out the machines. Absentee ballots are paper, but there needs to be some other sort of paper (or non-paper) trail, I think. Taking a ballot selfie is illegal here, so that's a no.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 10/25/16 04:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Edit: this would also be a terrible hack. Because if you're trying to commit voter fraud with your machine....then it would be more like what Diebold was accused of where the vote is flipped on the sly between when the voter casts the ballot, and when the ballot is then subsequently counted. The idea in a scam of this nature is to avoid any sort of detection, because detection means the jig is up and the scam can't be carried out. Too much about this just isn't adding up for me.

It has happened in two different cities, so it not just one isolated event. This makes the Democrats look bad since the machines are rigged for Clinton, and makes Donald Trump look like he can predict the future. If this situation is handled and exploited properly, it could really help gain votes for Trump. He is the victim here.

[Gario]

At 10/26/16 12:32 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 10/25/16 04:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Edit: this would also be a terrible hack. Because if you're trying to commit voter fraud with your machine....then it would be more like what Diebold was accused of where the vote is flipped on the sly between when the voter casts the ballot, and when the ballot is then subsequently counted. The idea in a scam of this nature is to avoid any sort of detection, because detection means the jig is up and the scam can't be carried out. Too much about this just isn't adding up for me.

It has happened in two different cities, so it not just one isolated event. This makes the Democrats look bad since the machines are rigged for Clinton, and makes Donald Trump look like he can predict the future. If this situation is handled and exploited properly, it could really help gain votes for Trump. He is the victim here.

So out of a few million voters, two people fucked up?

Two points - human error could account for it. Two people pushing the wrong button is incredibly likely. Also, this isn't going to swing shit, considering everyone else seems to be just fine. Two people a presidential election doesn't swing.

[anvilpoundcake]

Democrats...

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 10/25/16 05:06 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote:

At 10/25/16 04:58 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 10/25/16 03:47 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: Democrats are at it again.

Only democrats would rig a machine for Clinton.

Same tricks, different election.

This is just the beginning. Just imagine what else can happen before November eighth?

[aviewaskewed]

Ok, I've about had it with this. Either you need to respond to valid claims made against your points, or abandon the goddamn thread. I'm done with sniping +1 posting shit. I really am. This forum has a higher standard for discussion the general does.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 10/25/16 07:50 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Zero Hedge USED to be a really good site, is the thing. They're still top notch when it comes to economic analysis though.

It is a valid website. Not sure why that is even a question?

PA doesn't have paper ballots, which is gonna freak out a LOT of people on both sides come election day. Even if no hacking's involved, there's always the chance of a power failure or a malfunction knocking out the machines. Absentee ballots are paper, but there needs to be some other sort of paper (or non-paper) trail, I think. Taking a ballot selfie is illegal here, so that's a no.

Good luck to PA with their voting. It is illegal to take a voting selfie? That stinks. I will be doing it when I vote. Just to my sure my vote counts.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/28/16 01:19 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It is a valid website. Not sure why that is even a question?

I think you're missing the point. What you seem to be asking is "is this an actual site?" which obviously it is. What we're talking about is "Is this a valid news source?" which is different. What I'm asking about for myself is why I should I believe in their integrity vs. say, a more mainstream site that doesn't report these things? This to me is a huge problem right now. People have not been taught basic skills for research and how to spot a good source from a bad source.

Good luck to PA with their voting. It is illegal to take a voting selfie? That stinks. I will be doing it when I vote. Just to my sure my vote counts.

I think it'll depend on the state. I'd check my state rules before I did ANYTHING in that booth. Seriously, we may disagree on a lot of things, but I'm dead serious about that. Do NOT just assume because you're candidate or someone similarly unofficial, and unfamiliar with the process told you it's ok to do something, that it's ok. Look up the rules for your state, the last thing you want to do is go to the polls thinking you can do something, do it, and then find out you couldn't, and it just made your vote invalid.

[RydiaLockheart]

At 10/28/16 06:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I think you're missing the point. What you seem to be asking is "is this an actual site?" which obviously it is. What we're talking about is "Is this a valid news source?" which is different. What I'm asking about for myself is why I should I believe in their integrity vs. say, a more mainstream site that doesn't report these things? This to me is a huge problem right now. People have not been taught basic skills for research and how to spot a good source from a bad source.

Yeah, I believe their economic news because the have a good background in that. They used to have really good analysis in other things until it took a conspiracy turn. Who knows, some stuff may turn out to be right, but right now, I'm a bit skeptical.

I think it'll depend on the state. I'd check my state rules before I did ANYTHING in that booth. Seriously, we may disagree on a lot of things, but I'm dead serious about that. Do NOT just assume because you're candidate or someone similarly unofficial, and unfamiliar with the process told you it's ok to do something, that it's ok. Look up the rules for your state, the last thing you want to do is go to the polls thinking you can do something, do it, and then find out you couldn't, and it just made your vote invalid.

It turns out PA is actually up in the air. It's illegal on the state level, but federal judgments recently may override that. Right now, they're waiting on guidance. As for ballot hacking, this had actually been a concern since last May due to the age of the machines and the fact that there are five different companies providing the machines to each of the counties. Like, one county may have a Diebold machine, and the next one over has a different type. That sort of thing.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/28/16 08:36 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Yeah, I believe their economic news because the have a good background in that. They used to have really good analysis in other things until it took a conspiracy turn. Who knows, some stuff may turn out to be right, but right now, I'm a bit skeptical.

I'm more then a bit skeptical myself. This feels just very wrong for me because of the level of organization and operation it'd take to pull something like this off....and that it's already been caught? Really? Plus, no bigger, legitimate outlet is reporting it. A story of this magnitude if true would and should be all over the place.

It turns out PA is actually up in the air. It's illegal on the state level, but federal judgments recently may override that. Right now, they're waiting on guidance.

Right, and that's why I'd encourage anybody in any state, no matter which way you plan to cast your vote, to make sure you understand the rules about what you are and aren't allowed to do when casting it. In Jersey here, when I vote it's a touch screen, but when I've filled in all my choices, I get a paper record displayed to me that I can review before it's cast (I cannot take this paper record with me, as it goes back into the machine as a hard copy in case of failure on the machine's part, or allegations of fraud or tampering).

As for ballot hacking, this had actually been a concern since last May due to the age of the machines and the fact that there are five different companies providing the machines to each of the counties. Like, one county may have a Diebold machine, and the next one over has a different type. That sort of thing.

That actually sounds to me like it's more of a precaution AGAINST hacking or rigging. Because if one machine or program by one company is penetrated, you'd still have to get through another 4 machines and programs to get to the golden ticket of rigging the vote in the whole state.

[NeonSpider]

At 10/29/16 01:23 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: That actually sounds to me like it's more of a precaution AGAINST hacking or rigging. Because if one machine or program by one company is penetrated, you'd still have to get through another 4 machines and programs to get to the golden ticket of rigging the vote in the whole state.

Nah it just means some machines might be rigged for one candidate while other machines are rigged for another and still others aren't rigged at all.

As for the rigged machines, doesn't matter so much if it's intentional or not (simply a glitch) because the effect is the same. There's really zero excuse for not thoroughly debugging these things before putting them into use so even if it's a bug, at this level I'd hold them fully accountable.

There's a very good reason most software says *not* to be used for -- and then goes on to state pretty much anything besides on a standard computer. The software that runs in things other than standard computers is supposed to be held to a much higher caliber than the rest. That means the software running in medical equipment, vehicles, and yes voting machines, etc...

Honestly if any of those machines are using any version of Windows at all (and it wouldn't surprise me if they are) then IMO that should be cause for throwing them out. They should be entirely custom-built, not relying on consumer-grade OSes, etc...

Because there's no way you can fully account for the stricter accuracy of the software (to the extent required in the stricter testing required of medical equipment, vehicles, specialized machines, etc...) if you're not using a completely custom setup, including a custom OS, if it even has an OS at all.

If any machines are found to be rigged, hold the makers criminally liable, even if they hold it's just a glitch. They're held to a higher standard than most software folks. It's time they face the consequences if they don't uphold their end of the bargain.

[wildfire4461]

At 10/28/16 06:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

What we're talking about is "Is this a valid news source?" which is different. What I'm asking about for myself is why I should I believe in their integrity vs. say, a more mainstream site that doesn't report these things?

Are valid sites ones that are left wing leaning (AKA everyone except Fox)?

[Camarohusky]

At 10/30/16 06:46 AM, wildfire4461 wrote:

At 10/28/16 06:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

What we're talking about is "Is this a valid news source?" which is different. What I'm asking about for myself is why I should I believe in their integrity vs. say, a more mainstream site that doesn't report these things?

Are valid sites ones that are left wing leaning (AKA everyone except Fox)?

There are good sites. The difficulty is, much of the sites that exist are there for the clicks only which means they have no journalistic integrity and far too often will openly ignore context, cherry pick, or fail to investigate in order to create a wilder or story, or worse yet, fill their narrative.

Sadly, most of these are conservative, not because bad journalism is tied to conservatives, but because there are just a shit ton more independent "reporters" on the conservative side, what with their distrust of large groups and all. On the left, Move on and Think Progress are good examples of this shoddy journalism.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/30/16 05:17 PM, LuckyLightTitan wrote: You should have just locked this thread man, you can't reason with OP at all and all he'll ever do is just listen to himself and waste your time.

We're trying to be less lock or deletey in general, and I'm a big fan of that. It is possible for someone to start a topic badly and then have it rescued from the trash heap by others who want to have a real and reasonable discussion. That was my hope here, but if that's not going to happen, I really don't need to lock it, we could all just ignore new replies and let it sink :)

[Kwing]

For voting machines that were rigged... Before people actually vote? Well, it could be used to deter voters from voting. It could be used to make Clinton look bad. Or

drumroll

It could be a bullshit story made up to generate views.

[NeonSpider]

At 10/30/16 09:03 PM, Kwing wrote: For voting machines that were rigged... Before people actually vote? Well, it could be used to deter voters from voting. It could be used to make Clinton look bad. Or

drumroll

It could be a bullshit story made up to generate views.

Or it could be what I stated. Simply an issue of insufficient quality control. The people who write software for things like voting machines should definitely be held to higher standards than other software folks. It's not like it's a Windows program for your PC that doesn't matter so much if it crashes once every 100 times you run it. There are certain classes of software which do have extremely rigid standards. If it's bugged at all, hold them criminally liable I say.

Anyway I'm not saying that's what it is. Could be just the bullshit story thing. But that is a third possibility at least.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 10/30/16 09:27 PM, NeonSpider wrote: Or it could be what I stated. Simply an issue of insufficient quality control. The people who write software for things like voting machines should definitely be held to higher standards than other software folks. It's not like it's a Windows program for your PC that doesn't matter so much if it crashes once every 100 times you run it. There are certain classes of software which do have extremely rigid standards. If it's bugged at all, hold them criminally liable I say.

It would make sense if it is all a software issue. Voters should be careful to double check a machine before voting.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/4/16 02:03 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It would make sense if it is all a software issue. Voters should be careful to double check a machine before voting.

How the hell are they going to do that unless they understand how the program works? Or unless the machine obviously performs in a way that isn't what the instructions told them to?

Think before you type each word.