Comment by gdulli | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gdulli | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Trump complained the system was rigged out of transparent demagoguery. He had no real facts, he had vague "dead people on the voter rolls" type claims because they sounded good. (People don't magically fade from the rolls when they die, there's a process and at any time it's normal and unavoidable for dead people to be on the rolls.)

If (and only if) one party has actual evidence or data of rigging, it wouldn't be hypocritical for them to challenge the results after not taking Donald's whining during the campaign seriously.

But it's academic, the results shouldn't be overturned. Even if it was found legitimate to give Hillary the win, it would make a martyr out of Donald and his movement would gain traction for 4 more years. The next 4 years are going to be ugly either because Donald is president or because half the country believes a conspiracy gave it to Hillary.

One party or the other is going to be punished in 4 years. Better it should be Donald, let him fail and have his movement get put behind us for good.

If the machines in question have paper trails, and a recount shows conclusively that majorities in those states did in fact vote for for Clinton, then I don't see how it could possibly be justified to stick with the incorrect result, regardless of whether we like the political consequences.

If there's no paper trail, then there's nothing we can do. We can't overturn results just because some mathematicians think they look funny.

IANAL, but I don't think it could be overturned anyway. There are certain gates, with state bureaucrats certifying the results and all. I think once those are past, you can't go backwards through them anyway. And in any case, don't forget that they're only voting for electors, not for the president him/herself.

I was once involved in fighting a referendum. The local government demonstrably cheated, publishing information about the proposal that was clearly and significantly false. But I was advised by an attorney that in the end, they're never going to undo an election, so we shouldn't waste our time and money fighting.

Based on the news articles, the campaigns have a right to challenge the results, as long as they do it before a deadline (which I think is Friday).

Publishing false information isn't sufficient to overturn an election, but proving that the vote count itself is incorrect is another matter. It's possible that we're such an incompetent democracy that accurate vote counts are irrelevant, but I hope that's not the case.

Any more information about this?

I could rant on the topic for days. Do you have questions? (If you're really curious, see my profile to get my personal email address)

Do we have any real facts Russia hacked the election?

They shouldn't be looking for facts as to who may have hacked the election until they've made a decision on if the election was hacked.

There is no evidence of hacking, their is evidence of potential hacking which can be confirmed by looking at the paper trail.

Only once the hacking theory is confirmed, will anybody need to look into the how, and the who.

If you call the police to your house saying you've been robbed, they don't immediately go out trying to find out who robbed you. They need to look at the scene. Did somebody actually break in? Or is it a fake call? How did they break in, what did they actually take, how do we think they did it, then using the knowledge they have gained from the crime, they can come up with theories of who might have done it. Same goes here.

No: obviously, as the article itself points out, we have no direct evidence the election was "hacked" at all.

But please don't gaslight about why Russia is the name that keeps coming up in these discussions. We have numerous unrelated (sometimes competing) sources attributing the DNC hack to Russia.

And what does the potential source of these attacks have to do with the technical nature of the article? You're blaming others for bringing up politics when the author is clearly doing the same by consistently bring up the potential perpetrator of these attacks without any hard evidence, which contributes absolutely nothing to the relevance of the article.

Who needs facts when we've got vague insinuations?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com