FBI Says Foreign Hackers Breached State Election Systems (theguardian.com) 163
The FBI has uncovered evidence that foreign hackers breached two state election databases in recent weeks, and it has warned election officials across the country to some measures to step up the security of their computer systems. The Guardian reports: The FBI warning did not identify the two states targeted by cyber intruders, but Yahoo News said sources familiar with the document said it referred to Arizona and Illinois, whose voter registration systems were penetrated. Citing a state election board official, Yahoo News said the Illinois voter registration system was shut down for 10 days in late July after hackers downloaded personal data on up to 200,000 voters. The Arizona attack was more limited and involved introducing malicious software into the voter registration system, Yahoo News quoted a state official as saying. No data was removed in that attack, the official said. US intelligence officials have become increasingly worried that hackers sponsored by Russia or other countries may attempt to disrupt the November presidential election.
A effective attack and defense (Score:1)
Attack:
1) Break into registration system
2) Deregister 5% of voters registered to the party you want to lose in close contest states.
Defense:
1) Get rid of registration and let everyone vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://tucson.com/news/local/new-poll-has-trump-clinton-tied-in-arizona/article_01a67ecc-6e07-11e6-a2c4-6b0510540d4c.html
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, Arizona's reputation is almost entirely due to this asshat [arpaio.com].
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Well that and the fact that Arizona grew tired of the constant stream of illegal immigrants robbing, raping and killing their constituents. In an obviously misguided attempt to try to enforce immigration laws that our faithful supreme federal government would not they passed their own laws that would allow their local police departments to help control immigration.
The Federal Government sued them and won the right to go on not enforcing federal immigration laws which are currently on the books, thereby ren
Re:found the trump klansman. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think I am a Trump supporter or a racist you obviously didn't read my post history, but that's not really a concern.
That you would use those terms with such abandon is telling. It is really indicative of the level of intelligence involved in the mud-slinging meta attacks that the younger generation tries to pass off as intellectual discourse (not to be left out, there are some older generation people that have learned to do this. Its even more pathetic when they do it as they should have learned better by now.) Namely, just call someone a racist and associate them with a public figure that is held in contempt by the majority of people in the particular forum you are speaking in and you don't even have to have a cogent argument. Which is for the best I guess, because I have a hard time believing that someone who resorts to this kind of behavior can get past their own stunted emotional responses to rationally consider their own opinions, much less those of someone else.
I implore you, learn to focus on the issues at hand instead of carrying around the equivalent of a sharpened stick to poke people with. You might learn that what you accuse people of, and are convinced they are a party to, is so far from the truth that you would be utterly embarrassed that you had made that accusation when you learn the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Way too funny! I just deconstructed your completely fraudulent method of argumentation and accusation, and what do you do? You double down and do it again, this time with gusto! Sure you turned it on its head by grouping yourself with "respectable human beings/people" instead of associating me with someone you think is deserving of ridicule, but its the same thing, bro.
Based on what you have written I am convinced that you need some serious mental health attention. "If you don't like the company you kee
Re: (Score:2)
You're gonna have to carry it to your pollng place then .
Re: A effective attack and defense (Score:2)
You can either mail it in or bring it to a polling station.
I was at first surprised to see Arizona mentioned because our ballot system uses those forms where you use a marker to draw a line to connect your choice. The scanners aren't internet connected and just show a tally that gets reported, with write in candidates being manually counted where indicated.
That said, it somewhat makes sense that no actual damage was done in the Arizona case, though I honestly have no idea how registration data is stored as
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously vulnerable to database stuffing. e.g. All registered Ds get 10 ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
Much more likely R's get 10 votes in Joe Arpaio country.
Even if he is in prison
Re: (Score:2)
So everybody registers at 9 friends houses as well as their own.
They figured out how to steal elections with paper ballots and boxes centuries ago. It's so easy, even a democrat can do it.
Re: A effective attack and defense (Score:2)
The election is tomorrow. It's doubtful you can mail a ballot today and get it in on time.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't get to fill out that form (or it isn't counted if you mailed it) if your voter registration has been removed from the database. Or altered so your address/birth date/whatever are wrong.
Re: A effective attack and defense (Score:2)
You'll have to take it to the polling station if you waited too long to mail it in.
Re: A effective attack and defense (Score:2)
And that AC has...
Re: (Score:3)
Removing voter registration prevents some attacks, but it makes others much easier.
Re:A effective attack and defense (Score:5, Insightful)
A Better Defense.
1. Take the fucking registration systems OFF the internet.
You'd think the State IT departments never heard of something called the Intranet.
Re:A effective attack and defense (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a GNU project [gnu.org] to create free software for online voting. In 2002, Jason Kitcat the project coordinator abandoned development, pointing to this quote from Bruce Schneier: "a secure Internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers."
I don't see anything having changed in the intervening fourteen years, other than perhaps attackers getting more sophisticated. We may not have internet voting, but the idea that voting machines or those used in the tabulation of votes are connected to the internet is madness.
Re: A effective attack and defense (Score:2)
That doesn't stop people from deploying it in real life: https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_... [media.ccc.de] actually very interesting to see what people do/try to do.
"Another county in, Brit" (Score:2, Troll)
"... And we predict Arizona presidential voters have picked... Vladimir Putin? Karl, who were you working for this time?"
Re:A effective attack and defense (Score:4, Funny)
Defense: 1) get rid of padlock on bicycles so anyone can take them.
1) Get rid of registration and let everyone vote.
Yeah. Right. That will help remove fraud from the election process.
Re: (Score:2)
It works fine elsewhere. Have a big list of citizens. If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote. If you try to vote an are not, you get prosecuted.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote. Why bother taking the risk? This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Re:A effective attack and defense (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote.
Go in where? I get my ballots by mail.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote.
Really? "If I vote for someone who promises to give me free stuff, I might get free stuff." Or "if I vote against someone who wants to enforce the laws that would deport me, maybe I won't be deported." Doesn't sound like zero incentive to me.
Why bother taking the risk?
With half the people in the country denying that it does or could take place, the risk is minimal. And when the person you helped elect takes charge. the risk goes away completely.
This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Except in Chicago where it is a running joke. And of course, few waste time collecting data on something that they actively deny ever happens.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote.
Go in where? I get my ballots by mail.
So does my wife. She shouldn't need to register to do so.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote.
Really? "If I vote for someone who promises to give me free stuff, I might get free stuff." Or "if I vote against someone who wants to enforce the laws that would deport me, maybe I won't be deported." Doesn't sound like zero incentive to me.
As a non citizen (of the US) I've not noticed anyone offering me such a reward for voting illegally in a US election.
Why bother taking the risk?
With half the people in the country denying that it does or could take place, the risk is minimal. And when the person you helped elect takes charge. the risk goes away completely.
This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Except in Chicago where it is a running joke. And of course, few waste time collecting data on something that they actively deny ever happens.
That case is the corruption of the voting system by the administrators of the voting system, not the voters.
Re: (Score:3)
So does my wife. She shouldn't need to register to do so.
Why not? Why should she be mailed a ballot if she's just going to throw it away? If she's not interested enough in voting to register, why bother? Why should YOU even get close to a ballot that you can simply fill out and send in on her behalf when she isn't interested enough to even register?
As a non citizen (of the US) I've not noticed anyone offering me such a reward for voting illegally in a US election.
Oh, please. People don't need someone to walk up to them with a gilt-edged invitation to know that illegal voting can be beneficial to them. You think illegal aliens need someone to tell them that it would be in their
Re: (Score:2)
Where exactly is that "everywhere else"?
Most places outside of US either have voter registration, or they require you to show ID to vote. Sometimes both.
Re: (Score:2)
It works fine elsewhere. Have a big list of citizens. If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote. If you try to vote an are not, you get prosecuted.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote. Why bother taking the risk? This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Mmhmm. If you're going to dial back standards to that level, just have a fucking online poll. It'll be about as secure.
Re: (Score:2)
It works fine elsewhere. Have a big list of citizens. If you're a citizen, you can go in to vote. If you try to vote an are not, you get prosecuted.
Non citizens have absolutely zero incentive to vote. Why bother taking the risk? This is why the data shows it almost never happens.
Mmhmm. If you're going to dial back standards to that level, just have a fucking online poll. It'll be about as secure.
Because online voting is horribly insecure.
Paper voting is effective and reasonably secure as long as you take measures to make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not eliminate registration, you allow on site registration on the day of the vote. You are not meant to be so fussed about preventing people from voting more than once, so much as being able to prosecute and penalise them quite severely after the event. So if there is real concern, simply take a photo at the polling station when they check off their name. The whole idea is to get as many eligible people to vote as possible and if not enough do, make it compulsory so they learn at least one of their
Illinois you say (Score:5, Funny)
I’ve arranged with my executor to be buried in Chicago. Because when I die, I want to still remain active politically.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess this means the server that processes voter registrations is internet facing, it just has no user interface. All of the vulnerabilities, none of the convenience!
Re: (Score:2)
Greater than 100% election turnouts are common in St. Louis urban districts. Often after the polls are held open until the Ds know exactly how many more votes they need.
That's been true for decades. But there is no evidence of voter fraud...
Just stop this nonsense (Score:1)
Please stop this nonsense and autoregister everyone who is allowed to vote.
Re:Just stop this nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
Please stop this nonsense and autoregister everyone who is allowed to vote.
So you send ballots to everyone, even those who have no desire to vote, and have not bothered to study any of the issues at all because of that. Why should they be voting if they really care so little about the process?
Voter registration is so easy that it is a barrier only to those who really don't care to vote, and I think that not handing them a ballot is a good answer to the question "why should I register to vote when I don't want to?"
Re: (Score:3)
It's cute you this makes them less informed than the average voter. 'Cause the people who "care so much" tend to vote for the first candidate on the ballot. http://insight.kellogg.northwe... [northwestern.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
It's cute you this makes them less informed than the average voter.
Logical fallacy. I said nothing about the 'average voter'. I said that they would be uninformed because they have no interest in the process. It's not cute, it's the truth.
Why do you seem to have a problem with letting people who have no interest in voting remain unregistered to vote?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid the fallacy is on your part. Because inherent in your claim is that the people who do go and register have interest and are better informed.
That is generally not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Because inherent in your claim is that the people who do go and register have interest and are better informed.
Wrong. I said nothing at all about people who are interested enough in voting enough register. The fact that a registered voter is or is not informed has nothing to do with the people who don't care about voting at all. You are applying a logical fallacy that "A isn't B" must mean "Not A is B". "Uninterested voters are not informed" does not imply that "Interested voters are informed."
That is generally not the case.
That is irrelevant to the discussion about why you don't just send ballots to everyone who is a citizen. It would be an arg
Seen elsewhere on the planet (Score:2)
So you send ballots to everyone, even those who have no desire to vote, and have not bothered to study any of the issues at all because of that. Why should they be voting if they really care so little about the process?
Surprisingly, that's exactly how things work in some democracies, specially in direct democracies where population is always voting on everything (e.g.: Switzerland).
People un-interested in voting generally throw away the ballot.
(Though probably there are few trying to find way around the - relatively simple - voter identification, and try to cast illegally an extra vote)
But such widespread diffusion of ballots is necessary in a country which votes every couple of months instead of every couple of year.
Re: (Score:3)
They only want citizens to vote, and only once each. Fascists.
Re: Just stop this nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Selective service is not tied to your voter registration in any way.
In some states, there is a connection with drivers license, and with student loans, but in no US state is there any connection between registering to vote and selective service.
Re: (Score:2)
Selective service is not tied to your voter registration
This. But Slashdot is the Group W bench.
Personally, when I registered for the War of the Sexes, they gave me a 4-F classification.
Re: (Score:2)
Err...where else would you have people go?
They already are set up and have the equipment for drivers' licenses at the DMV, makes sense to do all IDs of this form there, no?
Re: (Score:2)
In Ontario you used to have to go our version of the DMV for drivers licenses and to another office to get the health card (with picture). I don't know where you went to get the age of majority card if you didn't drive. Now they have places that do just about everything in the one spot (with the big exception being the driving tests) instead of each department having their own service centre.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually by denying other government services. Since we're talking about 18-year-olds, they'd notice by being denied access to student loans and grants, or TANF.
Theoretically it can be prosecuted, and the government has plenty of data to do so - they know your age from your SSN and they know your address (or parent's address if you're a dependent) from taxes. Though without a draft they're not going to bother prosecuting.
So Trump is creating jobs... (Score:2, Troll)
Its the best new prospect for real computer contract work in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Estonia, etc. in years!
Re: (Score:2)
Russia doesn't give a fuck about H1B visas and immigration. If anything, they are considered harmful, because they provide an avenue for "brain drain".
On the other hand, they would very much like US to get into a trade war with China (which would force Chinese to cooperate with Russia more seriously), and to abandon its NATO allies in Europe.
Step Up.. But Not By Too Much (Score:1)
The FBI has uncovered evidence that foreign hackers breached two state election databases in recent weeks, and it has warned election officials across the country to some measures to step up the security of their computer systems.
The FBI later specified to not step it up so much that they cannot break in if need be.
No...just, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
No one actually has to "hack" anything -- just get the thought out there. No matter who wins, stories like this will be cited by the losing side as "proof" the election was "rigged" or "hacked", and that the winner didn't win legitimately. I can think of few things more damaging to the democratic institution.
See also:
A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One side is already making this argument, and is recruiting an army of armed "observers" to stand around polling places and act menacing.
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
http://www.vanityfair.com/news... [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:2)
One side is already making this argument, and is recruiting an army of armed "observers" to stand around polling places and act menacing.
Citation required. No, neither of your links talks about armed observers, and nothing about acting "menacing".
And you'll have to explain why asking people to keep an eye on the process is worse than the New Black Panther party "keeping an eye on the process" by acting menacing and shouting racial slurs at potential voters.
As for the second link claiming there is no fraud and no fraud could possibly change the result of a "national election". It's interesting that they then list a bunch of voting fraud a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No offense, but when you've promoted "Second Amendment solutions" to prevent a president from appointing judges, and you're promoting a civilian "Deportation Force", and you're ginning up the notion that if you lose the election, it's because it was "rigged", what the fuck do you think he's talking about? You can't be that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
No offense, but when you've promoted "Second Amendment solutions" to prevent a president from appointing judges, and you're promoting a civilian "Deportation Force", and you're ginning up the notion that if you lose the election, it's because it was "rigged", what the fuck do you think he's talking about? You can't be that stupid.
So no, you are intending offense, and you have no actual quote or citation that shows him calling for "armed observers to act menacing". You're making it up.
As for your fear of "second amendment solutions", what was actually said what that "second amendment people" know how to deal with the political process of infringement of their second amendment rights. It's amazing to me, ten minutes before he made that comment every anti-Trump person on the planet knew all about how much political influence the NRA
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the reason why if I worked for the FBI I'd make up a story like this. Then get the popcorn out..
Washington State uses this fancy new method (Score:5, Insightful)
We use these things called paper ballots.
So does Oregon.
We all vote by mail, so hack all you want.
We can always rerun the paper ballots again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have this fancy thing called barcodes and numbers to ID them.
And we register you when you get a driver's license, in person, where we take this thing called a picture. Automatically.
Epic Fail, extreme right. We do it, we do it more cheaply, and more people vote.
Except you can't require photo ID of voters because of racism! If I were in charge, I would require ID verification of all voters, but it seems too many minorities can't afford state issued drivers license or id.
Re: (Score:2)
I've argued this for ages, since ID is essentially required to be a citizen, you make it free for all. No charge to obtain and ID, and reasonable access to offices that issue them.
Because really, if you have to pay for ID and you have to have ID to vote, it's essentially a variant on a poll tax.
That being said, I also think you should have to present ID to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
You can require photo IDs all you want. But if you do, you have to ensure that everyone eligible to vote can get one without hurdles. This means not charging for them, not reducing the number of places that can issue them in areas where you don't like the way people vote, and not demanding ridiculous supporting documentation that few people would readily have to issue one.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying... is Oregon lacks a secret ballot... as if the ballot itself has 'barcodes and numbers to ID them'... and per your words, you seem to link that to the (racist) photo id... if there is any connection between the two, and you are proud of this?
Epic Fail, extreme left, you just made it possible for triv
Re: (Score:2)
Then would you like to carify your comments about photo id's & #'s on the ballots? Not to mention exactly how/why your system is so much more secure than those in other states?
It's also a federal crime to do many things... prosecutors are pretty busy dealing with just the cases they know of.
If they catch you... and they bring charges... and convict you.
Just like they mean that marijuana is illegal un
Re: (Score:2)
Don't want to... or can't?
Unlike you, I'm limiting my assumptions as to what I think you know.
Unlike you, I do know what research I've done into the WA system, how it can be exploited and even tested multiple parts in legal ways, all that remains is getting some permission and a full end to end demonstration of say... 10,000 ballots being cast to prove the problem.
This? What is 'this'? You've n
Re: (Score:2)
We have a similar process here in Washington... just one problem, it is horribly insecure.
Because there are no ways to cast any more ballots than you are legally entitled to under the OR or WA system, no way at all.
Right now I'm working on a couple of higher priority personal projects, once they are out of the way I go back to trying to find a lawyer interested in the
Re: (Score:2)
Paper based forms with optical scanners seems to work out best these days. Then you can get quick results on election night from the optical scanner results and you just need to have real people manually count the ballots later in order to confirm the automated results.
Easier said than done, but it is very important that elections have verifiable results based on the physical ballots and not just a computer spitting out some result.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if you use paper ballots when your registration was deleted from the database. Your vote won't count no matter how many times it is re-run.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada uses paper ballots too, filled out in pencil in the voting booth, and everyone in the entire country is automatically registered to vote.
Works fine.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just a larger scale version of what I imagine happens in many homes. In my own, my wife is rarely inclined to vote, so I could easily just cast her ballot with my cho
Re: (Score:2)
It also allows you to remove real voters. DELETE queries work just as well as INSERT.
200,000 voters how meny are dead? (Score:2)
200,000 voters how meany are dead? but still are on the rolls?
THATS IT! (Score:3)
Voting is no longer safe, we are obviously going to have to suspend elections until we are 100% sure the computers are trustworthy!
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason we can't have a transparent, well-monitored paper ballot. With all the issues that have surfaced, I think that's our best option. The average poll-worker does not have the technical expertise to maintain security on a computerized system, and the real experts have demonstrated so many flaws in widely-used voting machines that they should be scuttled.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting is no longer safe, we are obviously going to have to suspend elections until we are 100% sure the computers are trustworthy!
Really though, people should suspend the secret ballot if there are legitimate widespread issues with vote tampering. The secret ballot is less important than the ability to maintain the integrity of the election itself. Sure that opens some people up to voter intimidation, but you have to trust that enough people are going to vote in their best interests to overwhelm any voter intimidation.
If you are trying to boot strap a civil society using democratically elected institutions then you have a chicken a
Re: (Score:2)
Voting is no longer safe, we are obviously going to have to suspend elections until we are 100% sure the computers are trustworthy!
Thanks Obama!
mebbe we should have done something about the (Score:2)
Foreign? (Score:2)
Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist but wouldn't this be more likely to be at least sponsored domestically?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the rich and powerful in the US, who have already "bought" their politicians, need to rig the election any further?
In other words: only an outside entity (who doesn't benefit from Citizens United and unlimited campaign contributions) would need to rig an election using "alternate" methods
Re: (Score:2)
Because the peons don't always vote like they're supposed to.
Ancient Socialist from Vermont got 46% of the vote in the primary. This will not do.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the "russian" hacks that exposed the DNCs attempts to block Sanders though. Why would the "establishment" block Sanders, and then hack itself to expose the manipulation?
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't hack themselves. Again, the peons don't always do what they are supposed to.
But one might as well take advantage of an opportunity. So time for some old-fashioned red-baiting.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about the big corporates is they will always waste a disproportionately large amount of money on risk mitigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, I posted something like this and it disappeared... anyway...
Because some rich and powerful will lose the election if they don't hack it.
Both foreigners and locals buy American politicians (there are reports from both R and D). But now that hacking is allowed, that might not be enough, for anyone.
Why would the people that are used to rigging elections in the traditional way steer from the "alternate" method now that it exists and is available for anyone?
In other words: anyone seriously interested in
Re: (Score:2)
Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist but wouldn't this be more likely to be at least sponsored domestically?
Foreign hackers could be hired by domestic US political interests. Just because the actual attack originated outside the US does not preclude the attack having been funded and ordered by some person/group in the US.
Maybe that's why Hillary Clinton has been so determined to scrub her email history from her stint as SoS. She would have been in the perfect position and had the perfect opportunity to make the necessary foreign contacts and arrangements to set something like this up.
Maybe this is part of what Ju
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think of the Assange angle (interesting thought) but the "Foreign hackers hired by Hillary" thing was pretty much exactly what I was getting at.
Simple question (Score:2)
I'm betting the real reason is so that both parties can more easily harvest that data for electoral gain. Public Servants, my copious backside.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly why.
In Ohio you can download the registered voter file [state.oh.us] any time you want. It's all public record. No hacking needed. It includes name, DOB, address, party registration (if applicable), and which elections you voted in back to about 2004.
Re: (Score:2)
And this assumes the systems were directly connected to the internet... and that some staffer's desktop didn't get hijacked due to a bit of spear-phishing which allowed the bad guys to hop into the non-publicly facing systems.
Doesn't take Foreign Hackers to change elections (Score:3)
I used to subscribe to comp.risk (usenet), article after article was about the vulnerability of electronic voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's real situation that is only going to get worse.
Stupid subject line is stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
So anyone who believes ANYTHING the FBI says, at this point in time especially, is a complete moron. Instead, let's apply the "FBI Says" headline filter to the text, and observe the results.
FBI Lackeys Breached State Election Systems. Blames Foreign Hackers
Now, that's much more believable, right? Sorry FBI, you have absolutely ZERO credibility. Anyone with more than a few functional neurons KNOWS that the likelihood of anything you say being an outright fabrication or lie approaches 100%.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These are election databases that were breached, not voting machines. And nowhere is Clinton implicated in that article, in fact the DNC is mentioned as victims of Russian hacking.
But hey, feel free to fling unsubstantiated rumor around.
Re:The fix is in (Score:4, Insightful)
Unsubstantiated rumors like the ruskies having anything to do with it?
Re: (Score:2)
So you breach the voter registration database, and remove/alter registrations before election day.
And it's not like that caused problems....oh wait...http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-04-25/poll-worker-voters-given-wrong-ballots-in-arizona-primary
Read Again (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about voting machines. A really good way to rid elections is to know who all the voters are and lots of info about them, then to vote as a lot of them...
Or if you think about it, if you have access to voting system why not insert thousands of new voters so there's no possible conflict with real voters?
Re: (Score:2)
Better be careful there or I'll call daddy. I do NOT like grits.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we want to test the extremes of what Trump supporters would believe. From all appearances, they are a rather credulous lot when it comes to their Dear Leader.
http://www.mediaite.com/online... [mediaite.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The same thing as when 105% of voters voted for Obama. Nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Trump has the political clout to make it happen. He doesn't have the support of any Republican old-timers. Regardless of whether he wins the popular vote, he's losing because the game has already been decided in favor of Clinton at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're not living under the illusion that the sheeple have any actual power or even independent thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Voting on paper doesn't help when your registration was deleted from the database.