Even stronger evidence shows the Republican Party worked with Russian intelligence to obtain the voter rolls that they used in their micro-targeting ad campaigns, but oddly enough nobody is talking about that. Aaron Nevins literally bragged about recieving stolen property from Russian intelligence and using that to further his political goals of electing republicans.
So Georgia rather then let DHS look at their machines decided to delete and wipe them clean? and the backups? Why would they do that unless something was wrong?
I remain shocked that voting machines are not open source and publicly auditable.<p>I'm also surprised the NSA isn't specifically tasked with a regular, detailed, high-resources code review of the codebase.
Georgia was traditionally a red state so even if the votes were changed it wouldn't have affected the result.<p>Are any swing states suspected of having their voting system hacked to have changed the final result?<p>It is weird that the electronic voting system is u likely to get fixed. I guess it will have to get much worse in the future to cause action?
>Russia actually got inside the voting systems of seven states, including 4 of the 5 largest states in terms of electoral votes—California (55) Texas (38) Florida (29) and Illinois (20).<p>And yet two of those states listed went for Hillary. Maybe the Russians didn't want to be obvious.<p>Author spends a lot of time on Georgia, with its "D" rated voting system and its 16 electoral votes.<p>>Georgia’s systems would have been an “ideal” target for Russian hackers because the state doesn’t use a system with a paper trail so there is no way to audit the system.<p>Let's accept that for the sake of my next question - would a paper trail actually help? Maybe, depending on who gets the paper. Does it mean the voter gets a receipt? That might cause a few problems of its own.<p>For instance, a group of well-armed people acting as a "voting integrity militia" might decide to inspect people's voting receipts for any "errors." One can only imagine how the article's writer would characterize <i>that</i>.<p>Now let's pretend some of all of the states <i>admit</i> their systems had been compromised. Should we trust the results of any election, or just the results we don't like? We can reasonably guess the author's answer to that question.
Georgia Exit polls: Trump 51%, Clinton 46%, Other 3%<p>Georgia reported results after possible Russian hacking: Trump 51%, Clinton 46%, Other 3%<p><a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia/president" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia...</a><p><a href="https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/georgia/" rel="nofollow">https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president...</a>
This article is amateur.<p>> And despite what Donald Trump, the Kremlin’s Executive in Charge of U.S. Operations, would have you believe<p>It's hard to take an article seriously when it uses a tone like this (even if there is some truth behind it).