3 ms·
Yeah, that's one of two main things I come back to each time I consider this from outside the USA. Hacking and influencing is at least a relatively bloodless wa
by prawn 9y ago
Yeah, that's one of two main things I come back to each time I consider this from outside the USA. Hacking and influencing is at least a relatively bloodless way to secure the result you want, and, for the most part, the US population voted the way they did. Every Trump failing was on full show and repeated over and over by the media and people voted for him regardless. Maybe Russia tipped things in his favour, but it's not like it was from 30% to 51%.
- seanwilson 9y ago> for the most part, the US population voted the way they did. > Maybe Russia tipped things in his favour, but it's not like it was from 30% to 51%. That's my feelings as well. There's always misinformation in elections and you're never going to eliminate it. The bigger issue is people falling for it and only paying attention to information that confirms their beliefs. I'm not sure what a practical solution is but having your election results rely on shielding the public from misinformation doesn't seem practical either. What do other countries do?
- pmoriarty 9y ago"people voted for him regardless" It's not actually clear how many people actually voted for Trump. Hackable electronic voting machines and vote-counting machines without paper trails make knowing that virtually impossible.
- grzm 9y agoAt the same time I haven't heard any credible evidence to think that anything happened. Don't get me wrong, we should definitely move to replacing electronic recording machines with paper-based records. There's no reason to spread unfounded rumors, and plenty of reasons not to. If this is something you're concerned about, and it sounds like you are, do what you can to replace electronic recording machines with paper to strengthen the system.