3 ms·

If that was a concern, surely the only reasonable thing to do would be to move to a popular vote as soon as possible. As things stand, an entity that could reli

If that was a concern, surely the only reasonable thing to do would be to move to a popular vote as soon as possible. As things stand, an entity that could reliably hack 2 or 3 states would have a better than even chance of controlling the election outcome.

ejb999 4y ago
that doesn't help at all, and in fact makes it worse - with a popular vote you can just hack one or two communities with very large populations (i.e. LA and NYC), and change or cast enough votes to cancel out about 30 other states in total.
- bscphil 4y ago
  You can't trivially shift huge numbers of votes without getting caught. To get away with it, you'd have to shift small numbers of votes in specific locations. But with a popular votes, small numbers of votes don't make a difference. Reliably shifting 1% of the vote in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, would throw an election one way or another under the current system. Switching 1% of the vote in Los Angeles and New York wouldn't reliably change anything with a popular vote system.
_-david-_ 4y ago
The most reliable way would be to do what some states used to do which is have the state legislatures vote instead of the individuals in the state. Dealing with a couple hundred (thousand?) people would be significantly more manageable than millions.
- bushbaba 4y ago
  The electoral college can vote not in alignment to their district's popular vote (in many states) > There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Not sure what you are trying to say? Some states used to elect electors not by popular vote, but by a vote by their legislatures. If we want to ensure the legitimacy of a vote it seems easier to secure a system where only a few are voting instead of everybody. I am not positive, but I think the votes in the legislatures were public so there would be no issues with potential voting machine manipulation or anything of the sort.

ejb999 4y ago

that doesn't help at all, and in fact makes it worse - with a popular vote you can just hack one or two communities with very large populations (i.e. LA and NYC), and change or cast enough votes to cancel out about 30 other states in total.

bscphil 4y ago
You can't trivially shift huge numbers of votes without getting caught. To get away with it, you'd have to shift small numbers of votes in specific locations. But with a popular votes, small numbers of votes don't make a difference. Reliably shifting 1% of the vote in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, would throw an election one way or another under the current system. Switching 1% of the vote in Los Angeles and New York wouldn't reliably change anything with a popular vote system.

_-david-_ 4y ago

The most reliable way would be to do what some states used to do which is have the state legislatures vote instead of the individuals in the state. Dealing with a couple hundred (thousand?) people would be significantly more manageable than millions.

bushbaba 4y ago
The electoral college can vote not in alignment to their district's popular vote (in many states) > There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Not sure what you are trying to say? Some states used to elect electors not by popular vote, but by a vote by their legislatures. If we want to ensure the legitimacy of a vote it seems easier to secure a system where only a few are voting instead of everybody. I am not positive, but I think the votes in the legislatures were public so there would be no issues with potential voting machine manipulation or anything of the sort.