Time it takes to rig a voting machine? 7 minutes


A Princeton professor is reigniting the debate around potential election-rigging in U.S. elections, by reportedly showing it is possible to hack some voting machines in as little as seven minutes.

Politico reports that Professor Andrew Appel bought a Sequoia AVC Advantage online – one of the oldest voting machines in the U.S. and deployed in Louisiana, New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Along with a graduate student, Appel went to work on the machine with a screwdriver, pulling out the ROM chips and replacing them with modified firmware that would throw off the machine’s results. Voters would be oblivious.



I’m sure it does. I wonder how many dead people will be voting this year… :confused:


Fueling the candidate’s conspiracy theory of his impending loss? Might as well add speculation that the other candidate suffered a dibilitating traumatic brain injury, too, and cover all bases.:shrug:


Sure it may be easy to rig one machine. That’s not crazy. What’s crazy is to believe that they will be able to rig many to most of the machines across the country. It would require that many local governments be involved in the conspiracy. There’s no way something of that magnitude would be able to be kept secret.


Voter fraud happens. I never cease to be surprised by people who deny it occurs. It’s a fact that it occurs. I guess when it works in the favor of one party, they don’t seem to want to do something about it. Bet they’d feel different if it benefited the other party. In my view, right is right and wrong is wrong and it doesn’t matter which party it is. Illegal actions should be prosecuted, period. Corruption should be rooted out and exposed, and voters should care, even if it’s “their” party that gets busted for being corrupt. I’m a non-partisan and have come to the conclusion, personally, that partisan politics is destructive because people are willing to overlook corruption and illegal activities in their own parties while simultaneously criticizing the exact same behavior if it’s performed by the other party. It’s ludicrous and hypocritical. But most importantly, it results in us consistently being left with corrupt representatives because the party that person represents is unwilling to do anything about their corruption. I would love to see the party system go away entirely, and voters have to actually educate themselves on a candidate’s stances on all the issues and then select the candidate that most closely matches their own views. Too many voters simply select a “D” or an “R” and that’s all they know about someone.


I think you hit the nail on the head


I read reports of American journalists claiming that there was voter fraud in other countries. Perhaps these American journalists should take a closer look at the problem in the USA. Mr. Donald Trump has said that the election in November will be rigged.


He’s gotta blame a loss on something other than his crazy statements.



Mr Trump’s allegation is baseless and meaningless…he’s a businessman not a clarvoent.


FWIW, I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m extremely disappointed in both candidates from the two major parties- it’s like each party deliberately selected the absolute worst candidate it could. And I don’t know if voter fraud will greatly affect the outcome of the election in November. That said, it’s nearly a guarantee that voter fraud will occur. That alone should incense any American. People fought and died to give us the right to vote. For someone else to steal a vote, whether from a living or dead person or a fictional person entirely, should cause any patriot’s blood to boil, no matter which party benefits.


If a voting machine can be rigged, it can be rigged against Donald Trump as well as well as being rigged against Hillary Clinton.


Evidence for voter fraud has demonstratively shown that it is just a hair bigger than a non-problem. It so rarely happens.


Not according to a major American presidential candidate who is being briefed by the CIA and other American officials in top secret information not known to the general public. According to Mr. Donald Trump the American election process is rigged. It is too bad, because a lot of people around the world thought that the American elections were fair.


Also not according to studies of the latest DNC primary cycle. Interesting that the candidate specifically chosen by the DNC leadership managed to win with a margin between exit polls and results that is FAR outside the norm in every state where voting machines had no verifiable paper trail.


I doubt that you have a source showing a strong correlation between having a paper trail and the agreement between exit polls and results. But as for the results and exit polls in general, that can be explained by the differences in voter personalities. Sanders supporters tended to be more outgoing and willing to tell pollsters how they voted. Clinton supporters may have been more private, and unwilling to participate in a poll. No big surprise there.


Source: Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?

Read the Appendix and Supplements as well, as they go further into the methodology, data, and anomalies. One in particular that stands out is that the only poll/result anomalies that existed were solely in favor of Mrs. Clinton. All other poll/result ratios - on both the Democratic and Republican sides - were within normal margins of error.


I’ll read your link, but as for that one stand out, I did give what I thought was a reasonable explanation of that particular anomoly.


From that explanation, we would expect no correlation at all between paper trails and poll/result margins - it would be a generalized oversampling of Bernie supporters which would appear in all states. The fact that the margin widens dramatically only in states with no way to audit or confirm that the results are valid, especially when coupled with the the results of those states uniformly supporting the candidate which - as we know from the leaked DNC emails - had been pre-selected by the DNC as the nominee, is highly suspicious.


Suspicious is not the same as conclusive.


It’s not the strength of the evidence; it’s the seriousness of the accusation.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.