Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Hack an Election

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: How to Hack an Election

#21

Post by burkaman »

codeddesign wrote: post #19
burkaman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few reasons I can think of: 1) Hacking voting machines to a significant extent would require a team of people, not just one guy, which dramatically increases the risk of exposure. 2) The reported vote count is usually very close to the predicted vote count, and always very close to exit polling results. The hacked results would need to be very close to the real results, or be combined with control over a huge numbe…

The exclusion would be caucases where a particular party would be in charge of the ballets and voting count.

I don't think that solves the polling and exit polling problem at all, it only partially solves the recount issue (you still need tons of people to cooperate illegally), and it introduces huge new risks like people filming the caucus.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#22

Post by theophrastus »

Computers are flexible mutable controllable interconnected facile adaptable devices - it's why we use them and love them so. What is it we hope for as the basic property to vote collection and reporting? It's essentially the opposite of the computer's character set. So if you insist on the convenience advances to the voting process, ("I wanna be able to vote via smart-phone!") then you'll inevitably be giving up the basic property that you really do want: veracity. So, to the first approximation: primitive paper ballots are some of the most stubborn and costly to hack.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#23

Post by colordrops »

hackuser wrote: post #4

This shouldn't be a surprise: I think most HN members know that it's possible; we know that the rewards (incredible power, status, and everything you can get with them includig the spoils of office) are worth the investment (only $600K for this solution!); we know that there are many people, including politicians, unsavory enough to do it. The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking…

> The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking gun?

Part of the propaganda is to label and marginalize people who point things like this out as conspiracy nuts and mentally unstable.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#24

Post by padobson »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #18
hackuser wrote: post #4

This shouldn't be a surprise: I think most HN members know that it's possible; we know that the rewards (incredible power, status, and everything you can get with them includig the spoils of office) are worth the investment (only $600K for this solution!); we know that there are many people, including politicians, unsavory enough to do it. The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking…

Changing the reported vote count is amateur-level election rigging. Professionals engage in much less obvious efforts - say, by suppressing turnout in unfavorable voting locations.

Introducing a bug at voting machines that makes them break in unfavorable precincts would probably be the most effective election hacking strategy.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#25

Post by an_account »

natrius wrote: post #13

Capitalism makes centralized democracy untenable, and capitalism is here to stay. So much power is controlled by infrequent elections, so influencing those elections is always worthwhile. Capitalism is an evolutionary force that selects for the most profitable business practices. People who figure out how to profit from influencing our democracies will outcompete those who don't. We can pass new laws, but that's like…

"I don't like you comment, I'm gonna stop accepting money that ever went through your hands."

This seems like a terrible idea that would fracture the economy in so many different ways.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#26

Post by natrius »

an_account wrote: post #25
natrius wrote: post #13

Capitalism makes centralized democracy untenable, and capitalism is here to stay. So much power is controlled by infrequent elections, so influencing those elections is always worthwhile. Capitalism is an evolutionary force that selects for the most profitable business practices. People who figure out how to profit from influencing our democracies will outcompete those who don't. We can pass new laws, but that's like…

"I don't like you comment, I'm gonna stop accepting money that ever went through your hands." This seems like a terrible idea that would fracture the economy in so many different ways.

If you go to a store and they reject your cash because it's too crumpled, you're probably going to start shopping somewhere else. Same logic applies here: cutting people off from your economy is bad for business. You only do it when it's worth it.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#27

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

_greim_ wrote: post #17
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda takes time. Often the most effective stuff happens when you aren't even aware of it. You progress through your regular life and encounter regular things. People bitch on the internet about stupid stuff with the occasional decent argument, and nothing looks out of the ordinary. You see laughable arguments about politicians with hints of truth, or intrude, but maybe you ignore it. After a while you see more…

The world is neck deep in dearly-held beliefs that would quickly die out if people en-masse embraced the kind of systematic, relentless skepticism required to combat this. Society protects these beliefs by stigmatizing skepticism, but in doing so effectively makes itself vulnerable to exploit.

I myself am skeptical about that.

Edward Bernays, who really pioneered propaganda, argued that people put elements of identity in "logic-proof compartments" because to be one thing by definition means not being another thing, and people often would rather shut out thoughts than seriously question themselves.

Are you an "entrepreneur?" What about "talented?" Or "Democrat?" Or even, "Liberal?" "Conservative?"

Public opinion is as much an influence on propagandists as they are on public opinion.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#28

Post by burkaman »

nxzero wrote: post #15
burkaman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few reasons I can think of: 1) Hacking voting machines to a significant extent would require a team of people, not just one guy, which dramatically increases the risk of exposure. 2) The reported vote count is usually very close to the predicted vote count, and always very close to exit polling results. The hacked results would need to be very close to the real results, or be combined with control over a huge numbe…

Seems like if you're able to poke at the idea in as much detail as you're providing that you might be able to draft your own. Have any ideas on how to do it? That said, appears like given your points that I agree a better use of the idea would be to insure an election and reduce costs too. Meaning run a real campaign, stay behind, but close enough to not draw attention, which I'm guessing would reduce costs more than…

None of my points have anything to do with cost, I'm (realistically) assuming a campaign with huge amounts of cash. The problem, as with most conspiracy theories, is the number of people that need to cooperate and stay silent, and the number of independent safeguards that already exist. Spending more money actually hurts you, because it makes it harder to hide where that money is going, especially with all of the campaign finance regulations.

I can't think of a low-risk way to literally hack an election in the US at the moment. You would need a long-term plan to change election laws, homogenize voting machines and methods across the country, and then hack some centralized database.

There is no way to get around the polling issue in a country with an even semi-free press, so you still need a pretty strong candidate that you just boost a little.

Anybody in the real world who needed to rig an election would use indirect methods. Spying, spreading misinformation, ignoring campaign finance laws, gerrymandering, etc. All things that have happened and will continue to happen.

Post reply on HN