Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/09/22/dhs-informs-21-states.html
…
2 Likes
Compiled a list because I wanted to sort this out.
21 total targeted. 15 reported in, that leaves 6 unreported so far.
Of the reporting states 3 Said “we were targeted and it failed”, 12 said “we were attacked” but didn’t say “unsuccessfully”.
I’m tempted to think the 12 who didn’t confirm the attempt failed were most likely failed attempts as they’re willing to admit to the attempt being made.
EDIT NOTE
My initial post was a little confusing, clarified hopefully. (Also I short-counted the reporting states by 1)
Attacked & Secure:
Connecticut
Washington
Wisconsin
Attacked, Security Unknown:
Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Not Attacked:
Georgia
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
New Mexico
North Carolina
Not Reporting:
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
7 Likes
Thank for for the summary. But …
… I’m not grokking your math. 14-3 == 11. Then: “I’m tempted to think the 11 who …” and then “That leaves 7”.
Huh? Am I parsing wrong?
I was actually off by 1 in my count of reporting states, but let me explain the math.
21 total targeted. 15 reported in, that leaves 6 unreported so far.
Of the reporting states 3 Said ‘we were targeted and it failed’, 12 said ‘we were attacked’ but didn’t say ‘unsuccessfully’
1 Like
Some of those states had very surprising swings for Trump.
He did win by less than 40,000 people due to electoral map hijinks. Go figure.
5 Likes
More like, go Weep
4 Likes
Possibly antagonistic question but
Why does the popular vote matter when the electorate can vote however it wants?
1 Like
Well the popular vote of those states is where I got my number from. That didn’t even touch the larger electoral college issue overall.
The answer is: The founders didn’t trust direct ‘popular vote’ democracy. The electoral college is supposed to be people who are the best of the country - heroes, paragons of their field, intellectuals etc. They envisioned a system where someone like Trump would actually be kept out of the office - because smart people wouldn’t fall for populist rhetoric. What we have seen though, is that instead states abdicated this duty to the parties, and as such the voting is no longer based on conscience or what is best for the country, but instead party lines. Heck some states even made it illegal for the electoral college voter to change a vote (if that’s even legal remains to be seen).
Frankly this last election proved it’s a sham - and if it’s not going to do it’s job - then it should go away.
8 Likes
So basically ‘these people are too stupid to know what’s best for them.’
10 Likes
Honestly - yes - and that’s the trust of ‘American democracy’ - heck at the start only white landowners were allowed to vote (thus ensuring that the poor couldn’t). Perhaps a ‘romantic’ view of our founding leads people to believe otherwise - but the founding of the country was done by men, with flaws and failures abound. The resulting framework was the kind of thing that rightly should be noted as a modern miracle based on how well it’s been able to function despite human nature. The ‘framework’ is sound.
To whit - the ‘electoral college’ isn’t meant to give small states more power than large ones - it should be based on population and the only reason it isn’t is due to the fact that we ran out of room for more representatives as our country grew. (Apportionment Act of 1911 - Wikipedia)
The truth of the matter is - had the ‘electoral college’ been based off of actual population (as was intended) and voted as per their states - we’d have a different president - this moment in history has laughably been in the making for over a century.
8 Likes
Sometimes you have to take a system so far into it’s most extreme form to showcase its flaws in a way that even people won’t be able to ignore it.
3 Likes
Do you mean “when the electors can vote however they want”?
(Isn’t “the electorate” just “the voters”?)
3 Likes
Odd, in December DHS itself was being accused of attacking these same systems: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3173032/cybercrime-hacking/indiana-joins-idaho-in-claiming-dhs-tried-to-hack-their-election-systems.html
Again I am unsure why these shitty actors are suddenly supposed to be credible and trustworthy.
2 Likes
Right. Let’s do nothing then.
3 Likes
WHEN WILL THIS WITCH HUNT END?
Look, Trump said the election was rigged. He didn’t say for whom it was rigged.
8 Likes
OUTSOURCING. That’s all it is.
Why should the republicans pay Americans to spend hours tweaking all of the votes in the recordless, hackable voting machines they procured when you can find cheaper labor overseas? Let the market decide!
3 Likes
I’m not doing nothing, I’m demanding solid evidence and not hearsay from scoundrels with a checkered past and a motive to whip up fear of a foreign bogeyman.
Sounds like you’re saying let’s do nothing to me.
But - what’s the downside to making sure our elections aren’t compromised?
1 Like
The downside of buying this story is the escalation of a cold war against Russia and a breakdown of diplomatic relationships. Given what is happening with North Korea, that relationship would be nice to have.
