Below is a diagram of how voting is executed in the different states. It is evident the US voting system is far from homogeneous. Some states use paper with a machine that reads the paper ballots as though reading an SAT exam. Other states use machines similar to Windows based tablets. Still others use optical methods. Some use mail and some use web based voting.
When computers are involved, the identifiable name is Microsoft. Microsoft provides the core software for almost all voting machinery in the United States. If there is anyone expert on how to hack all voting machines in America, it is Microsoft. Coincidentally, the NSA has a headquarters in Redmond Washington, Microsoft’s home base. While we do not wish to directly state Microsoft would not take the security of its users seriously, it should be a concern that they could easily provide compromised security methods allowing the government easy access.
Web based voting has been thought to be less secure, and, as a result, has not soared in popularity. However, in reality, as of 2016, not a single voting website has been hacked. The reason is simple. The time is limited within which voting occurs, making such sites much less vulnerable. Banks, state registries and even the IRS use secure websites and are rarely impacted by hacking. Why can’t the Federal Government do the same?
Any part of the system can be rigged. It depends on the integrity of those managing the system. If someone wants to rig voting machines, the easiest way is up close and personal. Changing cards and software can obviously allow someone to control how those machines work. Knowing the software gives you complete control over the system. Purchasing a system is one way to figure out how to rig these systems and has been done by a couple of clever people in search of publicity. What they proved, however, is not that hacking is easy. They proved, as we said, the manipulation of such systems is most likely from the inside, and it is not the result of an external hacker.
One extremely suspicious aspect of all voting machines is that one does not get a receipt. No matter how you vote, you are sent home with no record of what was actually recorded. On voting machines, while voting is stored to a hard drive, the voter has no tangible way to back check their intent. Considering a vote is infrequent and so critical to a democracy, a printout of your ballot should be as common as getting a receipt at the ATM for a deposit. Certainly, web based voting and mail voting would both provide a receipt. Who did you vote for? Do you recall? What if you were asked, could you prove you were telling the truth?
Anywhere along the line, a person with intent, and not Russians, but those with a vested interest in the voting outcome, can meddle with the system once given access. This is always true. Edward Snowden is the perfect example. Snowden worked for the NSA. He garnered their trust and captured evidence of NSA shenanigans because he had access. Without access, he could not have.
In our observations, there is no way to exploit illegal immigrant votes via hacking. Russians, certainly, could not employ illegals to vote and there is no way once a vote is in the system to associate it with an illegal immigrant. Illegal immigrant voting is something better described by Podesta in Wikileaks. The looser you make the voter identification laws, the more able an illegal vote may be entered, even multiple times.
Each type of ballot has its advantages and disadvantages from a rigging or tampering standpoint. The fact the US is not homogeneous, however, makes it much more difficult for an external source to hack all methods. It is highly unlikely someone like Russia could deal with all the different arrangements in the voting methods above, and also know all the state ballot issues and state candidates. Perhaps one method would be vulnerable to external chicanery, but the network traffic would indicate the activity targeted such states, and an evident connection to specific voting methods would be evident. Is it? Perhaps, but not related to illegal aliens.
So how does one take advantage of each different voting method to achieve one’s desired ends? Simple, use the method that provides the most control over the outcome for your specific needs.
Paper ballots APPEAR to many to be the safest and most dependable to everyone. They are old school and people trust them. However, they fail if a state applies weak ID requirements. People using paper ballots can and do vote multiple times, and the weak requirements also allow people to vote that are not registered to vote. Illegal immigrant voting is a local objective, whether faked through a machine (which would NOT be identifiable later as fraud) or having actual illegal immigrants vote. The question, “What states have the most to gain by allowing their illegal immigrant population to vote?” Simple. Border states and those that, for whatever reason, have a particularly large population of illegal immigrants.
California uses two method of voting. What is important to note is that California uses mostly paper ballots and is also, by a considerable margin, populated by the most illegal immigrants. The last official assessment was that 25% of all illegal immigrants in the United States reside in California.
It has been observed that Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory may also be associated with a very lopsided victory in California. Why would the most technologically advanced state (with the arguable exception of Massachusetts) use paper ballots?
California appears suspect because they choose exactly the methods that would optimize the ability to incorporate illegal immigrants and other illegitimate voters into the state wide vote for the desired Presidential candidate. They also have a financial incentive to incorporate the illegal immigrants because then the Federal Government subsidizes the health expense and possibly other expenses for illegal immigrants that would normally be a burden of the state.
What if California was attempting to incorporate illegal immigrant votes into a national election? Not much. Even if all of Mexico voted in the California election for Hillary Clinton, she would get the same number of Electoral College votes. Thus, in a not so obvious way, the Electoral college prevents border states from ruling the nation.
Texas, which was won handily by Donald Trump, requires a strict voter identification. This makes it much more difficult for a non-registered voter to vote, because the voter must at least have an identification that looks genuine and is state registered. Unlike California, residents cannot use a utility bill or no identification at all.
Florida is the only other state with a significant enough illegal voter population to have a significant state wide impact. It is not a border state, but it is near various islands such as Puerto Rico, and the state is also tropical, making it appealing to immigrants. The fact there is a large legal immigrant population adds to its attraction.
Florida was won by Trump. If Democrats were involved in rigging the election in Florida, it failed. The fact that Jill Stein and Democrats steered clear of questioning the Florida vote implies Donald Trump did not benefit from any shenanigans in Florida.
What states were involved in Stein’s farcical call for recounts? Michigan, which is paper ballot; Pennsylvania, which is voter machine with no paper trail, and Wisconsin, which is a voter machine with a paper trail.
It is interesting that the three states have different voting methods. It would facilitate an analysis of which forms of voting are most vulnerable to rigging. However, it would not indicate which are vulnerable to any act by a foreign power to control the electorate.
Swing states went Trump, but in many cases, the Democrat’s polls foretold Hillary would be victorious. None have significant populations of illegal immigrants, so from that aspect, could not be impacted by any manipulation or rigging involving illegal immigrant voting.
Too, the vote counts were not as close in the Stein Joke States as some other states in which a recall could have been requested. In fact, states like Ohio contradicted the liberal polls stating Hillary (favored by 5%) would win the state easily and she lost handily. The disparity in the polls may be indicative of tampering by someone, but it is not Russians. It appears more likely the Democrats began to believe their own bullshit, trusting methods intended to favor them.
The remainder of states use an array of methods. None are impacted by illegal immigrant votes in any significant fashion.
The key point to recognize is that it would be a nation wide attack on America to hack our elections. If any hacking did occur, network activity would be present, and it is more than evident in part 1 of this series that there is little outside traffic and essentially none from Russia.
For interference in states that use voting machines, recounts would be unnecessary because in order to determine if illegal immigrants somehow played a role would not be indicated within any of the post vote analysis.
It is not evident from any data we have observed that illegal immigrants could be utilized by a foreign power to compromise the results of a US election. However, internal actors could incorporate them given the proper state rules for voter identification.
Given this observation, it makes it even more evident why some parties would wish to push the popular vote. The popular vote would allow illegal immigrants to have a much greater impact nationally on the outcome of a Presidential election, thus providing states with a larger population of illegal immigrants to benefit.
Worse, it would provide border states an incentive to favor illegal immigrants over American Citizens. States like Texas may switch their stance to garner a nation wide benefit. While we are not saying Texans would ever sacrifice their integrity, politicians would have an incentive to do so.