Is there any evidence the Russians didn't hack the voting?

[edhopper]

Because all the FBI seemed to have no interest in finding out.

[brooklynite]

1. It's not anyone's job to prove a negative...

...if you have evidence that voting was hacked (something Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders haven't claimed), feel free to share it.

[Glassunion]

2. What type of evidence would possibly exist that would show something did not happen?

It is difficult to prove a negative. Not impossible, but quite difficult.

If they did hack there will most likely be a trace or evidence of what they did do. If they did not, there would not be. The problem with an absence of evidence, it is not evidence of absence.

So, if the Russians say they did not hack the voting machines, and the FBI says that there is no evidence they did, but you say that maybe they did. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that they did.

[longship]

5. Voting machines were certainly not hacked.

For one, they are not connected to the INet.

Second, if one wanted to hack them locally one would have to agents in every county or -- horrors -- precinct in a state.

I feel mostly safe with our current voting infrastructure. I wish more states would do what we do here in MI. Everybody votes on mark sense paper ballots.

But yes, the interference in the campaigns was rather blatant.

[sarah FAILIN]

6. What do you think of this video?

I'd like to know about the company that services the machines. You wouldn't have to hack individual counties if you have a person at the company providing the machines. I've always heard they don't allow anyone to examine them either.

[longship]

7. How many times do you have to do that to affect a state's outcome?

There are thousands of precincts in a state each with both election officers and trained observers. I suspect that you'd be caught pretty damned quickly.

Nope. The 2016 election was not hacked.

[sarah FAILIN]

8. only one time

If you control the chips in the machines to start with

[Yo_Mama]

3. Yes. For starters, the exit polls match the results.

I am sure someone on DU will now claim that the Russians hacked the exit polls somehow. But the exit polling is the reason the Clinton campaign conceded, and that the White House said it had no doubt as to the results.

Check them out for yourself, state by state:
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

The first thing I did when the recount furor in those states erupted was to go and check, and there was never a chance in those states that recounts would succeed.

A simple spreadsheet & entering the percentages from one of the "easy" questions will allow you to confirm that the interviewed voters were well-aligned with official vote totals.

So for Wisconsin (I used the married/non-married question, because it is a simple question people answer):
Married: 59% of voters
Clinton: 40%
Trump: 55%

Unmarried: 41% of voters
Clinton: 51%
Trump: 43%

To get total est. vote percentages.
Clinton .4 * 59 = 23.6
Clinton .51 * 41 = 20.91
Total Clinton = 44.51%

Trump .55 * 59 = 32.45
Trump .43 * 41 = 17.63
Total Trump = 50.08%

[HassleCat]

4. Looks like the voting process was not hacked.

But the campaign was influenced by fake news, and the Russians appear connected to that.