Sort:  

still though, imagine if the wrong election results were picked up by a news agency and went viral, then the government had to come back around and say that the results were wrong..it would create a shitstorm, to say the least

Maybe. But it's not like similar things haven't happened before. Remember when the election was called for Al Gore...and then Bush...and then too close to call...and then Bush? And that was without any hacking... Officials would be aware of actual election results regardless of what was on an informational public web page so I don't think there is much risk in that regard.

Exactly, this is not about changing the 'votes' it is about being able to change and further undermine the public's degree of trust concerning both the Candidates and the News.

just imagine...

not for the radio shack hack, you can do it from across the street from the polling place and it leaves no traces. Any random hacker can get the plans to make the device off the internet.

The voting machines I've used you have to fill in bubbles on paper which are then scanned so there is still paper as a backup. I don't know how all the other states work but I think it's pretty dumb not to have a paper backup.

indeed, that's how I vote as well, those machines are fairly secure too, in other places there is no paper record of a vote. That is pretty stupid, we are lucky that in real life few people are that interested in hacking voting machines illegally. It's the same thing that keeps us safe from mad bombers and people flying planes into things, it's super easy to do those things but there really are not many people who want to and that is what keeps us safe most of the time.

Plus the fact that, at least in most cases, it would take a coordinated attack of many voting machines to actually make a difference. Such a thing would probably be noticed. But yeah, having a paper backup is definitely the way to go.

luckily, we do have an army of elderly people watching our polls. paper ballots seem like the way to go.