Really wish there were a way to personally message you, because this is a great conversation.

What’s the definition of a “more vulnerable” voting machine… like how does Counterpunch numerically assess the “vulnerability” of voting machines nationwide? I’m too lazy right now to read the analysis (I eventually will), but my first impression is that they’re just pulling shit out of their ass (typical Counterpunch)

I want to know the truth just as much as you do. I DO think there’s enough evidence to merit an investigation (especially since the Chicago shit is actually real), but the investigation (even if it doesn’t devolve into a witch hunt) WILL hurt Hillary, and you and I both agree that if fraud is happening at all, it’s probably vigilantes acting on their own, rather than Hillary herself calling the shots. Is it fair that Hillary gets torn down for something she took no part in? I’m just trying to think realistically about what would actually happen if an investigation were launched.

In any case, I think our time would be better spent reforming the electronic voting system (you had some good suggestions), rather than investigating who hacked these shitty machines. An investigation will not change the shittiness of our voting machines. Basically, if you dug hard enough you could probably find fraud in pretty much every election cycle, so I’m more concerned with making our voting fraud-proof, rather than wasting time digging into every single fraud allegation. Any time spent investigating fraud claims is time that could more usefully be spent on fixing the voting system.