Certainly these are different from each other in method and often (but not always) in purpose, but is there an important difference were these successful in altering our election outcomes or in raising doubt about those outcomes?
I didn’t think so.
Why, then, are so many who should know better so obstructive of the Federal effort to understand the method and extent of election fraud?
There were nearly 150,000 attempts to penetrate the voter-registration system on Election Day 2016, State Election Commission says
That’s the subhead of Sunday’s Wall Street Journal piece on US Election Hacking Efforts. Illinois was hit as badly:
…hackers were hitting the State Board of Elections “5 times per second, 24 hours per day” from late June until Aug 12, 2016…. Hackers ultimately accessed approximately 90,000 voter records, the State Board of Elections said.
Accessed, not simply trying to, as was the case in South Carolina, the state with those 150,000 hack attempts. In all, at least 21 states (I say “at least;” the WSJ just cited the 21) were targeted, and the intelligence community’s consensus is that the Russians were behind most of the attempts.
That should give an idea of the extent of the hacking at/into our election system. Isn’t election fraud—another version of influencing or altering our election outcomes at least as serious? Domestic defrauding of our elections, in some senses, would be even worse; it would be a betrayal by our own.
But so many governors refuse to cooperate with Federal efforts to characterize election fraud.