"While I welcome a teardown of a voting machine I wonder why it's mixed with the conspiracy theory that the Russian state falsified votes. "

I don't think we can say with certainty that they didn't. We know they were hacking into other voting-related systems. We know they hacked a voting systems vendor and spear-phished hundreds of election officials. And a Russian oligarch-connected investment firm bought a company that hosts Maryland's statewide voter registration, candidacy, and election management system; the online voter registration system; online ballot delivery system; and unofficial election night results website.

None of this directly confirms that votes were changed, but it's indicative of a heck of a lot of activity around our elections, and it would be very odd if they weren't making efforts toward changing votes. Possibly to the extent of having operatives in the US to do so or bribing election workers, though I have no evidence of either.

> I don't think we can say with certainty that they didn't.

And so we can't with many other actors. Why single out Russia?

> We know they hacked a voting systems vendor and spear-phished hundreds of election officials

From where I am those claims have not been sufficiently proved. But yes, depending on the credibility you afford leaked NSA documents, it's a reason to focus on Russia. Still I want to caution against the conclusion that evidence of tampering means the Russian state must have done it.

> Possibly to the extent of having operatives in the US to do so or bribing election workers, though I have no evidence of either.

A classic conspiracy theory. It's nice in that it works even when the scheme is exposed as even rumors of it destabilize U.S. politics.

> I wonder why it's mixed with the conspiracy theory that the Russian state falsified votes.

How is that a conspiracy theory?

> You'd think there are enough interested parties to make the Russian state an unlikely culprit even if evidence of tampering should be discovered.

How many of those interested parties were actually identified as culprits in widespread hacking of election related systems in the 2016 election?

It's a conspiracy theory because it says the Russian state conspired to falsify votes. Up to now I haven't seen good evidence of that. So it's a theory.

You say there was "hacking of election related systems"? What happened? Maybe I'm just out of the loop?

According to the recent indictment of GRU hackers, they first broke into a state board of elections database and stole voter information. Then they broke into computers of a vendor that provides software to verify voter registrations. Then they sent "over 100" spearphishing emails with malware, posing as the vendor, to people involved in administering Florida elections.

It doesn't seem to be in doubt there was a conspiracy, although it is probable that all of the consequences are not mentioned in this indictment. The indictment mentions other states, but focuses on Florida.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intell...

Thanks for the link to the indictment. With those accusations I can see why people think about tampered voting machines. Still very far from actual tampering in my view.

And that's where I wonder why at the outset of an investigation into whether voting-machines have been tampered with, the Russian state should be assumed to have done it.

Votes could be affected by preventing people from voting as well as by changing votes after the fact. The known facts point to either or both as plausible, assuming there was an opportunity.

You're certainly not alone in your doubts. Many people have assiduously been not assuming Russians had anything to do with tampering with the election every step of the way. Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a random Romanian hacker and yet it is now confirmed he was a member of the Russian military team attacking the US.

It's not helpful to dismiss stuff as a conspiracy theory these days in a general sort of way. The reason is that disbelieving one "conspiracy theory" requires you to believe in another, larger one. If you don't believe in the indictment, you are necessarily positing a massive conspiracy to frame Russia. There's no apparent simple, comforting explanation that doesn't involve large conspiracies.

Are there other nations that we have proof that they tried to tamper with that election? They of course need to prove it before deciding, but it seems to me that it is prudent to suspect the Russian state at this point.

Russia tampering in the election isn’t a conspiracy theory. It is a well reported fact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_...

The text of lolc's comment says "the conspiracy theory that the Russian state falsified votes"

Can you say more specifically where your link covers that, I didn't see it.

The dismissive phrase "conspiracy theory" implies the conspiracy to interfere with the election is in doubt. Others think that it's reasonably well established, and I think the link was to support that.

The lack of proof so far that votes were falsified is a separate issue, but given the existence of the conspiracy, it's unclear why one would rule it out.

One might also think it unlikely that they’d invent a way to secretly open tamper-proof vials of urine so they could dope Olympic athletes, too, but here we are.