Trump's election victory and with the use of electronic voting machines, remind me of the story of the creation of the term, "Luser".
Many places in the US use electronic voting machines without any kind of provision for auditing: the machines could be either programmed or hacked to wrongly record a person's vote, and we would have no direct evidence. Normally, I'd be concerned that the machines would be hacked for Republican victories. This election, I was concerned that they'd be hacked for a Clinton victory.
But suppose things were going like this: hackers in the background were working both sides, programming and reprogramming the machines to deliver votes to their side and away from the other side. At MIT, when they had large multiuser computer systems, everyone logging in was greated with the message of the form, "150 Users Logged In". Someone had the silly idea of changing "Users" to "Losers", leading to "150 Losers Logged In". Others didn't like the message, and tried to revert it. At any given time, it was an open question whether one would see "Users" or "Losers".
Someone tried "Lusers", and it stuck.
Suppose something similar happened with the voting machines? Unlike the Luser case, there could be no compromise result. Also unlike the Luser case, there was a time limit. So instead of a compromise result, the side that hacked last hacked best -- in a manner of speaking.
I seriously don't know whether voting-machine hacking won the final vote. If it did, the loser was democracy itself.