• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CNN: Green Party files for Wisconsin recount, audit

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol Takei not like this.

That said I fully admit to being a hypocrite on this matter. Trump is just too much. Bush was taking the L. This is just...no.

Its not hypocritical. Trump said its rigged before the elections even started (how should he know if there was hacking?)
 

KingBroly

Banned
I feel like news is going real fast. What happened with the couple security experts who supposedly asked the Clinton camp to contest cause they felt the numbers seemed off? Not real?

They were real. One said he was misquoted and said 'it didn't happen, but if it did, this is exactly how you'd do it.' Which...I guess is kinda dumb to put that out there like that, especially if any of the states popped out those results to a T.

You had Nate Silver and Nate Cohn and other data analysts basically say it wasn't hacked, and everything was explained by controlling for certain demographics (Race and Education were the 2 big ones that greatly moved to Trump, I believe). When you compare those factors to neighboring states, it adds up to a Trump win.

But that only explains WI. For MI and PA, Silver and Cohn said that even without controlling for demographics, PA and MI stay the same. Now, WI "COULD" flip to Clinton, but it'd be very strange to do it at this late in the game, with that big of a lead. It'd look extremely suspicious no matter what side you're on. PA is basically impossible to recount since the majority of their ballots have no paper trail.

But again, if you got a wildly different number than the initial result, it'd look extremely suspicious.
 

Seiniyta

Member
I feel like news is going real fast. What happened with the couple security experts who supposedly asked the Clinton camp to contest cause they felt the numbers seemed off? Not real?

I don't think those security experts said that something happened but that a recount would better to be sure. Those security experts proved how one could easily hack some of the machines.

Although it's very unlikely any of the sort happened, it doesn't hurt to recount where possible (PA...) to be sure and bring closure to it.

In a regular election I'd give it 1% at best of the machines being hacked. But this is 2016 so I'm keeping it at a 50% chance >.>
 

rekameohs

Banned
It's hard to believe the amount of good that could be done in the world if the $5 million specifically donated for this had been used for literally any charitable endeavor.
Yeah, liking building a 50 foot magnifying glass, a popsicle stick skyscraper, or an escalator to nowhere.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
If you critize people spending money to this on the basis that it wouldn't amount to anything, then surely you also disagreed with various demonstrations that arose post election protesting Trump, yeah?
 

KingBroly

Banned
If you critize people spending money to this on the basis that it wouldn't amount to anything, then surely you also disagreed with various demonstrations that arose post election protesting Trump, yeah?

People are criticizing others here because it looks EXTREMELY skeptical, on top of it being nearly impossible to flip the result (unless there was MASSIVE fraud).

Since 2000, only 3 races in the entire country have flipped due to a recount, and all of those were below 0.01% between the 2 leading candidates.

04 Washington State Governor's Race (0.005% difference)
06 Vermont Auditor's Race (104 votes difference w/ over 250k ballots cast)
08 Minnesota Senate Race (0.01% difference)
 

Ryzaki009

Member
Its not hypocritical. Trump said its rigged before the elections even started (how should he know if there was hacking?)

While he is a master of projection I do feel if hacking was on this level they'd gotten caught. They weren't exact masters of subtly. It's just most Americans are too stupid and ignored the train barreling at them and the rest thought they weren't stupid enough to stand in the way (or worse cheer the train on).
 
While he is a master of projection I do feel if hacking was on this level they'd gotten caught. They weren't exact masters of subtly. It's just most Americans are too stupid and ignored the train barreling at them and the rest thought they weren't stupid enough to stand in the way (or worse cheer the train on).

1. The train didnt actually win. It lost by 2 Millions and counting. Its just that in america one vote doesnt weight the same.
2. The russians hacked the DNC as far as we know. Why wouldnt they be able to hack systems that are old and technically unsecure? It is a possibility

I do however think that nothing will come out of this
 

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
I feel like news is going real fast. What happened with the couple security experts who supposedly asked the Clinton camp to contest cause they felt the numbers seemed off? Not real?

debunked quickly. It was a sensationalist article with flimsy sources.
 

Jackpot

Banned
People are criticizing others here because it looks EXTREMELY skeptical, on top of it being nearly impossible to flip the result (unless there was MASSIVE fraud).

Since 2000, only 3 races in the entire country have flipped due to a recount, and all of those were below 0.01% between the 2 leading candidates.

04 Washington State Governor's Race (0.005% difference)
06 Vermont Auditor's Race (104 votes difference w/ over 250k ballots cast)
08 Minnesota Senate Race (0.01% difference)

Florida 2000 should be in there.
 

Machina

Banned
Well I'll be damned.

Election 2016 just got an impromptu extension. The ref has thrown a yellow flag after the buzzer!
 

stonesak

Okay, if you really insist
While we're at it, has anyone seen Trump's long-form birth certificate yet? Or whether he fulfilled his military service contract as a member of the Texas Air National Guard?
 

OuterLimits

Member
1. The train didnt actually win. It lost by 2 Millions and counting. Its just that in america one vote doesnt weight the same.
2. The russians hacked the DNC as far as we know. Why wouldnt they be able to hack systems that are old and technically unsecure? It is a possibility

I do however think that nothing will come out of this

He won. Candidates spend time and money campaigning in states based on the EC. Had it been based on just a popular vote, then both Clinton and Trump would have used an entirely different strategy.
More Republicans would probably vote in California/NY and more Democrats would show up in deep red states.

The EC itself makes it extremely difficult anyway for Republicans. His path to 270 was damn narrow. She not only lost the biggest swing states but allowed the blue wall in the rust belt to completely collapse. She lost Ohio by almost 10 points and that state is usually damn close. After I saw her losing Ohio that badly, I wasn't surprised that Michigan and Pennsylvania were in trouble.

Had he only won barely in the EC, then the pop vote would annoy me more. He won 30 states though and 306 electoral votes. The EC is the only game that matters, and he won that by destroying her blue wall.
 

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
Seems like it would be beneficial to audit elections every time, regardless of the results. They're pretty important.
 

Theonik

Member
That didn't flip the election after the recount.
For what it's worth, a full state recount was estimated after independent recounts by journalists to have been sufficient to flip the vote in 2000, there was also the dubious Supreme Court case back then. Another thing to note is that the gap before they started the recounts was in the thousands.
 

AlternativeUlster

Absolutely pathetic part deux
It's hard to believe the amount of good that could be done in the world if the $5 million specifically donated for this had been used for literally any charitable endeavor.

If this proves even the slightest amount of error, this might push states to move to complete paper ballots and perhaps even to the same day voting registration that over states have employed. If no error has been found, at least it keeps it in the minds of activists to warn communities of ways that voter suppression can happen before the next time so it allows everyone to vote.

There is merit in this but I wish it wasn't so costly and would rather use this cash towards ACLU or Planned Parenthood donations. Let's hope this was funded by rich people who have donated to many other charities too.
 

Theonik

Member
Why would a political campaign "take part" in a recount?
Candidates have the right to oversee any recounts as well as request them in most state electoral laws. Transparency like this is key to ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

There is merit in this but I wish it wasn't so costly and would rather use this cash towards ACLU or Planned Parenthood donations. Let's hope this was funded by rich people who have donated to many other charities too.
Given Clinton's 2m+ lead in popular vote there would be little need for these donors to have contributed much at all.
 

thefro

Member
Just got a news alert from CNN. HRC campaign to take part in the recount on key states.

Yep, they've been looking into it and have found no evidence, but will join the recount to ensure it's fair.

https://medium.com/@marceelias/list...-an-audit-and-recount-2a904717ea39#.r6i08hc7g

Marc Erik Elias said:
Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.
 

Downhome

Member
Like I said before, all this will end up doing is helping Trump, for multiple reasons. For that, screw or, I'm glad it's happening.

Since the year 2000 these results were only the third closest as well. There is absolutely no reason at all for this to take place, it's why someone sane like Hillary Clinton didn't beg for it herself, and it looks some nutjob like Jill Stein to make it happen.

It doesn't help that so many desperate Clinton supporters or anti-Trump folks are pulling for it to happen though. It's flat out ridiculous.

Well, looks like I gave Clinton way too much credit just last night. Ugh.

Clinton campaign: We are taking part in the recount
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/clinton-campaign-recount/index.html
 

dramatis

Member
Well, looks like I gave Clinton way too much credit just last night. Ugh.

Clinton campaign: We are taking part in the recount
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/clinton-campaign-recount/index.html
It's written in the article that her campaign does not think much will change, but ensuring the process is legit is why they're participating.

I mean your candidate is not the candidate majority of the US preferred, but you won anyway. What's the harm with ensuring the recount goes fairly for all sides? Republicans are more the welcome to wade in to the mess too.
 

Amikami

Banned
lmao. Not gunna be a good look if nothing comes of this. Don't know why they just wouldn't keep quiet and observe the recount.
 

KingBroly

Banned
For what it's worth, a full state recount was estimated after independent recounts by journalists to have been sufficient to flip the vote in 2000, there was also the dubious Supreme Court case back then. Another thing to note is that the gap before they started the recounts was in the thousands.

Around 1700 votes before the recount started. And no, a full state recount found that Florida still went to Bush. Bush won by 538 votes.

The Supreme Court ruling was not dubious at all; they ruled it was in Florida's vested interest to certify the results immediately. If Florida had not certified their results when they did, the House of Representatives would have rejected their votes for not certifying them in time. This means that the House (Republican controlled at the time) would've voted Bush as President anyway.

You also conveniently forgot that every media outlet called Florida for Gore an hour before Florida's pandhandle polling stations closed, since they were on the central time zone versus the rest of the state's eastern time zone. This suppressed at least tens of thousands of Bush votes.
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
Candidates have the right to oversee any recounts as well as request them in most state electoral laws. Transparency like this is key to ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

Ok, the way it was worded made me think they'd be actually taking part.

I would imagine teams of lawyers from all sides will be watching things lest thousands of "new" votes be found.
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
Around 1700 votes before the recount started. And no, a full state recount found that Florida still went to Bush. Bush won by 538 votes.

The Supreme Court ruling was not dubious at all; they ruled it was in Florida's vested interest to certify the results immediately. If Florida had not certified their results when they did, the House of Representatives would have rejected their votes for not certifying them in time. This means that the House (Republican controlled at the time) would've voted Bush as President anyway.

You also conveniently forgot that every media outlet called Florida for Gore an hour before Florida's pandhandle polling stations closed, since they were on the central time zone versus the rest of the state's eastern time zone. This suppressed at least tens of thousands of Bush votes.

Florida wasn't a full recount
 
I legit cannot understand how the US has this huge fear of electronic voting sabotage / hacking.

Unless you're thinking that the CIA / NSA would let that happen, then I'd tell you to remove your tinfoil hat.
 

KingBroly

Banned
Florida wasn't a full recount

Alright. Florida in 2000 still displayed a bunch of shit that we're still dealing with today in regards to media reporting of results. That election was so fucked up.

The White House on these recounts and the election:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/white-house-hackers-election-recount-231849

“We stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” a senior administration official told POLITICO late Friday.

“The federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” the official added. “We believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”

I also think the story that MSN posted about how Obama convinced Hillary to concede on election night was a bit interesting. I feel like there's a divide between Obama and Hillary right now.


Also, I read on twitter that Republicans are now preparing to ask for recounts of Nevada, Colorado and Virginia.
 

jWILL253

Banned
I legit cannot understand how the US has this huge fear of electronic voting sabotage / hacking.

Unless you're thinking that the CIA / NSA let that happen, then I'd tell you to remove your tinfoil hat.

You need to do your homework on the CIA, or any of the other national law enforcement organizations.

They've all had a hand in affecting the politics & social issues of our time. Hell, the FBI just had a hand in THIS election, and you're throwing government corruption under the tinfoil hat umbrella?
 
I'm beyond impartial about this.

On one hand, its a hopeless effort + money could've been better spent towards various other things.

On another, I'm still blindly hopeful someone can do something to get Trump the fuck off that throne before January.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom