Peter Ian Staker
Member
That sounds really weak.
There is no way both groups of counties that used each voting method are 100% like for like.
That 7% margin difference sounds like a reasonable difference in the real world.
-
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.
Hillary Clinton, "presented" with "signs" of "vote hacking", "is mulling" recounts.
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
- Status
That sounds really weak.
There is no way both groups of counties that used each voting method are 100% like for like.
That 7% margin difference sounds like a reasonable difference in the real world.
It's not even that 7% is "small" or "reasonable". It's that there are wildly better explanations that, when corrected for, solve the discrepancy perfectly.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801226924156719104
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801231672737988608
Recounting != voter fraud. Separate issues, separate causes, separate solutions.
All voting and counting methods have error rates. When elections are close, that regular error rate could be enough to swing the election.
I think there's nothing here, but you shouldn't butcher the argument.
The kind of voter fraud the GOP rages about basically doesn't exist.
There are many other kinds.
Not to rain on anyone's parade but these sort of articles came out after Brexit too. Loopholes, Laws, chances that this horrible thing that's happened won't actually happen.
They still crop up in the British media every now and then (mainly the Independent) but they're getting more and more desperate.
They still crop up in the British media every now and then (mainly the Independent) but they're getting more and more desperate.
Trump's voter fraud was people walking into multiple voting locations and double-voting, or voting on behalf of dead people, or voting twice via early/normal voting. Given things we have in place (like sign-in sheets, and assigned voting locations, and IDs/proving your address, and how early votes aren't counted till after regular votes are counted -- thus any doubles via early/normal voting would be nullified) it seems unlikely that this could happen (without being caught upon the person walking in) in the numbers it would need to sway the election. Like, maybe it happened, but it wouldn't have made much difference.
But someone inside tampering with electronic voting machines -- that could be done in an instant, and would have a huge impact. And it's harder to catch without doing a recount/comparing against paper records. Heck, paper ballot stuffing by poll workers isn't out of the question either (though it's harder and takes longer) -- it's been done in Russia. I'm actually kinda surprised that that's not the tact that Trump took prior to the election when he was claiming it would be fixed, since it's a lot more feasible.
I think it would bring renewed focus to the fact Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin and has no mandate for the extremist policies he is already pursuing.
That seems like a really terrible idea if there really was tampering.
Peter Ian Staker
Member
Calamari41
41 > 38
But again, there isn't really any true evidence of that. There is as much evidence that the votes were tampered with in favor of Trump as there is that the primary votes were tampered with in favor of Clinton.
Leithkorias
Member
Seems to me that the 7% discrepancy is just as much proof that the paper ballot was tampered in hillarys favor as the electronic ballot was tampered in trumps favor. Which is to say, its not proof at all.
Aeriscloud
Banned
Listen, If I can accept the L, you all need to accept the L.
We fucking Lost.
We fucking Lost.
jakonovski
Member
The Republicans would shout recount until they fainted from hyperventilation. So if there's any chance of it working, Dems are idiots not to go for it.
Democracy has been at stake for years. Republicans have declared war on minorities and our right to vote ever since they concocted voter ID.
With redistricting coming up, Republicans are damn well going to rig things even further in their favor to ensure they stay in power.... despite the majority not wanting it. They're a bunch of fascists.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Maybe cause having this coming from scientists and lawyers carries a little more weight than when someone prone to twitter outbursts starts crying about everything being rigged when it doesn't go his way.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Okay so in this scheme, I don't need to impersonate someone else. This seems more plausible. The benefit here is that I get to cast a vote that would be thrown out if the vote was close and/or mattered (but might not be caught if the vote didn't matter to begin with), and the risk here is that I'm uttering forged documents and could easily be deported or thrown in jail since I explicitly committed what's gotta be a felony right in front of the government.
PandaShake
Member
Some comments here reminds me of the primary with Hillary supporters bashing on Bernie.
"Nothing is going to happen"
"He won't win", "There is no cheating", "Stop being delusional"
"Nothing is going to happen"
"He won't win", "There is no cheating", "Stop being delusional"
SecretMoblin
Member
Yes, I'm sure a collection of lawyers with ties to the wealthiest campaign in history is calling for recounts for entirely altruistic reasons, especially since
Seems they love that "when they go low, we go high" shit
Calamari41
41 > 38
There's not really any risk of being prosecuted for sending in a bad voter registration form, especially in present day California. All you'd have to say is that you didn't understand, and that's assuming that they bother to hunt you down rather than just chuck the form on the off chance that they notice it.
But anyway, my point isn't to convince anybody that this is some massive, widespread issue. It might be, and it might not be. I was just expressing to someone who asked about the topic that I agree with their concern, because I personally know voters who would be turned away if ID were required. I understand if someone reading doesn't buy that without evidence, but again, I'm not really trying to convince the gallery... I was just trying to explain why I hold the stance that I do.
And I do think that this should be looked at even when we have a situation like Clinton winning the state handily, where no amount of voter fraud would make any difference even if discovered. Clinton may have won by 35%, but maybe some propositions won by a point or two and dropping X number of garbage votes would change those outcomes.
I'm with you on laughing at the whole "I'm going to go in and impersonate everyone who is actually on the voter rolls, and cast votes in their place before they get here" scenario. That is a complete red herring from the start.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Hey I'm not saying they're all in it for the right reasons, but let's not pretend the sources suggesting for Hillary to question the results here carry the same flimsy weight as someone yelling "IT'S RIGGED!" any time any sort of criticism is laid out.
I am sure some or all of these ideas may have been brought up already, but just wanted to give my thoughts on this whole thing.
Trump spent the end of the election cycle claiming the election would be rigged, which caused his opponents to defend the system. We now know that his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, uses misdirection as his main weapon (see the recent interview with him). Maybe, just maybe, Trump's rants about the rigged election were done on purpose, to force the media and his opponents to defend the system. All the while, maybe there were some shenanigans going on. Now that there might be hints that some form of rigging did happen, everyone who defended the system previously will be ridiculed for questioning the very system they were forced to defend over and over. You can already see this at work in this thread and any other thread about this news article.
The other thing that I really wonder about was Trump's claim that if he lost the election it would be a huge waste of money, 100 million dollars by his estimate. At the time, every news outlet that looked into his claim that he spent that amount of money on the campaign could only find evidence that he spent between 50-60 million dollars of his own money. Most seemed to dismiss the figure he was throwing around was just another Trump embellishment, which hey, it very well could be. But on the flip side, maybe that figure was accurate, and maybe he did funnel some of his money into places and people that the public was never meant to see or know about.
From the investigative reporting done about Trump during the election, we know he is perfectly comfortable breaking federal laws to try and further his own interests. See Newsweeks reporting done about his illegal attempt to do business in Cuba.
I am not sold on the idea that there was some fraud, rigging or hacking, but from my perspective there are enough questions being raised about the results in some key states to warrant an audit. Why not be certain of the results?
Trump spent the end of the election cycle claiming the election would be rigged, which caused his opponents to defend the system. We now know that his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, uses misdirection as his main weapon (see the recent interview with him). Maybe, just maybe, Trump's rants about the rigged election were done on purpose, to force the media and his opponents to defend the system. All the while, maybe there were some shenanigans going on. Now that there might be hints that some form of rigging did happen, everyone who defended the system previously will be ridiculed for questioning the very system they were forced to defend over and over. You can already see this at work in this thread and any other thread about this news article.
The other thing that I really wonder about was Trump's claim that if he lost the election it would be a huge waste of money, 100 million dollars by his estimate. At the time, every news outlet that looked into his claim that he spent that amount of money on the campaign could only find evidence that he spent between 50-60 million dollars of his own money. Most seemed to dismiss the figure he was throwing around was just another Trump embellishment, which hey, it very well could be. But on the flip side, maybe that figure was accurate, and maybe he did funnel some of his money into places and people that the public was never meant to see or know about.
From the investigative reporting done about Trump during the election, we know he is perfectly comfortable breaking federal laws to try and further his own interests. See Newsweeks reporting done about his illegal attempt to do business in Cuba.
I am not sold on the idea that there was some fraud, rigging or hacking, but from my perspective there are enough questions being raised about the results in some key states to warrant an audit. Why not be certain of the results?
Yeah, sure buddy. I'm sure that was the only reason for his win.
Stein is requesting recounts, because of course she is.
Wasn't she arguing for months that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton one? She should be thrilled with this result.
I guess the X factor is her being a complete crackpot.
And why is everybody focusing on PA? Florida is about as close as PA, and is more electoral votes.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
A favorite tactic of Trump and the Right is projection. When they do terrible things, they assume their opponent must be doing the same. When the debates were happening, Trump claimed that Hillary was jacked up on performance enhancing drugs for the debates. All this while Trump was sniffing like a madman and showing other signs of doing cocaine. To me, this made those innocuous symptoms Trump had during the debates become incredibly suspect.
Trump started claiming the election was rigged. Not only is the GOP actively working to swing elections by way of voter suppression, I think him bringing this up could be more evidence of projection. I think that should be enough to trigger a team to verify the results.
The voting process is too fragmented for an agent or group to completely swing. But it's possible that in a few key districts here, a few vote totals there could have swung the election.
I haven't looked at the "evidence" that this group have mentioned, if there is any. But the fact that Trump mentioned the election was being rigged is enough of a red flag to me.
Trump started claiming the election was rigged. Not only is the GOP actively working to swing elections by way of voter suppression, I think him bringing this up could be more evidence of projection. I think that should be enough to trigger a team to verify the results.
The voting process is too fragmented for an agent or group to completely swing. But it's possible that in a few key districts here, a few vote totals there could have swung the election.
I haven't looked at the "evidence" that this group have mentioned, if there is any. But the fact that Trump mentioned the election was being rigged is enough of a red flag to me.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Most of the post-election "irregularity" stories are irresponsible liberal denialism imo. But if there's any reason whatsoever to believe that voting machines are throwing the election, it should not be up to the Clintons whether it be investigated. That implicates the entire system.
dantevsninjas
Member
The conservative boogeyman was mostly focused on in person voter fraud, i.e. the scapegoat they use to push out legislation that disenfranchises voters who don't often go their way, and also, something that never happens.
I'm doubtful that there's anything here either, but at least be accurate in your criticism.
MaulerX
Member
Seems like you and alot of people fell for his reverse psychology. Him talking smack and saying he wasn't going to accept the results if he lost didn't exactly mean he really wasn't going to accept it. I suppose we'll never really know. But now that he actually won people on the opposite camp are the ones not accepting and are the ones sounding like sour grapes and all. What a fucking weird turn of events. He threw the bait and everyone swallowed the sinker too.
Bob Coffee
Member
Hillary's political carrier is pretty much over at this point, if there's anomalies, might as well go full on "punished" Hillary Clinton and push for a recount in those battleground states. if anything like i said in my previous post, a recount doesn't hurt. if the result is valid, then we go forward knowing our election systems are working as intended. if shenanigans are up, then we investigate them and deal with it. the GoP wouldn't take the L(see NC governor race), why should the democrats?
jim-jam bongs
Member
Well if Jill Stein thinks there's something going on, maybe it's time we pay attention.
Sonic Boom
Neo Member
Nate Silver is adamant this is all a bunch of bull. Even if there were voter fraud (which is doubtful), it would only equate to a slim chance of the slimmest of victories for Hillary Clinton. The Midwest took Trump's bait. She lost the electoral college fair and square. End of story.
fixedpoint
Member
streetsahead123
Banned
...they were right tho?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I had to wait 6 months for a driver's license in California because of the security check on my DMV form as a non-citizen. I am surprised that you're telling me that they didn't look at the voter reg section to verify I didn't fraudulently registered.
StickSoldier
Member
Sometimes we have to accept the reality that we are living in, and in this reality of ours, Trump is going to be the President. It has been done, the time will come when he is in the White House, leading the nation to the shadows of the unknown, but there's nothing we can do to change that but brace for the worst. It seems farfetched at best to even begin to entertain the idea that Hilary can still somehow come away with the election. It's over.
RedAssedApe
Banned
the fact that a candidate has to be the one requesting recounts is dumb. their should be some kind of committee that oversees this kind of stuff and should be automatically investigating claims when provided with appropriate information that might indicate some voting anomaly
FriedConsole
Banned
The side of the loser always disputes the election. This year it just looks hypocritical since there was outrage over Trump supporters not accepting the election before the election.
Accept the lost or your just giving credence to terrible Republican voter ID laws.
Accept the lost or your just giving credence to terrible Republican voter ID laws.
SecretMoblin
Member
The losing candidate isn't necessarily the one who must officially request a recount. In most states it can simply be requested by a single voter, a group of voters, concerned citizens, etc.
Several states also have "automatic recount" triggers, which can be waived by the losing candidate. The party paying for the recount also varies by condition and state.
Calamari41
41 > 38
There are more ways to register to vote than going through the Motor Voter law.
Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm telling someone other than you, who asked, that I share their concern due to my personal experience. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't believe me, that's fine. I completely understand. I never set out to change anybody's opinion in any way. I'm frustrated that you skipped the rest of the post that you quoted and forced me to repeat all of this.
User Name Here
Member
If anything in this video is anywhere near true, people should be flipping out. No matter which party it may favor.
https://www.facebook.com/GregPalastInvestigates/posts/10154744416772128
I mean a million votes just going "poof".
https://www.facebook.com/GregPalastInvestigates/posts/10154744416772128
I mean a million votes just going "poof".
RedAssedApe
Banned
huh...well then. yeah im uninformed haha
Sirpopopop
Member
Yeah a VVPAT (voter verified paper audit trail) electronic voting system is far better than the paperless alternatives you see in many states.
Andrew Appel is another great guy who has done a lot of work in this field.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
8 years
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked