Support NeoGAF

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

lmao, at least it's good that some of you are accepting reality

move on, regroup, and organize, because the likelihood of a zero-proof vote-stealing conspiracy resulting in an election switcheroo is lower than the number of trump stans in poligaf

Yes, because Clinton's group asking for a recount would totally destroy an possibility of the things you've said. It's one or the other and we should brow beat people until they understand it.

 

[Ourobolus]

I'd rather they count the votes that were suppressed.

 

[Amikami]

Because if this happened, people deserve to know. They want to talk about accountability in politics? Here's the time.

Even though the scenario is unlikely, This. I've already accepted Trump, but this shouldn't ever be allowed when there is knowledge of it. This election will be something that affect people's lives, and for it to have been won through cheating and for nothing to be done or at least for no one to be ousted is a slap in the face. If it was the case, then what's to stop elections moving forward from using this too.

 

[guek]

I'd be all for it even if it only leads to standardized voting procedures with a paper trail.

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever go back to exclusively paper ballots. Electronic voting is here to stay, for better or worse.

 

[Suikoguy]

1) if the U of Michigan director of cyber security called me and said something seems off I'd at least entertain the idea.

2) when adding the context of actual hacking by a foreign state to influence the election then I would entertain the idea even more.

3) they found a listening device at the DNC headquarters. The place was literally bugged and they're not sure by who.

Vote hacking really isn't some batshit crazy claim right now.

Yeah, it's not super crazy.

Also, what the fuck at 3, first I've heard of it.

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever go back to exclusively paper ballots. Electronic voting is here to stay, for better or worse.

Can still do a paper trail with electronic voting.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Nope.

California commissioned a top to bottom review of voting machines in 2007:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/oversight/top-bottom-review/

Many were found extremely wanting. A lot of other states did not follow suit.

Really, the most secure voting system are good old paper ballot systems.

Seems a bit heavy reading on mobile. But I take it you mean they found deficiencies?

I always thought if you use electronic, a voting receipt should be issued to be dropped in a ballot box as a backup. Not having that seems like a massive oversight.

 

[commedieu]

Proof.
Else

Moar tears

 

[Deleted member 80556]

3) they found a listening device at the DNC headquarters. The place was literally bugged and they're not sure by who.

Was this even proved? I thought they said they had found strange radio signals that they thought could be a microphones, but that's it.

 

[blackw0lf]

New York Times writer

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/801207669692526592

Zeynep Tufekci
‏@zeynep

Alex Halderman is among the foremost experts on computer security and he's usually cautious. If he's on board, there should be an audit.

 

[Nephtis]

Evidence would have to be more than rock solid for it to be entertained, let alone done.

 

[WillyFive]

I think she waited too long. Al Gore did a mistake of conceding too early and was smart to stay involved in the results even after election day. She however seemed to just let it be and walk away.

 

[VendettaRed07]

It isn't going to happen.

She made a massive mistake reacting how she did to Trump saying "it's rigged" and how he refused to accept the results.

We knew with Russia's meddling something could happen. Shouldn't have pounced on him so quickly and hard for that. She's going to look like to much of a hypocrite fighting it and has zero political room to do it now.

 

[AndyD]

You understand what the implications of this are if true?

Not good. Not good at all and we all should be worried.

I think if there's a reasonable possibility of widespread fraud, it should be recounted from either side. Integrity of the election system is something that should be sacrosanct regardless of party affiliation. Jerrymandering and vote suppression aside, I mean the actual voting process and security of the machines and counts and whatnot.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

New York Times writer

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/801207669692526592

This is freaking rollercoaster. I don't know who to listen.

 

[televator]

Let's just take the L for the next 4 years.

Nah, I'm good. Gimme 100 recounts before Trump presidency.

 

[Bob Coffee]

If there is something going on, its best that its nipped in the bud now reguardless of the results. I guarantee in the reverse, the trump campaign would demand a recount and investigation if voter shenanigans occurred. If the results show up as nothing shady occured we as a nation know our system is working and we congratulate our current president elect and move on, if there is issues, them we take it head on now so that the integrity of future elections are preserved.

 

[JORMBO]

While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review

What does this even mean?

 

[gamechanger87]

New York Times writer

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/801207669692526592

Yeah and he has no proof other than she underperformed in rural areas with electronic voting. She underperformed in a rural areas.

 

[Choppasmith]

Oh man, what a rollercoaster. If you're going to do it. DO IT.

 

[Gnome Scat]

If they find more evidence of this then it should be looked into, but as of now it would look like a desperate attempt to win.

 

[baxter2231]

How can u do a recount on something that is 100 percent digital? This is why they should be illegal and a paper trail mandated. Plus this will go no where, democrates have no spine and remember the recount in 2000 that didnt happen.

 

[geomon]

Pennsylvania should be recounted just for how close it is.

 

[ratcliffja]

New York Times writer

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/801207669692526592

This reminds me of when somebody claimed that he had proof that Pence was going to withdraw from Trump's campaign, while others backed up his credibility. That of course ended up being nothing at all.

 

[kess]

Have electronic voting machines even been proved practical compared to mechanical methods?

 

[whyamihere]

Evidence would have to be more than rock solid for it to be entertained, let alone done.

And the Clinton campaign looked at the evidence and saw there probably isn't anything here.

If there were, Marc Elias would be the first person to ask for a recount.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yeah and he has no proof other than she underperformed in rural areas with electronic voting. She underperformed in a rural areas.

Where did you read that?

 

[titiklabingapat]

I think she waited too long. Al Gore did a mistake of conceding too early and was smart to stay involved in the results even after election day. She however seemed to just let it be and walk away.

Who cares at this point? Trump and the GOP played really dirty, and continue to do so (See: NC governorship). People say Clinton plays dirty anyway, so might as well live up to the name.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

New York Times writer

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/801207669692526592

Expert on computer security != expert on data analytics. The 7% discrepancy should be compared to other things, like turnout in previous elections, turnout among Democrats in the different counties etc. etc. I'm not sure if this evidence was presented to Clinton, but it's not in the article.

 

[Psychoward]

Of course there was. Its the only way he could've won, by cheating. I hope they can prove it.

:/

 

[Adaren]

Don't play with my heart this way, academia.

 

[newjeruse]

I hope they challenge and find foul play (I think they owe it to the supporters to do so). I hope the election results are overturned. But there is something slightly humorous about the potential of the Clinton campaign not accepting the election results and charging a rigged election (although it's completely within the realm of possibility here).

 

[Zackat]

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Add this to voter suppression efforts removing over a million voters from the rolls (poor, minorities, and college students mostly) in swing states where she lost by a few tens of thousands and I 100% believe some consortium conspired to elect Trump.

 

[Damerman]

I'm not even gonna pay attention to this. They need to make this compelling proof public, other wise stop getting people's hopes up.

 

[Kifimbo]

Both Nate believe this is BS.

Of course, both were also wrong predicting the election results.

 

[Amikami]

Or she just collapsed in those areas (rural) like she did the rest of the country?

So their proof is that she got 7% less of the vote in areas with electronic ballots versus areas with paper ballots.

This completely ignores the fact that overall turnout was down and she got crushed in these areas.

Haha. How cute that you think you need to explain this to me.

First of all, I'd like to tell you to calm down.

Secondly, I'm just stating my understanding of how statistical analysis works. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Third, you should work on not falling into the either-or fallacy, because it could very well be all these factors and ballot hacking that collectively caused Hillary to lose. Even if we had an accurate recount, and it did turn out that Hillary was missing votes, she could still lose and that's fine. It would still be good if abuse was exposed.

Everyone in these threads are always so freaking charged up.

 

[Davide]

Would this have to be done before the electoral college votes for any chance for the result to be changed?

 

[KingBroly]

Where did you read that?

She underperformed in a lot of areas, notably urban areas.

 

[DOWN]

Did they ever figure out why Wisconsin had some counties that had more votes than registered voters?

 

[Finalizer]

Even if she wins those states, she won't win the EV.

If this were to actually turn out to be a thing and she took the three states pointed out in the OP, she'd (barely) win the EV. Not that I really expect this to happen, but with how nuthouse this election has been so far, I don't really rely on my expectations for much of anything anyhow.

 

[fredrancour]

Add this to voter suppression efforts removing over a million voters from the rolls (poor, minorities, and college students mostly) in swing states where she lost by a few tens of thousands and I 100% believe some consortium conspired to elect Trump.

voter suppression efforts were started long before trump decided to make a farce of the country, though. they were designed from the get-go to benefit the candidate with an R in front of the name.

 

[Real Hero]

Grasping at straws, the media I mean. I doubt they taking it seriously with literally no evidence

 

[LotusHD]

Isn't this shit embarrassing by now?

Who cares? Trump being our president is something that'd be actually embarrassing. Honestly, it's quite irksome to hear these type of sentiments, from the reactions to the protests to his victory to stuff like this. If they do indeed want to pursue a recount, I'm completely for it. Not like there's anything to lose at this point.

 

[Raylan]

Jesus.... take the L Clinton and move on.

 

[bunbun777]

Anyone remember 2000? Hanging chads?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Both Nate believe this is BS.

Of course, both were also wrong predicting the election results.

Because the polls were wrong, not them. Nate Silver had ~30% chance of Trump winning. 30 won out.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Grasping at straws, the media I mean. I doubt they taking it seriously with literally no evidence

Never stopped Trump.

 

[Calamari41]

Didn't Stanford University put out the study a little while back that showed Clinton outperformed against Sanders by a significant amount (10% I believe) in states where votes had no paper trail vs states that did?

If she opens this can of worms based on similar evidence, I would question whether her victory over Sanders was legitimate after all.

 

[n0razi]

Some crazy implications if true... people will say whats the point of voting if its hacked anyways

 

[Suikoguy]

She underperformed in a lot of areas, notably urban areas.

Oh, so you don't know what the guy's proof or concerns were?

Didn't Stanford University put out the study a little while back that showed Clinton outperformed against Sanders by a significant amount (10% I believe) in states where votes had no paper trail vs states that did?

If she opens this can of worms based on similar evidence, I would question whether her victory over Sanders was legitimate after all.

Bwhahahaha, BernieBros will NEVER let the primary go, holy shit.