• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crayon

Member
1 The gop would be on this like flies on shit if they lost.

2 We are not seeing whatever these experts are seeing that is making them call for action.

3 does anyone seriously believe the republicans are above tampering or being complicit with tampering?
 
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.

Certainly, I'd normally think this is in pure conspiracy territory, but considering the systematic efforts of the GOP to gerrymander through suppressing minority voters and redrawing boundaries over the years, I would not be surprised at all if some sort of tampering has gone on.
 
Where did you read that?

In the article, they state that they have no proof of hacking other than a discrepancy in the number of votes they expected her to get in areas with electronic voting. In Wisconsin, the areas with electronic voting are rural while the metro areas where she did well are paper.

According to this computer expert, Clinton received 7% fewer votes in areas with electronic rather than paper ballots. Rather than stating that she collapsed in rural areas across the US (which she did) they claim this 7% discrepancy is the result of hacking.
 
I wouldn't be surprised tbh, I did think about this possibility a day or two after the election considering how ass backwards everything was
 
1 The gop would be on this like flies on shit if they lost.

2 We are not seeing whatever these experts are seeing that is making them call for action.

3 does anyone seriously believe the republicans are above tampering or being complicit with tampering?

Point number 1 needs to be bolded, italicized and underlined on every page.
 

slit

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

Yeahhhh.

I love Hillary Clinton.

But challenging the result would cause more problems than it solves.

Let's just hope Mike Pence is actually the secret President of "domestic and foreign policy" and can moderate Trump's more ridiculous foreign policy ideas, as well as not fuck stuff up too bad domestically.

Take the fucking L democrats. Try again in 2018.

Why would they take the L if there is evidence? That would be downright stupid.


That being said I find this very far fetched and unlikely but on they very remote chance it is true, you wouldn't want to know? That's ridiculous!
 
For everyone saying "take the L" or "let it go". This was posted by Angelus Errare in the Electoral thread. Its a quote by MLK.

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
 

Theonik

Member
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.
Even if you did that, there is no way of knowing the result on that piece of paper is not compromised, how do you verify the machine marked the right thing?
Also congratulations you just went back to paper ballots but more expensive and with less control.
 

Kyzer

Banned
If she won and "Donald Trump mulling recounts, possibility of hacks (no proof)" was the thread, we'd be facepalming in unison
 
Did they check for a lurking variable that explains the correlation? Maybe more conservative/racist counties are more likely to use electronic voting machines.
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
If she won and "Donald Trump mulling recounts, possibility of hacks (no proof)" was the thread, we'd be facepalming in unison

And yet, he'd be asking for it, and probably most of the GOP would support him.
 
She's not "mulling a recount". The article doesn't suggest that at all, only that these guys are lobbying Podesta and a few other campaign aides.

Also, the deadline for filing for a recount is in a couple of days.

Also also, the White House doesn't want this.

It's over
 
Honestly I dont think it will change the outcome of election even if Michigan and Wisconsin flip blue. Democrats will just look like whiny pooh poohs and sore losers. If the recount happens and she still doesn't win, it will be losing twice.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
In the article, they state that they have no proof of hacking other than a discrepancy in the number of votes they expected her to get in areas with electronic voting. In Wisconsin, the areas with electronic voting are rural while the metro areas where she did well are paper.

According to this computer expert, Clinton received 7% fewer votes in areas with electronic rather than paper ballots. Rather than stating that she collapsed in rural areas across the US (which she did) they claim this 7% discrepancy is the result of hacking.

I'm skeptical it's this black and white, otherwise they would've accounted for that. It sounds like a overly simple answer to a complicated question.

The only way I see them actually believing this could be true is if counties with similar demographics performed differently based off whether they used electronic vs paper ballots.
 

Real Hero

Member
For everyone saying "take the L" or "let it go". This was posted by Angelus Errare in the Electoral thread. Its a quote by MLK.
Great quote but hardly relevent to getting your hopes up over with something with no evidence. Not sure what your point is, if anything the media hyping pointless stuff like this is a nice distraction from the issues black folk face and may increasingly face under trump
 
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.

I'm not getting charged up at all. I'm just commenting on the fact that people are grasping at straws for why she may have lost. Nymag is essentially posting that these experts have no proof of hacking other than she underperformed in areas that she underperformed across the US. Thus they demand an investigation.

She lost these areas because she was an uninspiring candidate that got killed in rural America. Not because someone hacked these voting machines. Unless they hacked these voting machines across the entire US to make sure she lost all of these rural areas as well.
 
Even if you did that, there is no way of knowing the result on that piece of paper is not compromised, how do you verify the machine marked the right thing?
Also congratulations you just went back to paper ballots but more expensive and with less control.
I believe you're allowed to look at your receipt before you drop it in the box.
 

KingBroly

Banned
In the article, they state that they have no proof of hacking other than a discrepancy in the number of votes they expected her to get in areas with electronic voting. In Wisconsin, the areas with electronic voting are rural while the metro areas where she did well are paper.

According to this computer expert, Clinton received 7% fewer votes in areas with electronic rather than paper ballots. Rather than stating that she collapsed in rural areas across the US (which she did) they claim this 7% discrepancy is the result of hacking.

So they're basing it on polling data, which was proven to be wrong across the board?
 

Chris R

Member
Noting will change from this.

Work on trying to make the systems unhackable for 2018, and making sure that the people purged from voting rolls are back on them and able to vote.
 

Amikami

Banned
I'm not getting charged up at all. I'm just commenting on the fact that people are grasping at straws for why she may have lost. Nymag is essentially posting that these experts have no proof of hacking other than she underperformed in areas that she underperformed across the US. Thus they demand an investigation.

She lost these areas because she was an uninspiring candidate that got killed in rural America. Not because someone hacked these voting machines. Unless they hacked these voting machines across the entire US to make sure she lost all of these rural areas as well.

I see. Well you have to understand that since you quoted me, I assumed you were responding directly to my talk about statistics. Sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom