Computer science experts recommend Hillary Clinton challenge election results in 3 swing statesThis is Newsweek reporting, not some clickbait Facebook headline.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
This would be a big deal if electronic machines and paper ballots were randomly assigned across the state. But they aren’t, so this doesn’t look like anything more than urban counties using paper and rural counties using machines.
So you have a cite for how they were assigned? It seems to me bigger urban areas would be more likely to have expensive electronic voting machines than rural areas, which is the opposite of what you allege, but I have no idea if that’s accurate.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
According to the article you linked, they have no actual proof of any election vote manipulation or hacking. They only think there may have been some manipulation based on the fact that the DNC was too stupid to protect their computers from the Russians.
*Last week, prominent computer scientists and election lawyers who noticed suspicious voting patterns in three swing states won by Donald Trump privately urged Hillary Clinton’s campaign to call for a recount, New York reports.
Gabriel Sherman writes that the group, including voting rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believe they have found evidence that in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the results may have been manipulated or hacked.
…While they do not have definitive proof of manipulation or hacking, the group is arguing that the odd patterns merit an independent review, especially since the White House accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee*.
Sent from my Apple IIe using Tapdancingchicken.
Emphasis on the word “only” mine because that’s false. They also see irregularities with the results and feel that they warrant further investigation.
Did you not see that portion of the article? I can cut and paste the relevant portions if you like.
Here’s the closest I’ve found:
PEW Research:On Election Day, most voters use electronic or optical-scan ballots
Looking at their map, it looks like most counties in Wisconsin have mixed optical scan/paper. The rest are one or the other but more optical scan. Doesn’t look obvious to me that paper ballots were used more in urban areas.
Also, according to that Pew map there is no Direct Recording Electronic voting in Wisconsin. So either the map is wrong or those researchers must be equating optical scan with “electronic voting”.
Number one, who’s that smart, smart enough to crack several entirely different systems, change the numbers and leave no fingerprints? Maybe the Russians could crack the DNC, but that’s just one. Anyone here believe the Republicans are smarter than the Russians?
Numero two-o, given the reliability of voter suppression, gerrymandering and lies, why would they bother?
So, what would happen at this point if this came out to be true.
Lets say they crack open some machines, and bunches of votes for Clinton come out, putting her over the top in those states.
Would that actually reverse the election now?
What if it happens after December 19th, or January 20th?
There’s recount deadlines in every state. Think Wisconcin is Friday and Michigan and Pennsylvania are next week. So it’s not going to happen January 20th.
Not going to happen at all. The Republicans got the lawyers, guns and money and there is nothing they won’t do to keep power. Anyone willing to claim that two million fewer votes is a victory, a landslide or a mandate has no shame. Witness the NeverTrump Republicans lining up to kiss the brown ring in repentance. Resistance isn’t necessarily futile, but it does require courage.
Gerrymandering doesn’t have anything to do with the presidential election, at least outside of Maine and Nebraska.
I don’t think you’re clear on how this works. The popular vote and the vote that gave us Trump are not two separate things. We have one election in each state. For each state, we tally up the votes to see who won it, and assign the electoral votes based on that. Then, if for some reason we want to know the popular vote, then we add up those same tallies for all of the states. All of these numbers are publicly available-- You can add them up yourself if you want. In other words, we know exactly where Clinton’s popular vote margin is coming from, and none of it is coming from states that Trump won. It’s conceivable, of course, that someone cheated on the numbers, but if that were the case, the same cheating would also show up in the popular vote total, because it’s the same numbers. So comparing them proves absolutely nothing.
Well of course the biggest three counties in Ohio all went blue. In almost every election, the biggest counties in almost every state will go blue. Likewise, in almost every state, the majority of counties almost always go red. But that doesn’t mean that we should expect all states to vote Republican, either.
(underline added)
Please cut and paste the part where voting rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, or any fellow Bozo, provided any actual evidence of voting fraud. Actual evidence. Something other than “feelings”. Something that will convince a state election committee to hold a recount and assume the cost of that recount. Demanding a recount because they do not understand how Hillary could possibly have lost is not actual evidence.
Wasn’t there a newspaper that called Michigan for Clinton very early in the night? They seemed to think there model showed Clinton couldn’t lose the state …
I’d quibble that if your state is utterly gerrymandered against your interests, you might be less likely to vote.
It’s probably not a big effect, but I’d suspect it has a negative pressure on turnout.
It seems pretty illogical to skip voting in a Presidential race because of gerrymandered Congressional or state legislature districts, but voters do illogical things often enough that I must admit, it’s a possibility.
I’d quibble that many Democrat voters were unimpressed by Hillary, or just didn’t like her. She’s certainly no Barack Obama, so why should they bother to vote.
That’s not a quibble; it’s a completely different point.
quib·ble/ˈkwibəl/
noun
- a slight objection or criticism