By him? Or by his supporters?
How would we find out? How could it be uncovered?
And would it change anything?
I believe our elections are too localized for a large scale rigging to take place.
Over here in Florida, we vote by paper ballot, although the initial count is put on a jump drive which is then driven by each precinct leader to the canvassing board. Nothing is connected to the internet. So Florida’s totally legit.
I have been wondering about this. Given that all of the votes get tallied through computers at some point, and given the hacking that already took place this cycle, is it really out of the realm of possibility that the election was manipulated?
I don’t think it was or could be rigged. But I’m tempted to imagine vocal critics accusing certain states of rigging anyway and forcing the Republican establishment prove that it wasn’t.
We could look into it, but it doesn’t seem likely given that while some machines are hackable, they aren’t networked so you’d have to hack all of them.
It’s possible that a state has a much less secure system that I don’t know about, so someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but this is where having 50 different state elections works for us.
You wouldn’t have to hack all of them, just counties where a vote jump would help your candidate and wouldn’t be suspicious.
Paper ballots in FL, are they hand tallied or scantron type? After they are tallied, the jump drive is taken to a central location, right? From there, based on “jump drive”, I’m guessing it’s electronic. The ballots aren’t what would get hacked. It’s the tallies.
If the US government could build Stuxnet to take down Iranian uranium processing, I don’t see why key districts in swing states couldn’t be tampered with. I’m not saying it happened, but I think the technical capabilities exist.
The only plausible way to alter the Florida count would be to hack a key canvassing board, since in Florida they were done by county. But that seems really unlikely since Trump ran up big numbers in the small rural counties, whereas Clinton murdered him in Dade and Broward. If you want to give the election to Trump, and remember, you have to go by what you think is going to happen beforehand, then you probably want to hack Dade, but in hindsight that wouldn’t have mattered since Trump didn’t need a boost in Dade.
Other states might have more vulnerable systems. And really, I’m curious enough myself that if Clinton or Democrats want a hand recount in Florida just to find out if anything was fishy, go for it. But if you’re worried about hacking it’s probably better to look into one of the other states, like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. especially Wisconsin, since Scott Walker can be a little shady sometimes.
What happens if somebody mailed in an absentee ballot and then showed up at the polling place anyway? I’d assume if he was questioned, this person would claim he decided to vote in person and disposed of his absentee ballot.
Is there a point where some officials compares the absentee voter list and the in-person voter list and sees that this person voted twice? I would assume the result would be both votes get invalidated, correct?
Obviously, no one is calling a recount on my say so. 
I still think it’s possible, but I’ll stop before I fall down a CT rabbit hole and never get out. :eek:
We’ve been complaining for years that the system is too lax, although liberals are right that it’s a very small problem. If Trump had won a state by like .5% or less than I think you start looking into such things, but he actually won by a healthy margin in the electoral college.
That point comes when you show up at the polling place and they look your name up. Voters who requested absentee ballots are marked as such in the book. You might be able to request a provisional ballot, which will be counted only if your absentee ballot is not counted.
That’s my question. At what point do they compare the list of absentee ballots cast to the list of provisional ballots cast?
I made a thread herediscussing exit polls and the margins between the two parties going from 2012 to 2016.
Results? Hillary actually won blue states on the west coast, as well as the swing states in the southwest and south by wider margins than Obama did in 2012.
Example: Obama won California by 23 points in 2012 (60 vs 37) Hillary won by 29 points, (62 vs 33).
However she did about 6-12 points worse in virtually all the midwest and northeast states. Hillary did 6 points worse than Obama in PA, but she also did 7 points worse in NY.
So if the election were rigged there are several questions that don’t make sense:
-
Why did Hillary do better in the swing states in the southwest and south than Obama did in 2012? Wouldn’t rigging the swing states be the first priority?
-
Why did they rig virtually all the states in the northeast and midwest, even though some are solidly blue and some solidly red? OH moved 12 points to the right from 2012 to 2016. But so did Maine and Rhode Island. However those 2 states are so deeply blue that they still went blue despite Hillary having a margin 12 points lower than Obama. Why go through the trouble of rigging Rhode Island if it is just going to turn blue anyway? Rhode Island was 55 to 40 in 2016, a 15 point margin for Hillary. It was 63 to 35 in 2012, a 28 point margin for Obama.
-
Why rig states that are already red? Montana and South Dakota moved far to the right too. But they would’ve gone red anyway.
The guy who complained that the election was rigged just got elected with the second-highest vote total.
Go figure.
I’m not saying I necessarily believe this but here are some things to think about:
-
Conservatives often attack their opponents with their own vices. Crowing about a rigged election when you know you are rigging it is a good way to inoculate yourself from accusations of cheating.
-
The election systems in several states were hacked. Most likely by Russians who we now know have been coordinating with the Trump Campaign all along.
-
Is it impossible they uploaded some kind of Malware to adjust the vote totals? It doesn’t take a lot. Removing a few thousand votes from Clinton and adding a few thousand to Trump in just a few counties in a few states is all that is necessary.
-
It would fit the fact that polls, including exit polls don’t seem to match the vote totals in several places. And these discrepancies always seem to be in favor of Republicans.
David Pakman posted this video Monday (I have no idea who he is; I discovered this thanks to Flying Rabbit’s thread about the video): Math Increasingly Suggests Election Fraud Against Hillary Clinton.
I wanted to include it in this thread. I am not a statistician or mathematician, but would love to hear from someone who is.
So now some computer security experts, who have long warned about the vulnerability of computerized voting systems, say Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.
In other words: a suggestion of vote hacking that needs verification.
I think this is naive.