Computer Scientists urge Clinton to challenge results based on results of electronic voting machines

my2hands

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html

JimmyV

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

JC29856

JimmyV said:

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

The simple explanation for the popular vote is Cal, where Hilliary won by 3.3M with La county making up 1.3M of the difference. If you believe that voters on both sides don't stay home because the foregone conclusion, then question is: should California decide who the president is?

ehbacon

Nope rural America should decide who is president because they are much more in tune with reality.

my2hands

i have a feeling Valdimir Putin just decided the election...

JC29856

my2hands said:

i have a feeling Valdimir Putin just decided the election...

I think he will decide it on December 19th.

JimmyV

Neither California nor rural America alone should decide the election. Nor should just the Midwest or the Deep South. This is why I have no problem with the Electoral College. At the same time, we've never seen this kind of split between the popular and electoral votes. It raises questions.

pjhawks

i doubt you could ever prove this but it wouldn't shock me if Trump cheated.

JC29856

pjhawks said:

i doubt you could ever prove this but it wouldn't shock me if Trump cheated.

Project veritas already proved the cheating

Gern Blansten

It is definitely odd that the electoral map went the way that the polls expected except for PA, WI, MI

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

JimmyV said:

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

The simple explanation for the popular vote is Cal, where Hilliary won by 3.3M with La county making up 1.3M of the difference. If you believe that voters on both sides don't stay home because the foregone conclusion, then question is: should California decide who the president is?

Same as every other election though right?

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

JimmyV said:

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

The simple explanation for the popular vote is Cal, where Hilliary won by 3.3M with La county making up 1.3M of the difference. If you believe that voters on both sides don't stay home because the foregone conclusion, then question is: should California decide who the president is?

Same as every other election though right?

pjalive21

haha questioning the election and accusing it of fraud...i thought that was only a Republican thing to do

JimmyV

Nothing these computer scientists are suggesting is anything the campaign shouldn't have noticed themselves. Given the well-known threat of hacking going into election day, wouldn't someone on staff be checking to see if Clinton was underperforming in precincts using electronic voting machines? Audit the vote, sure, but this does feel like a bit of a reach.

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

JimmyV said:

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

The simple explanation for the popular vote is Cal, where Hilliary won by 3.3M with La county making up 1.3M of the difference. If you believe that voters on both sides don't stay home because the foregone conclusion, then question is: should California decide who the president is?

Same as every other election though right?

I'm not sure, haven't looked up the historical popular vote data.
Yes I do realize that typically the union does vote in accordance with Cali.

polaris_x

JC29856 said:

JimmyV said:

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

The simple explanation for the popular vote is Cal, where Hilliary won by 3.3M with La county making up 1.3M of the difference. If you believe that voters on both sides don't stay home because the foregone conclusion, then question is: should California decide who the president is?

again ... this is patently false ... california would have no more of an influence than it currently does ... in fact, any other voting system would pretty much reduce california's impact ...

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

JimmyV said:

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

The simple explanation for the popular vote is Cal, where Hilliary won by 3.3M with La county making up 1.3M of the difference. If you believe that voters on both sides don't stay home because the foregone conclusion, then question is: should California decide who the president is?

Same as every other election though right?

I'm not sure, haven't looked up the historical popular vote data.
Yes I do realize that typically the union does vote in accordance with Cali.

ok so my point was that if the democrat historically has roughly the same popular vote advantage in CA then calling that advantage out for this election doesn't fly.

JC29856

I think if possible feasible, a vote audit should be mandatory every 8-10 years, especially with the introduction of electronic machines subject to intrusion.
I would be all for an audit this year.

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

JimmyV said:

A big part of me believes this is crazy and far-fetched, but it is also the part of me that believed Trump couldn't win, so...yeah. Take that for what it's worth.

This would explain the almost inexplicable gap between popular and electoral vote totals we are seeing. More than 2 million more votes for Clinton as of this morning.

The simple explanation for the popular vote is Cal, where Hilliary won by 3.3M with La county making up 1.3M of the difference. If you believe that voters on both sides don't stay home because the foregone conclusion, then question is: should California decide who the president is?

Same as every other election though right?

I'm not sure, haven't looked up the historical popular vote data.
Yes I do realize that typically the union does vote in accordance with Cali.

ok so my point was that if the democrat historically has roughly the same popular vote advantage in CA then calling that advantage out for this election doesn't fly.

I'm guessing Hilliary leads historically but I'm not sure where to find it. What I'm saying is that historically the union of states vote in accordance with Cal, this year, not so much.

Gern Blansten

Obama had a 3 million vote advantage in CA in 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2012

Clinton's advantage is currently around 3.5 million but that is only using 83% of the vote.

Gern Blansten

Pennsylvania:

2012 Results: Obama 2,990,274 / Romney 2,680,434 = Total 5,670,708

2016 Results: Clinton 2,844,705 / Trump 2,912,941 = Total 5,757,646

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

Pennsylvania:

2012 Results: Obama 2,990,274 / Romney 2,680,434 = Total 5,670,708

2016 Results: Clinton 2,844,705 / Trump 2,912,941 = Total 5,757,646

I was reading an a write up in Forbes about Hilliary huge margins in major cities but it was the suburbs where trump won, especially in pa wis and mich.

mickeyrat

read something the other day that Wi, Mi, and Pa all went for Trump by roughly 1%. 3 MUST win states for him to win. odds of this possibility were said to be huge. Or Yuge if you like. He did say it was rigged, didnt he?.

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

read something the other day that Wi, Mi, and Pa all went for Trump by roughly 1%. 3 MUST win states for him to win. odds of this possibility were said to be huge. Or Yuge if you like. He did say it was rigged, didnt he?.

Yeah that's the odd part. Everything kind of fell into place except for those three states.

polaris_x

Gern Blansten said:

mickeyrat said:

read something the other day that Wi, Mi, and Pa all went for Trump by roughly 1%. 3 MUST win states for him to win. odds of this possibility were said to be huge. Or Yuge if you like. He did say it was rigged, didnt he?.

Yeah that's the odd part. Everything kind of fell into place except for those three states.

and florida

HughFreakingDillon

wouldn't a precise audit take months to conduct? I think HRC's only hope is the electoral collage magically not standing behind trump. which isn't going to happen.

JimmyV

FiveThirtyEight: Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

PJfanwillneverleave1

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/three-swing-states-were-possibly-hacked-during-election-activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-results/ar-AAkFW2R?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp
Ms Clinton has made no indication she would challenge the results and the White House is intent on a smooth transition.

Free

Poor Clinton news network. They just will never get over this loss.

PJ_Soul

Hey, I am a fan of truth. If there was some kind of election fraud or foul play, then it should be thoroughly investigated. I think that well-founded suspicions, even if they may be proven false, are worth an audit. If everything is on the up and up, then there isn't anything to worry about, right? That's why I don't see why anyone would mock calls for an audit (talking to you Free). I would be saying the same if Hillary had won with the same results (combined with the warnings that we heard for weeks from many different players that there could be election interference). I'm saying this without having looked into the reasons why some think there might have been tampering. I do recall reading from various sources that the election was at risk from hackers and various other political activists, etc. I have no clue whether or not they actually did something. I would certainly be interested to see the results of an in depth audit, if only because there apparently hasn't been one for a long time.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
It's sad.