Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - Polidicks

[quote] (CNN)Hillary Clinton's campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to a source with knowledge of the request. The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday. The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html[/url] sehr interessant

the ride never stops but, if I were a toxxing man, I'd bet this won't go anywhere

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51414663][url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html[/url] sehr interessant[/QUOTE] -snip- Sorry got angry a bit.

This year is quite the rollercoaster.

I do struggle to understand why the Electoral College is a thing that's allowed to exist. Having their votes be what matters over the popular vote doesn't strike me as particularly democratic. If anything it smells a bit like an oligarchy, though maybe not the usual definition of an oligarchy. And thing is, if I were an American, I probably would have voted Hillary by this point. Not because she's decent, but because she's a Democrat, and the last thing Earth needs right now is a return to Republican "rule".

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51414684]This year is quite the rollercoaster.[/QUOTE] at this point should she? She wins if all three states are found to been hacked.

[QUOTE=ironman17;51414691]I do struggle to understand why the Electoral College is a thing that's allowed to exist. Having their votes be what matters over the popular vote doesn't strike me as particularly democratic. If anything it smells a bit like an oligarchy, though maybe not the usual definition of an oligarchy.[/QUOTE] remainder of a time when it was easier to enforce vote legitimacy by conglomerating votes into single travelling individuals to represent small areas rather than people just claiming to have x votes from their region or everyone trying to mail every ballot to one location nowadays people justify it as ensuring rural areas have federal representation... as though congress doesn't exist for just this thing, which for years has had a red trend

So, the machines we're allowed to access and scrutinize for 12 hours every four years (that is, .03% of the time) likely failed in a manner already probably too late to properly investigate? [url=http://enwp.org/Bush%20v.%20Gore]Again?[/url] You don't fucking say. I'm actually in the wrong to link to that one particular case, gruesome as it may have been, because literally every election cycle some failure of our 12-hours-every-four-years system comes up... after the winner's announced. Tell me again why we didn't have a Constitutional right to cast our vote any number of weeks prior to the election?

So 3 electors have pledged not to vote for Trump. Interesting... Maybe they could try to convince the electors from those states to do the same thing.

What happened to "voting machines can't be rigged, that's a right wing conspiracy!" If the shoe fits...

After the shit that we've seen suggested in Kansas with Brownback I'm not surprised. Electronic voting machines are ridiculous. At the very least they should be open sourced and under intense scrutiny. [QUOTE=bitches;51414669]the ride never stops but, if I were a toxxing man, I'd bet this won't go anywhere[/QUOTE] What happens in the event of a switch? Do the toxxed users get unbanned? That would make for a hell of a ride.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51414710]After the shit that we've seen suggested in Kansas with Brownback I'm not surprised. Electronic voting machines are ridiculous. At the very least they should be open sourced [/QUOTE] I'm disappointed that the only alternative to our current system of 12-hours-every-four-years bumfuck voting machines is 12-hours-every-four-years bumfuck hanging-chad-ass paper bullshit ballots, people seem to think.

[QUOTE=bitches;51414696]remainder of a time when it was easier to enforce vote legitimacy by conglomerating votes into single travelling individuals to represent small areas rather than people just claiming to have x votes from their region or everyone trying to mail every ballot to one location nowadays people justify it as ensuring rural areas have federal representation... as though congress doesn't exist for just this thing, which for years has had a red trend[/QUOTE] Part of me feels like maybe, rather than have it be a choice between red and blue, either have red AND blue together in perfect balance, or just do away with all notions of red and blue. Trouble is, the concept of having two Presidents, one from either side, would probably be a recipe for disaster. Or the premise for a god-awful sitcom.

Honestly, this would be a can of worms which would probably open up for all sorts of voter fraud investigations. We are talking from simple stuff like the possibility of machines being borked to illegal immigrants voting and deliberate machine borking.

I think they should do the recount. She doesn't have to go to the media and be loud about it, just let the recount happen and see the results. If it changes anything, then we can get loud. She's won like 2 million more votes in the pop vote anyways, Dems need to start acting like it.

[QUOTE=ironman17;51414721]Part of me feels like maybe, rather than have it be a choice between red and blue, either have red AND blue together in perfect balance, or just do away with all notions of red and blue. Trouble is, the concept of having two Presidents, one from either side, would probably be a recipe for disaster. Or the premise for a god-awful sitcom.[/QUOTE] Or, ya know, instant runoff so it's necessarily more than just Trillary versus Trillary

I don't quite follow this "runoff" you're talking about. I'm not familiar with that term in that context.

[QUOTE=ironman17;51414731]I don't quite follow this "runoff" you're talking about. I'm not familiar with that term in that context.[/QUOTE] Vote for any number of candidates in order of precedence. If nobody gets a majority, the loser of losers is scratched off, and the vote is tallied again. If nobody gets a majority, the loser of losers is scratched off, and the vote is tallied again. If nobody gets a majority, the loser of losers is scratched off, and the vote is tallied again. Etc, etc. No more "a vote for a third party is a vote for the guy I don't like!" No more Bernie stepping down to not split the ticket.

I'm surprised the DNC has yet to accuse a certain somebody with tampering with the election, seeing how fast they were to accuse him of hacking their email.

[QUOTE=ironman17;51414731]I don't quite follow this "runoff" you're talking about. I'm not familiar with that term in that context.[/QUOTE] It means you rank candidates from most to least desirable. If your first choice doesn't win, he's removed from the race and it gets recalculated with your second choice. This way, third party candidates like Sanders can compete against classic Democrat/Republican candidates. It would remove the Primaries process that boils the candidate pool down to two. It addresses the core concern with voting third party: imagine if half the democrats voted for hillary, half for sanders, and the rest for trump? trump would win with 50%, or potentially even just 40% if it was a 30/30 hillary/sanders split

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414709]What happened to "voting machines can't be rigged, that's a right wing conspiracy!" If the shoe fits...[/QUOTE] because like any conspiracy, there was actually 0 evidence to back this up. now that we do have evidence provided by these scientists that the election might have been rigged...

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51414746]I'm surprised the DNC has yet to accuse a certain somebody with tampering with the election, seeing how fast they were to accuse him of hacking their email.[/QUOTE] Because for weeks President Obama was assuring everyone that the elections can't be rigged, there is no voter fraud, and that the electronic voting machines are fine. [quote]The group informed John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, and Marc Elias, the campaign's general counsel, that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.[/quote] 7% relative to other counties? What a shitty way to compare voting results. Of course different counties are going to vote differently. Clinton lost those states because her campaign assumed those states were going to vote her way no matter what. When are people going to give into the fact that Clinton was a terrible choice for the Democrat ticket and that she ran a shitty campaign that was terribly low effort?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51414754]because like any conspiracy, there was actually 0 evidence to back this up. now that we do have evidence provided by these scientists that the election might have been rigged...[/QUOTE] "There weren't scientists pointing to the results of the 2016 election before the 2016 election, so we had no reason to believe the 2016 election might be rigged" I kinda sorta see a problem with that logic, regardless of any ridiculousness of Trump's claims.

[QUOTE=Barcock;51414766]"There weren't scientists pointing to the results of the 2016 election before the 2016 election, so we had no reason to believe the 2016 election might be rigged" I kinda sorta see a problem with that logic, regardless of any ridiculousness of Trump's claims.[/QUOTE] innocent until guilty; you think it's more logical to believe it would be rigged [I]without evidence?[/I]

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414760][B]Because for weeks President Obama was assuring everyone that the elections can't be rigged, there is no voter fraud, and that the electronic voting machines are fine.[/B] 7% relative to other counties? What a shitty way to compare voting results. Of course different counties are going to vote differently. Clinton lost those states because her campaign assumed those states were going to vote her way no matter what. When are people going to give into the fact that Clinton was a terrible choice for the Democrat ticket and that she ran a shitty campaign that was terribly low effort?[/QUOTE] It's at the point where the current administration, MSM, and otherwise have assured people that the machines are fine and couldn't possibly be rigged, and this has basically put them in a tight spot where they cannot really try to say otherwise without looking like gits.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51414754]because like any conspiracy, there was actually 0 evidence to back this up. now that we do have evidence provided by these scientists that the election might have been rigged...[/QUOTE] There wasn't zero evidence lmao Any computer system can be hacked into, all it takes is someone with the right know how to do it. It doesn't take a computer science degree to figure that out. The entire point of my post was to poke fun at all of the reassurances that the election was clean (despite russia coming to get us!!!!!!11) because Trumpers were crying about voter fraud. The only reason this message was put out there in the first place was because everyone was sure that Trump was going to lose and Trumpers were going to be up in arms about how electronic voting machines were owned by the evil george soros and couldn't possibly be utilized fairly. But now that the tables have turned it went from crazy alex jones conspiracy to a legitimate concern. funny huh

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51414778]It's at the point where the current administration, MSM, and otherwise have assured people that the machines are fine and couldn't possibly be rigged, and this has basically put them in a tight spot where they cannot really try to say otherwise without looking like gits.[/QUOTE] But these are completely unrelated computer scientists going "uh hey something looks fishy over here"

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414780]There wasn't zero evidence lmao Any computer system can be hacked into, all it takes is someone with the right know how to do it. It doesn't take a computer science degree to figure that out. The entire point of my post was to poke fun at all of the reassurances that the election was clean (despite russia coming to get us!!!!!!11) because Trumpers were crying about voter fraud. The only reason this message was put out there in the first place was because everyone was sure that Trump was going to lose and Trumpers were going to be up in arms. But now that the tables have turned it went from crazy alex jones conspiracy to a legitimate concern. funny huh[/QUOTE] it didn't help that the biggest outcry of "hillary will rig the election" was something as legitimately crazy as manufactured videos about getting illegal immigrants to vote by the bus-load

I'm actually kind of hoping Hillary gets the electoral vote. Not because I want her to win (which I did), but because hopefully that would turn even more of the general public against the electoral college. [sp]Plus the ridiculous amount of alt-right butthurt[/sp]

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414780]There wasn't zero evidence lmao Any computer system can be hacked into, all it takes is someone with the right know how to do it. It doesn't take a computer science degree to figure that out. The entire point of my post was to poke fun at all of the reassurances that the election was clean (despite russia coming to get us!!!!!!11) because Trumpers were crying about voter fraud. The only reason this message was put out there in the first place was because everyone was sure that Trump was going to lose and Trumpers were going to be up in arms about how electronic voting machines were owned by the evil george soros and couldn't possibly be utilized fairly. But now that the tables have turned it went from crazy alex jones conspiracy to a legitimate concern. funny huh[/QUOTE] What actual VALID AND SOLID evidence was there to suggest that the Elections might be rigged by Clinton?