Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - Polidicks

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51414791]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.[/QUOTE] I don't understand all of the hate on the electoral college. The electoral college is a fair system fundamentally because it ensures that the majority of the states get to determine the who the president is, not a million and a half people in California. e: [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51414794]What actual VALID AND SOLID evidence was there to suggest that the Elections might be rigged by Clinton?[/QUOTE] Who said rigged by Clinton? I said rigged period. It's a computer system. A series of electrical circuits. Anyone with access to the machine and a knowledge of circuits can manipulate said machine to do what ever they want. (That's how computers work, they can't make decisions on their own)

[QUOTE=Barcock;51414715]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] i got a solution to this! use fucking paper ballots that don't have stupid ass punches in them. Optical scanners are way harder to hack since they have absolutely no reason to be networked if someone can't figure out how to mark a box on a form with help at the polling station then nobody can really help them.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414798]I don't understand all of the hate on the electoral college. The electoral college is a fair system fundamentally because it ensures that the majority of the states get to determine the who the president is, not a million and a half people in California. e: Who said rigged by Clinton? I said rigged period.[/QUOTE] electoral college votes by state are based on population density within those states it is not split evenly or by land mass

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414798]It's a computer system. A series of electrical circuits. Anyone with access to the machine and a knowledge of circuits can manipulate said machine to do what ever they want. (That's how computers work, they can't make decisions on their own)[/QUOTE] That's not evidence. It's like saying there's reason to believe that I'm about to rob a bank just because I can.

2016 the ride that hilariously and morbidly never stops to scare the living hell out of you

[QUOTE=bitches;51414819]electoral college votes by state are based on population density within those states it is not split evenly or by land mass[/QUOTE] Yes, you're correct.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51414825]That's not evidence. It's like saying there's reason to believe that I'm about to rob a bank just because I can.[/QUOTE] except we do have evidence of russia communicating with trump's team and with them hacking the DNC. I'm not saying this will probably change any outcomes but this election has continued to be the shittiest of shitshows so far

Can the 7% difference be explained by demographic differences? Couldn't the difference also be used to suggest the opposite? How easy is it for illegal or dead people to vote with a physical ballot vs an electronic one?

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414829]Yes, you're correct.[/QUOTE] therefore your opposing assertion was incorrect

[QUOTE=bitches;51414770]innocent until guilty; you think it's more logical to believe it would be rigged [I]without evidence?[/I][/QUOTE] If your standard for consideration that the election in year X might be rigged is the existence of discrepancies in the election results of year X, you've got a problem

[QUOTE=IFawDown;51414842]How easy is it for illegal or dead people to vote with a physical ballot vs an electronic one?[/QUOTE] The process is the same for paper and electronic. What proof you have to provide saying that you are who you claim to be varies from state to state but as long as you provide a name and a valid address in that state, and the name you're wanting to vote under is in their book of registered voters, you're given a ballot. [QUOTE=bitches;51414845]therefore your opposing assertion was incorrect[/QUOTE] How was it incorrect, you need a majority of the state electoral votes to win ???

[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] Circumstantial evidence that the scientists themselves refused to actually call evidence, to be fair.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51414836]except we do have evidence of russia communicating with trump's team and with them hacking the DNC. I'm not saying this will probably change any outcomes but this election has continued to be the shittiest of shitshows so far[/QUOTE] I'm ignoring that for the sake of appeasement.

[QUOTE=Barcock;51414847]If your standard for consideration that the election in year X might be rigged is the existence of discrepancies in the election results of year X, you've got a problem[/QUOTE] you are basing this on your misunderstanding of ROFLBURGER, who was not saying that pre-election expetations of a rigged system should be based on post-election results, but rather that there [I]was no evidence to support the idea that this election would be rigged[/I], before it took place unless you'd like to share some

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414709]What happened to "voting machines can't be rigged, that's a right wing conspiracy!" If the shoe fits...[/QUOTE] Nobody has said that. In fact the general consensus around here was "Why are voting machines allowed?"

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51414857]Nobody has said that. In fact the general consensus around here was "Why are voting machines allowed?"[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.npr.org/2016/08/04/488688926/president-obama-the-election-will-not-be-rigged[/url]

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414849]The process is the same for paper and electronic. What proof you have to provide saying that you are who you claim to be varies from state to state but as long as you provide a name and a valid address in that state, and the name you're wanting to vote under is in their book of registered voters, you're given a ballot. How was it incorrect, you need a majority of the state electoral votes to win ???[/QUOTE] you said that the electoral college's purpose is to inflate the votes of less populated states so that more populated states would not decide the outcome of elections even if this is how it ends up applying in the modern day, it was not the purpose at inception, hence most campaigning taking place in "battleground" states instead of rural communities

[QUOTE=bitches;51414865]you said that the electoral college's purpose is to inflate the votes of less populated states so that more populated states would not decide the outcome of elections even if this is how it ends up applying in the modern day, it was not the purpose at inception, hence most campaigning taking place in "battleground" states instead of rural communities[/QUOTE] I never said that's what the purpose was, I simply said the system was fair because at the end of the day the person with the most electoral votes wins.

[QUOTE=bitches;51414854]you are basing this on your misunderstanding of ROFLBURGER, who was not saying that pre-election expetations of a rigged system should be based on post-election results, but rather that there [I]was no evidence to support the idea that this election would be rigged[/I], before it took place unless you'd like to share some[/QUOTE] I don't have any - granted I haven't looked - I just object to the notion that ROFLBURGER seems to find nothing wrong with shitting on those who suggested the election would be rigged in a thread about evidence that the election was rigged. Like, at least take it elsewhere, huh?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51414852]I'm ignoring that for the sake of appeasement.[/QUOTE] ya i mean its all circumstantial at this point, but they aren't arguing they have proof, just large statistical anomalies that need to be investigated.

If evidence is found of tampering/foreign interference in our election, holy shit what a firestorm that will be. There definitely will be a recount [and I'm kinda hoping for one]

[quote]...while they had not found any evidence of hacking...[/quote] Wow so it's literally nothing, more denial and desperation by the looks of it, people still can't accept that she lost.

[QUOTE=IFawDown;51414842]Can the 7% difference be explained by demographic differences? Couldn't the difference also be used to suggest the opposite? How easy is it for illegal or dead people to vote with a physical ballot vs an electronic one?[/QUOTE] not really, there's not really any way for people to choose not to vote by electronic machine or paper one.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51414879]I never said that's what the purpose was, I simply said the system was fair because at the end of the day the person with the most electoral votes wins.[/QUOTE] appeal to status quo in law is not an argument for fairness

[QUOTE=wystan;51414976]Wow so it's literally nothing, more denial and desperation by the looks of it, people still can't accept that she lost.[/QUOTE] I don't believe that any significant vote manipulation occurred, but them saying that they haven't found any evidence isn't the same as them saying that they [i]conclusively[/i] haven't found any evidence. For all anyone knows, maybe there's evidence out there that hasn't been found yet. It's probably going to be a dead-end because America's democratic process is still very effective and Trump fairly won within the rules, but it doesn't hurt to be inquisitive about any aspect of the democratic process being flawed, and checking to see if anyone abused that flaw. It's not about denial or desperation, it's about accountability, truthfulness and fairness.

[QUOTE=bitches;51414819]electoral college votes by state are based on population density within those states it is not split evenly or by land mass[/QUOTE] And it should be based on that. Why should a state like Wyoming with under a million people have the same power as California, which has a population over 60 times larger? People bitch and moan about how their vote would be insignificant under a popular vote, even though it's even more so insignificant with an electoral vote. How is a winner takes all system fair to voters? The people themselves should be choosing the president.

[QUOTE=BF;51415043]I don't believe that any significant vote manipulation occurred, but them saying that they haven't found any evidence isn't the same as them saying that they [i]conclusively[/i] haven't found any evidence. For all anyone knows, maybe there's evidence out there that hasn't been found yet. It's probably going to be a dead-end because America's democratic process is still very effective and Trump fairly won within the rules, but it doesn't hurt to be inquisitive about any aspect of the democratic process being flawed, and checking to see if anyone abused that flaw. It's not about denial or desperation, it's about accountability, truthfulness and fairness.[/QUOTE] Well written post. I agree with thinking this will ultimately be a dead end, I just want to January to come already so these people can move onto to the next thing to complain about, when his actual presidency starts.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51415077]And it should be based on that. Why should a state like Wyoming with under a million people have the same power as California, which has a population over 60 times larger? People bitch and moan about how their vote would be insignificant under a popular vote, even though it's even more so insignificant with an electoral vote. How is a winner takes all system fair to voters? The people themselves should be choosing the president.[/QUOTE] see that's two seperate problems, nowhere does it say that the electoral college [I]had[/I] to be winner take all, its just how every state set up their system and the parties encouraged it. If every state had a proportional electoral college you'd see the republican base collapse since states like Texas and Arizona pretty much split their votes between the two parties.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51415095] Also you guys, I thought the machines couldn't get rigged? :^) [/QUOTE] I thought Nate Silver was a hack fraud guys :^^^)

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51414723]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.[/QUOTE] Then perhaps it's time that bullshit got addressed.