Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51415095]The definition of a sensationalist headline... So here we have computer scientists, with no access to the voting machines, trying to use statistics to "prove" that the vote was rigged. Argument from authority. Any second rate statistician could tell you that their line of reasoning does not follow, but I'll let Nate Silver explain: [media]https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801221907609579520[/media] There's multiple tweets by him on this "news". Also you guys, I thought the machines couldn't get rigged? :^) Bonus lolquote: [media]https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801229361386921984[/media][/QUOTE] If you're going to use the word scare quotes "prove", you would do well to point to some stronger language than "we believe there is a questionable trend" as justification for that "quote". :^)

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51415095]Also you guys, I thought the machines couldn't get rigged? :^)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51414857]Nobody has said that. In fact the general consensus around here was "Why are voting machines allowed?"[/QUOTE]

[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] It's not based on population anymore, either. At least, it hasn't been for the past 103 years. The electoral college stopped scaling by population in 1913, which is one of the primary reasons why it is so broken now. If it still adjusted electoral votes based on population, then fair enough.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51415215]It's not based on population anymore, either. At least, it hasn't been for the past 103 years. The electoral college stopped scaling by population in 1913, which is one of the primary reasons why it is so broken now. If it still adjusted electoral votes based on population, then fair enough.[/QUOTE] It's based on House + Senate + DC gets 3. This is why the small states get 3 votes. Two senators, one house representative.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51415215]It's not based on population anymore, either. At least, it hasn't been for the past 103 years. The electoral college stopped scaling by population in 1913, which is one of the primary reasons why it is so broken now. If it still adjusted electoral votes based on population, then fair enough.[/QUOTE] For the most part, there's an hierarchy - it's just not proportional at all. California has 55 EC votes and a population of 39 million. Texas has 38 EC votes and a population of 27 million. In California, that means one electoral vote is worth 709,000 votes. In Texas, one electoral vote is worth 710,500 votes. That doesn't seem that bad, but once you switch to lower states, it's totally fucked. Wyoming, the best example, has a population of 500,000 and 3 EC votes. In Wyoming, each electoral vote correlates to 166,666ish actual votes. Voters in Wyoming have over 4 times the voting power of voters in California. That's bullshit. I don't know how people keep defending it. If you want rural voters to have more power, reverse urbanization and make people go live on farms again. There's [I]zero[/I] reason why location should determine your voting power.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51415357]Because perverting democracy is okay when the outcome benefits them.[/QUOTE] US isn't a democracy Sorry the same like four states don't have ultimate power over the rest of them

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51415593]US isn't a democracy Sorry the same like four states don't have ultimate power over the rest of them[/QUOTE] Not this again. US actually IS a democracy. Please use google a bit

Give it up guys, I know America will be fucked in 4 years, but there's always Canada, where you can sit back and watch as those rednecks see just how wrong they were about Trump.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51415655]Not this again. US actually IS a democracy. Please use google a bit[/QUOTE] I like watching people in other countries argue about how the United States of America is a "democracy" when it's actually a Representative Democratic Republic in which people vote on representatives who actually make the decisions on the behalf of the people who voted them into office. In this case, residents of states vote on who their state's representatives should vote for in the U.S. presidential election, as well as the congressmen and senators who will represent them on their behalf in congress. The point of the Senate and the House of Reps being different is that bills have to survive both of them, which makes legislation have to stand up to being good for both the most people, and the most states, for a chance at being passed, instead of either simply being best for most states or only best for the most people. I'm not really sure if I agree with the way the electoral college is tied to it (ratio wise) but the house and senate both play very important roles and have very good reasons for being integrated the way they are. Though for the record I don't like "winner takes all", and I don't really like that electors aren't bound in some (Significant) way to respect the choice of their electorate.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;51415668]Give it up guys, I know America will be fucked in 4 years, but there's always Canada, where you can sit back and watch as those rednecks see just how wrong they were about Trump.[/QUOTE] It's cute that people think so but you wait and Canada will go to shitter in the opposite way. Good proof is how easily bill C16 is passing. And with all the liberals going from US to Can, it will only accelerate the process.

[QUOTE=IFawDown;51415252]It's based on House + Senate + DC gets 3. This is why the small states get 3 votes. Two senators, one house representative.[/QUOTE] Yes, and the House of Representatives used to scale based on population. Since the Representatives scaled, and the college is based in part on the number of Representatives, electoral votes scaled based on population size. However, as you pointed out, every state was guaranteed at LEAST three votes. That was the function of the college: to provide a minimum handicap for the smallest states. No matter how small the state, they would have at least three votes, and thus have at least a small print of voting power. Since electoral votes stopped scaling based on population, that is no longer the case. What was once only meant to be a minimum handicap has since transformed into a flat multiplier. Rural states have MORE voting power than the big states, and that was never the intention!

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51415655]Not this again. US actually IS a democracy. Please use google a bit[/QUOTE]Non-American trying to educate others on America. How cute. But, for your own viewing pleasure... [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/10ca3d6b3dfe797101e5866e1c0aaa4c.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Monkah;51416238]Non-American trying to educate others on America. How cute. But, for your own viewing pleasure... [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/10ca3d6b3dfe797101e5866e1c0aaa4c.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] The United States is, among other classifications, a representative democracy and a liberal democracy. I seriously do not understand why there are so many people here trying to sound cool and be edgy by saying that the US isn't a democracy. It's far from a flawless democracy, but it's a democracy nonetheless.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51415683]I like watching people in other countries argue about how the United States of America is a "democracy" when it's actually a Representative Democratic Republic in which people vote on representatives who actually make the decisions on the behalf of the people who voted them into office.[/QUOTE] You should probably get the fuck over yourself before telling people the US isn't a ""democracy"" on the basis of it being a "representative [B]democratic[/B] republic". Like, do you think anyone read your post and suddenly learned we don't referendum literally every bill? Anyone anywhere in the world?

She lost, get over it.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51415593]US isn't a democracy Sorry the same like four states don't have ultimate power over the rest of them[/QUOTE] If those four states with the majority of the population manage to come together unanimously to outvote everyone else then they probably deserve to win the vote. But that wont happen, and it would be much hard to gain a majority in those states if people's votes actually mattered.

[QUOTE=BF;51416250]The United States is, among other classifications, a representative democracy and a liberal democracy. I seriously do not understand why there are so many people here trying to sound cool and be edgy by saying that the US isn't a democracy. It's far from a flawless democracy, but it's a democracy nonetheless.[/QUOTE] 'Democratic republic' is about as close as you're going to get, but even then, it's: 1. In official terms, a constitutional republic. 2. Still not a 'democracy'. A democratic republic and a democracy are not the same thing.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51416358]2. Still not a 'democracy'. A democratic republic and a democracy are not the same thing.[/QUOTE] [B]so please tell me what super misguided theory of the US government you think people have that you're clearing up by posting this?[/B] [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] "it's a democracy" is not specific enough

[QUOTE=Barcock;51416369][B]so please tell me what super misguided theory of the US government you think people have that you're clearing up by posting this?[/B][/QUOTE] 1. [QUOTE=rndgenerator;51415655]Not this again. US actually IS a democracy. Please use google a bit[/QUOTE] 2. The 'super misguided theory' that the electoral college is somehow unintended or a loophole of abuse, instead of exactly how the United States electoral system is supposed to function.

i guess the republic of finland isn't a democracy either

[QUOTE=Monkah;51416382]1. 2. The 'super misguided theory' that the electoral college is somehow unintended or a loophole of abuse, instead of exactly how the United States electoral system is supposed to function.[/QUOTE] Please refer to "'the US is a democracy' is not specific enough". What the fuck do you think people mean by that? Do you think anyone doesn't know we elect our representatives [B]democratically?[/B] So there's like parts of Switzerland and New England that are kinda direct democratic. Great. [B]Nobody fucking thinks the US as a whole is direct democratic.[/B] If you realize this, and still insist on reprimanding people for saying "the US is a democracy" instead of the specific form of democracy that pretty much every proper democracy fucking uses, then you're being pedantic as fuck.

The Clinton camp is running out of time to pursue this, the deadline to get a Pennsylvania recount is Friday. I think they're afraid of going down this path for fear that fraud which helped their campaign might also be discovered. There was a problem with certain Pennsylvania voting machines changing peoples votes to Clinton, for example. You just know if they do this the Republicans are going to push for investigations into all that shit as well, along with charges that high numbers of illegal immigrants voted, which would call into question her popular vote lead. Best for her to fade into the shadows while her supporters try to memorialize her as the "rightful" president cheated out of the office by an unfair system and a misogynistic usurper. That way they can build up some political capital for her family to eventually return to politics.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51415593]Sorry the same like four states don't have ultimate power over the rest of them[/QUOTE] You're right, only the ~10 swing states do.

[QUOTE=Barcock;51416416]Please refer to "'the US is a democracy' is not specific enough". What the fuck do you think people mean by that? Do you think anyone doesn't know we elect our representatives [B]democratically?[/B] So there's like parts of Switzerland and New England that are kinda direct democratic. Great. [B]Nobody fucking thinks the US as a whole is direct democratic.[/B] If you realize this, and still insist on reprimanding people for saying "the US is a democracy" instead of the specific form of democracy that pretty much every proper democracy fucking uses, then you're being pedantic as fuck.[/QUOTE] Their complaints are specifically that the electoral college isn't fair because it doesn't align with the results of the popular vote/direct democracy. I'm saying that it was never [I]meant[/I] to be the exact same thing as a direct democracy.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51416463]Their complaints are specifically that the electoral college isn't fair because it doesn't align with the results of the popular vote/direct democracy. I'm saying that it was never [I]meant[/I] to be the exact same thing as a direct democracy.[/QUOTE] direct and indirect democracies are both democracies

-snip-

[QUOTE=Monkah;51416463]Their complaints are specifically that the electoral college isn't fair because it doesn't align with the results of the popular vote/direct democracy. I'm saying that it was never [I]meant[/I] to be the exact same thing as a direct democracy.[/QUOTE] So, ok, there are people who are concerned with the Electoral College, and I'm one of them, but even if you appeased the fuck out of us and abolished it entirely, [I]hey guess what we're still a democratic republic[/I] therefore your comment "Still not a 'democracy'. A democratic republic and a democracy are not the same thing." makes no distinction of relevance even to anyone you're claiming to be talking to

[QUOTE=Monkah;51416463]Their complaints are specifically that the electoral college isn't fair because it doesn't align with the results of the popular vote/direct democracy. I'm saying that it was never [I]meant[/I] to be the exact same thing as a direct democracy.[/QUOTE] Direct democracy doesn't have anything to do with how people are elected, direct democracy is when the people directly vote on the issues, which I think pretty much everyone agrees is only feasible and good on small scales. Hence, direct! What's with this condescending bullshit you people keep pulling where you think we're just confused and think that the electoral college is a fluke. It's as intentional as the three-fifths compromise, a shitty decision made in the past, except for this one future generations are still tyrannically (using my boy thomas jefferson's language) thrust with it.

why is it that people trying to defend the electoral college on FP always fall down the same argument track of "it protects the interests of smaller states!!!!" which is then shot down and then they go to this fucking nuts argument that america is somehow not a democracy it's like groundhog day, with the same argument again and again.

[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] It's not so much that rigging the election is impossible, as it was that the ideas of how the election was rigged were dumb. Such as the aforementioned "george soros gon rig da masheens" Of course it's theoretically possible to rig an election, but until a claim has been laid out with sufficient evidence to substantiate it, believing that the election is rigged is nothing but irrational.