Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Barcock;51414703]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?[/QUOTE] Yeah its kinda very dumb that the elections have to be on Tuesday in this day and age of non existent federally mandated off days.

[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] Well, if your assertion is that America isn't a democracy, perhaps it's about due time that it became one? Most people in America already believes that it's a democracy, and it's a huge part of your country's cultural heritage. Maybe it's about time America took steps towards truly becoming the land of the free, where everyone is equal and everyone has the opportunity for success.

Electronic voting booths are usually implemented in richer population dense cities. Rich population dense cities are the ones that vote democrat. There's your 7% disparity. Mystery solved.

[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] It could appear you in fact need a little bit of education about your own country.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51417333]America is a democracy, as explained above, lets stop talking about what America is and isnt and get back on topic, voter fraud possibility in WI, OH and PA [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] ...Except, nope, no such correlation. [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ErWJmIv.png[/IMG] [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] Pink = Optical scan electronic, blue = paperless. [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] [URL]https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.18kg8udh0[/URL][/QUOTE] There can't be a 7% disparity in Michigan and places that only use one voting method for obvious reasons. I think you're misrepresenting what the systems mean as well. Pink means paper ballots that are scanned in, you still fill out a paper ballot. Only a machine is used to tally them up.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51417395]Well it wasnt "obvious" to the computere security expert of a Professor at Uni of Michigan I guess. You should send him an email explaining the implausibility.[/QUOTE] Michigan is an entirely paper ballot state though.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51417433]Optical scan paper can be hacked, and Uni Michigan prof is the original writer talking about all 3 states, his geolocation doesn mean anything - would you please read his piece to see what this is all about? [URL]https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.1nozdv58m[/URL][/QUOTE] 1.) You would require someone to maliciously edit the USB that delivers the instructions to each scanning machine since they're never connected to the Internet. 2.) He says manipulation is not likely. 3.) There's no disparity to look at in Michigan. The only place a disparity was found is in Wisconsin. His entire analysis boils down to "Could it happen? Possibly." "Did it happen? Probably not."

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51417481]Should we audit to make 100% certain? Why the fuck not. This is the whole point. The whole point of having paper trail. Count it.[/QUOTE] Clintons welcome to petition for it if she wants. But states aren't obligated to waste money on scanners if they have to count them all by hand every time anyways

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51417507]Scanners can count overnight. Staffers can count till January. There is no point in having optical scanners instead of raw electronic apart from security. If you dont count the paper wholly, the security argument is void. So you might as well say states should just get electronic and be done with it, which is proven to be a bad idea. Optical exists so people can count those votes. [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] Also if Clinton petitions, she pays out of her pocket for recount*. Pretty discouraging. And IMO, wrong. States should be doing this in the first place. *Recount is funny to use here because how it actually is never counted in the first place, but w/e.[/QUOTE] And if Michigan does a hand count they're paying out of their pocket for the scanning machines and hand counts every single election. Clinton can petition if she wants, that's what the paper ballots are for. Or if it hits the close vote margin.

[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] I think they're happy that the electoral college system declared Trump the winner (even though he lost and Clinton clearly had the majority support of the American people-- 1.7+ million votes ahead of Trump), so they want to spin the narrative. "The electoral college system isn't bad, it's good! It's wonderful! A genius idea!" It's the exact same shit Trump was doing on Twitter: when Obama won in 2012, then it was a terrible idea and "a disaster for a democracy"; now that it's the only thing that allowed him to "win" this election, it's "a genius idea" and he has nothing but praise for it. They're full of shit. Either they don't actually understand how our country works and the fact that it is indeed a democracy (in other words, they're genuinely retarded), or they know the truth but want to hush it up under this ridiculous idea that republicanism isn't a normal democratic system of government.

I'm not even sure why computer scientists are the ones examining this. Should be statisticians.

One thing I've been seeing is people saying Clinton has had more votes for her than any president in presidential history. Voter turnout for 2016 was 55.4% and is at its lowest in 20 years and just barely reaching Gore vs Bush, and only barely having a slightly higher turnout than 1996. 2004, 2008, and 2012 all had turnout at 60% and higher. Then people seem to forget there are more people living in the country today than 30 years ago let alone half a century. Almost a century ago the population was a third of what it is today so her having the most votes ever casted is meaningless. Of course, the only people saying this were liberals on Facebook/Huffington Post/other terrible sources.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51417663]One thing I've been seeing is people saying Clinton has had more votes for her than any president in presidential history. Voter turnout for 2016 was 55.4% and is at its lowest in 20 years and just barely reaching Gore vs Bush, and only barely having a slightly higher turnout than 1996. 2004, 2008, and 2012 all had turnout at 60% and higher. Then people seem to forget there are more people living in the country today than 30 years ago let alone half a century. Almost a century ago the population was a third of what it is today so her having the most votes ever casted is meaningless. Of course, the only people saying this were liberals on Facebook/Huffington Post/other terrible sources.[/QUOTE] Also don't forget, it's a plurality, not a majority, and that's not counting registered voters who didn't vote. She is in no sense the "true" President, anyone who says she is is dangerously close to going down the same road as the Jacobites with Bonnie Prince Charlie.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51417663]One thing I've been seeing is people saying Clinton has had more votes for her than any president in presidential history. Voter turnout for 2016 was 55.4% and is at its lowest in 20 years and just barely reaching Gore vs Bush, and only barely having a slightly higher turnout than 1996. 2004, 2008, and 2012 all had turnout at 60% and higher. Then people seem to forget there are more people living in the country today than 30 years ago let alone half a century. Almost a century ago the population was a third of what it is today so her having the most votes ever casted is meaningless. Of course, the only people saying this were liberals on Facebook/Huffington Post/other terrible sources.[/QUOTE] But Obama had 69 million in 2008, five million more than she has now.

you can make electronic ballots pretty much unhackable if you're not an idiot

[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] These scientists believe that the machines were hacked, yet... [quote]Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review."[/quote] can we start reading the source from now on? [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] i find it funny how you go on to say this in the same thread later, [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51414794]What actual VALID AND SOLID evidence was there to suggest that the Elections might be rigged by Clinton?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=plunger435;51417712]But Obama had 69 million in 2008, five million more than she has now.[/QUOTE] Yeah go tell that to them. They seem to keep spreading this misinformation that she has more votes then any other president in history. I don't know where they are getting that from since Obama set the new standard in 2008.

If there was ever a time to challenge the results, it would be now.

So I've seen a few posts backing or defending the electoral collage. It is not a fair system and has a very racist past. It was designed in mind for the southern states and other states that had high counts of slaves. Those people who owned more slaves had a higher chance of swinging the vote, because a slaves vote only counted about 1/3 of a vote. If you choose not to believe me, go ahead and look it up yourself, the proof is out there. [URL="http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/"]Have a link to start out with[/URL] The EC is an outdated system that has no place in the modern age for America.

Some people mention the whole 'protecting little states against the tyranny of the big states' when defending the electoral college, but isn't that the purpose of the US Senate? To represent each state equally? That's a system that works, and it's something that we also do here with the Australian Senate (except we have twelve Senators per state, not two). In practice, the only states that really matter for the electoral college are each of the ~12 swing states, especially states like Florida, which can determine the election by itself (if you don't win Florida, you're probably not going to win the Presidency). If you live in any of the ~38 safe states, your vote for the Presidency won't really matter, regardless of whether you live in a big state or a little state.