Was the US election hacked?

[Argus]

It seems there is to be a recount in Wisconsin, and possibly in Michigan and Pennvylvania as a variety of experts and statisticians start openly suggesting there was something fishy about the numbers. Clinton's popular vote is higher than Trump's by a record margin, and some alleged experts think someone may have fixed the vote.

A number of experts with suspicions are pushing for recounts in certain swing states that Trump captured — counter to a string of pre-election polls — or at least audits of randomly selected votes.

The United States’ wholesale shift to electronic balloting after the 2000 Florida recount — with its punch cards and hanging “chads” — has left the systems open to outside, malicious tampering, elections-systems specialists warn.  here is already evidence of Russian hackers trying to interfere in the election less directly — and directly in a recent Ukrainian vote.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/world/calls+grow+recount+vote+amid+concerns+about+russian+hacking/12425940/story.html

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein says she has gathered enough money to fund a recount in Wisconsin.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38090185

[DogOnPorch]

'Experts' w/o agendas.

[Guest]

This election just keeps on giving...

[TimG]

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

Quote

We found no apparent correlation⁵ between voting method and outcome in six of the eight states, and a thin possible link between voting method and results in Wisconsin and Texas. However, the two states showed opposite results: The use of any machine voting in a county was associated with a 5.6-percentage-point reduction in Democratic two-party vote share in Wisconsin but a 2.7-point increase in Texas, both of which were statistically significant.⁶

...

When we included all counties but weighted the regression by the number of people living in each county, the statistical significance of the opposite effects in Wisconsin and Texas both evaporated.⁸

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by TimG

[Boges]

Voting fraud is only a problem when the party you like loses. 

When it revolves around requiring photo ID to vote, Voter fraud is a myth. 

[DogOnPorch]

It's the Greenies wanting it...not Hillary. Hillary has remained quiet re: recounts.

Dr Zira: What will he find out there, Doctor?

Dr Zaius: Himself.

[Guest]

Maybe she feels guity...

Unofficial results from the state showed Mr Trump won by only 27,000 votes, media in the state say. The BBC's results show he won 47.9% of the vote, with 46.9% going to Mrs Clinton (Jill Stein won only 1% of the votes there).

Edited November 24, 2016 by bcsapper

[BC_chick]

So Jill Stein got the recount going for Wisonsin:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38112752

[BC_chick]

I doubt anything will come of any of it, but I do find it funny to see Trump supporters throwing out the childish insults after they were so convinced election fraud is a real threat.  

[bush_cheney2004]

Any such recounts will likely have zero impact on the federal election results.   

American elections routinely have undercounts, overcounts, spoiled ballots, and purposely ignored ballot races.

Trying to make the results match pre-election polls is an exercise in denial.

 

[sharkman]

On 24 November, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Boges said:

Voting fraud is only a problem when the party you like loses. 

When it revolves around requiring photo ID to vote, Voter fraud is a myth. 

So true!  The left is grasping at straws, here.  This idea of winning the popular vote is a red herring.  California's Clinton total over Trump was over 3 million.  

And in New York, she got 1.5 million more than Trump.  Two very liberal states skewed the numbers of the popular vote but Clinton still never got any really close states that a recount might overturn.  

Either way, Trump ended up with 306 electoral votes and it's not even close, sooner or later the denial will end.  It's kind of sad, though.  There is no evidence of any kind of tampering, it's an simply an accusation based on an undesired result.  

California

Edited November 26, 2016 by sharkman

[Argus]

59 minutes ago, sharkman said:

So true!  The left is grasping at straws, here.

It is... interesting, and statistically odd that in districts of Wisconsin where they used computer machines Clinton's vote was 7% less than in other districts which did not...

[kimmy]

Ultimately I doubt anything of any significance will be discovered. I certainly don't see any harm in checking the results, though.

1 minute ago, Argus said:

It is... interesting, and statistically odd that in districts of Wisconsin where they used computer machines Clinton's vote was 7% less than in other districts which did not...

I gather that many of these machines are computer-only and have no paper record, so how could they even do a recount?

 -k

[BubberMiley]

8 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Ultimately I doubt anything of any significance will be discovered. I certainly don't see any harm in checking the results, though.

I gather that many of these machines are computer-only and have no paper record, so how could they even do a recount?

 -k

I think the plan is to audit the process to see just how Russia hacked it.

[sharkman]

44 minutes ago, Argus said:

It is... interesting, and statistically odd that in districts of Wisconsin where they used computer machines Clinton's vote was 7% less than in other districts which did not...

And what about the above mentioned result in Texas?  And I believe Texas is a strong Republican state.

[Wilber]

I doubt this could change the result but you would think it would be in everyones interest to know if their electronic voting process is secure.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, kimmy said:

Ultimately I doubt anything of any significance will be discovered. I certainly don't see any harm in checking the results, though.

I'm not sure about "harm" but this costs lots of money.

Stein's fundraising goal was $2.5 million — and donors blew right past it. At that point, as New York magazine first reported, the goal spiked to $4.5 million, and new language on the donation page admitted that costs could rise higher. “The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law,” wrote the Stein campaign. “Attorney's fees are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $6-7 million.”

Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount?

It's a scam.

[Wilber]

22 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm not sure about "harm" but this costs lots of money.

Stein's fundraising goal was $2.5 million — and donors blew right past it. At that point, as New York magazine first reported, the goal spiked to $4.5 million, and new language on the donation page admitted that costs could rise higher. “The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law,” wrote the Stein campaign. “Attorney's fees are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $6-7 million.”

Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount?

It's a scam.

If people want to donate to pay for a recount, why should you care, or don't you care if a system has been corrupted as long as your guy wins.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

If people want to donate to pay for a recount, why should you care, or don't you care if a system has been corrupted as long as your guy wins.

I don't care. My guy won.

[Wilber]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

I don't care. My guy won.

That's what I thought. 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Wilber said:

That's what I thought. 

Yes, I'm with the "deplorables", and we have the power now.

[sharkman]

22 minutes ago, Wilber said:

If people want to donate to pay for a recount, why should you care, or don't you care if a system has been corrupted as long as your guy wins.

Well, the real reason for this green party driven effort is that Trump won't allow their enviro cult to influence things any further than they already are.  They'll do anything at this point, and taking money from innocents on a lottery type chance of overturning the election is worth it to them.  

Meanwhile in other grasping at straws activity, the electoral college has been receiving death threats.  Sore losers are starting to come unhinged.

Edited November 27, 2016 by sharkman

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, I'm with the "deplorables", and we have the power now.

You got it. Trumpist hypocracy. Before the election the system was rigged and they wouldn't accept the result. After they won, they don't care if it was rigged or who rigged it. Such respect for democracy. Worthy of a banana republic.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Wilber

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You got it. Trumpist hypocracy. Before the election the system was rigged and they wouldn't accept the result. After they won, they don't care if it was rigged or who rigged it. Such respect for democracy. Worthy of a banana republic.

Yeah but also, before the election the system wasn't rigged. Now it is ...

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

It's a scam.

My thoughts exactly.........if it weren't, the DNC would be leading the charge.