As Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote now passes the 2 million mark, a group of computer scientists and election lawyers has reportedly pressed her campaign team to petition for recounts in three battleground states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—because the election results may have been compromised as a result of hacking or manipulation.
Wait a minute.
Before the election, weren't these same experts and media clamoring that the US voting system was secure and that it was un-American, unpatriotic, destabilizing, and outright dangerous to suggest that the elections might be rigged? And that Trump was completely off-base to suggest that hanky-panky could occur?
I have every confidence in our voting officials.
That is, I have every confidence that some of them think they can get away with it and will cheat at every opportunity.
Just look at Katherine Harris.
Greg Palast has shown that every election in recent history was questionable. Why should this one be any different?
And I would guess that the fraud is home-brewed and it is very unlikely to be the result of Russian hacking (although they will get blamed for it).
Exit polls were compiled in 29 states by Code Red. Like 2004, they show a strong "Red Shift" compared to election results.
Just Google Code Red 2016.
24 out of 29 states results "shifted" to Republican compared with what exit polls were showing compared to only 4 states with a "Blue shift".
All the states outside of the margin of error had a Red Shift.
For 29 states you would expect 1 or perhaps 2 to be outside the 95% Margin of Error (MOE). However it appears that seven states are outside of their MOE: UT, MO, NJ, OH, ME, NC, IA. All of them are "red shifted".
This problem impacts more than the swing states and impacts the validity of the popular vote count... which is likely under reported.
This is most likely caused by electronic voting machines with private code in the hands of (R) companies.
A separate issue (which is likely unrelated) is Greg Palast's finding of the CrossCheck program to knock off voters with common names (disproportionately Dems or Independents) who didn't respond to a mailer that looks like junk mail.
OK somebody explain to me why we are listening to ANYTHING Nate Silver has to say about any subject?
Anyone recall the reporting (only one day in passing as an aside by MSM) of electronic voting machines not working in SC, GA, NC, AL, etc? And there are two lone companies whose machines are used that contract private companies including those outside our nation's borders (Spain, for example) to count the votes. Here is an excellent article on electronic voting that is still relevant today: HOW A PRIVATE COMPANY COUNTS OUR VOTES ON ELECTION NIGHT
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
Read it and weep. Nate Silver is a genius!
I can just hear Putin cackling right now...he has successfully enthroned his клоун (Russian for clown), who is absolutely clueless that he, the master manipulator (in DJT's own mind) has been manipulated by someone far more ruthless and cunning.
And the electoral college simply hands over the election of the president to 15 states leaving 35 others whistling in the wind. It is outdated, ineffective, undemocratic, and virtually disenfranchises millions of voters...as has been proven with the anointment of the worst-ever, least-qualified thus the most dangerous criminal candidate for president in our nation's history.
A greater than 2% discrepancy in the exit polls is considered by the State Dept. to be an indication of election fraud in other countries. When 12 states had much larger discrepancies in the primary, all favoring Clinton, with AZ as much as 30% off, no one wanted to talk about election fraud then.
Irony of ironies. Win due to cheating, Lose due to cheating.
If the people who Oppose the manual Audit/recount are so Sure the results are 100% Honest, what harm is there in Verifying that honesty?
After all, None of these machines has Ever been Audited in any meaningful manner.
We are just supposed to "Trust" with No Verification.
That's the basic recipe for Corruption.
The best way to Steal an election is Not by creating a "Landslide" but by making the results appear to be just Close enough that no one bothers to check.
Oh, and as a 30 year computer professional, I can tell you that it would only take about 12 lines of code buried in the middle of thousands to do this. You write the code so that it only steals votes when the "Rigged" candidate is Losing. And you make sure the winning margin is never more than 3% when flipping the votes. All this can be done with that same 12 lines of code. It ain't even "Rocket Science" level code. The average High School beginner could write it.
That same media machine also suggested that while the results of the election would be accurate (they were expecting a Clinton win) that the Russians would likely plant false stories in the press of them being hacked.
Silver always said Trump could win. He also pointed out that swing state polling showing Clinton with an edge were within the margins of error in most of those polls.
I wonder if she would want to do that knowing it may open a can of worms for her and the primary. Still if she did she would be applauded by most just for exposing those damn machines that are still in play.
When using electronic voting machines, all a "recount" can do is give you the very same results as the first time around. Such recounts are meaningless. The only way a recount can reveal different results is if voting is done/verified on paper. With Black Box voting, there is no way to know the accuracy of any vote count.
It's interesting how Clinton's team had nothing to say about voting irregularities in the primaries--all of which tipped the scale in Clinton's favor over Sanders. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Hmmm.... I think all around this election has been about which candidate's team could rig things the best. Disturbing and fascinating.
I have always thought that if voting was so sacred and important, the government , our government would never have outsourced it to the private sector. It would have been developed within the state governments and that code would have been proprietary to the people - or state. Unfortunately our representatives do not have the foresight or care about the integrity of this - or they would have understood what they are doing and how it should be protected. Well maybe they did understand what they were doing - They want to outsource everything.
Speaking of that has anyone considered that the government has more or less handed over transactions to the banking sector. Instead of the government issuing a debit card with no fees (a cash card) replacing government issued cash, the government has allowed most transactions to be handled by the banks who get a 2-3% cut on every transactions vs. 0% on cash transactions. That is a huge windfall to the banking sector and this seems to be never discussed. Does anyone see that?
Why are the experts "quietly asking Clinton camp", why aren't they speaking loudly, like Trump? He proclaimed the apparatus is rigged and he was right! That's why he won. A democratic election means one person one vote. We do not have a democratic system according to our Constitution. So let's speak loudly on the subject. Let's demand an election system that counts all the votes as cast and can be verified. The system we have is not transparent nor accountable and out forebears would be shocked that we would tolerate such a system. It is only human nature to cheat and only a fool would say that no cheating is going on in our unaccountable system. Not only do we have a fraudulent system, we've got experts pussy-footing around, afraid to point out that the king has no clothes.
The question is, which election has more evidence of election fraud? The Democratic primary or the general election? I say the Democratic primary. So if the general election results can be overturned, then the primary should be overturned as well. And TPTB wonder why a majority of people don't even bother to vote. This country has become a sorry joke in so many ways.
"quietly asking" ...
... suuuuuuure ... of course ...
... that "style" has worked wonders thus far ...
... hey, look ... it's God damned President tRump ...
... and his Cabinet of Deplorables ...
The problem is not fraud. The problem is that in all but two states (Nebraska and Maine) the winner of the popular vote gets all of the electoral votes. This means that The Donald with fewer popular votes than Hillary can win the election in the Electoral College if enough small states voted for The Donald. This is not democracy because our Constitution begins: "We the people"; it does not begin: "We the states...." The Electoral College is not representative of the population of the country because all states get two electors because they have two Senators. This means small states have proportionately more influence than large states. This is the result of states' rights nonsense that was forever rejected when the south lost the Civil War.
The people do not elect the president; a small number of unelected electors elects the president. Why we do not amend the Constitution to have direct election of presidents escapes me. We amended the Constitution to have direct election of Senators (they originally were selected by state legislatures) 100 years ago. We need to get rid of an Electoral College that gives us a president who has the support of only a minority of the population.
The Russians had nothing to do with the outcome of this election. But - it absolutely was manipulated. I've seen computer programmers testify how hacking electronic voting machines is 'child's play, virtually untraceable and costs peanuts.' It is from hacking that my progressive state of Wisconsin, is being torn to shreds from Walker and his hideous, corrupt clan. In his recent book 'Matrix of Deceit' author Richard Charnin (mathematician and election statistician) explains how Walker has held onto power from machines flipping votes. Please go to his blog or find him on YouTube, to get the unabashed truth, of what's been taking place in regard to our elections.
The irony here is: Charnin proved the DNC did the same to Senator Sanders.
Did you ever consider that it is not "we" that every does anything but "they?" The illusion that keeps us going is that "we" are the ones who make decisions and implement them. That is a very sophisticated mechanism of control - consent of those who don't really have anything do to with anything. I'm talking about the major functions of our government.
Political Parties select nominees. They don't have to use primary elections to do this. If you think this election was bad, you need to read the history of the 1968 election. LBJ was the sitting president but because of a strong anti-war movement, he was challenged in the primaries by Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. LBJ won all the primaries until March when he decided to drop out. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated and McCarthy went to the convention as the only candidate with any primary votes. The Party gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey even though he had not entered a single primary.
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat (he is an Independent). The Democrat Party can certainly choose not to nominate Sanders even if a lot of people favor Sanders (some states have open primaries where you don't have to be a Democrat to vote in the primary of the Democrat Party). Primary elections are party elections and parties determine nominees. In a general election, parties are irrelevant (both Washington and Madison warned the country agains the formation of political parties).