[Sixstrings]

I'm only posting this because it's being reported on CNN now, so it's not a "not in the mainstream" thing. And I'm just posting this as news, and for discussion. It's just a thing in the news, doesn't mean that "some can't give up on Hillary."

Apparently it's computer scientists that say it looks like there's a 7% vote discrepancy in counties that used paper ballots / scanners versus electronic voting:

Computer scientists say they have strong evidence election was rigged against Clinton in three key states
Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were potentially manipulated, according to prominent computer scientists and lawyers who have spoken with the Clinton campaign

A group of renowned computer scientists and lawyers have urged Hillary Clinton to challenge the election results in three key states after they gathered "evidence" to suggest the election results were potentially manipulated.

The group of activists, including voting rights lawyer John Bonifaz and J Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan's center for computer security and society, believe their evidence shows that results in these three battleground states - which lost Ms Clinton the election on 8 November - might have been hacked.

As reported by New York Magazine, the group is not speaking on the record but is privately lobbying Clinton’s team to challenge the election results.

In Wisconsin, Ms Clinton received 7 per cent fewer votes in counties that depended on electronic-voting machines compared to counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots, and consequently Ms Clinton may have lost up to 30,000 votes. She lost Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

The group has already held a call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to argue that while they have not found conclusive evidence of a hack, the pattern in their results merits an independent review.

Ms Clinton has made no indication she would challenge the results and the White House is intent on a smooth transition.

The deadline to file for a vote recount is between Friday and next Wednesday for the three states.

The vote in Michigan has still not been called as the results on 8 November were very close - and the 16 electoral votes in the state have not been proportioned to either Mr Trump or Ms Clinton.

Mr Trump has 290 electoral college votes, compared to Ms Clinton’s 232 votes. Michigan is likely to be given to the Republican side.

Ms Clinton would need to win Michigan and overturn the results in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to win the electoral college.

Another factor is so-called "faithless electors" who will not vote for the candidate which won in the popular vote in their state. So far, six electoral college voters said they would not vote for Mr Trump.

Meanwhile more than 4.5 million people have signed a petition for more electoral college delegates to defy the instructions given to them in their state.

There have only been 157 faithless electors throughout history but they have never overturned an election.

Mr Trump said on Tuesday during a meeting with the New York Times that he was “never a fan” of the electoral college and he would have preferred to win in the popular vote.

Heba Abedin, the sister of Ms Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin, called on Facebook for people to phone the justice department and request an audit of the vote.

"They are starting to recognise there really is something off about the election results as they come in," she wrote.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania-election-hillary-clinton-hacked-manipulated-donald-trump-swing-a7433091.html

Meet the security expert telling Clinton to contest the election

Without more detail, it’s impossible to judge the team’s claims. But one thing is clear: Halderman is credible and trusted among his peers. ...

“Halderman is very credible, and if he says there are anomalies that deserve investigation, they should be investigated,” wrote Rick Hasen, a professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine, on his Election Law Blog. ...

If the Clinton camp decides to move forward, they may not have much time to do so, according to New York Magazine:

“According to one of the activists, the deadline in Wisconsin to file for a recount is Friday; in Pennsylvania, it’s Monday; and Michigan is next Wednesday.”
https://www.revealnews.org/blog/meet-the-security-expert-telling-clinton-to-contest-the-election/

CNN's report:

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/

Election results may have been hacked in three swing states Trump won, activists want Clinton to seek recount

The magazine said the Obama administration is against a recount because it wants a smooth transition.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/election-results-hacked-3-states-trump-won-article-1.2884089

[Cog]

[Cog]

denial
anger
bargaining <------ This is you Sixstrings
depression
acceptance

[Sixstrings]

denial
anger
bargaining <------ This is you Sixstrings
depression
moving to Canada

Joke!

Oh, the "bargaining" is called our political process, Cog.

Why can't you just be happy that R's are gonna get all these scotus picks and 2nd amendment protected? At least let Trump moderate on other things and make more people happy.

Good grief.

[Pops]

this would be really bad

[Cog]

I was told on this very board, before the election, that Democrat voter fraud was a mythical beast and never happened. And NOW we want to investigate voter fraud because Trump won the election. LOL


Fine. Recount the votes but recount all of them. Especially where Clinton won by large margins in urban areas.

[Sixstrings]

Hillary Clinton Widens Her Lead as Donald Trump Fills His Cabinet

Hillary Clinton has widened her lead in the popular vote to 1.5 percentage points, a spread not seen for a losing candidate since 1876.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

[Cog]

Sixstrings is the reason we have an electoral college. The Founders foresaw his derp.

[Pops]

from wapo

Reached by email, Halderman pointed us to a statement he'd written at Medium. It's a lengthy examination of how vote-tallying systems have been rigged or manipulated in the past, but the most important line (for our purposes) is this one:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

[sjn]

Sixstrings is the reason we have an electoral college. The Founders foresaw his derp.

Actually, you have an Electoral College to prevent partisanship in the Presidential electoral process and because citizens were not expected to be (sufficiently) informed about potential presidential candidates. The purpose was for States to choose (hopefully informed and unbiased) Electors to vote in the Electoral College representing voters interests, after all each State has it's own priorities and concerns. [see the 12th Amendment] The whole party pledge aspect is a corruption of the intent and mechanism of the electoral process. The executive branch (office of the President) is supposed to be outside of the party political framework which de-facto governs the House [checks and balances]. Political Parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution as far as I know.

Edit: Just to point out, if the President is not partisan, neither are Supreme Court Judge nominations. There was no intention for the Judicial Branch to be partisan either!

[Cog]

Sixstrings is the reason we have an electoral college. The Founders foresaw his derp.

Actually, you have an Electoral College to prevent partisanship in the Presidential electoral process and because citizens were not expected to be (sufficiently) informed about potential presidential candidates. The purpose was for States to choose (hopefully informed and unbiased) Electors to vote in the Electoral College representing voters interests, after all each State has it's own priorities and concerns. [see the 12th Amendment] The whole party pledge aspect is a corruption of the intent and mechanism of the electoral process. The executive branch (office of the President) is supposed to be outside of the party political framework which de-facto governs the House [checks and balances]. Political Parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution as far as I know.

LOL I didn't think it was possible for you to post more derp than Sixstrings but you far exceeded my expectations. Go back and review why the electoral college was created.

[sjn]

Sixstrings is the reason we have an electoral college. The Founders foresaw his derp.

Actually, you have an Electoral College to prevent partisanship in the Presidential electoral process and because citizens were not expected to be (sufficiently) informed about potential presidential candidates. The purpose was for States to choose (hopefully informed and unbiased) Electors to vote in the Electoral College representing voters interests, after all each State has it's own priorities and concerns. [see the 12th Amendment] The whole party pledge aspect is a corruption of the intent and mechanism of the electoral process. The executive branch (office of the President) is supposed to be outside of the party political framework which de-facto governs the House [checks and balances]. Political Parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution as far as I know.

LOL I didn't think it was possible for you to post more derp than Sixstrings but you far exceeded my expectations. Go back and review why the electoral college was created.

Which part is wrong? Perhaps the part about the electorate being informed, given the framers weren't really pro-democracy you could argue that wasn't a necessary motivation. IMHO it's probably why you have Republican and Democratic parties, the Constitution was originally written to preserve the US Republic, not the right to vote, since many were disenfranchised, but democracy was a very popular movement during the centuries following the framing of the US constitution and later amendments did address that aspect. Is that all wrong too?

[Cog]

I shouldn't help you at all but because your derp is so strong and is apt to mislead people, google the Connecticut Compromise. The Electoral college and its creation has zero to do with political parties and if you had taken a basic civics class you would know this. Are you even a US citizen? Nevermind. I see you are from the UK. No wonder you are oblivious to US history.

You give me a headache with your inaccurate statements taken directly from liberal talking points instead of actual history.

[sjn]

I shouldn't help you at all but because your derp is so strong and is apt to mislead people, google the Connecticut Compromise. The Electoral college and its creation has zero to do with political parties and if you had taken a basic civics class you would know this. Are you even a US citizen? Nevermind. I see you are from the UK. No wonder you are oblivious to US history.

You give me a headache with your inaccurate statements taken directly from liberal talking points instead of actual history.

So only US citizens are permitted to read and interpret US history? By the way, I would be very surprised if civics classes are accurate when it comes to Constitutional History. The idea of civics classes is to enfranchise young people to become active citizens. That means involving them in the system as it is, rather than as it was intended. I haven't been reading any "liberal talking points", unless you count wikipedia?

[Cog]

You still don't understand or have looked up the Connecticut Compromise. What a surprise since it blows your arguments out of the water. While you are researching that you might want to look up what Virginia(the most populous state at the time) advocated when the Constitution was written. I swear to God, that Google must be broken since no one uses it before they post their liberal derp.

Even in eighth grade I understood why we have an electoral college. And it sure had squat to do with political parties and substituting their judgment for the voter's judgment.

[sjn]

Cog, are you saying the 3 branches of government were intended to be partisan?

You do realise that much of the US system was modelled on the English Parliamentary system and drew its precidence particularly from the Magna Carta? https://archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/print_friendly.html?page=legacy_content.html&title=Magna_Carta

[sjn]

You still don't understand or have looked up the Connecticut Compromise. What a surprise since it blows your arguments out of the water. While you are researching that you might want to look up what Virginia(the most populous state at the time) advocated when the Constitution was written. I swear to God, that Google must be broken since no one uses it before they post their liberal derp.

Even in eighth grade I understood why we have an electoral college. And it sure had squat to do with political parties and substituting their judgment for the voter's judgment.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but the Connecticut Compromise seems to be about the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government through the appointment and terms of the Senate..? This is about the Legislature not the Executive. I'm probably missing something.

Perhaps this is more pertinent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

[Cog]

Not its not. You live in a parliamentary democracy. I live in a constitutional republic. These beasts are nothing alike. My constitution(by limiting what the government can do) protects me against the ravages of the mob democracy that you have in the UK.

But since you refuse to study American history and just spout off whatever progressive talking points come to mind, I will explain it to you.

We have an electoral college because we wished to give representation to small population states instead of just letting large population states decided every single election. That is why each state, no matter how small, has electoral votes. Its a bow to the fact we are 50 United States and not just a mob.

Article 2 of the US Constitution.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

[sjn]

Not its not. You live in a parliamentary democracy. I live in a constitutional republic. These beasts are nothing alike. My constitution(by limiting what the government can do) protects me against the ravages of the mob democracy that you have in the UK.

But since you refuse to study American history and just spout off whatever progressive talking points come to mind, I will explain it to you.

We have an electoral college because we wished to give representation to small population states instead of just letting large population states decided every single election. That is why each state, no matter how small, has electoral votes. Its a bow to the fact we are 50 United States and not just a mob.

I am reading what you have pointed out to me. Yes, you are right they are absolutely constitutionally different despite both having the same starting point of eliminating the power of the English monarch! You did a better job than us! I did mention previously that the US is a Constitutional Republic and democracy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that. The UK isn't entirely a mob-ruled Parliamentary Democracy though, we have an elected lower house "The Commons" and an appointed/hereditary upper house "The Lords". We also have a separate and independent Judiciary (non-partisan) and an explicitly non-partisan Head of State and Established Church (the monarch).

In reply to your edit, okay, that makes sense. The number of electors by state is determined by the number of legislators. But it still says nothing about how they're supposed to vote. Are you saying it was always intended that they would vote according to the Senators/Representatives? Why would it insist that they be different people?

[Cog]

You know as well as I do the monarchy stays out of politics for the most part. And have no real power. Can your judiciary declare an act of Parliament unconstitutional and therefore invalid? Don't see how since you don't have a constitution.