Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the soros'-programmers-screwed-up dept.

CNN Wire reports via KTLA TV in Los Angeles

Hillary Clinton's campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[...] The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides [on November 17].

The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners.

[...] [It was noted that] Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.

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.

[...] A former Clinton aide declined to respond to questions about whether they will request an audit based on the findings.

Additionally, at least three electors have pledged to not vote for Trump and to seek a "reasonable Republican alternative for president through Electoral College" according to a [November 16 statement] from a group called the Hamilton Electors, which represents them.

"The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as the last line of defense", one elector, Michael Baca, said in a statement, "and I think we must do all that we can to ensure that we have a reasonable Republican candidate who shares our American values."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Hairyfeet on Friday November 25 2016, @06:05AM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday November 25 2016, @06:05AM (#432765) Journal

    Besides the whole thing is bullshit, as multiple pollsters have pointed out Stein is ignoring demographic and education data to make her bullshit seem plausible...gee someone on the left ignoring reality because it doesn't follow her narrative...why am I not surprised?

    Anyway if you look at both the demographics and age/education level of the areas in question? They fall right into line with the rest of the USA, with the more rural, elderly, and HS educated voting Trump while the urban college educated voted HRC. Is there anybody surprised by this, really?

    And what everyone should be ROYALLY PISSED about is those in the electoral college refusing to do their fucking jobs, does everybody here realize they just said "We don't give a fuck what you peasants want, you didn't vote as we wished so we are gonna ignore your votes"? Everyone does realize this, right? The voters in those states just had their votes STOLEN by people they did NOT elect, have NO control over, and who are obviously not beholden to the people. This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 25 2016, @09:46AM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday November 25 2016, @09:46AM (#432803) Journal

    And what everyone should be ROYALLY PISSED about is those in the electoral college refusing to do their fucking jobs, does everybody here realize they just said "We don't give a fuck what you peasants want, you didn't vote as we wished so we are gonna ignore your votes"? Everyone does realize this, right? The voters in those states just had their votes STOLEN by people they did NOT elect, have NO control over, and who are obviously not beholden to the people. This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

    Wow, just about everything in this paragraph is exactly opposite to the truth. Let's break it down shall we?

    those in the electoral college refusing to do their fucking jobs

    Their job is to vote for the next president, according to their own conscience. That's why they exist at all. It even says it right there in The Fine Summary: "The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as the last line of defense." If they don't get to exercise some level of discretion in their voting, why have them at all? They would be completely redundant.

    so we are gonna ignore your votes ... The voters in those states just had their votes STOLEN by

    No, their votes are not being stolen or ignored. They voted for those electors, and those are the electors they got.

    people they did NOT elect, have NO control over, and

    who are obviously not beholden to the people.

    They are beholden to whatever oath, promise or contract they agreed to when they took on the role of elector. I'm willing to bet that the content of that text prioritises defending the constitution and the well-being of the country above blind, robotic obedience to the will of the electorate.

    This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

    I was in error above: When I said "Just about everything in this paragraph is exactly opposite to the truth", I should have said "absolutely everything in this paragraph is exactly opposite to the truth."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:24PM (#433000)

      Their job is to vote for the next president, according to their own conscience. [...] If they don't get to exercise some level of discretion in their voting, why have them at all?

      The issue is that voters are presented a slate of choices marked "electors for [SPECIFIC NAMES]". If someone is given resources for a specific, identifiable purpose and that person runs off and uses those resources for something else, that's called theft by conversion, if not just straight-up pre-planned fraud.

      I know there are cases where electors can weasel-word their way past the elector-election process, but there is a serious issue here (among many, many, many others) if what is presented on the "menu" doesn't match the "ingredients".

      They are beholden to whatever oath, promise or contract they agreed to when they took on the role of elector. I'm willing to bet that the content of that

      Translation: you don't know.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:57AM (#433147)

        The issue is that voters are presented a slate of choices marked "electors for [SPECIFIC NAMES]".

        They're not marked "electors for [SPECIFIC NAME]", they're marked "electors from [political party that won the popular vote]", and its their duty and responsibility to refuse to vote for a candidate if they're utterly incompetent or will damage the country or constitution. Or, in Alexander Hamilton's words, the duty of the electoral college is to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”, to preserve “the sense of the people,” and ensure that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday November 27 2016, @06:02AM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Sunday November 27 2016, @06:02AM (#433549)

    This is the real crime in this election, hundreds of thousands of votes taken away by unelected bureaucrats, you can't get more undemocratic than that!

    Yes you can. You can have the one with the most votes not win the election.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:53PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:53PM (#433622) Journal

      Sigh you DO know we do it the current way for a REASON, yes? Because if we didn't do it this way we would truly have taxation without representation as it would require only 3 states, NY, CA, and TX, to vote together as a block to completely control the other 47 states. Wouldn't matter what the other states wanted, wouldn't matter what their people thought, because they wouldn't have enough population to challenge them. This would also encourage the crap we are seeing now like "sanctuary cities" because all that would matter is how many people you could get into your state to give you more political power.

      Oh and just FYI if you remove CA, a state where they refuse to allow voter ID and have made it clear they have no problem [dailycaller.com] with illegals voting [wordpress.com]? Then suddenly HRC loses. Gee, a a state with millions of illegals and a political machine that courts them actually voting against someone who is gonna make them actually follow the law and take away federal funding for sanctuary cities....wow who would have thought?

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 28 2016, @10:57PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday November 28 2016, @10:57PM (#434270)

        Sigh you DO know we do it the current way for a REASON, yes? Because if we didn't do it this way we would truly have taxation without representation as it would require only 3 states, NY, CA, and TX, to vote together as a block to completely control the other 47 states. Wouldn't matter what the other states wanted, wouldn't matter what their people thought, because they wouldn't have enough population to challenge them.

        Together, CA, NY and TX control only 122 electoral votes, far from enough to win the election by themselves. They also represent about 27% of the US population, roughly 85,000,000 million people. Let's create a theoretical situation based on your supposition that NY, California and Texas could vote as a bloc to completely control the other states. Assume that every voter in those three states voted for Candidate A. Then let's assume that in every other state, Candidate B won by only one vote. In that case, a little over 100,000,000 people (assuming the total population of each state is fairly represented by registered voters) just outvoted over 200,000,000 million people. Essentially 49 people outvoted them. You can win 11 of the 12 most populous states (exclude NC for this theoretical application) unanimously, representing 268 electoral votes and roughly 56% of the US population, and a win in every other state by one vote would mean that roughly 250,000,000* out of 317,000,000 would not be represented by who they voted for, with the 39 winning votes cancelling 250,000,000 votes. The Electoral College is tyranny of the minority.
        *The 56% plus half of the population in the remaining states.