Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/According to a report Tuesday in New York Magazine, a group of computer scientists and election lawyers have approached the Hillary Clinton campaign with evidence they believe suggests the election might have been hacked to make it appear that Donald Trump won the Electoral College when Clinton really did. The hacking claim appears to be based on concerns about tampering with electronic voting machines. Weve looked into the claim or at least, our best guess of whats being claimed based on what has been reported and statistically, it doesnt check out.
Theres no clear evidence that the voting method used in a county by machine or by paper had an effect on the vote. Anyone making allegations of a possible massive electoral hack should provide proof, and we cant find any. But its not even clear the group of computer scientists and election lawyers are making these claims. (More on this in a moment.)
The New York article reports that a group that includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and computer scientist J. Alex Halderman presented findings last week about Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to top Clinton campaign officials to try to persuade them to call for a recount. Exactly what those findings were isnt clear. The New York article includes just one example, a finding that Clinton did worse in counties in Wisconsin that used electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots.1 Its not clear what data the group was using to call for a recount in Michigan and Pennsylvania, or if it was looking at data at all: It could have chosen those states because they were the ones besides Wisconsin that Trump won with the smallest margins. Bonifaz, Halderman and the Clinton campaign officials mentioned in the article didnt respond to requests for comment or more detail about the study.
Theres no clear evidence that the voting method used in a county by machine or by paper had an effect on the vote. Anyone making allegations of a possible massive electoral hack should provide proof, and we cant find any. But its not even clear the group of computer scientists and election lawyers are making these claims. (More on this in a moment.)
The New York article reports that a group that includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and computer scientist J. Alex Halderman presented findings last week about Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to top Clinton campaign officials to try to persuade them to call for a recount. Exactly what those findings were isnt clear. The New York article includes just one example, a finding that Clinton did worse in counties in Wisconsin that used electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots.1 Its not clear what data the group was using to call for a recount in Michigan and Pennsylvania, or if it was looking at data at all: It could have chosen those states because they were the ones besides Wisconsin that Trump won with the smallest margins. Bonifaz, Halderman and the Clinton campaign officials mentioned in the article didnt respond to requests for comment or more detail about the study.
Let's stop doing what the right tried to do (claiming Trump won the pop vote or that "illegal immigrants" were HRC's pop vote margin), and accept that Trump got to 270 electoral votes without rigging it.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1054 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results (Original Post)
ericson00
Nov 2016
OP
Trump probably did win...but if there is even a ghost of a chance of stopping him
LostOne4Ever
Nov 2016
#1
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)1. Trump probably did win...but if there is even a ghost of a chance of stopping him
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]We have to take it.
There is too much at stake not to try. [/font]
longship
(40,416 posts)3. I'll go along with you on this.
But it is pretty hopeless.
MI uses only paper ballots, not easy to hack, and certainly not to the extent of thousands of votes.
I don't know about WI.
But PA is clearly out of reach.
Seems to be a hopeless case.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)2. Hmmm, I will accept Trump winning,
when all voting discrepancies have been thoroughly investigated. The last thing we should do is roll over for them.
My how short are memories are. Why would you allow them to rant about us stealing the election over, and over, and not investigate it.