US Presidential Candidates

According to Hilary's Campaign:

Marc E. Elias, general counsel to Hillary for America, wrote a lengthy blog post on Medium explaining in detail why the campaign changed course and is now supporting the effort:

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.

smr says:

1) According to the Obama Administration: The vote was fair and legal.

2) According to the Hilary Campaign: There was no hacking but recount has been initiated and they will participate.

3) Michigan has done 1 full legal recount already because the vote was so close. That initiated a mandatory recount.

4) Where is the proof that hacking changed the election. Their is no proof just unsubstantiated allegation that was later recanted. Annachie...deal with the fact she lost. Their are always going to be elections that a person does not like how the vote turns out. Now, please do not represent that the Russians hacked the elections without proof. That was an allegation but later recanted for a lack of evidence.

Annachie wrote:Well we know the russians did interfere, but honestly we don't know if it was by contract or government orders.
It seems everybody is contracting ... social media assistance these days. (Our government got caught using Indians for example)

As for fiddling with the machines, I really hope that isn't possible. It shouldn't be. Not without fiddling the machines before the election anyway.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Well we know the russians did interfere

No, we know someone claimed "they" did, and as Russia is currently being used as THE designated default Big Bad Evil Enemy, who automatically is responsible for everything bad, that kind of accusation holds about similar reliability to the ones claiming Hillary has assassin deathsquads under her personal control.

Although considering the current US government is trying to start a war with Russia, i wouldn´t exactly be surprised if they DID interfere.

Annachie wrote:It seems everybody is contracting ... social media assistance these days. (Our government got caught using Indians for example)

As for fiddling with the machines, I really hope that isn't possible. It shouldn't be. Not without fiddling the machines before the election anyway.

If someone in Australia could figure out how to hack the Diebold machines(in USA) from his school computer thanks to nothing more than finding the right IP address and some relatively common computer programming skill, i think the probability that the machines can NOT be "fiddled" with is somewhere very close to zero.
With the whitewash around that incident, there´s absolute no reason to believe anyone did anything about it, beyond trying to make sure it wasn´t was easy to detect or as easy for the "WRONG" people to get administrator privileges on them.

1) According to the Obama Administration: The vote was fair and legal.

Uh, yeah and they would say anything else ever?
Unless any voting fraud was blatantly exposed, that´s what they would say.

2) According to the Hilary Campaign: There was no hacking but recount has been initiated and they will participate.

I´ll believe that when someone even slightly reliable actually gets a chance to make sure the voting machines ARE reliable. So far, every time anyone have successfully messed with them, they were proven ridiculously unsecure. AND with software specifically set up to make it easy to cheat by remote access.

That´s the real kicker, why design the software with a hidden remote access backdoor addition that allows secretly changing votes, or even makes the machine automatically skew the result in votes slightly?
Why design a cheat interface into the system if you have no intention of using it?

4) Where is the proof that hacking changed the election. Their is no proof just unsubstantiated allegation that was later recanted.

That´s the beauty of the Diebold machines, IF there was any modification of votes, NO EVIDENCE EXISTS, because the reported numbers are the numbers that will be registered in the machines, even if they´re false.

The ONLY way to actually figure out if there was cheating would be to let everyone who voted also give a paper vote and use that for the recount.

Now, please do not represent that the Russians hacked the elections without proof. That was an allegation but later recanted for a lack of evidence.

That wasn´t even serious. The serious claim was that Russia was behind a lot of the "fun&slander" that ended up marring Clinton´s campaign. Like the wonderful emails.

The Diebold machines were the republican´s little pet project.

At least one reputable news source interviewed a couple of the Russian Trolls working social media boosting for the Trump campaign.
As I said, we don't know who hired the company, but we know they were hired.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Oh, early reports, and I do mean early, seem to have found 5000 votes cast for Trump that were faked. Or about 20% of the margin.
Supposedly the cable news are talking about it, but I haven't had a chance to check properly.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:At least one reputable news source interviewed a couple of the Russian Trolls working social media boosting for the Trump campaign.
As I said, we don't know who hired the company, but we know they were hired.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

And they just amazingly happened to be used as guilt by association against wikileaks, which is currently high on the US govt hatelist.

What an interesting coincedence.

Annachie wrote:Oh, early reports, and I do mean early, seem to have found 5000 votes cast for Trump that were faked. Or about 20% of the margin.
Supposedly the cable news are talking about it, but I haven't had a chance to check properly.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I don't think Trump has much to concern himself with regarding voter and election fraud. This study suggests that the popular vote might be very tainted with illegal votes that would almost invariably go for Hillary. This also does not take into account election fraud in places like Chicago and other one party localities.

We need an overhaul of the current system and the Dems fighting to recount just might shed enough light on this fiasco to get that overhaul.

https://www.scribd.com/document/332480549/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-Research-Study
Non citizen voter registration is a violation of election law in almost all U.S. jurisdictions, the lone exceptions are for residents of a few localities in Maryland. Most non citizens did not cross the initial threshold of voter registration, but some did. In 2008, 67 non citizens (19.8%) either claimed they were registered, had their registration status verified, or both. Among the 337 immigrant non citizens who responded to the CCES, 50 (14.8%) indicated in the survey that they were registered. An additional 17 non citizens had their voter registration status verified through record matches even though they claimed not to be registered. Perhaps the legal risks of non citizen registration led some of these individuals to claim not to be registered. In 2010 76 (15.6%) of non citizens indicated that they were registered to vote in either the pre election or post election survey waves.
snipt.

In 2008, the proportion of non citizens who were in fact registered to vote was somewhere between 19.8% (all who reported or had verified registration, or both) and 3.3% (11 non citizen respondents were almost certainly registered to vote because they both stated that they were registered and had their registration status verified). Even the low end estimate suggests a fairly substantial population of registered to vote non citizens nationwide. Out of roughly 19.4 million adult non citizens in the United States, this would represent a population of roughly 620,000 registered non citizens 4. By way of comparison, there are roughly 725,000 individuals in the average Congressional district.
snipt.
How many non-citizen votes were likely cast in 2008? Taking the most conservative estimate those who both said they voted and cast a verified vote yields a confidence interval based on sampling error between 0.2% and 2.8% for the portion of non-citizens participating in elections. Taking the least conservative measure at least one indicator showed that the respondent voted yields an estimate that between 7.9% and 14.7% percent of non-citizens voted in 2008. Since the adult non-citizen population of the United States was roughly 19.4 million (CPS, 2011), the number of non-citizen voters (including both uncertainty based on normally distributed sampling error, and the various combinations of verified and reported voting) could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.
snipt

smr wrote:According to Hilary's Campaign:

Marc E. Elias, general counsel to Hillary for America, wrote a lengthy blog post on Medium explaining in detail why the campaign changed course and is now supporting the effort:

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.

smr says:

1) According to the Obama Administration: The vote was fair and legal.

2) According to the Hilary Campaign: There was no hacking but recount has been initiated and they will participate.

3) Michigan has done 1 full legal recount already because the vote was so close. That initiated a mandatory recount.

4) Where is the proof that hacking changed the election. Their is no proof just unsubstantiated allegation that was later recanted. Annachie...deal with the fact she lost. Their are always going to be elections that a person does not like how the vote turns out. Now, please do not represent that the Russians hacked the elections without proof. That was an allegation but later recanted for a lack of evidence.

Let's say we even grant all 4 points...


So? Are you going somewhere with this?




Also, apparently the president-elect thinks there were "millions of illegal votes" according to his Twitter spew this morning. So, recount obviously needs to happen to ensure the integrity of the results. RIGHT? I mean, you don't get to claim the results were influenced illegally to the tune of MILLIONS of illegal votes then get pissed off people want to double check those results.



(And Russia interfered in the election... they just did. )

PeterZ wrote:

Annachie wrote:Oh, early reports, and I do mean early, seem to have found 5000 votes cast for Trump that were faked. Or about 20% of the margin.
Supposedly the cable news are talking about it, but I haven't had a chance to check properly.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I don't think Trump has much to concern himself with regarding voter and election fraud. This study suggests that the popular vote might be very tainted with illegal votes that would almost invariably go for Hillary. This also does not take into account election fraud in places like Chicago and other one party localities.

We need an overhaul of the current system and the Dems fighting to recount just might shed enough light on this fiasco to get that overhaul.

https://www.scribd.com/document/332480549/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-Research-Study
Non citizen voter registration is a violation of election law in almost all U.S. jurisdictions, the lone exceptions are for residents of a few localities in Maryland. Most non citizens did not cross the initial threshold of voter registration, but some did. In 2008, 67 non citizens (19.8%) either claimed they were registered, had their registration status verified, or both. Among the 337 immigrant non citizens who responded to the CCES, 50 (14.8%) indicated in the survey that they were registered. An additional 17 non citizens had their voter registration status verified through record matches even though they claimed not to be registered. Perhaps the legal risks of non citizen registration led some of these individuals to claim not to be registered. In 2010 76 (15.6%) of non citizens indicated that they were registered to vote in either the pre election or post election survey waves.
snipt.

In 2008, the proportion of non citizens who were in fact registered to vote was somewhere between 19.8% (all who reported or had verified registration, or both) and 3.3% (11 non citizen respondents were almost certainly registered to vote because they both stated that they were registered and had their registration status verified). Even the low end estimate suggests a fairly substantial population of registered to vote non citizens nationwide. Out of roughly 19.4 million adult non citizens in the United States, this would represent a population of roughly 620,000 registered non citizens 4. By way of comparison, there are roughly 725,000 individuals in the average Congressional district.
snipt.
How many non-citizen votes were likely cast in 2008? Taking the most conservative estimate those who both said they voted and cast a verified vote yields a confidence interval based on sampling error between 0.2% and 2.8% for the portion of non-citizens participating in elections. Taking the least conservative measure at least one indicator showed that the respondent voted yields an estimate that between 7.9% and 14.7% percent of non-citizens voted in 2008. Since the adult non-citizen population of the United States was roughly 19.4 million (CPS, 2011), the number of non-citizen voters (including both uncertainty based on normally distributed sampling error, and the various combinations of verified and reported voting) could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.
snipt

That study is apparently very contraversial, with many experts disputing its findings; and even its author says it wouldn't account for Trump's popular vote shortall. Although if there is indeed such a massive amount of fraudas he claims then a recount/audit is certainly in order...

That's right. We need a recount and thorough review on all the close states for both sides. Voter fraud with illegals is not the biggest problem. Voter rolls with dead people and people registered in multiple precincts is much worse.

I am all for recounting all those close states. IThe Dems want to destroy the legitimacy of the Trump administration, fine. Let's have a complete review of the entires election including the voter rolls of all states at the precinct level. I believe SCOTUS gave that authority to the Feds with Gore v Bush under the equal protection clause.