Wikipedia
New York Magazine: Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I doubt that this challenge will succeed. But what I find interesting about this report is the following ....
.... At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.
I can only imagine if this was a close election with only a difference of a few electoral votes ..... and these 6 electors then do this.
Update: Was Hillary robbed of election by HACKERS? Experts urge Clinton to demand recount after gathering evidence that 'shows voting anomalies in key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania AND Wisconsin' (Daily Mail).
6 comments:
I want Donald J. trump to stand up, have some huevos, and demand that there be a recount in any state or district which election experts feel may have been compromised by interlopers. That would be a good thing for the country!
But how could anything be wrong? Dems always say that there is no such thing as voter fraud. They have resisted using ID so that anyone can vote as easily as possible. Why would there being anything wrong with the vote count?
Three states now believe election machines hacked. Dems never said all was ok
And note gerrymandering which fixes election for sure
Right now it appears all they have a hunch that there may have been malfeasance based solely upon the fact that the votes for HRC were lower in counties using paper ballots than in counties using electronic voting. To be charitable, the logic involved in such things. The logic fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" comes to mind.
In the real world such hunches are not even reason enough to open up civil investigations let alone criminal ones. It's very interesting that the article refers to such people as "experts."
As for the 6 electors, this is interesting and not surprising. In a situation where there six votes will not make any difference, a "protest vote" costs very little and could have huge gain. In a close race where their votes could make a difference, these electors would probably face extreme pressure to vote as their state did, however, the calculus may depend on the state. In the state where I live (Texas) the electors would face tremendous pressure to vote as the state citizens did regardless of which party's candidate they voted for. While I suspect this would be the case for other states, I am by no means certain. As such, I strongly suspect in such a case these electors would vote how their state citizens did.
Finally, the idea of doing away with electoral college seems like a bad one. If this was done, the smaller states would have little say in the affairs of the Union and the nation would be pretty much ruled from CA and NY with little to no say for anyone else. To do this would effectively mean the end of the union.
The daily mail is a UK paper. Like most British news sources they probably opposed BREXIT. Opposition to BREXIT is support for the EU. It has long been a dream of the EU to hurt the United States in any way it can without prejudice. The goal of the writers at the Daily Mail may be the same as those in the leadership of the EU.
The authors of the article seem to imply that paper ballots are less susceptible to fraud. In this area, they are correct. As such, I think the best approach would be to go back to purely paper ballots, no exceptions. On this area, I think the authors of this article and I would be in agreement.
I recall watching the election on election night and early into the next morning. When HRC conceded, she did so awfully quickly. I remember asking myself "why did she concede so quickly? After all her team could have tied everything up for weeks with challenges, recounts, etc."
At the time U suspected her internal polling was telling her a much different story than the ones the media was selling to the public. In other words, she knew it would be close and that she might lose. As such, I think a deal was cut with team Trump that, if he won, he would agree not to prosecute her or the Clinton Foundation and, if Trump lost, she would agree not to interfere in the myriad of lawsuits that Mr. Trump and his various business enterprises are involved in. In other words, she could have made his life miserable to impossible as a business person. She agreed not to do this and in turn he agreed not to prosecute her or the foundation.
The next day I patiently explained this to a few friends. (Even before the election a few Trump supporters in a position to know actually began promoting the "trail balloon" that Mr. Trump might back away from prosecutions of the Clintons or their foundation in order to maintain focus on their agenda.) Sure enough team Trump is backing away from prosecutions. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Should team Clinton now decide to challenge the results this very likely undoes that deal. In order to take that risks, I think will require more than a hunch that something might have happened. As such, I tend to agree that probably nothing will come of this as far as a change to the electoral outcome, however, if we can mandate paper ballots, this would probably be a good thing.
The backbone of America has spoken and it clearly is against the establishment politicians, the media, the left, academia, hollywood, and the most corrupt administration in us history.
Post a Comment