General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBradcast 11/22/16: Will the Presidential Election Be 'Recounted' in WI, PA, MI? Should it Be?
http://bradblog.com/?p=11936On today's BradCast: Will the 2016 Presidential election be publicly hand-counted (what some call a 'recount')? Should it be? Experts, citing anomalies in the reported results and other concerns, are beginning to say 'yes'. But action would need to be taken --- and a lot of money raised --- by one or more of the Presidential candidates quickly in order for that to happen. [Audio link to full show follows below.]
I haven't been the only one asking questions about the reliability of the reported results of the November 8, 2016 election and whether voters should have confidence in the computer-tallied results. As we've been reporting since Election Day, there are a lot of folks looking at the numbers and asking questions about what actually did --- or didn't --- happen. A number of world class computer science, voting system and election integrity experts are beginning to urge for a public count of the election in a number of key states.
With approximately 100,000 total votes (out of more than 13 million cast), reportedly separating Clinton and Trump in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania alone, I can confirm that a number of those experts believe it would be a worthwhile exercise to file for hand-counts to make sure the results are correct. (Remember, just 50,000 votes recorded for Clinton instead of Trump across those three states would mean she, not Trump, becomes the next President of the United States.)
Today we look at just a few of the anomalies that have been widely cited today by some of the nation's top election experts, such as more votes reportedly cast in the Presidential election than the "Total Votes Cast" in a number of Wisconsin counties --- at least according to the counties' initially reported results.
(end snip)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)HRC is not well liked or trusted enough to put the country through it. All her own doing, because since 2008, Goldman Sachs has been a synonym for corruption. Having any kind of affiliation with them was considered an indicator of corruption. The party didn't read the electorate well enough on that.
According to Democrats like Debbie Dingell she was in trouble in those rust belt states but did nothing to address it. It would not be helpful because any thinking president knows what kind of hell they and we would be in for if what was recorded as "the will of the people" were challenged and overturned.
The media will love keeping this going just as much as they love horse race elections.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)In many states there is a different kind of voting machine from county to county. Many counties have scanned ballots, which you can hand count, but others have machines that do not have any paper record for the votes cast. Last night I saw a reporter from the Times say that in counties in PA with no paper record Hillary got 7% less votes (compared to what I do not know), so a hack into those machines could have turned the state around, though there is no explanation of how you would prove that.
Going back to all paper ballots is the only way to be sure of elections.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)how do you figure this part
when in Pennsylvania alone she lost by over 68,000 votes?
ananda
(28,866 posts)But will they be? That's another question entirely.