Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton is being urged to challenge the results in three key s
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton is being urged to challenge the results in three key states
NYMag.Com
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
" The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines"
Well, which is it, persuasive, or circumstantial? For instance, couldn't that 7% difference be explained by different voting behavior in the precincts with these machines?
"Default position on multi-state, election-swinging vote-rigging claims should be deep skepticism even if the result wasn't what you wanted."
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/will-congress-investigate-russian-interference-2016-campaign
If Russia really did hack the voting they have Trump on a short leash. If he starts to no longer to do as Moscow desires, I can see further selective leaking. Russia has played a blinder in getting their man elected.
LOL
With all the cash floating around in the DNC accounts, they really should have dropped a couple of $150k salaries on some infosec experts. It would have saved them a whole load of trouble!
Whilst I'm uncomfortable with Russia/Wikileaks only targeting the DNC, I don't have much sympathy for the DNC. If they hadn't been undermining the Sanders campaign the leak would not have been nearly so damaging. Oh, and they should sort out their cyber security.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801226924156719104
The only problem with the British system is the recent mass trend towards postal voting, which is much more vulnerable to rigging and effectively means that a lot of advance voters are making a decision based on different information to that available by polling day. It should be returned to being a special exception for people such as those who are housebound or bedridden, on holiday on the date of polling, or living in some remote communities where a sea or air journey is needed to reach the nearest polling place.
Maintaining the security of, and confidence in, the system is far more important that adding an extra couple of percentage points to turnout by making life a little easier for voters who are just too lazy to traipse to a polling station.
As others have said, this looks very weak. She's already disliked - trying to overturn the result wouldn't help.
Utter tosh.
And count the results overnight properly like we do here. Yes, that includes you California...
So yes, PV can be fraudulent. But it'd be hard to scale that fraud without being detected. You might fraudulently change one vote; ten votes; perhaps even a hundred votes. To change an election you might well need more than that, and by the very nature of PV you have records that allow frauds to be traced if an audit takes place. Mass PV fraud might also require many different actors on the ground, and the more people that are involved, the more likely it is for the fraud to be uncovered.
With electronic voting, that goes out of the window. Not only is fraud possible; mass fraud is just as easy to accomplish. If you can change one vote, you can change thousands. And many of the systems are so dumbly designed that it might be impossible to trace. The flaws are not just in one area of some systems, but everywhere.
This is known. You don't need to be technically inclined to understand the flaws. Yet these stupid, insecure and expensive systems are still chosen.
This, combined with the money involved in US politics, makes me think that not only is voting fraud possible, it is happening. The rewards are too great.
And this does not just apply to the recent election, but past ones as well.
Hope we arent buying any
http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2016/11/22/20005-20161122ARTFIG00306-la-situation-du-nucleaire-est-tres-preoccupante.php
Oh well. Back to talking about Brexit or something.
All they've said is that there is a difference in voting patterns - which could have been caused by all sorts of things (e.g. electronic voting being used in counties with a higher proportion of younger voters who don't vote). And that, at the extreme, this difference - if it all went Clinton's way - could change the result.
Move on people, move on.
My take on it is this:
1. Given the politicisation of the FBI/DOJ/IRS under Obama - Trump obviously can't do what he knocked his predecessor for. That's a key plank of his swamp draining.
2. Post Watergate - POTUS doesn't have the authority to personally direct legal moves - it's up to the AG. So essentially Donald has given up a weapon he didn't actually have - but many voters don't know this.
3. By using the language of 'time to heal' regarding Hillary - he's showing empathy with HRC fans and not kicking her when she's down. Aww, he's not such a bad guy after all...
4. He's pre-empting Obama pardoning her - why would Obama do that if Trump has said he's not interested in going after her re emails?
5. The FBI and State police investigations into the Clinton Foundation will rumble onwards regardless.
It's all most impressive stuff for a single tweet.
This is very different, however, to saying that Hillary has any chance in challenging this result. It simply says that true electoral reform in terms of registration, data security, equality of opportunity to vote, efficiency and accuracy should be a US priority. Their system is terminally sick and it is hardly surprising half of their eligible voters don't even bother.
I also think Clinton would be silly to challenge the result, as her own side is as likely to have been doing it as any others; she might not like where the evidence leads. Better to campaign for better electoral systems for the future - although the way the US's system is set up would make that difficult.
However, I would be worried about entities outside the US interfering. Given Putin's ability to rig his own elections, it would suit him to interfere with the US ones as well. There are very few downsides to it.
(takes off tinfoil hat).
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2016/11/22/new-yorker-editor-finds-emotionally-f-ing-pissed-tv-news-source-after
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38073017
Aye, electronic voting is bloody stupid.
Several Facebook employees have left the company in response to the creation of censorship software made for China https://t.co/4y0Z9TcuRY https://t.co/CEMdIaaVef
However: non-electronic systems can be nearly as bad; that is why we have so many rules about the way they are conducted. I've read reports in the past from other countries of ballot boxes with broken seals being counted; ballot stuffing; of boxes being 'lost'; and the really common one of voter intimidation within the polling station.
And that leaves out all the other ways authoritarian regimes get their way; for instance the Syrian / Egyptian / elsewhere method of 'banning' popular opposition parties. Whilst it may be necessary to occasionally ban parties, it's something that needs doing with care.
BTW, what's the title of your book, when's it due out, and where can I get it from?
Today Hammond delivers his Autumn Statement which should be the first real indication of what a May government is going to do. Will it be continuity Osborne with (Osborne like) lots of noise about relatively trivial differences paid for by a few quid found down the back of the sofa or will there be a genuine change of direction?
What will it tell us about our direction of travel in Brexit? Are things getting materially worse or does the unexpectedly high growth so far suggest not much has changed? Will there still be a shadow of Osborne's "emergency budget" nonsense?
So far this government has been pretty much rudderless. That should really change today but I expect things to remain very much the same. With fewer jokes.
Let's go back to roman voting, no problems with that!
Title: Kingdom Asunder
Due out: tomorrow, huzzah!
Places from whence it can be bought (or pre-ordered today):
Amazon US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N8UF799/
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N8UF799/
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-ca/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one
Barnes & Noble - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1125052815?ean=2940153811246
[There are more retailers but those are the biggest].
Mr. Root, my concern is that there's no issue, as yet, of illegality. If a man runs a business and draws a decent salary and it later goes bankrupt, should he be liable to have his assets seized?
The way Green was treated by one of the committees was disgraceful, regardless of whether he had sinned or not. It was not justice. Now there are calls for money to be taken off him from the findings.
If he had been convicted in a court of law; fair enough. Invoke the proceeds of crime act. But he has not.
1. Denial and isolation; (HRC for a number of days bawling her eyes out, luvies weeping on TV
2. Anger - stupid voters, lefties unable to accept a democratic outcome, riots to prove point)
3. Bargaining; (Ah ...but we won the PV, it's a fix , machines were tampered with, experts reckon this)
4. Depression; (Realisation they really lost on a system they were quite happy to support when winning )
5. Acceptance - January 2017 - * band strikes up and gun salute* Hail to the chief
** can be applied to any leftie election anywhere really
But, if the liquidator has a civil claim against Green, he should pursue it.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
Autumn statement anyone?
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/philip-hammond-invest-1billion-welfare-ease-impact-george-osbornes/
Would they like to explain how increasing the welfare budget can ever possibly be described as 'investment'?
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
Losing a knighthood would not count as punishment BTW.
The recent uptick in bond rates promises some relief from that and the fact remains that even the BHS pension deficit might well disappear completely if bond rates returned to something like "normal". The prospects of pre-2007 normality returning, however, are still disappearing over the horizon.
The problem is accentuated for a pension scheme like BHS. In the latter years insufficient money was being put into the scheme but that is because the business was strapped for cash. Did they really want to sack people and close stores to generate some cash to put into the Scheme? How would the current employees, not in the scheme feel about that? Green was not taking cash out in those years but he had done earlier when the pension liability probably did not exist.
I think this is much messier than it looks and evidence of wrongdoing is going to be hard to find. Part of the problem was undoubtedly the model of running businesses lean with lots of debt that became so popular in the 1980s onwards. Basically such aggressive balance sheet tactics meant that the risk of something going wrong was not on the owners of the business but on someone else, in this case the pensioners.
Long term members more likely to be engaged? Who'd have thunk it.
Shteve
A war hero has to stand there and hold a medal for Ellen DeGeneres. https://t.co/RShhzQJNfj
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38073567
The headline is all about the massive sacrifice Ellen made coming out as gay, but you have to get way down the report to realise the likes of Bill Gates for his massive work for charity plus people like Richard Garwin and Frank Gehry were also honoured.
Richard f##king Garwin gets an "also mention"...go look him up kids!
As well as his famed work on the H-Bomb, he advised every president in his lifetime, and a few other bits and pieces...
"Over the course of more than four decades at IBM Research, he invented pioneering techniques in nuclear magnetic resonance, used in today’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. He carried out groundbreaking work in superconducting computers and silicon integrated circuit technology. He was integral to the development of laser printers and displays, gesture and gaze-controlled input to computers and devices, touchscreen monitors and more."