2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests"
snip
CounterPunch has interviewed hackers, academics, exit pollsters, and elections officials and workers in multiple states for this series taking election fraud allegations seriously. The tearful breakdown in Hacking Democracy is not surprising. There is a well-beyond remarkable gap between what security experts and academics say about the vulnerability of voting machines and the confidence elections experts and academics, media outlets, and elections officials place in those same machines.
In Leon County, Bev Harris Black Box Voting team had just demonstrated a simple hack of an AccuVote tabulator for bubble-marked paper ballots. Ion Sancho, Leon Countys Supervisor of Elections, also fights back tears in the Hacking Democracy
I would have certified this election as a true and accurate result of a vote. Sancho adds, The vendors are driving the process of voting technology in the United States.
In 2010, and this reminder will pain those of you who can remember when Nate Silvers outfit did real data journalism rather than primarily yay-Clinton boo-Trump punditry, a FiveThirtyEight column argued that hacking was one of two possibilities for statistical anomalies in a Democratic Senate primary in South Carolina: B. Somebody with access to software and machines engineered a very devious manipulation of the vote returns.
Joshua Hollands column in The Nation debunking claims of election fraud benefiting Clinton rests its case on a simple proposition: why would Clinton need to cheat when she was winning anyway? Apparently, Mr. Holland has never heard of an obscure American politician named Richard Nixon.
More importantly, entering the South Carolina primary, the pledged delegate count was 52-51. CNNs poll two weeks out projected an 18 point Clinton win. Ann Selzer, the best pollster in the United States, projected a 22 point Clinton win. RealClearPolitics polling average projected a 27.5% win. FiveThirtyEight was much bolder in projecting a 38.3% Clinton win. The early full exit poll said Clinton had won by 36%, pretty close to FiveThirtyEights call. Tellingly, white people in that exit poll went for Sanders 58-42. But the final results said Clinton won by 47.5%, an 11.5% exit polling miss. And the exit polls had to adjust their initial figures to a 53-47 Clinton win with white Democrats in South Carolina.
Three days after South Carolinas primary, Clinton seriously outperformed her exit polling projections again in a bunch of states on Super Tuesday, including Massachusetts where she went from a projected 6.6% loss to a 1.4% win. Super Tuesday set the narrative that Sanders had no chance of beating Clinton in pledged delegates.
snip
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)metroins
(2,550 posts)This type of conspiracy is on Alex Jones lievel.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)This primary is a stolen election.
If US monitors observed another country hold an election and the kind of things happened there that have happened this year in the Democratic primary, they would without a doubt pronounce it a sham.
msongs
(67,403 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)DNC - completely in the tank for Clinton from day 1, almost completely shuts out Sanders from rules committee
Hillary Victory Fund - this little piece of money laundering fraud would land anyone else in jail, and compromised the integrity of over 30 state parties
Superdelegates - Clinton arranged to lock up almost all these anti-democratic convention votes before a single actual voter cast a ballot
IA... Clinton wins 6 of 6 coin flips for delegates (probability of this being an honest outcome: 2^6 or 1 in 64)
All over the south, and MA... Clinton share of vote consistently exceeds exit polls by wide margins (should statistically almost never happen)
MD... city of Baltimore vote decertified due to irregularities
AZ... complete mess
NY... over 100k registrations mysteriously changed party
NV... an epic shitshow of a rigged convention (you can watch the video yourself)
What else did I miss? I know this list is not complete.
THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
THIS IS A FRAUD
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)accurate after HAVA?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Then came the coming of the Third Way...and all that was on one side, suddenly was on the other too!
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)mooseprime
(474 posts)everywhere but HERE?
moriah
(8,311 posts)I generally vote at the polls unless I have been assigned to work a specific precinct.
But early and absentee voting is becoming more common in states that allow it, and it seemed like early voters ran a touch more conservative in each county here than the average. And they made up 28% of our vote in 2012 in AR, one of the states that allegedly had an exit poll discrepancy.
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AR/58350/163701/Web01/en/summary.html
Click on the third button for the "US President -- Dem", and you'll see Hillary got a LOT of the early vote here. And total early vote is up to 32%.
Obviously they attempted to make some correction for that trend from polling just before election day to aid their understanding of people who had voted early. But it does make exit polling more unpredictable.
msongs
(67,403 posts)mooseprime
(474 posts)are just THE BEST, aren't they?
Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)"Cheaters Gonna Cheat"
amborin
(16,631 posts)or simply inaccurate election results
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9613
mooseprime
(474 posts)for other countries. But if there's an outlier here, it's a conspiracy. Um, no. Something is WRONG
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Arneoker
(375 posts)He stole the election!
Seriously people, this is silly. If you don't have more than this, you have NOTHING! Exit polls by themselves don't prove fraud. With other evidence they might mean something.
This is like the absurd allegation years ago that Bush stole the 2004 election. (If anyone wants to bring up 2000 I hope that they can remember that was entirely different.) No actual evidence, just all kinds of "statistical patterns" that proved nothing.