The General Election

[zoogs]

^ That's fair. As I said, I can't really comment. My inclination is to believe widespread hacking of electronic voting systems would be a bombshell of a thing to happen, and I'm skeptical that it did. I can agree that in the electronic era there's a "public confidence" angle to recounts, but there's also an erosion of confidence one too that I'd be somewhat worried about.

 

By default, I won't be upset if they recount, but I'd be stunned if it turned up anything remotely interesting.

 

--

 

Side note, Holiday Shopping season is in swing! This review is on point:

 

1.0 out of 5 stars

I'm trying to make the best of it

 

I didn't actually order this but somehow it's on my tree anyway. I'm trying to make the best of it... at least that's what people are telling me to do. But I don't know. I'm trying, but there's suddenly swastikas painted on my other decorations, half of my presents are just dog s***, and the tree itself is on fire. But my conservative friends are telling me the fire is a good thing and I should just be united in celebrating what this ornament has to offer. They're also saying I need to leave the tree in my house for four to eight years. That doesn't sound right. Source?

[Danny Bateman]

Would hacked electronic ballots be THAT hard to believe, though?

I know the official line is the government took election security very seriously. But then again, I'd like to think they take State Department security very seriously, and their State Department servers were hacked multiple times by the Russians.

 

With the vast amount of effort that went into our election from outside our own shores, I wouldn't be surprised if something turned up. The whole story about fake US election news coming specifically from Macedonian millennials was frankly, well, weird.

[ZRod]

It doesn't have to be the Russians. There are some sketchy conflicts if interest with who owns voting machine and voting server companies on both sides of the isle.

[Moiraine]

Here's an article by one of the computer scientists they're talking about. He says he doubts there was a hack, but that he has personally hacked into voting machines to test them and there has been lots of research done to show that they are not secure and we should not be using them.

 

 

https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.kpzckwxo4

[Moiraine]

Here's Nate Silver's response:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

[Moiraine]

I think they are recounting Wisconsin. I wish they would've had statisticians look into it first.

[zoogs]

This seems reasonable. When it most likely turns up with nothing, it will help keep faith in our democratic process.

[HuskerNation1]

This seems reasonable. When it most likely turns up with nothing, it will help keep faith in our democratic process.

 

Weren't you the one that just blasted a GOP governor for challenging election results with a much smaller vote margin in his state, and now you think challenging Wisconsin will keep your faith in the Democratic process? Oh the irony....

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81573-republican-party/

[zoogs]

This election has a formal declaration of a winner already. That's a huge difference. A group of computer scientists are outlining a reason why they think verification is needed. Another big difference.

 

In the other case, a candidate who lost is trying to delegitimize the results of the election by delaying the declaration of a winner. Almost nobody considers there to be any basis for the concerns raised, which again is the exact opposite. The particular concern in that case is that this is a ploy to enable the Republican-controlled legislature to attempt to ignore any count or recount results and declare their own winner, on the basis that enough suspicion has been raised to toss out faith in the process.

 

So, again: quite the opposite.

[HuskerNation1]

This election has a formal declaration of a winner already. That's a huge difference. A group of computer scientists are outlining a reason why they think verification is needed. Another big difference.

 

In the other case, a candidate who lost is trying to delegitimize the results of the election by delaying the declaration of a winner. Almost nobody considers there to be any basis for the concerns raised, which again is the exact opposite. The particular concern in that case is that this is a ploy to enable the Republican-controlled legislature to attempt to ignore any count or recount results and declare their own winner, on the basis that enough suspicion has been raised to toss out faith in the process.

 

So, again: quite the opposite.

 

Nice spin...you are definitely good at that. Prior to this whole challenge of the state of Wisconsin, I have been reading plenty of articles by liberals across the country seeking ways to delegitimize the results of the Presidential election despite an electoral college landslide for Trump. I will guarantee you that if Trump had only one by one state, and that vote margin was similar to the current tally for the NC governor's race that HIllary and her team would be actively challenging that state's results in every way imaginable, and you would be on here supporting her doing so.

[zoogs]

I certainly wouldn't support it if they were indeed:

 

One attorney monitoring the proceedings called these challenges “silly, small in number, poorly researched and often defamatory,” which is undeniable: Republican-controlled county election boards have forcefully rejected McCrory’s challenges, concluding that there is simply no proof of widespread fraud or malfeasance as McCrory claims.

If you've read any of my posts on this matter, you'll know I'm quite skeptical of the Wisconsin challenge, as well. But if there's a basis for it, fine, go ahead and get it over with; that's a reasonable and healthy part of a functioning democracy.

 

A losing candidate casting suspicion on results with no serious basis in the hopes that his party legislature will overturn it in his favor, *that* is not normal. If it ever gets there, a federal lawsuit will probably ensue.

 

Trump, by the way, won by slim margins in three states. If these complaints were totally frivolous, I wouldn't like this, either. As it is, I'm skeptical.

[Danny Bateman]

[BigRedBuster]

[84HuskerLaw]

Over 5000 posts in this 'discussion' of the general election. On top of all the other so-called political and or religious or the many other non sports topics. This is just nuts! This is the first I even pulled this one up out of curiosity I guess. Frankly, with the election over with I just wondered what in the heck could possibly be left to talk about on the subject when there are topics politicallly related that are seemingly related to current issues. Still, what the heck do you guys what to discuss politics on a Husker site for?

 

Husker discussion is pretty insignificant lately. Frankly, it has been slow since the football season started. That is just the exact opposite as supposedly we all live for Husker football.. Yet its politics being 'discussed' (I would argue butchered but that gets into partisan considerations).

 

You all need to spend a great deal more time really reading reliable sources and using your rational thinking brains and a good dose of common sense. There is so much liberal fluff and absolute nonsense being written on here it is scary. It would appear so many of you are fake news junkies and are believing so much of it. I suggest you take about ten steps back and seriously ask yourself whether you really think some of the 'facts' you are using to make important judgments on really seem true. There are very few honest and unbiased fact reporting news sources left these days. You have to learn to see beyond the misleading headlines and when it really does seem 'too liberal to be true' it is because it is too liberal to be true. The polls reported before and even after the election were obviously false and misleading.

 

As for the election results:

 

There is a good reason for the electoral college and it has to do with ensuring no states are disenfranchised by the eletion. Each state choses electors to cast the selection vote for President to prevent individual states from having a disproportionate impact on the choice. The electors are allocated based on the federal census counts and NOT the number of votes cast and for whom that may be reported by any individual state representatives. It prevents election fraud or misrepresentation or manipulation. The voters of each state are all assured that their respective share of the population is represented in the choosing of the President.

 

It is not accurate to say, as has been reported by a number of liberal 'news' sites, that Hillary received more popular votes than Trump. It is true that they havereported that they have counted more votes for Hillary than they have counted for Trump when totalling all the votes counted across the 50 states and DC. Not all the states count all of their votes. Once the winner is known, counting tends to stop. For example, many absentee ballots are not counted after election day once the winner has been named. There is no reason to count them because once you have 'won' the state, that is all that is required to be determined.

However it is not the total votes counted across the country but rather than candidate who won the most states' electoral votes that wins.

 

Every candidate knows what it takes to win the Presidency and it is NOT get more votes than the opponent by campaigning in a handful of populous states and generating all your votes there. California can have a 100% turnout and NY a 20% turnout. It doesn't matter. Both states get to cast their respective electoral votes for the President/Vice President accordingly. There are several reasons why this was chosen as the method to pick a President but primary concern was to assure the President was the President of all the several states and not particularly beholding to any handful or a few thereof. To keep the union together, all members must know they are being fairly and justly governed and represented in all things the federal government does. Equal protection of the law and due process and etc.

 

We are now seeing the Democrates attempting to undermine and destroy this fundamental pillar of our representative republic. We are not 'democracy' as such and choose very little in the way of state or federal policy by way of some form of pure popular vote. Again, this is due in large part to the founders and others with a great deal of common sense and intelligence in things political and social and economic understanding that pure democracy (deciding fundamental daily issues via general popular votes leaves too much to chance, misrepresentation and fraud.

 

For example, if we were to allow total popular votes counted for a given candidate to determine the winner, we can full well expect massive conflict over voter fraud, etc. The great majority of states would not believe that California vote numbers were honest and accurate as we could expect California would come up with more votes than they have registered legal voters. There is wide spread acceptance of non-citizens casting votes in California within the sanctuary cities. This is a form of illegal voting and the people of California are being victimized to an extent as a result. But the rest of the country is not so concerned because only California's electoral college votes may be 'stolen' or redirected contrary to the will of Californians (not all Americans). unfortunately, it is not just Cali but other areas (typically cities with highly concentrated populations with majority liberal/Dem leaning voters where we see these kinds of things happening).

 

We saw a few Cleveland/Cayahoga County precints in Ohio vote 100% for Obama in 2004 and 1008. This is obviously fraudulant and could have turned the election in Ohio to favor Obama. Ultimately he may not have won Ohio with a honest vote. We will never know. The system is only as good as the voter ID and other measures taken to assure a true, honest and fair vote in each and every precinct. We know Trump won 2600 of the 3100 counties in the country. That says a great deal about the widespread support and we would only need to look into some of those grossly out of proportion precincts that went way high for Clinton to find a bunch of illegit votes. Just basic common sense and facts.

[zoogs]

You all need to spend a great deal more time really reading reliable sources and using your rational thinking brains and a good dose of common sense.

Right back at ya.