Results 1 to 66 of 66

Thread: Analyzing 2016 Presidential Vote Results

  1. #1
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    1,886

    Default Analyzing 2016 Presidential Vote Results

    So here is a breakdown of the voting results from the NBC news website.

    Clinton, she won the female vote 54% vs 42% . Women account for 52% of all voters, clearly she needed more women to vote for her but it appears that economic issues were foremost amongst women.

    She won the under 45 vote 52% vs 40% while Trump won the over 45 vote 53 vs 44%, a 9% margin of victory that was less than Clinton's 12% of victory. Not enough young voters came out for her, Bernie is no doubt muttering "I told you so".

    Trump managed to get 8% of the black vote versus Romney's 6%, which I interpret to mean that the black turnout was lower than for Obama who received 93% of the black vote.

    Clinton got 65% of the Latino vote, Trump 29% bettering Romney's 27%. If Latino voter was high then clearly immigration was not decisive.

    In summary, high white voter turnout in the swing states, lower black minority and youth turnout, lower support amongst Latinos. The talk of high voter turnout reflected the mobilization of older white voters. Clinton also did better with college educated voters as compared to Obama. The long term demographic trends would seem to favor the Democrats if the younger generation turns out to vote and the older generation passes. Of course Trump has the opportunity to change all that with a successful 2 term presidency.

    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  2. #2

    Default

    Seems this is the appropriate place to post this:

    While I may have personally thought BOTH candidates where awful and supported neither one I do respect their electoral process. Mr. Trump, for better of worse, has been democratically elected by the people of the United States of America and regardless of how I feel about it personally I respect the process. What is more important is to look at why he was elected, why so many people of so many different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds made the choice to support the now President elect. This is not just about the United States, we saw the same revolt in the United Kingdom and we are seeing the same frustrations right here. Politicians and governments throughout the Western world had best start listening or the trend will continue. My two bits.

    Below is an article from cracked.com I came across on the "Albertans against Conservatives" Facebook page that is well written and highlights many of the reasons that President Elect Trump achieved his voter success ... I will be cross posting to the Vegreville job loss thread as well seeing as it highlights some of the posters attitudes on that thread.

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...alks-about_p2/
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 09-11-2016 at 03:49 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Seems this is the appropriate place to post this:

    While I may have personally thought BOTH candidates where awful and supported neither one I do respect their electoral process. Mr. Trump, for better of worse, has been democratically elected by the people of the United States of America and regardless of how I feel about it personally I respect the process. What is more important is to look at why he was elected, why so many people of so many different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds made the choice to support the now President elect. This is not just about the United States, we saw the same revolt in the United Kingdom and we are seeing the same frustrations right here. Politicians and governments throughout the Western world had best start listening or the trend will continue. My two bits.

    Below is an article from cracked.com I came across on the "Albertans against Conservatives" Facebook page that is well written and highlights many of the reasons that President Elect Trump achieved his voter success ... I will be cross posting to the Vegreville job loss thread as well seeing as it highlights some of the posters attitudes on that thread.

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...alks-about_p2/
    Trump has been elected based on the rules, but the US should maybe think about that electoral college thing. Although it was very close, Hillary actually got more votes than he did. This is the second time this has happened in recent memory and in both cases the Democrats got more votes, but lost. This doesn't seem to make much sense to me, but little about this US election really makes sense.

    The US seems to have become this very divided nation where people vote out of habit and partisanship and people have all sorts of prejudices and stereotypes about people they know nothing about. There really shouldn't be that many always red or blue states - it should vary depending on the candidates from election to election.

  4. #4

    Default

    Ultimately two real, as opposed to speculative, things stand out on the first day after the vote:
    • Talk of rigged elections is nonsense, here and anywhere else. As in 2000, 2004, in the UK the last two elections and the Brexit referendum, and in Canada in 2006, 2011, and 2015, the results are unwelcome to many but they are what they are. This millenium's trend of paranois must be disregarded.
    • Complaints about elites are nonsense. It is difficult to imagine a greater elite than Trump. And note how his tone has already shifted? His rabid supporters bought what he sold, but I doubt it's what they wanted or thought they were buying.

      On a personal note I'll add that though I am quite pro-government in general, referring to politicians with honorifics makes me queasy.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Ultimately two real, as opposed to speculative, things stand out on the first day after the vote:
    • Talk of rigged elections is nonsense, here and anywhere else. As in 2000, 2004, in the UK the last two elections and the Brexit referendum, and in Canada in 2006, 2011, and 2015, the results are unwelcome to many but they are what they are. This millenium's trend of paranois must be disregarded.
    • Complaints about elites are nonsense. It is difficult to imagine a greater elite than Trump. And note how his tone has already shifted? His rabid supporters bought what he sold, but I doubt it's what they wanted or thought they were buying.

      On a personal note I'll add that though I am quite pro-government in general, referring to politicians with honorifics makes me queasy.
    I suppose if a system was truly "rigged" the same party would always win - think something like Putin's Russia maybe, where the press is largely controlled by the government and opposition candidates are harassed, barred from running, jailed, exiled, etc.. I think Trump tried to extend that argument a bit too far by saying it was rigged because it favored the "elites". While he didn't get favorable coverage in some media, he did in others so I don't think his argument stood up very well. He tended to make that argument more when he was not doing well in the polls, so it might have been his less polished way of saying the old political complaint "the media is against me". Usually the real reason he wasn't doing so well was because of something he said or did - but he probably didn't want to acknowledge that, when he kept on message and didn't say stupid things as much his poll numbers improved. After that, he also got into one of the favorite Republican hobby horse topics - voter fraud.

    I think the Republicans have a long tradition of bashing the "liberal" elites, or the "Washington" insiders/elites, etc.., which like many other things Trump picked up on and amplified. It is kind of ironic that Trump seems to fit that description so well himself, but as he said to the rural crowds, I sort of paraphrase - "I was an insider, so I know how to work the system, but now I am an outsider and I am here to help you beat the rigged system. Personally, I think his supporters are in for some disappointment about this, but at this point I suppose one should try keep and open mind. We shall see.

  6. #6

    Default

    The DNC emails showed one form of rigging or corruption. To think that there aren't other forms of rigging taking place in other elections in the US, including the presidential election, seems to ignore a potential reality. However whether or not it could be statistically significant is another matter. Then there's the whole issue of barriers to independent candidates.

  7. #7

    Default

    Every legitimate media outlet eventually talks about the popular vote. So I googled Brietbart and popular vote and so far don't see anything about the results. I'll wait a bit.

  8. #8

    Default

    ^Trump's campaign did go to extreme measures in the way he got his supporters to act. Chant's of 'Lock Her Up' sound rather Putinex.
    People can read the stats on who, what age group, what color, what gender voted for who, but in the end I think it was just the electorate given the same old Republican party the finger. We can all bury our heads in the sand and say the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer but at the end of the day we live in a world where money rules. Even the ultra rich don't start giving their money away until they are well, ultra rich. After losing well paying jobs people are tired of rich politicians telling them how to save money by turning more lights off, turn their thermostats down, drive less etc. The same elites return home (multiple) with an entourage of SUV's carrying a small army, dining on fine wines and fancy meals, sitting in hand made suits and trying to act like they are scraping by.
    Come the next election Trump will either get voted in our out. They will go over the stats then and figure out who gave him the finger and who did not.
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Ultimately two real, as opposed to speculative, things stand out on the first day after the vote:
    • Talk of rigged elections is nonsense, here and anywhere else. As in 2000, 2004, in the UK the last two elections and the Brexit referendum, and in Canada in 2006, 2011, and 2015, the results are unwelcome to many but they are what they are. This millenium's trend of paranois must be disregarded.
    • Complaints about elites are nonsense. It is difficult to imagine a greater elite than Trump. And note how his tone has already shifted? His rabid supporters bought what he sold, but I doubt it's what they wanted or thought they were buying.

      On a personal note I'll add that though I am quite pro-government in general, referring to politicians with honorifics makes me queasy.
    I always like it when politicians, especially the members of the GOP say, "don't trust the government", when they are part of the government.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Trump's campaign did go to extreme measures in the way he got his supporters to act. Chant's of 'Lock Her Up' sound rather Putinex.
    People can read the stats on who, what age group, what color, what gender voted for who, but in the end I think it was just the electorate given the same old Republican party the finger. We can all bury our heads in the sand and say the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer but at the end of the day we live in a world where money rules. Even the ultra rich don't start giving their money away until they are well, ultra rich. After losing well paying jobs people are tired of rich politicians telling them how to save money by turning more lights off, turn their thermostats down, drive less etc. The same elites return home (multiple) with an entourage of SUV's carrying a small army, dining on fine wines and fancy meals, sitting in hand made suits and trying to act like they are scraping by.
    Come the next election Trump will either get voted in our out. They will go over the stats then and figure out who gave him the finger and who did not.
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    Trump introduced, or reintroduced, a very interesting campaign style. Since it was so effective I imagine it will be copied and someone will soon naturally escallate the approach to new levels (or should we say, drag campaigning to new depths).

    It will be interesting to see the analysis or reviews of the results. There's going to be years of debating where people went wrong on their expectations.
    Last edited by KC; 09-11-2016 at 05:52 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Trump's campaign was a cage fight, gutter politics. The American electorate were sick and tired of policies that definitely did not work for them. Manufacturing jobs going to other countries, Wall Street white collar crime where no charges laid and big bonuses still given out. The march to be Green in spite of it being a useless money pit. Politicians telling you what you want not what you actually need. For sure the U S A citizens have started a movement. Politicians of all stripes should heed the warning. Trump will definitely have to come up to scratch on what he said and promised.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Trump's campaign was a cage fight, gutter politics. The American electorate were sick and tired of policies that definitely did not work for them. Manufacturing jobs going to other countries, Wall Street white collar crime where no charges laid and big bonuses still given out. The march to be Green in spite of it being a useless money pit. Politicians telling you what you want not what you actually need. For sure the U S A citizens have started a movement. Politicians of all stripes should heed the warning. Trump will definitely have to come up to scratch on what he said and promised.
    We did the same here in Alberta, just in a different direction and with a whole lot more 'civility'. It's quite interesting isn't it.

  13. #13

    Default

    I have a feeling what we did in Alberta will be reversed in the next election cycle. Having the same government in for years then Redford being the icing on the cake made people hold their noses for the NDP. There popularity rate is in the tank because their policies are not/will not work for Albertans.
    Trump ran to the beat of his own drum in the election process. Let's see how many solo's he can do once he is in the Whitehouse.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    The DNC emails showed one form of rigging or corruption. To think that there aren't other forms of rigging taking place in other elections in the US, including the presidential election, seems to ignore a potential reality. However whether or not it could be statistically significant is another matter. Then there's the whole issue of barriers to independent candidates.
    We have to really think what does the word "rigged" really mean in the context of elections. I generally agree with the above, it has to be significant enough to effect the outcome. In a close race just denying a few people the right to vote at each voting station because they do not have the right ID (even though they are actually eligible) might not seem like a big deal but multiplied by a number of polls it could affect the outcome, so that could be one way to rig the results too. I think parties often try to make the rules to "favour" themselves over their opponents when possible, whether that always constitutes "rigging" is a debatable point. It has been claimed by many that boundaries for congress seats have been designed to favour incumbents - one could argue that is rigging, even though it does not always work out for the incumbent.

    The strong two party system, particularly in the US, has been a somewhat of a barrier to independent candidates. However, this does not actually prevent independent candidates from running. Over the years a number have run and some have done fairly well. Practically, it is very hard to run a national campaign without the resources of a party behind you. One big issue is the threshold to be included in the US debates - it could be argued this should be lower to give independent candidates a better chance. If the Libertarian Candidate was included in the debates this time, the results in the election certainly could have been different.

    Any contest requires a set of rules and unless the rules are designed by a totally impartial body, it is fairly easy to design some of the rules to the advantage of someone over someone else. Often in a political system, a number of the rules (but not necessarily all) are set by the politicians themselves. Hence one could argue every election everywhere is rigged.

  15. #15
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    1,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    With Hillary she at least had a history of public office as senator as well as her voting record and commentary on legislation. I find no contradiction with her having private opinions different from her legislative ones. After all she is representing her constituency and their desires and not always merely her own. Plus of course her working experience as secretary of state dealing with world leaders.

    Despite Trump's inane boasting he has no broad experience or knowledge and a lack of natural curiosity outside of his narrow interests.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  16. #16
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    With Hillary she at least had a history of public office as senator as well as her voting record and commentary on legislation. I find no contradiction with her having private opinions different from her legislative ones. After all she is representing her constituency and their desires and not always merely her own. Plus of course her working experience as secretary of state dealing with world leaders.

    Despite Trump's inane boasting he has no broad experience or knowledge and a lack of natural curiosity outside of his narrow interests.
    i could not vote for the donald but if prior broad experience or knowledge was a criteria we would not have our own current governments in edmonton or in alberta or in canada...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Trump's campaign did go to extreme measures in the way he got his supporters to act. Chant's of 'Lock Her Up' sound rather Putinex.
    People can read the stats on who, what age group, what color, what gender voted for who, but in the end I think it was just the electorate given the same old Republican party the finger. We can all bury our heads in the sand and say the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer but at the end of the day we live in a world where money rules. Even the ultra rich don't start giving their money away until they are well, ultra rich. After losing well paying jobs people are tired of rich politicians telling them how to save money by turning more lights off, turn their thermostats down, drive less etc. The same elites return home (multiple) with an entourage of SUV's carrying a small army, dining on fine wines and fancy meals, sitting in hand made suits and trying to act like they are scraping by.
    Come the next election Trump will either get voted in our out. They will go over the stats then and figure out who gave him the finger and who did not.
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    Trump introduced, or reintroduced, a very interesting campaign style. Since it was so effective I imagine it will be copied and someone will soon naturally escallate the approach to new levels (or should we say, drag campaigning to new depths).

    It will be interesting to see the analysis or reviews of the results. There's going to be years of debating where people went wrong on their expectations.

    Trump's campaign style was right out of "Mein Kampf"
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    The long term demographic trends would seem to favor the Democrats if the younger generation turns out to vote and the older generation passes.
    People have been saying this forever "When the old people die out, all the support for blah blah will be gone, etc." However, the young people eventually grow up to become old people.

    There will always be voters across the political spectrum, and it fluxes back and forth over decades.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Trump's campaign style was right out of "Mein Kampf"
    Give it a rest.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    With Hillary she at least had a history of public office as senator as well as her voting record and commentary on legislation. I find no contradiction with her having private opinions different from her legislative ones. After all she is representing her constituency and their desires and not always merely her own. Plus of course her working experience as secretary of state dealing with world leaders.

    Despite Trump's inane boasting he has no broad experience or knowledge and a lack of natural curiosity outside of his narrow interests.
    i could not vote for the donald but if prior broad experience or knowledge was a criteria we would not have our own current governments in edmonton or in alberta or in canada...
    Actually, our current Premier was an MLA for a number of years beforehand and our current PM was also Member of Parliament for a number of years before hand also, so they both had years to become familiar with how government works. Trump has held no significant elected position before this - never in Congress, the Senate, never a Governor or even a Mayor, as far as I know.

  21. #21
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    With Hillary she at least had a history of public office as senator as well as her voting record and commentary on legislation. I find no contradiction with her having private opinions different from her legislative ones. After all she is representing her constituency and their desires and not always merely her own. Plus of course her working experience as secretary of state dealing with world leaders.

    Despite Trump's inane boasting he has no broad experience or knowledge and a lack of natural curiosity outside of his narrow interests.
    i could not vote for the donald but if prior broad experience or knowledge was a criteria we would not have our own current governments in edmonton or in alberta or in canada...
    Actually, our current Premier was an MLA for a number of years beforehand and our current PM was also Member of Parliament for a number of years before hand also, so they both had years to become familiar with how government works. Trump has held no significant elected position before this - never in Congress, the Senate, never a Governor or even a Mayor, as far as I know.
    to which i can only quote alberta's current minister of infrastructure/minister of transportation and government house leader "That was a lot harder than it looked"...

    there is a big difference between being in opposition and being in government. being an elected mla or mp might make you familiar with how government works but it doesn't necessarily make you either knowledgeable or competent in actually running a government. besides which you don't need to be an elected mla or mp to be familiar with how government works (or doesn't work).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    With Hillary she at least had a history of public office as senator as well as her voting record and commentary on legislation. I find no contradiction with her having private opinions different from her legislative ones. After all she is representing her constituency and their desires and not always merely her own. Plus of course her working experience as secretary of state dealing with world leaders.

    Despite Trump's inane boasting he has no broad experience or knowledge and a lack of natural curiosity outside of his narrow interests.
    i could not vote for the donald but if prior broad experience or knowledge was a criteria we would not have our own current governments in edmonton or in alberta or in canada...
    Actually, our current Premier was an MLA for a number of years beforehand and our current PM was also Member of Parliament for a number of years before hand also, so they both had years to become familiar with how government works. Trump has held no significant elected position before this - never in Congress, the Senate, never a Governor or even a Mayor, as far as I know.
    to which i can only quote alberta's current minister of infrastructure/minister of transportation and government house leader "That was a lot harder than it looked"...

    there is a big difference between being in opposition and being in government. being an elected mla or mp might make you familiar with how government works but it doesn't necessarily make you either knowledgeable or competent in actually running a government. besides which you don't need to be an elected mla or mp to be familiar with how government works (or doesn't work).
    True, but if you have ridden in a car for a while and then have to drive it, it is probably less of a hurdle than never having even been in a car and then having to drive it. At least you have something to go by.

  23. #23
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If I was a U S citizen I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary. Both candidates had baggage but she seemed more stable of the two.
    With Hillary she at least had a history of public office as senator as well as her voting record and commentary on legislation. I find no contradiction with her having private opinions different from her legislative ones. After all she is representing her constituency and their desires and not always merely her own. Plus of course her working experience as secretary of state dealing with world leaders.

    Despite Trump's inane boasting he has no broad experience or knowledge and a lack of natural curiosity outside of his narrow interests.
    i could not vote for the donald but if prior broad experience or knowledge was a criteria we would not have our own current governments in edmonton or in alberta or in canada...
    Actually, our current Premier was an MLA for a number of years beforehand and our current PM was also Member of Parliament for a number of years before hand also, so they both had years to become familiar with how government works. Trump has held no significant elected position before this - never in Congress, the Senate, never a Governor or even a Mayor, as far as I know.
    to which i can only quote alberta's current minister of infrastructure/minister of transportation and government house leader "That was a lot harder than it looked"...

    there is a big difference between being in opposition and being in government. being an elected mla or mp might make you familiar with how government works but it doesn't necessarily make you either knowledgeable or competent in actually running a government. besides which you don't need to be an elected mla or mp to be familiar with how government works (or doesn't work).
    True, but if you have ridden in a car for a while and then have to drive it, it is probably less of a hurdle than never having even been in a car and then having to drive it. At least you have something to go by.
    true, but you don't have to be "in government" to have that something to go by. that depth of knowledge is just as available - if not more so - from the back seat as the front seat.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  24. #24
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    1,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People have been saying this forever "When the old people die out, all the support for blah blah will be gone, etc." However, the young people eventually grow up to become old people.

    There will always be voters across the political spectrum, and it fluxes back and forth over decades.
    Yes, but you are influenced by what you experience in your youth. One cannot ignore the attitudes that accompany the cohorts. An American who had a good factory job in the 60s or 70s experienced the possibility of lifetime employment along with a pension. Today's youth have no such expectations because few of these jobs exist. They are highly mobile, urbanized, many don't even drive cars. They are technologically savvy, highly networked, and adaptable. For the most part they are socially tolerant.

    The world is changing at a rapid pace. You can't simply stick your head in the sand and say same old same old.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 10-11-2016 at 10:12 PM.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  25. #25

    Default

    If people are going to analyze the 2016 election they cannot leave out the Bernie factor. How many of Bernie's votes went to Hillary and how many to Trump. How many of Bernie's supporters just did not bother to vote. Then you also have to factor in the popular vote against the Electoral College. Now I'll admit I am not fully versed on the Electoral College voting system but a 200,000 person lead in the popular vote is not a great lead when you consider the millions that voted and taking into account it was basically a two party contest. The election process was very divisive but it seems the country is still very divided even after the vote. Then of top of that half the population did not vote, analyze that.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  26. #26
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    1,886

    Default

    ^Hard to know all the specifics but from the standpoint of raw numbers, Hilary got 5.4 million fewer votes than Obama while Trump received almost 900k fewer votes than Romney in 2012. Over 6 million voters from 2012 didn't vote, that's a fair number of people.

    But according to this article, because of the electoral college the three blue states that were most critical to Trump were Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (a combined total of 46 electoral college votes) and the combined margin of victory was only 112,158 votes. Clinton and the Democrats paid a heavy price for not addressing the concerns of the voters in the manufacturing belt states.

    Heavy.com
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 11-11-2016 at 12:18 AM.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  27. #27

    Default

    I did hear mention that Clinton and the dems supposedly took some states for granted and took little attention to them during the campaign. It seems this election cycle will go down in history simple because Trump was such a unusual candidate. He knocked down every opponent that was put in front of him and these people were seasoned politicians. Look at the odds giving to Trump when he announced his candidacy, slim to non.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  28. #28
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    1,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I did hear mention that Clinton and the dems supposedly took some states for granted and took little attention to them during the campaign. It seems this election cycle will go down in history simple because Trump was such a unusual candidate. He knocked down every opponent that was put in front of him and these people were seasoned politicians. Look at the odds giving to Trump when he announced his candidacy, slim to non.
    Very true, Trump's marketing and messaging was spot on. But at the same time the voting numbers also point out that he was very beatable with the right candidate and counter messaging. By focusing too much on his character Dems and Hilary lost sight of the critical issue foremost on people's mind in the critical states.

    Similarly, when Gore lost in 2000 despite winning the popular vote he lost his home state of Tennessee, probable loss of focus there as well.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 11-11-2016 at 12:46 AM.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  29. #29

    Default

    This is interesting:

    ion 2016 results: Eight ways the election might have been different
    By Brian Wheeler, Political reporter, 11 November 2016
    From the section US Election 2016



    But not all college graduates backed Clinton. The majority of white women with degrees - a group she was banking on - voted for Trump, by a four-point margin, according to Pew.


    ...

    People do or don't vote for all kinds of reasons. What we do know is that there were 868 fewer polling places in the 16 states with a history of voter discrimination that, under the old rules, would have had to get federal permission to close them.

    ...



    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37932230
    Last edited by KC; 11-11-2016 at 07:54 AM.

  30. #30

    Default

    This is a map and stats on how the 18 to 25 age group voted in the U S election. These protesters seem to be predominately in this age group. It's fine to have a peaceful protest but when riots break out they should be lectured on what democracy is.
    Last edited by Gemini; 11-11-2016 at 12:26 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  31. #31
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If people are going to analyze the 2016 election they cannot leave out the Bernie factor. How many of Bernie's votes went to Hillary and how many to Trump. How many of Bernie's supporters just did not bother to vote. Then you also have to factor in the popular vote against the Electoral College. Now I'll admit I am not fully versed on the Electoral College voting system but a 200,000 person lead in the popular vote is not a great lead when you consider the millions that voted and taking into account it was basically a two party contest. The election process was very divisive but it seems the country is still very divided even after the vote. Then of top of that half the population did not vote, analyze that.
    From what I gather, the popular vote is something new, it just counts how many people total voted for which candidate. The electoral college is what they have been using for 200 years to elect their president. It is vital to a fair voice in their democracy for this system to stay in place, as mostly rural farming states wouldn't have as much population as california or NY and therefore the candidates wouldn't feel the need to campaign there as those few votes wouldn't matter. However, if you go on the electoral system, even a state with a small population can suddenly become vital to campaign in if you want to become the president.

    Its sad that there are people rioting and protesting Trump having won, not because they're acting like sore losers, ruining their own property, and putting doubt into the minds of the rest of the world about democracy, but because they feel that due to Clinton having had the popular vote she should be president, which leads me to believe that the american school system isn't doing a proper job teaching about their political system, election process, and even their constitutional rights.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I did hear mention that Clinton and the dems supposedly took some states for granted and took little attention to them during the campaign. It seems this election cycle will go down in history simple because Trump was such a unusual candidate. He knocked down every opponent that was put in front of him and these people were seasoned politicians. Look at the odds giving to Trump when he announced his candidacy, slim to non.
    But the same could be said about Trump. I don't recall him going to California, Oregon, Idaho or Alaska
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #33
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Its sad that there are people rioting and protesting Trump having won, not because they're acting like sore losers, ruining their own property, and putting doubt into the minds of the rest of the world about democracy, but because they feel that due to Clinton having had the popular vote she should be president, which leads me to believe that the american school system isn't doing a proper job teaching about their political system, election process, and even their constitutional rights.
    You can be upset with the system of electoral college in that there are real issues with it, and prefer that actual voting % matters more. Population per electoral college vote varies wildly. The average is 436,000 people per electoral college vote, but in Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. In NY State, it's 519,000 people per electoral vote. So why are votes in Wyoming worth 4x those in NY State?

    We have the same issue in Canada. The Labrador Riding has 27,000 people in it, while the Brandford-Brant riding has 132,000, a difference of nearly 5x. But we are electing MP's instead of all of our votes going to a single President at the end, so the results are much different.

  34. #34

    Default

    Trump did very well on the electorate vote. One could say he did very well all round as some media outlets were saying Hillary had a 92% chance of winning.
    Another thing about the states is that they start to announce the voting results when the voting ends. Once the east coast voting booths are closed the results start coming out even if they are still voting in other time zones. Canada, as you know, does not do that. I think it's because Canada's voting outcomes usually come from down east. Whatever party in Canada is leading down east it more or less going to lead the country.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Trump's campaign style was right out of "Mein Kampf"
    Give it a rest.
    No, Trump used "THE BIG LIE" as his campaign platform. Keep lying about the Clinton emails and then got the MSM and FBI to buy-in. According to some opinions, 50% of the media coverage was about Hillary's emails. Yes she was foolish and put secret documents on her server but the FBI cleared her of criminal behaviour and moreover, there was no evidence that the info on her server was hacked or resulted in the security of the United States being harmed in any way.

    Much ado about nothing but it was the only thing Trump had over her and she fumbled the ball because she really tried to dodge the issue rather than having a head-on discussion about it with the American voters.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Its sad that there are people rioting and protesting Trump having won, not because they're acting like sore losers, ruining their own property, and putting doubt into the minds of the rest of the world about democracy, but because they feel that due to Clinton having had the popular vote she should be president, which leads me to believe that the american school system isn't doing a proper job teaching about their political system, election process, and even their constitutional rights.
    You can be upset with the system of electoral college in that there are real issues with it, and prefer that actual voting % matters more. Population per electoral college vote varies wildly. The average is 436,000 people per electoral college vote, but in Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. In NY State, it's 519,000 people per electoral vote. So why are votes in Wyoming worth 4x those in NY State?

    We have the same issue in Canada. The Labrador Riding has 27,000 people in it, while the Brandford-Brant riding has 132,000, a difference of nearly 5x. But we are electing MP's instead of all of our votes going to a single President at the end, so the results are much different.

    Totally agree

    The Liberals in 2015 received 39.5% of the popular vote but received 54% of the seats. This is really wonky compared to the USA.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  37. #37
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    That's why Canada is reviewing other options for electoral reform.

  38. #38

    Default

    I think in Canada and especially in the US election of 2016, NOTA should be on every ballot






    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39

    Default

    Both countries' ballots already have that in various ways: declining to show up to vote, declining to mark a vote, or purposely spoiling a vote.

    Adding an extra option would only appeal to the (sadly so routinely) b*tchy who need to vent.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  40. #40

    Default

    You do not understand that NOTA is very different. If NOTA gets the most votes, the election in that riding requires all new candidates, not the one with more votes winning by default
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #41

    Default

    NOTA takes a further step into the wishful: assuming that new candidates can be "required" to appear once the ones that presented themselves and spent lots of time and money could not satisfy the electorate.

    Then we get the second-stringers? More rounds of pre-selection? The incumbents given more time to do what we do/don't like while we squabble more?

    How does a situation where the electorate says Meh to the assumedly best there is expect to find better?
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  42. #42

    Default

    This article sounds promising but doesn't say much. Would be interesting if dirty tricks were being employed.


    Why Election Forecasts and Polls Were So Wrong

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...s_3&set=602837

  43. #43
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,439

    Default

    If the presidential election were decided by the popular vote alone the states of California(pop 40 million) and New York (pop 20 million) would control each and every election with their vote tally. This would be so unfair to the other 48 states and the territories that civil war would probably break out. Those 2 states would decide each and every outcome, always, with their 60 million people.

  44. #44

    Default

    That's proportionally less than half the influence that Ontario enjoys in Canada.

    The cool thing is that those big states aren't monolithic either. There would be 10 million Republican votes from California.
    There can only be one.

  45. #45

    Default

    There's 250 million people not in California or New York. I fail to see how new York and California could over-rule them.

    As I see it, they already have one body designed to give each state an equal say - the senate. There's no need for the presidential race to have the same bias.
    There can only be one.

  46. #46
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    There's 250 million people not in California or New York. I fail to see how new York and California could over-rule them.

    As I see it, they already have one body designed to give each state an equal say - the senate. There's no need for the presidential race to have the same bias.
    What this guys said.

    Right now, if you don't live in a swing state, your vote isn't very useful either.

  47. #47
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    9,949

    Default

    This is a list of micropolitan statistical areas in the U. S. (10,000-50,000 people). There are 576 in the United States.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microp...atistical_area

    This also may be of interest:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/c...rump-in-office
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Trump's campaign style was right out of "Mein Kampf"
    Give it a rest.
    No, Trump used "THE BIG LIE" as his campaign platform. Keep lying about the Clinton emails and then got the MSM and FBI to buy-in.

    Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election and fabricating the contents of the DNC and Podesta's leaked emails. they colluded with the mainstream media (getting debate questions beforehand, editing articles for the media before publishing them). heck, they even hired paid protesters (brown shirts) to incite violence at Trump's rallies!


    How did Trump lie about Hillary's emails? Please provide examples. Also, Trump doesn't control the mainstream media or the FBI.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 15-11-2016 at 09:04 AM.

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    If the presidential election were decided by the popular vote alone the states of California(pop 40 million) and New York (pop 20 million) would control each and every election with their vote tally. This would be so unfair to the other 48 states and the territories that civil war would probably break out. Those 2 states would decide each and every outcome, always, with their 60 million people.
    Except that the USA has a powerful senate with an equal number of representatives from each state. This provides plenty of balance without the need for the added complexity and distortion of the electoral college. If you are going to elect a single individual to represent an entire country, a direct vote is the only fair way to do it. It is also the only situation in which I would support ranked ballots (STV). If the US were to adopt them for presidential elections, it would eliminate all of the complaints about 3rd party candidates splitting votes.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election and fabricating the contents of the DNC and Podesta's leaked emails. they colluded with the mainstream media (getting debate questions beforehand, editing articles for the media before publishing them). heck, they even hired paid protesters (brown shirts) to incite violence at Trump's rallies!
    Do you have a source for your statement that Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #51
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    If the presidential election were decided by the popular vote alone the states of California(pop 40 million) and New York (pop 20 million) would control each and every election with their vote tally. This would be so unfair to the other 48 states and the territories that civil war would probably break out. Those 2 states would decide each and every outcome, always, with their 60 million people.
    Except that the USA has a powerful senate with an equal number of representatives from each state. This provides plenty of balance without the need for the added complexity and distortion of the electoral college. If you are going to elect a single individual to represent an entire country, a direct vote is the only fair way to do it. It is also the only situation in which I would support ranked ballots (STV). If the US were to adopt them for presidential elections, it would eliminate all of the complaints about 3rd party candidates splitting votes.
    yes, the americans have an interesting system.

    what many forget is that their system has inherent checks and balance particularly when one party doesn't control the presidency and the house and the senate (with the judiciary being the fourth) and even on the rate occasions one party does control all three there typically isn't full agreement between them.

    that type of balance is typically only achieved in canada with minority governments which tend to produce much better government than our majorities do regardless of which party holds power in either scenario.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  52. #52

    Default

    There are no American checks and balances that work in practice. It's all just a pious myth.

    As everywhere else, power is exercised exactly so long as the efficiency of the enforcement agencies plus public support for power outweighs the force of the insurrection plus public opposition to power.

    I don't mean this exclusively in terms of rebellion, by the way.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 15-11-2016 at 12:33 PM.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    If the presidential election were decided by the popular vote alone the states of California(pop 40 million) and New York (pop 20 million) would control each and every election with their vote tally. This would be so unfair to the other 48 states and the territories that civil war would probably break out. Those 2 states would decide each and every outcome, always, with their 60 million people.
    Except that the USA has a powerful senate with an equal number of representatives from each state. This provides plenty of balance without the need for the added complexity and distortion of the electoral college. If you are going to elect a single individual to represent an entire country, a direct vote is the only fair way to do it. It is also the only situation in which I would support ranked ballots (STV). If the US were to adopt them for presidential elections, it would eliminate all of the complaints about 3rd party candidates splitting votes.
    yes, the americans have an interesting system.

    what many forget is that their system has inherent checks and balance particularly when one party doesn't control the presidency and the house and the senate (with the judiciary being the fourth) and even on the rate occasions one party does control all three there typically isn't full agreement between them.

    that type of balance is typically only achieved in canada with minority governments which tend to produce much better government than our majorities do regardless of which party holds power in either scenario.
    The dynamics and conflict created by truly democratic systems of 'one person one vote' must be fascinating. However note how we see people's in terms of their geographic locations (California and New York). I think it's very much a legacy of the old world where geography and land/property rights defined society and the mostly agrarian economies. Industrialization / manufacturing also followed the same geographic basis and so an urban vs rural delineation or separation occurred on the assumption that that best defines different populations. Today I don't know if grouping people by there physical location makes total sense in terms of democratic interests. I'd guess that that made a lot of sense in the old world of lords, towns farms, etc and even today with respect to infrastructure, some business, etc. However, in modern times we've added a lot more geographically dispersed trans-national 'like' or vested interests like minorities, women, environmentalists, coaitslusts, socialits, left and right wingers, scientists, 'classes' etc.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election and fabricating the contents of the DNC and Podesta's leaked emails. they colluded with the mainstream media (getting debate questions beforehand, editing articles for the media before publishing them). heck, they even hired paid protesters (brown shirts) to incite violence at Trump's rallies!
    Do you have a source for your statement that Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election?
    Yeah - Every campaign speech that Hillary made in October, and the 2nd and 3rd debates she had against Donald Trump.

    You have to be blind and deaf to have missed that.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election and fabricating the contents of the DNC and Podesta's leaked emails. they colluded with the mainstream media (getting debate questions beforehand, editing articles for the media before publishing them). heck, they even hired paid protesters (brown shirts) to incite violence at Trump's rallies!
    Do you have a source for your statement that Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election?
    Yeah - Every campaign speech that Hillary made in October, and the 2nd and 3rd debates she had against Donald Trump.

    You have to be blind and deaf to have missed that.
    But which of any of those are a source that confirms that what she claimed was wrong/disproved? They are just times she made claims. One would have to be purposely blind and deaf to take her claims as lies without the other side of the equation.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election and fabricating the contents of the DNC and Podesta's leaked emails. they colluded with the mainstream media (getting debate questions beforehand, editing articles for the media before publishing them). heck, they even hired paid protesters (brown shirts) to incite violence at Trump's rallies!
    Do you have a source for your statement that Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election?
    Yeah - Every campaign speech that Hillary made in October, and the 2nd and 3rd debates she had against Donald Trump.

    You have to be blind and deaf to have missed that.
    That is only your opinion that she lied.

    Here is a sourced piece of info that she did not lie. Note the date, well before the election.


    US officially accuses Russia of hacking DNC and interfering with election
    Administration says ‘only Russia’s senior-most officials’ could have signed off on cyber-attacks and urges states to seek federal security aid for voting systems
    Saturday 8 October 2016 14.09 BST

    The US government has formally accused Russia of hacking the Democratic party’s computer networks and said that Moscow was attempting to “interfere” with the US presidential election.

    Hillary Clinton and US officials have blamed Russian hackers for stealing more than 19,000 emails from Democratic party officials, but Friday’s announcement marked the first time that the Obama administration has pointed the finger at Moscow.


    “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” said the office of the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a joint statement.


    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ntial-election
    Looks to me that Trump was the one lying in the debates.

    You are obviously blind and deaf to have missed that.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election and fabricating the contents of the DNC and Podesta's leaked emails. they colluded with the mainstream media (getting debate questions beforehand, editing articles for the media before publishing them). heck, they even hired paid protesters (brown shirts) to incite violence at Trump's rallies!
    Do you have a source for your statement that Hillary constantly lied about Russia & putin influencing the election?
    Yeah - Every campaign speech that Hillary made in October, and the 2nd and 3rd debates she had against Donald Trump.

    You have to be blind and deaf to have missed that.
    That is only your opinion that she lied.

    Here is a sourced piece of info that she did not lie. Note the date, well before the election.


    US officially accuses Russia of hacking DNC and interfering with election
    Administration says ‘only Russia’s senior-most officials’ could have signed off on cyber-attacks and urges states to seek federal security aid for voting systems
    Saturday 8 October 2016 14.09 BST

    The US government has formally accused Russia of hacking the Democratic party’s computer networks and said that Moscow was attempting to “interfere” with the US presidential election.

    Hillary Clinton and US officials have blamed Russian hackers for stealing more than 19,000 emails from Democratic party officials, but Friday’s announcement marked the first time that the Obama administration has pointed the finger at Moscow.


    “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” said the office of the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a joint statement.


    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ntial-election
    Looks to me that Trump was the one lying in the debates.

    You are obviously blind and deaf to have missed that.
    Yeah I understood it that the US security people had essentially determined that the Russian government was the hacker. So to think Clinton was lying seems odd but she maybe overstated the case.

  58. #58

    Default

    And Donald Trump overstated the email server issue several fold. Yes she was stupid to use her own server but there is no indication that her personal server was hacked and a real threat to National Security.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    ... there is no indication that her personal server was hacked and a real threat to National Security.

    Actually, the FBI believes that as many as 5 different intelligence agencies may have hacked Hillary's server. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...llarys-server/


    As for the DNC emails, nobody knows if that the DNC emails were obtained though a hack or leaked. Also, nobody knows how John Podesta's emails became public either (he literally used [email protected] as his password to things, and his emails may have been leaked by someone he knows). Besides, the DNC emails aren't what lost Hillary the election - it was her own lying.

    At any rate, blaming Trump for Hillary's mistakes and poor decisions is silly.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    One would have to be purposely blind and deaf to take her claims as lies without the other side of the equation.
    Not for a Clinton you don't!

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    One would have to be purposely blind and deaf to take her claims as lies without the other side of the equation.
    Not for a Clinton you don't!
    Well you don't. I live in a world where facts and reality matter though. And ya, one would have to be blinded and deafened by their own sense of correctness to take half the story and run with it, and defend it.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  62. #62

    Default

    Is all this on the right thread? Analyzing the Election results, how?

  63. #63

    Default

    Easily hacked:



    On Wednesday morning, J. Alex Halderman — one of the computer scientists encouraging the Clinton campaign to request recounts — defended his case in a post on Medium. In that piece, Halderman does not mention the Wisconsin data, and distances himself from some unspecified “incorrect numbers” in Sherman’s report.

    Rather, Halderman argues that an audit is warranted because our voting system is far easier to hack than most people realize. In other words, he contends that the risk of a hack is so high, the mere discrepancy between the polls and the Election Day results in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan is enough to justify a recount:

    America’s voting machines have serious cybersecurity problems. That isn’t news. It’s been documented beyond any doubt over the last decade in numerous peer-reviewed papers and state-sponsored studies by me and by other computer security experts … I’ve demonstrated this in the laboratory with real voting machines  —  in just a few seconds, anyone can install vote-stealing malware on those machines that silently alters the electronic records of every vote … It doesn’t matter whether the voting machines are connected to the Internet. Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area.
    The vulnerability of our system, combined with Russia’s alleged involvement in pre–Election Day hacks, leads Halderman to this conclusion:


    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...en-hacked.html

  64. #64

    Default

    Those voting machines are dodgy as hell. Any random VLT in your neighborhood pub has better security, reliability, regulation, auditing and independent oversight than a voting machine.

  65. #65
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,232

    Default

    Doesn't Soros own some machines? I'd laugh if Trump comes out with even more votes..lol

  66. #66

    Default

    It seems unbelievable that random audits aren't automatically done across all the states. It would be like not auditing government books.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •