Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Monday, November 28, 2016

Nate Silver finally gets it

I have to ask: Why would an audit/recount of the vote in WI, PA and MN even be controversial? If it were up to me, we would conduct such measures in all 50 states as a matter of routine. We would also conduct the elections themselves in a far more transparent and verifiable fashion. Double-checking the results should be a matter of simple democratic hygiene.

Nate Silver seems to have finally come around:
The first proviso: Let’s not call it a “recount,” because that’s not really what it is. It’s not as though merely counting the ballots a second or third time is likely to change the results enough to overturn the outcome in three states. An apparent win by a few dozen or a few hundred votes might be reversed by an ordinary recount. But Donald Trump’s margins, as of this writing, are roughly 11,000 votes in Michigan, 23,000 votes in Wisconsin and 68,000 votes in Pennsylvania. There’s no precedent for a recount overturning margins like those or anything close to them. Instead, the question is whether there was a massive, systematic effort to manipulate the results of the election.

So what we’re talking about is more like an audit or an investigation. An investigation that would look for signs of deliberate and widespread fraud, such as voting machines’ having been hacked, whole batches of ballots’ intentionally having been disregarded, illegal coordination between elections officials and the campaigns, and so on. Such findings would probably depend on physical evidence as much or more than they do statistical evidence. In that sense, there’s no particular reason to confine the investigation to Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania, the states that Hillary Clinton lost (somewhat) narrowly. If the idea is to identify some sort of smoking gun indicating massive fraud perpetrated by the Trump campaign — or by the Clinton campaign, or by the Russian government — it might be in a state Clinton won, such as New Hampshire or Minnesota. Or for that matter, it might be in a state Trump won fairly easily, like Ohio or Iowa.
He goes on to argue that the burden of proof ought to be high. This goes without saying. As noted in the previous post, any claim or allegation that might favor a Democratic candidate/politician/point-of-view routinely has to meet an extremely high burden of proof. By contrast, a conservative who cries "It's a conspiracy!" need offer no proof whatsoever -- as the Orange One himself demonstrated in recent tweets (and as Alex Jones demonstrates on a daily basis).

Such are the rules under which our society now must operate.

I'll be honest: I have no hope that Hillary Clinton will ever be president. Nevertheless, the search for truth must continue, for at least three reasons:

1. If we can demonstrate that Trump's win was illegitimate, he will have less credibility. Few will believe him if he resorts to a "Reichstag Fire" strategy to increase his power. Republicans will have fewer qualms about impeachment.

2. If we can demonstrate that Russia undertook covert action to change American history, we will awaken the citizenry to a threat which many still do not take seriously.

3. The search for truth is, in and of itself, an absolute good.

The turnout mystery. Although I have not yet heard today's "Bradcast," his interview segment seems to be of particular interest:
We are joined by long-time election fraud investigator and author Richard Hayes Phillips, to discuss all of that and his detailed report about the unusually large apparent voter turnout numbers in many rural WI municipalities and the difficulty citizens have in verifying and overseeing those numbers. As Phillips explains, there are horrible public reporting requirements for both results and for same-day voter registration provisions in the state.

"At a minimum, the problem is a lack of transparency," Phillips tells me today. "We have no way of knowing how many registered voters there are [in WI]. If you don't know how many registered voters there are, you don't know if too many ballots were cast." His report finds that, based on the latest state-reported voter registration numbers, there were "193 towns with turnout of 90% or better, 25 towns with turnout of 95% or better, and 7 towns with turnout of 100% or better." Those exceedingly high turnout numbers are likely lower in reality, due to same-day registration in WI, but the lack of reporting requirements for those numbers is "unacceptable".
How can a town have a turnout of more than 100 percent?

Wisconsin is a strange place. Did you know that some Wisconsinites have spotted ghost elephants in the woods near Baraboo? There's also "Chicken Alley" outside of the small town of Seymour, where one can see ghost chickens as they, uh, cross the road. (Don't ask me why.) So maybe those mysteriously high turnout numbers can be explained by ghost voters.

Welcome to Trump country!
Comments:
I made the same comment in my lastest dailypuma article. There should be spot recounts in other states in the rural areas just to see if things added up fairly, or not. Has anyone bothered to check the census numbers of rural towns to see if their populations have been growing or not?
Its one thing to compare republican turnout to Romney and Bush, but lets also know if a town's population has actually increased or not.
 
On the call for a judicially ordered investigation of the peculiar and in some cases obviously false vote numbers that won Trump the election, Trump says that a) Stein is only complaining in order to defraud people, and b) he only lost the popular vote by 3 million votes because of massive vote-rigging against him.

The guy is fucking la-la!

People who are as mentally ill as he is shouldn't be given any authority on important matters.

Lock the mad fucker up - in an asylum!
 
Might the British Foreign Office and MI6 be seeking to destroy the EU?

Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?

The "European project" was backed from the outset by the US. Things are changing now. And in British foreign policy circles the alliance with the US has always been considered more important than the cooperation with other European countries.

The Torygraph are drooling as they talk of "dominoes". This was the newspaper that while early on it opposed Trump, wheeled around before the election to support him, albeit subtly. And did they ever actually really oppose him? Maybe they were just helping circulate the shock stories that in the end I believe helped him. Remember the election was wrestling.

Le Pen is even making the same mouth shapes as Trump. (Photo in the above-linked article.)

As for Britain, there's such a huge amount of Russian money in London that one wonders how much antagonism there actually is between the British Tory elite and the ~KGB. Tough talk on the surface to promote a few weapons contracts; maybe that's all.
 
would the 'search for truth' have attracted 7 million dollars in contributtions.

3 states that Trump won and a reversal would give Clinton the presidency.

Most of the money came from democrats hoping it could get overturned.

Why not NH,wisconsin,michigan instead?

LOL
 
Would an audit of voting machines disclose whether they had been hacked?
 
I must point out-even though you use the word 'audit'-these are no such thing. they are not looking at voters.

they are just recounting the ballots cast-


 
If fraud looks likely to have changed the result in any state, the electoral college vote should be postponed until investigations are undertaken and concluded in all states plus DC. Trump should shut his mouth. He has a conflict of interest.
 
Joseph? your asking me? a recount is a recount.

An audit combined with forensic study of a machine might tell you if they have been hacked?

that takes a lot ot time.

Also -these machines have been around for over 30 years. somebody manually hacking a machine has been doable for the last 30 years-yet it was never worried about until now in the age of internet hacking.

as has been said-people with alot of time and expertise COULD manually hack these machines-but thats been doable since they came into existence.
 
Gerry
PA is on Stein's list because this:

http://www.wtae.com/article/allegheny-county-postpones-certifying-election-results/8372714

And the goal isn't to put someone else in the White House. The goal is to further de-legitimatize Trump and to provide evidence to the Democrats and mainstream Republicans in Congress that will help with Trump's impeachment.

ROFL
 
anonymous-Steins goal may not be to put someone else in the white house-

However the bulk of her contributours goal is to overturn the 3 states and get it for Clinton.

Impeaching Trump and succeeding will get you Mike Pence
 
gerry, what about the central tabulating computers that at the time of the 2004 election, were unsecured Windows machines connected to the internet? I have seen nothing indicating that that situation has changed in most states. Those would be easy to hack and would allow for changing many districts all at once. Of course, that kind of thing would be easier to discover......unless the changes were small enough. Even that isn't required. You keep saying the machines have been around for over 30 years, but most of the electronic voting machines in PA, where I live, were put in less than 10 years ago. Even in my tiny little township, where we use paper ballots, the tabulating machine is less than 15 years old. I think you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Gus-pennsylvanias SOS says your state machines and tabulators are not connected to the internet

Cortes has said Pennsylvania is immune from hacking because its voting machines and tabulating systems aren’t connected to the internet. In other words, a hacker would need to physically access the machines to be able to manipulate the vote.

those are his words not mine
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind