.

[Metric Mouse]

Nate Silver, on point: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-i-support-an-election-audit-even-though-its-unlikely-to-change-the-outcome/

TL;DR the anomalies go away when you adjust for demographics, but we should conduct routine audits anyway to bolster faith in the system.

This is what pretty much every major source has agreed upon - the outcome would not change even with a re-count.  It would be better I think if officials decided to do a 'routine recount' of a narrow-margin state or two. Doesn't have to be all of them; but it would stop the rabble rabble from both sides while not showing bias, increase voter confidence and solidify the results. Obviously the fringes still wouldn't be happy, but they rarely are.

[ender]

Nate Silver, on point: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-i-support-an-election-audit-even-though-its-unlikely-to-change-the-outcome/

TL;DR the anomalies go away when you adjust for demographics, but we should conduct routine audits anyway to bolster faith in the system.

This is what pretty much every major source has agreed upon - the outcome would not change even with a re-count.  It would be better I think if officials decided to do a 'routine recount' of a narrow-margin state or two. Doesn't have to be all of them; but it would stop the rabble rabble from both sides while not showing bias, increase voter confidence and solidify the results. Obviously the fringes still wouldn't be happy, but they rarely are.

Along these lines, Florida has mandatory recounts if the margin is within a small percentage.

[NoStacheOhio]

Nate Silver, on point: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-i-support-an-election-audit-even-though-its-unlikely-to-change-the-outcome/

TL;DR the anomalies go away when you adjust for demographics, but we should conduct routine audits anyway to bolster faith in the system.

This is what pretty much every major source has agreed upon - the outcome would not change even with a re-count.  It would be better I think if officials decided to do a 'routine recount' of a narrow-margin state or two. Doesn't have to be all of them; but it would stop the rabble rabble from both sides while not showing bias, increase voter confidence and solidify the results. Obviously the fringes still wouldn't be happy, but they rarely are.

Along these lines, Florida has mandatory recounts if the margin is within a small percentage.

Many states do, but none triggered an automatic recount this year.

[music lover]

Unfortunately I think it's possible.  I really don't want it to be true (I don't want to call into question the entire election process...what a mess!)

So we owe it to everyone to do a recount, like 2000, and put it to bed, officially.

All the states? Or just the close states? Or just the close states that voted for the winner?

Take a guess. The closest state was New Hampshire and no one on the left is demanding a recount there.

I'm sure it must just be a coincidence, lol...

[sol]

Take a guess. The closest state was New Hampshire and no one on the left is demanding a recount there.

You and MM have said this like six times in this thread, so for some reason you're not hearing the following sentence so please read it carefully.

People are asking for recounts in states that have apparent voter anomalies, not in the states that have the closest results.

Does that make sense now?  I mean we also sometimes recount a state just because it is close, which is also a good idea, but if the election procedure is secure and verifiable then it shouldn't really matter how close the count is.  In this case, people are asking for recounts in WI and not NH because the results in WI look a little suspicious, regardless of what the outcome was.  It wouldn't even change the election results if WI were to flip during a recount.  The recounts aren't about changing the election outcome, they're about verifying our electoral process and that's supposedly a goal that Republicans have been pushing for with voter ID laws for years.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Right, did anyone screw with it I think is the question worth asking and answering.  It is probably more worrying if there is a vulnerability that a 13 year old in his mom's basement could exploit to affect things than some foreign power.

I still get disgusted that anyone who thinks the federal government, which can't accurately count us or figure out what we owe in taxes, is capable of any of the shit we're empowering them to do.  This, the most basic, first responsibility that an elected government has, should be simple, and yet they consistently fuck it up.

The best defense that can be mustered is "the mistake didn't affect the outcome."

Which is just. WTF?  We should know down to the individual vote exactly what the count was, instantaneously and accurately.

[Metric Mouse]

I think the point is that the fringe groups who most ardently support the recount aren't going to be happy either way. I mean, even Trump supports a re-count; but as we saw in 2000, the recount didn't settle arguments or calm the cries from those most invested in them.

[NoStacheOhio]

I think the point is that the fringe groups who most ardently support the recount aren't going to be happy either way. I mean, even Trump supports a re-count; but as we saw in 2000, the recount didn't settle arguments or calm the cries from those most invested in them.

Maybe the 2000 recount would have settled arguments if the Republican Supreme Court hadn't ended it early.

Considering the recount shenanigans on both sides, I doubt it would've settled anything to anyone's satisfaction. It would've just come up with a different number we could argue about.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

The correct response to unreasonable demands born of the cynicism of partisans is not to ignore them.  It is to exhaust their arguments.

Count it a thousand times if that's what it takes.  The bleating whinging of children is best countered by the tactics parents have been using forever.  I'm sorry, you can't have another cookie, there are no more cookies, would you like to look into the empty jar again?

[HPstache]

I thought it was once said that a person questions the election results was 'horrifying' and 'a threat to democracy'.  Oh the irony...

[Poundwise]

If so, I doubt that it would be traceable or that a recount will be able to detect it.  What is really creepy is the Russian troll farms. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

Why hack the voting machines if you can hack the voters?

The New York Times has no credibility...they're just another Democrat propaganda rag.

Well, if you don't like the NYT, how about the following study from RAND?
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE198/RAND_PE198.pdf

[RangerOne]

I thought it was once said that a person questions the election results was 'horrifying' and 'a threat to democracy'.  Oh the irony...

The losing side always sets the bar for what is proper behavior whens its the other sides turn to be the loser. However low the Dems go now, the Repubs will do the same next time they are in the passenger set and vise versa.

There is very little moral high ground for politicians seeking reelection and funding.

[Kris]

If so, I doubt that it would be traceable or that a recount will be able to detect it.  What is really creepy is the Russian troll farms. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

Why hack the voting machines if you can hack the voters?

The New York Times has no credibility...they're just another Democrat propaganda rag.

And what's YOUR credibility in saying this?

You don't need credibility anymore. This is Trump's America.

[DoubleDown]

You don't need credibility anymore. This is Trump's America.

Ha, good one!

[Metric Mouse]

I thought it was once said that a person questions the election results was 'horrifying' and 'a threat to democracy'.  Oh the irony...

Bu...bu... the results don't match the polls! And the polls were sooo good... so the results must be wrong.

I'm not certain a recount is the best use of resources, but perhaps I have more faith in the republic than is warranted.

[NoStacheOhio]

I thought it was once said that a person questions the election results was 'horrifying' and 'a threat to democracy'.  Oh the irony...

Bu...bu... the results don't match the polls! And the polls were sooo good... so the results must be wrong.

I'm not certain a recount is the best use of resources, but perhaps I have more faith in the republic than is warranted.

The national polls were pretty darn close to accurate!

The state polls missed by small, but statistically significant margins. Moreover, all the people trying to argue that polls and states behave independently were just flat wrong. There was plenty of correlation amongst states where you would expect to see correlation.

[jrhampt]

Interestingly, the trump campaign is trying to block the recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

[Daleth]

The people have spoken and I accept that.

To the extent that the people spoke, they voted for Clinton (she won the popular vote by 2.5 million at last count). That kind of gets in my craw, I have to say. Every argument I've heard in favor of the electoral college is bullshit. It sprang from the same source as the Constitution's counting of each "Negro" as 3/5 of a person, and is forever tainted by that.

As for the view that it helps rural areas not get forced to endure the president preferred by people in large cities, every country on earth has that same "problem"--i.e., more voters live in cities than in rural areas, and some provinces/regions/states are far more populous than others--and nobody else has felt the need to ignore the popular vote as a result.

I'm putting "problem" in quotes because we appear to be the only democracy on earth that thinks it's a "problem" if the majority of voters get the president they want. When the minority of voters have to endure a president they didn't want, that's just democracy. When the MAJORITY of people have to endure Mango Mussolini, the president-elect they didn't want, surely that is more of a problem?

[KBecks]

One theory (from 538? WaPo?) is that Trump voters are more suspicious of institutions and poll callers.

Trump voter: "Hello?"
Poller: "Hi, we're conducting a poll on the election and it will only take a few minutes."
Trump voter: "Not interested. Good bye."

This is exactly what I do when pollsters call me.  There is no way I'm telling them about my voting preferences.  Screw the pollsters, my vote is secret and will be counted on election day.  None of your business!   I don't participate in any surveys, etc., unless they pay, and pay well. 

Note, I live in Wisconsin.  I believe Hillary took our state totally for granted, but Wiscosnin is a swing state with a strong Republican governor.  Trump was here a ton during his campaign.

I might start lying to pollsters.  Why should they know how I vote?   

Look at what happens to supporters of conservatives in Wisconsin. Any surprise if people want to be low key?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-in-wisconsin-done-in-by-john-doe/2014/10/24/b30ee2ec-5ad8-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html?utm_term=.92c44d14175e

[Metric Mouse]

The people have spoken and I accept that.

To the extent that the people spoke, they voted for Clinton (she won the popular vote by 2.5 million at last count). That kind of gets in my craw, I have to say. Every argument I've heard in favor of the electoral college is bullshit. It sprang from the same source as the Constitution's counting of each "Negro" as 3/5 of a person, and is forever tainted by that.

As for the view that it helps rural areas not get forced to endure the president preferred by people in large cities, every country on earth has that same "problem"--i.e., more voters live in cities than in rural areas, and some provinces/regions/states are far more populous than others--and nobody else has felt the need to ignore the popular vote as a result.

I'm putting "problem" in quotes because we appear to be the only democracy on earth that thinks it's a "problem" if the majority of voters get the president they want. When the minority of voters have to endure a president they didn't want, that's just democracy. When the MAJORITY of people have to endure Mango Mussolini, the president-elect they didn't want, surely that is more of a problem?

Umm... we're not a democracy. We never have been, in the entire history of The United States of America. Perhaps that misunderstanding is contributing to the issue?

Secondly, if you think that all other 'democracies' are free of these issues of disporpotinate voting, you'd be mistaken. UK election the worst in history.

Not that this makes the EC a perfect system, just that the arguments listed above are not very useful in combating it.

[music lover]

If so, I doubt that it would be traceable or that a recount will be able to detect it.  What is really creepy is the Russian troll farms. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

Why hack the voting machines if you can hack the voters?

The New York Times has no credibility...they're just another Democrat propaganda rag.

And what's YOUR credibility in saying this?

You don't need credibility anymore. This is Trump's America.

It has been Obama's America for the last 8 years, and he has made a total mess of it while the left sat there in silence accepting all his failures and refusing to hold him accountable.

[Daleth]

It has been Obama's America for the last 8 years, and he has made a total mess of it while the left sat there in silence accepting all his failures and refusing to hold him accountable.

You have an odd definition of "total mess." Apparently for you it means cutting unemployment in half, to one of the lowest figures it's ever been at (4.9%); saving the American auto industry; delivering years of a bull market right after one of the worst recessions we've ever seen (which, of course, started during the GW Bush administration); bringing troops home from Iraq; enabling 15 million uninsured Americans to have health insurance; etc.

I kind of like what you describe as a "total mess." Let's have more of that!

[HPstache]

It has been Obama's America for the last 8 years, and he has made a total mess of it while the left sat there in silence accepting all his failures and refusing to hold him accountable.

You have an odd definition of "total mess." Apparently for you it means cutting unemployment in half, to one of the lowest figures it's ever been at (4.9%); saving the American auto industry; delivering years of a bull market right after one of the worst recessions we've ever seen (which, of course, started during the GW Bush administration); bringing troops home from Iraq; enabling 15 million uninsured Americans to have health insurance; etc.

I kind of like what you describe as a "total mess." Let's have more of that!

I agree it's not a total mess.  But when the national debt doubles during your time in the white house, a lot of things can seem a lot better than they are.  If my family decides to double it's debt in a given year, things would seem pretty great for a while...

[HPstache]

It has been Obama's America for the last 8 years, and he has made a total mess of it while the left sat there in silence accepting all his failures and refusing to hold him accountable.

You have an odd definition of "total mess." Apparently for you it means cutting unemployment in half, to one of the lowest figures it's ever been at (4.9%); saving the American auto industry; delivering years of a bull market right after one of the worst recessions we've ever seen (which, of course, started during the GW Bush administration); bringing troops home from Iraq; enabling 15 million uninsured Americans to have health insurance; etc.

I kind of like what you describe as a "total mess." Let's have more of that!

I agree it's not a total mess.  But when the national debt doubles during your time in the white house, a lot of things can seem a lot better than they are.  If my family decides to double it's debt in a given year, things would seem pretty great for a while...

Wrong on so many levels.

1. Your analogy conflates 8 years of Obama with 1 year of your family budget. 

2. Bush roughly doubled the national debt over his term, as did Clinton, and Reagan.

3. The debt of the United States is not the same as your family budget.  The US pays low interest rates so it's not a bad idea to borrow money if the US can make investments that produce a ROI.

4. The President does not have complete control over the US Economy or even federal spending, which is more controlled by Congress.

5. When Obama came into office the financial system could have collapsed if he hadn't taken action.  Most of his debt increases were in the first term and the deficit as a % of GDP has been declining to more stable levels as he leaves office.

I'm incredulous when I hear people criticize Obama's record.  I guess if all you read and listen to are conservatives / Trump who are straight up lying about his record I could see how you believe that.

1.  My analogy is that adding debt constantly can make thing feel & appear better than reality.
2.  So?  Did I say they were better?
3.  Agreed.  But it's still adding debt.
4.  No but you just blamed Bush, Clinton and Reagan for the same thing.
5.  Does the same thing apply to Trump if things crash next year?

"I guess if all you read and listen to are conservatives / Trump who are straight up lying about his record I could see how you believe that."

This written in a thread titled:
"Did Russians Hack Election Count"... Hillarious.  I think we know who the brainwashed people are...

[RangerOne]

If so, I doubt that it would be traceable or that a recount will be able to detect it.  What is really creepy is the Russian troll farms. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

Why hack the voting machines if you can hack the voters?

The New York Times has no credibility...they're just another Democrat propaganda rag.

And what's YOUR credibility in saying this?

You don't need credibility anymore. This is Trump's America.

It has been Obama's America for the last 8 years, and he has made a total mess of it while the left sat there in silence accepting all his failures and refusing to hold him accountable.

Yes and its a shame. The failure of mainstream media to be critical of Obama's failures and potentially bad decisions has given fuel to other even more partisan news outlets critical of big cooperate media. The media should always take a critical stance of the current administration, instead they seem to adopt the tone of new presidents while they should cutting white house spin from their press releases.

[Kris]

It has been Obama's America for the last 8 years, and he has made a total mess of it while the left sat there in silence accepting all his failures and refusing to hold him accountable.

You have an odd definition of "total mess." Apparently for you it means cutting unemployment in half, to one of the lowest figures it's ever been at (4.9%); saving the American auto industry; delivering years of a bull market right after one of the worst recessions we've ever seen (which, of course, started during the GW Bush administration); bringing troops home from Iraq; enabling 15 million uninsured Americans to have health insurance; etc.

I kind of like what you describe as a "total mess." Let's have more of that!

Eh. Don't feed the troll.

[Metric Mouse]

"I guess if all you read and listen to are conservatives / Trump who are straight up lying about his record I could see how you believe that."

This written in a thread titled:
"Did Russians Hack Election Count"... Hillarious.  I think we know who the brainwashed people are...

Actually the mainstream media has been portraying this as a frivolous waste of time.

Depending upon the motivation for the recount, it very well would be.

[russianswinga]

"Did Russians Hack Election Count"?

Yes. Yes we did.
-Russianswinga

[Metric Mouse]

"Did Russians Hack Election Count"?

Yes. Yes we did.
-Russianswinga

There you have it. Here I thought we would learn the truth from a 2 am tweet from the president...

[Norioch]

Easy-to-hack, impossible-to-audit electronic voting machines are unequivocally terrible. Were they hacked in this election? Were they hacked by the Russians? The answer is it's impossible to know precisely because they're easy to hack and impossible to audit. This is one of those "trust but verify" situations where the "verify" part is now systematically impossible. A recount isn't going to change anything. The time to address this was years ago when electronic voting machines were first introduced, or any other time before the election, not now that the votes have already been counted. Trump is going to be president whether the election was rigged or not.

[NoStacheOhio]

Easy-to-hack, impossible-to-audit electronic voting machines are unequivocally terrible. Were they hacked in this election? Were they hacked by the Russians? The answer is it's impossible to know precisely because they're easy to hack and impossible to audit. This is one of those "trust but verify" situations where the "verify" part is now systematically impossible. A recount isn't going to change anything. The time to address this was years ago when electronic voting machines were first introduced, or any other time before the election, not now that the votes have already been counted. Trump is going to be president whether the election was rigged or not.

Yep.

Even with paper, Michigan laws are such that you can't legally recount if there's any sort of discrepancy. Guess what, there are a ton of (very minor) discrepancies in a bunch of districts, most likely due to human error. Who could've predicted it?

[Papa Mustache]

Honestly - I thought about this before the elections. Suppose you actually had a way to rig the elections and what planning to do so. What's the best way to ensure you'll escape detection and scrutiny? Why not tell your followers that your opponent is planning to rig the elections? Your opponent will predictably spend a lot of time explaining to everyone how impossibly hard it would be to rig the elections. They will go on at length about the security of our election process, and assure everybody that there is nothing at risk. Perfect! Now if your opponent becomes suspicious that you've rigged the election in the wake of an unexpected result, they'll look like a hypocrite! If they find impropriety and try to point it our, then your followers will be apoplectic and see it as evidence that you were right all along! There no possible way that your opponent could raise the issue without civil unrest.

Now, do I believe that's what happened? No, I don't. The demographic trends were pretty clear and pretty uniform across the entire Midwest, and every one of those states has different election procedures that would be next to impossible to rig independently. But I will say that Wisconsin's results were easily the most surprising.

I never suspected that the actual votes would be affected - but when Clinton started to take a dive, I did briefly wonder if Russia was somehow altering the information the news agencies received.  Just a product of my disbelief and my lack of understanding of vast majorities of fellow Americans, it would seem.  Something to improve upon.

That! Was really shocked at how some of my peers felt about Trump and Clinton. I'm not outspoken either way but I heard some unkind stuff said close in our social circle and that took us by surprise.