4 ms·
Funny how the perception on possiblity of fraud changed after the election when the "wrong" side won.
by krige 10y ago
Funny how the perception on possiblity of fraud changed after the election when the "wrong" side won.
- tunesmith 10y agoFunny how the losing side also rapidly looked at evidence and statistical studies (Nate Cohn, Nate Silver) and then others that were initially concerned rapidly updated their views (Paul Krugman) - ... sorry were you trying to draw an equivalence?
- peteretep 10y agoI wonder if there's any difference between "the lizard people are trying to throw the election because George Soros" and "there are some things that don't make sense that bear further investigation".
- po 10y agoFunny how Trump has a strategy of accusing people of doing the very thing he's busy doing. Think about all the places he does it. It's a great tactic. I'll also add: - I heard plenty of people in the Clinton camp who were concerned about a hacked vote before the election. - There's more than one way a vote could be unfair. Historically, there has been very little of the kind that Republicans talk so much about (people voting twice, dead people voting, illegals voting, etc…). If there was a significant amount of it, I actually think most democrats would acknowledge it. - Verifying the integrity of a massively important vote should be done regardless of which side wins. It doesn't have to be expensive to do it right. See also: https://www.verifiedvoting.org https://www.verifiedvoting.org http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/18/election-audit-paper-machines-column/93803752/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/18/election-au... Edited to add: The main reason I would want an auditable vote system, and a verification afterward if we didn't have that, even if I were in the Clinton camp is to help shut up all the people who would complain about her victory being illegitimate. If you can shut that kind of talk down, then the whole country can move on knowing their choice was their choice.