3 ms·

The claim has been made by the losing side in every election since Bush II in 2000. I take it as a sign of a widening gulf between political factions.

• Retric 10y ago
  Landslide elections are far less prone to this. Close elections are closer to a coin flip where small changes may swing an election. Ex: Few people doubted Obama's first election as it was very clear. The vocal minority wanted to question if he was eligible in the first place, not the outcome. You can see clear election 'influence' just look at the number of voting machines vs. voters in different areas and the lines this creates. Even pole closing times have a significant impact. People try to get so close to the line so often there are often court cases about this stuff. The core question is; have we gone from vote suppression to direct tampering, and the odds seem very high that this occurs in some places. Impact on national elections is harder to demonstrate. PS: And no I don't think there was a clear winner for this election, but IMO getting within spitting distance of a win is generally good enough. If 0.1% of voters change the outcome then the populace is just undecided.