4 ms·

>Election results must be beyond doubt. It's been so interesting to see this turn of narrative after months "questioning the outcome of an election is undermin

>Election results must be beyond doubt. It's been so interesting to see this turn of narrative after months "questioning the outcome of an election is undermining democracy." I wonder what happened between Sept-Oct and now that changed all that?

scarmig 10y ago
So, your point of view is that concern about Russian hacking of the US electoral process is stupid, because people were also upset Trump suggested he might reject the outcome of a legitimate democratic processes?
- sakopov 10y ago
  I think the OP was just commenting about the irony of the situation and that at the end of the day everyone doubts the democratic election process.
- zo1 10y ago
  I think he's trying to point out the hypocrisy of the overall media-opinion on the matter before the results, vs now. I'd argue that people are a whole lot more "interested" or "curious" in the possibility of vote-manipulation or hacking now that the really unexpected candidate won. Hillary was a sort of "okay" result, yet Trump is, well I'm sure you've been reading HN and the rest of the internet.
- TheGirondin 10y ago
  No, my point is that people should think their partisan rhetoric through, unless they want to put themselves into a position of being a complete hypocrite. But since you asked, yes, I do think these "concerns" about Russian hacking of the US electoral process are stupid and a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the next President (which according to the rhetoric of many on left over the fall, is undermining to democracy itself).
gdulli 10y ago
Trump complained the system was rigged out of transparent demagoguery. He had no real facts, he had vague "dead people on the voter rolls" type claims because they sounded good. (People don't magically fade from the rolls when they die, there's a process and at any time it's normal and unavoidable for dead people to be on the rolls.) If (and only if) one party has actual evidence or data of rigging, it wouldn't be hypocritical for them to challenge the results after not taking Donald's whining during the campaign seriously. But it's academic, the results shouldn't be overturned. Even if it was found legitimate to give Hillary the win, it would make a martyr out of Donald and his movement would gain traction for 4 more years. The next 4 years are going to be ugly either because Donald is president or because half the country believes a conspiracy gave it to Hillary. One party or the other is going to be punished in 4 years. Better it should be Donald, let him fail and have his movement get put behind us for good.
- DennisP 10y ago
  If the machines in question have paper trails, and a recount shows conclusively that majorities in those states did in fact vote for for Clinton, then I don't see how it could possibly be justified to stick with the incorrect result, regardless of whether we like the political consequences. If there's no paper trail, then there's nothing we can do. We can't overturn results just because some mathematicians think they look funny.
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    IANAL, but I don't think it could be overturned anyway. There are certain gates, with state bureaucrats certifying the results and all. I think once those are past, you can't go backwards through them anyway. And in any case, don't forget that they're only voting for electors, not for the president him/herself. I was once involved in fighting a referendum. The local government demonstrably cheated, publishing information about the proposal that was clearly and significantly false. But I was advised by an attorney that in the end, they're never going to undo an election, so we shouldn't waste our time and money fighting.
    - 10y ago
dang 10y ago
I'm not sure it was a good idea to revive such a highly politicized thread, on a duplicate post at that, but if we're going to discuss this at all, let's stick to the specifics of the OP. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13025174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13025174 and marked it off-topic.

scarmig 10y ago

So, your point of view is that concern about Russian hacking of the US electoral process is stupid, because people were also upset Trump suggested he might reject the outcome of a legitimate democratic processes?

sakopov 10y ago
I think the OP was just commenting about the irony of the situation and that at the end of the day everyone doubts the democratic election process.
zo1 10y ago
I think he's trying to point out the hypocrisy of the overall media-opinion on the matter before the results, vs now. I'd argue that people are a whole lot more "interested" or "curious" in the possibility of vote-manipulation or hacking now that the really unexpected candidate won. Hillary was a sort of "okay" result, yet Trump is, well I'm sure you've been reading HN and the rest of the internet.
TheGirondin 10y ago
No, my point is that people should think their partisan rhetoric through, unless they want to put themselves into a position of being a complete hypocrite. But since you asked, yes, I do think these "concerns" about Russian hacking of the US electoral process are stupid and a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the next President (which according to the rhetoric of many on left over the fall, is undermining to democracy itself).

gdulli 10y ago

Trump complained the system was rigged out of transparent demagoguery. He had no real facts, he had vague "dead people on the voter rolls" type claims because they sounded good. (People don't magically fade from the rolls when they die, there's a process and at any time it's normal and unavoidable for dead people to be on the rolls.) If (and only if) one party has actual evidence or data of rigging, it wouldn't be hypocritical for them to challenge the results after not taking Donald's whining during the campaign seriously. But it's academic, the results shouldn't be overturned. Even if it was found legitimate to give Hillary the win, it would make a martyr out of Donald and his movement would gain traction for 4 more years. The next 4 years are going to be ugly either because Donald is president or because half the country believes a conspiracy gave it to Hillary. One party or the other is going to be punished in 4 years. Better it should be Donald, let him fail and have his movement get put behind us for good.

DennisP 10y ago
If the machines in question have paper trails, and a recount shows conclusively that majorities in those states did in fact vote for for Clinton, then I don't see how it could possibly be justified to stick with the incorrect result, regardless of whether we like the political consequences. If there's no paper trail, then there's nothing we can do. We can't overturn results just because some mathematicians think they look funny.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  IANAL, but I don't think it could be overturned anyway. There are certain gates, with state bureaucrats certifying the results and all. I think once those are past, you can't go backwards through them anyway. And in any case, don't forget that they're only voting for electors, not for the president him/herself. I was once involved in fighting a referendum. The local government demonstrably cheated, publishing information about the proposal that was clearly and significantly false. But I was advised by an attorney that in the end, they're never going to undo an election, so we shouldn't waste our time and money fighting.
  - 10y ago

dang 10y ago

I'm not sure it was a good idea to revive such a highly politicized thread, on a duplicate post at that, but if we're going to discuss this at all, let's stick to the specifics of the OP. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13025174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13025174 and marked it off-topic.