
Hillary Clinton and Electoral Fraud - DamienSF
https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6#.nsfpqoq75
======
aaronbrethorst
This article from 2012 talks about how incorrect exit polls have been in the
past and a little bit of the why:

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/outrage...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/outraged-
wisconsin-exit-polls-so-wrong)

From WaPo: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/04/22/ho...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/04/22/how-exit-polls-work-explained/)

Another good one:
[http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_is_the_sam....](http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_is_the_sam.html)

------
tommynicholas
Nonsense. Results have matched extremely closely with polls coming in.
Discrepancies with exit polls are small AND exit polls have always favored
more ardent supporters and younger supporters.

People who are more enthusiastic about their choices are more likely to do
exit polls. Get over it. Hillary Clinton is going to win this nomination
because she won (by far) the most votes. That doesn't mean you have to like
her, like the way this system works, or want her to be President. I support
her out of all the candidates running and I don't like ANY of those things!
But let's stop the conspiracy theory nonsense and move on to things that
matter.

------
CameronBanga
Looks like some picking and choosing of data. I hate Hillary, but You need
better data than this if you want to be taken seriously when accusing a
candidate of voter fraud.

~~~
DamienSF
For a comprehensive analysis of the voting data I would recommend to have a
look at the blog of Richard Charnin:
[https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/ny-
democrati...](https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/ny-democratic-
primary-more-frustration/) as well as the research paper on electronic vote
flipping by Francois Choquette and James Johnson:
[http://madisonvoices.com/pdffiles/2008_2012_ElectionsResults...](http://madisonvoices.com/pdffiles/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.5.pdf)

------
ggggtez
Conspiracy theory nonsense.

------
angersock
Democracy is _far_ too important to be left in the hands of the people, it
would seem.

How would others here on HN suggest implementing a trustable voting system?
What problems do you forsee it having?

~~~
kunai
> Democracy is far too important to be left in the hands of the people, it
> would seem.

Very contradictory, and some would say elitist. Many of the problems with our
democratic republic system (we don't live in a democracy) arise due to the
entrenched oligarchic power structure and excessively lenient campaign finance
laws, which basically give the power of the purse to corporations and
executives. The people are not to blame when political parties only choose to
push candidates who have wholly existed within this power structure and are
completely out of touch with the needs of the country as a whole.

If a government represents its people within constraints (avoiding
discrimination or prejudice and avoiding harm to people by way of a Millian
criminal justice system), those people should logically be happier.

Examples: marijuana legalization, welfare, basic living income, civil
liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy, checks and balances on law
enforcement.

If the government couldn't be trusted with the masses, voter suppression laws
would be successful at turning the tides of the country away from unrest and
inequality and unhappiness. They haven't, and to suggest otherwise is a
laughably elitist and ridiculous sentiment.

~~~
PantaloonFlames
> Very contradictory, and some would say elitist.

No, not elitist. It recognizes that the will of the people must be done,
but... not so fast. The problem is the will of the people can be really
immoral and can cause rampant chaos and riots. Beheadings, storming the
castle, all that.

The whole idea is for the electoral college to dampen the swings. Stability
benefits all.

Sure, change. Progress. But deliberate change. Slow change.

Take one example: Gay rights. Clinton the 1st passed "don't ask, don't tell"
in .. what? 1993? And then we let the whole issue simmer for a generation.
Because that's what it takes. It takes old people dying off, for the
population to come around to a better way of running things.

(Dying off without being murdered)

