How the hell do you "recount" electronic ballots?

a reply to: SaturnFX

Probably a good idea, but there would be complaints about him being a bloodsucking immigrant

There won't be a recount. The Democrats aren't going to risk opening up this huge can of worms on the paper-thin evidence that's being presented here. All they're going to do is stir the rumors of hacking in order to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's presidency in the eyes of the public and even then, there's significant potential that this may backfire on them, especially among voters in those three states.

Some (not all) electronic voting machines produce receipts or ballot images, a snapshot essentially of how you voted and would be stored in the machine.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: dashen

I would argue that any election not decided purely by who got the most votes in total, is probably a stolen election, so in America, that would seem to be the only type of election you have.

Without the electoral college, Democrats would've held the presidency for the last 23 years plus the next 4.

a reply to: Bone75

Wow! You do not have much faith in the Republican Party if that is genuinely what you think!

Interesting. So, if your nations electoral system was valid, there would never be a right wing government there again? That's admission and a half!

a reply to: Bone75

Maybe, maybe not (and I would point out that Bush won both the popular vote and EC in 2004). Politics runs in cycles and had Gore won in 2000, its likely that the public would have sought a change in leadership in 2004 or 2008 and its entirely possible that Obama never would have been president.

originally posted by: dashen
Happy Turkey Day fellow heathens.

My question is how do you "recount" electronic ballots?
Do they compare the number of votes against who signed in, or is it just a matter of pushing f5 on a keyboard and in spewing out a number?

I personally want an investigation of how many illegals and ineligible voters were counted anyway.

Does anyone know what this so called "recount" entails?

You don't, and that's why a lot of countries in Europe, including Germany, made electronic voting illegal.

a reply to: TrueBrit

No, we know how California is and New York.

They are huge population concentrations of Democrat voting blocks. Together, the two of them can pretty much overwhelm the population of most of the rest of the country.

From what I understand the concern is the difference/variance in the electronic vs handwritten ballots. I read that hand written had a 7% higher rate of votes for Trump.

Considering paper ballots are more likely to used in small towns and rural areas it would make sense that Trump had higher numbers in those areas then in the bigger cities who probably use more electronic voting systems.

Just a though.

a reply to: sirlancelot

I would also guess that pollsters likely concentrated their efforts on polling urban res ponders to as opposed to rural ones. Statistically, that is far more likely and would account for polling discrepancies. If you are looking at a block of phone numbers and pull random ones off, you are just going to be more likely to pull off urban numbers.

"How the hell do you "recount" electronic ballots?"

Maybe with an electronic pocket calculator?

Sorry, couldn´t resist, even knowing that this one was really bad...

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly!

The same can be said of PA.
If you look at the state results map, the areas that voted Dem are concentrated in the high residential areas.
The suburbs directly around these areas were split.
Most of the rest of the state can be considered low density, and those were the areas that voted Trump.

If someone was going to hack on behalf of Trump, I would think they would concentrate on the high density areas that would go for Clinton, instead of the areas where Trump was an easy win.
But Clinton won those areas.
So, demographics explains the results.

State map:
www.nytimes.com...

Apparently with 4.5 million dollars....that is what it takes to recount all votes. I think they have a bill changer on them that you just slip the money into and it starts to count in your favor....I'm no expert on it though. I am however staying at a Holiday Inn if that qualifies me.

A ballot should not be tied to a voter.

When we vote, we are even given the choice of selecting any blank ballot paper out of a stack.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: dashen

I would argue that any election not decided purely by who got the most votes in total, is probably a stolen election, so in America, that would seem to be the only type of election you have.

Absolutely correct. I'm baffled by those in my country who still think the electoral college makes any damned sense. It's an additional layer to manipulate what should be very straight forward. One vote per voter. Period.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Bone75

(and I would point out that Bush won both the popular vote and EC in 2004).

Ah yes, I forgot to take that one into account. My mistake.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TrueBrit

No, we know how California is and New York.

They are huge population concentrations of Democrat voting blocks. Together, the two of them can pretty much overwhelm the population of most of the rest of the country.

So because two states have a large percentage of the population, they should not get a 1:1 vote as everyone else?

Yea, that makes sense. Except it makes none at all.

California has 38.8 million.
New York has 19.75 million, which is less than Texas and Florida.

You realize not everyone in California and New York are voting Democrat, right?

In a country of 318.9 million, those two states account for 58.55 million. That's 18.35% of the population, and not all go Blue.

It just doesn't make any damned sense. The reasoning breaks apart when you apply simple logic.

a reply to: SignalMal

2 states should not get to decide who is president.
And that is what would happen with a popular vote.

There is a popular vote in each state.
And each state has a % of electoral votes proportionate to their state.

That is not hard to understand.

Michigan took a long time to count. That is because they have usually had a Democratic win here so they really did check things out well. Their count is fairly accurate. Wisconsin wasn't even close enough to recount, the people challenging things got to look at things better. The Dems lost this time because the candidate they had was not a good choice. I think Sanders would have won this election, seems like the Dems wanted to lose to me by letting Hillary run. Maybe the Dems know something we do not know, like the true state of this countries economy. Sanders would have won, there is no doubt in my mind of that. A lot of Trump votes were from people who knew of Hillary's deceptions. If they don't want us to know about these things they should shut down the internet so they can brainwash everyone with MSM like they used to do.

It is a new Era, they have to learn to deal with social Media, the dems were the ones pushing it.

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Guten Morgeng-

I see You're from Germany? I just wanted to type 'GM' because I 'was' a German My last 'Life'... Now I get overflow like German dogs (6 Weimaraners • 1 AffenPinscher) and I'm on My 5th VW™...

Auf Wiedersehen (funny that Weimaraner is 'ei' and Wiedersehen is 'ie'...

6 Weims?

Great dogs, but 6 of them must make you Verklempt at times...