GGPViper wrote:
QFT wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The Democratic Party filed zero court cases disputing the outcome of the 2016 election.
The investigation about Russia "is" a court case. So it wasn't zero.
That is not a court case disputing the outcome of an election.
There have been 7 disputed elections in US history: 1800, 1824, 1860, 1876, 1960, 2000 and 2020.
2016 is not one of them. And 1960 barely counts, as Nixon himself accepted the 1960 outcome 3 days after the election.
Once again: The Democratic Party filed zero court cases disputing the outcome of the 2016 election.
Maybe they should have followed the advice given her back then:
Quote:
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.
Source:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.htmlAnd, from the update link at the base of the article:
Quote:
Here’s one possible scenario. First, the attackers would probe election offices well in advance in order to find ways to break into their computers. Closer to the election, when it was clear from polling data which states would have close electoral margins, the attackers might spread malware into voting machines in some of these states, rigging the machines to shift a few percent of the vote to favor their desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during pre-election tests, do its dirty business during the election, then erase itself when the polls close.
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.i3bncv5j9A case (or several cases) back then, would have done a lot to minimise future issues, as there would be a lot more focus on the equipment and its operation, meaning less likelihood of it being used as an "excuse" for unfavourable results now.