Most of the Clintonite media blasts Trump’s remarks as having no basis or value, yet Stein and her people admit they have no proof of fraud – just that the pre-election polls and the vote tallies don’t match. The media is strangely silent.
As an old pollster, I know poll results can — and usually are — predetermined by the questions asked, how they are asked, and to whom they are asked.
- “Would you rather have a former Secretary of State as president or a businessman who admits he uses every loophole to make a buck?” Note the words “Benghazi” are not used in connection with Clinton nor does the word “legal” appear before “loophole.”
How about “Would you rather have someone with extensive experience with foreign leaders or a businessman with no foreign experience?” Never mind that Trump and his staff have been successfully negotiating with foreign governments for decades.
“Do you still beat your spouse?”
Put all that aside.
Assume that voting machines WERE hacked.
Assume that county clerks managed, despite being under the keen eyes of party representatives, to fail to count some mail-in votes, or who failed to disqualify some mail-in ballots. Possible, but not likely; certainly difficult.
We KNOW a high school kid — maybe even grade school — can hack a computer. The question is: HOW TO PREVENT HACKERS’ ACCESS?
Go back to paper ballots? Where I live, voters fill out paper ballots and then insert them into ballot readers or scanners. I suppose a smart operator COULD write a program to disregard ballots that have the “wrong” candidate’s circle filled in. There would have to be a way to insert the program into all, or at least a majority, of machines. Even then, the program would have to allow some number of votes for the “wrong” candidate to filter through else the effort would be blatantly obvious.
It seems the ONLY way to guarantee a more or less honest vote count is to have paper ballots tallied by hand, again with poll watchers peering over the counters’ shoulders. The final results might not available until a day or two after the election.
Voter fraud cannot be, never will be, eliminated. Voters can be enticed to vote for the “right” candidate in a number of ways. Cash. Free meals. A pardon for convicted felons (as happened in Virginia in 2016) just in time to register and vote for the “right” candidate.
One thing that would give the average voter a feeling his or her vote really counted would be to eliminate the archaic Electoral College. The College is a holdover from America’s early days, before the era of (almost) instant communication. The College was where deals were made to void the popular vote. I am NOT suggesting that the College thwarted the popular vote in 2016; not all early and mail in votes were counted for either candidate, and the only ones claiming Mrs. Clinton had a massive popular vote lead are the media already in her camp. Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the election; he conceded and retired gracefully from the fray. Mrs. Clinton — she claims on the advice of Obama (she has to blame someone) — conceded, and at that point, the competition was over.
Even if a recount in three states shows Mrs. Clinton the overwhelming winner (in those states), it will not change the fact that Mr. Trump is president-elect. It might massage Mrs. Clinton’s ego and help the Clintonite pollsters save a little face, but on January 20, Mr. Trump will take the oath of office as president of the United States.
For all that, between now and 2020, the government needs to seriously seek better ways to cast and count votes, and to seriously consider doing away with the Electoral College.
Meanwhile, the election is over. Trump is president-elect. Period.
Democrats should lick their wounds and examine how they managed to lose so much in 2016 and then think about doing better 2020.