So who won the popular vote and by how much? Each news outlet has wildly different numbers, over a month later. Counting, a 3rd grade activity, is something a country producing nuclear weaponry is not capable of doing

26  2016-12-22 by 911bodysnatchers322

[Op-Ed]

Mainstream media overwhelmingly says Hillary won the popular vote. Trump says he did, if you don't count the illegals Clinton used. Here are the wildly different numbers:

News Outlet Clinton Votes Trump Votes
USA Today (updated dec 7) 62,521,739 61,195,258
CNN (higher vote count than political orgs) 65,844,954 62,979,879
Breitbart 61,047,027 60,375,961
Politico 62,523,126 61,201,031
Politifact 62.9M 62.2M
PBS 62,521,739 61,195,258
NPR 64.4M 62.3M
FOX News 62,521,739 61,195,258
USelectionatlas.org 65,844,610 62,979,636
Washington Post 65,844,610 62,979,636
Cook Political Report 65,844,610 62,979,636
NBC News 62,521,739 61,195,258
CBS News 64,429,062 62,352,375
US Magazine 65,316,724 62,719,568
IBT (nov 14, not updated) 61,039,676 60,371,193

My point is: No one can know an objective truth if we are getting numbers from a mainstream media that's already proved to be corrupt all the way to the top (Obama).[1][2][3]

This is literally a filter bubble of reality.

Full Disclosure: I was a Bernie-or-Bust person. I don't support either candidate. I don't care who won, I didn't vote because my candidate wasn't on the ballot. I think the Electoral College breaks voting in America and it ought to be done with. But it is immaterial if we can't trust a voting system that can't have consistent numbers even a month and a half later!!

I just want to show you that you cannot know anything about an objective Truth, if your government controls the media, has been caught lying, cheating, stealing elections of the past (see votescam by collier bros), and if the numbers reported a month later are always different because ostensibly 'we don't fund the counting efforts enough'.

This is absurd that we can't get a definitive number, when the activity of counting votes is the very simplest, most basic form of math that we learned in elementary school.

She's dead, Jim

Voting in America is dead. My point in this post is to demand a new methodology for elections, that lets us

  1. ) Vote online, securely, consistently/uniformly when we want, and for whom
  2. ) And let us change our vote up to the last minute
  3. ) And let us tally our own vote and that of our neighbors by looking up their anonymous voter ID by number that they voluntarily give to us (peer reviewed)
  4. ) It protects us from state-sponsored retaliation, perhaps by outsourcing several competing interests than our own government to run the elections, or --gasp--maybe it runs as an open source project that protects our anonymity while ensuring our authenticity (secure registration).

Elections are possible over the internet, electronic and secure and uniform. Anyone saying it cannot be done is lying to you because they want to protect the corrupt, CIA run status quo that lets them mess with elections, or they simply are very ignorant of technology.

If you trust ecommerce and banking systems to safely conduct your personal affairs day in and day out, then you should trust this technology for elections also, since elections are far even simpler than the myriad complexities of online banking and ecommerce.

In fact, one could even use the banking system to run voting.

One simple way to do elections using the banking system would for the government to 1) give each voter an account number with 1 dollar in it upon successfully, securely registering by proving the voter is a valid US citizen.

2) Each presidential candidate is given a government bank account, 3) By voting day, you either keep your dollar or you pay it to the candidate, 4) Any amount over/under the voting amount given per account or duplicate payments are either evaluated for technical glitches or thrown out entirely, 5) By the end of voting day, whomever has the most money wins, 6) After voting day, everyone can see how everyone else voted, by ID and demo data and you can tally your own vote and that of anyone who volunteers their voterID. 7) Gov takes back all the money and gives it to the dept of education for grants

This is literally the most basic way to run an election, and it's the "hat based voting" (put your ball in a hat), and it's how cryptocoin systems would work. In fact you use cryptocoin to run elections everyone will always have a public ledger of how everyone else voted called the blockchain. This could be literally done tomorrow with bitcoin and giving everyone .0000001 btc

There are groups working on cryptocoin-based-voting now, but I'm not sure if they are just hot air or not. Using the memo field or the system I described, you wouldn't have to change a THING about bitcoin, you could use it, unaltered, as-is and off the shelf.

And it would be a million times better than what we have now for the popular vote. And there would be no guessing or inconsistency as to the final numbers.

UPDATE:

someone downvoted everyone's comments here to zero when i checked just now

14 comments

2  chickyrogue 2016-12-22

snatchers... we are capable of counting we just do not want to do it

4  911bodysnatchers322 2016-12-22

I know you're right I'm just whining about how they are consistently trying to confuse people with numbers that make no sense.

1  chickyrogue 2016-12-22

you have to understand they also do not understand numbers thats why we cant seem to even do nefarious right ;0

0  lily_levasseur 2016-12-22

But you're not confused. Why are you whining?

2  911bodysnatchers322 2016-12-22

Whining plus facts. I guess arguing is a better term

1  lily_levasseur 2016-12-22

hehe. Ok then. That's acceptable. Carry on. :)

1  8toborrm 2016-12-22

Creating the perception that there is no such thing as truth is a solid foundation for every single lie a government is propped up on.

2  911bodysnatchers322 2016-12-22

Yes but I'm not the government nor do I represent them nor am I trying to help them but if I did accidently I apologize. It's my goal to say we need a better system and stop playing follow the bouncy ball on the lyrics

1  8toborrm 2016-12-22

No no no I wasn't accusing you of that at all my friend.

I was commenting on the current system. We can't even get an accurate tally of votes for president... I mean, it's the time every four years when the most people exercise their rights in our representative democracy. It's about as involved as the majority of people get.

All of the organization that goes into this most important event, all of the money and technology, and yet we can't even get a true accounting of the votes.

Whether intentional or not it creates an environment where we're OK with, and maybe even expect, zero black and white answers. Especially for something that should be so binary, logically simple. A tally of votes for each candidate should be something that we can definitively say that we got right down to the number (fraud and cheating aside).

Because sometimes things ARE black and white. There was X many votes for DJT, y many votes for HRC. Person X said "xyz", person Y did "abc". I feel like whether or not the exact numbers are known it just conditions people to not accept results - from anyone or anything - that are definitive. If you endlessly blur the lines that we use to measure our society you eventually get to a point where nobody is constrained to hardly anything. The continuous re-framing of the truth and rewriting of history that we're subjected to serves the more immediate needs of the people who do the re-framing but it leaves humanity as a whole almost incapable of progressing.

Pair that with how hard it is to find out the truth of what's going on with government and how easy it is to be entertained in our day and age and you've got a large veil for the rich and powerful to operate behind to accomplish whatever the hell their goals really are.

1  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2016-12-22

Cries for election reform go up after every debauched election count. then go away until after the next nonsense 'election' vote count. Rinse, repeat.

If you don't care during non election seasons, you don't care.

1  911bodysnatchers322 2016-12-22

I think it would be very unifying if trump fundamentally changed voting and put dynamite under the electoral college, ended all states inconsistent voting processes in favor of block chain voting

Status quotarians would have a fit .... Which would prove they are hypocrite sore losers when you give them what they whine about

He doesn't care about them. To him they are the "losers" (as a way of being). He would he winning everyone else, not this minority of extremist neo liberal lunatics

1  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2016-12-22

There are lots of good changes that are easily possible I just don't expect to see any of them.

1  NaughtyHealer 2016-12-22

If the government wanted to throw the election electronically, how would they do it? Or, how would that be impossible?

Please ELI5, I know next to nothing about such technology. If it could be shown that it couldn't still be rigged, as in anyone would be able to identify or test to see if it was, then I would be behind the idea.

Centralized power makes it that much easier for sinister sorts to get away with corruption. Having everything done online with one program is centralizing the whole thing into the hands of relatively very few, if I understand what you are saying. But maybe I don't.

1  911bodysnatchers322 2016-12-22

If the government wanted to throw the election electronically, how would they do it? Or, how would that be impossible?

It's easy, they alter the database. I was asked in early 2000s to be a witness to the georgia grand jury to evaluate the ease with which someone could hack a diabold voting machine (which was a pathetic, semi-locked down windows machine in kiosk mode). My assessment was that it could be accidentally hacked by a teenager just trying to open the file in different programs. Once you open the file in an inappropriate program, the password protection was evaded and then anyone could not only see the votes in the db (microsoft jet database), one could actually alter and save the file. So this was a way a person could alter the votes on ONE machine.

Imagine if they could get to a larger database online...they could change it dramatically.

Others have pointed out problems with rounding and floor functions as improperly skewing various totals to be included...so these are problems that arise in the totals of numerical formulae stemming from spreadsheet and/or database software itself. Smart state actors could weasel algorithms to skew votes....that's another way of doing it...albeit a much more eggheaded and difficult way

Finally, the NSA has a technology that allows web requests to be hijacked en route by basically laying down faster pipes (fiber optic versus copper; direct routes versus convoluted many-paths and complex routing). This tech is called QUANTUMINSERT. Nothing quantum about it beyond disrupting deterministic results (giving indeterminate results by them screwing with the results).

Quantuminsert allows them to see a request, hijack a response, confabulate the response with an alteration, and then decoy those packets and send them back as a response that gets to your computer faster than the server that was responding to you. It's digital rat-running. The software of your computer discards any 'late arriving' duplicate packets so that you get the one the NSA sent you instead of the intended sender.

This tech can be used in the other direction as well. So when you are trying to cast a vote, they can QUANTUMINSERT hijack your vote and change it, en route. This means that if they can do this, they ruin it.

Now the defense against this is strong crypto (SSL/SSH, PKI or similar), and using a type of store-and-forward / double handshake type tech where you have the results on your own computer and then it gets sent to the intended server, which then sends a verification. If the two don't exactly match, it's thrown out and you try again.