when machines count hillary wins - when people show up and count sanders wins

[SoLeftIAmRight]

???

[GreatGazoo]

1. Kind of makes you wonder.

Then there is this:

-- Two different online audit tools say no more than 44 per cent of Hillary's 3.6 million Twitter fans are real people who participate in the platform
-- The newly minted presidential candidate is fending off accusations that her Facebook page is full of fake 'likes'
-- Her Facebook fan base includes more people from Baghdad, Iraq than any US city
-- When she was secretary of state, her agency paid $630,000 to bulk up its Facebook likes, but pledged to stop after she left

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038621/More-2-MILLION-Hillary-Clinton-s-Twitter-followers-fake-never-tweet.html

[dbackjon]

2. Lol

[NuclearDem]

3. 1) Doesn't account for Michigan, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa.

2) There are other major differences that allow Hillary's wins in primaries and Bernie's wins in caucuses. Namely, that caucuses are only particularly accessible to people with a lot of time to spare and the motivation to put up with it; primaries are much more accessible.

3) Sanders losing is not proof of election fraud. That's incredibly insulting.

[RobertEarl]

4. Been that way a long time

Being the machine counts are 'owned' by companies whose programmers are not accountable and in nearly all cases not audited, it makes sense that alterations are possible.

And every time there is a hand count to compare with, the hand counts reveal discrepancies.

At this point we are stuck with the machines. So what we should be doing is getting the best computer people available to build and program machines that are owned by the government, programmed by the government and audited by the people.

Not doing so means our democracy is owned by a few. Of course the few would steal votes and elections.... Duh!