Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

MichMan

(11,858 posts)

32. I believe it was sloppiness and poor training not malfeasance

Reply to brush (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:52 PM

Dec 2016

If anything, extra votes were recorded for Hillary

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroits precincts [View all] MichMan Dec 2016 OP

and of course the right will go nuts over this because the black vote there Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #1

Why wouldn't they go nuts? forthemiddle Dec 2016 #4

True. I just hope it's not padded votes for HRC, and if so hopefully it's only small differences Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #38

These were extremely strong precincts for Clinton. Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #8

wonder how that happens stillcool Dec 2016 #2

Machines had a higher number than the poll workers' tally. JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2016 #6

Yet many are demanding hand counts as the standard MichMan Dec 2016 #13

Hand-recounts are done by multiple workers JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2016 #15

I have appointed to an election audit committee for my county in AZ for years. former9thward Dec 2016 #24

With hand counts there's more than one person doing it. Both sides have a representative brush Dec 2016 #26

I believe it was sloppiness and poor training not malfeasance MichMan Dec 2016 #32

Could be, but there was no need to add Clinton votes. She was going to win anyway brush Dec 2016 #33

In that case stillcool Dec 2016 #16

If the ballots are re-fed due to problems Qutzupalotl Dec 2016 #10

These issues were ignored election night MichMan Dec 2016 #11

If the machines had worked correctly Qutzupalotl Dec 2016 #14

So erroneous vote totals are to be ignored unless there is a recount? MichMan Dec 2016 #17

Vote totals cannot be verified without a recount. Qutzupalotl Dec 2016 #18

They should be verified the night of the election, not only when there is a recount MichMan Dec 2016 #20

And there is no recourse, Qutzupalotl Dec 2016 #25

This should be the reason for a recount not the reason to avoid one..... think Dec 2016 #3

The law that states they can't be recounted forthemiddle Dec 2016 #5

I think that law had good intentions originally MichMan Dec 2016 #21

Isnt getting the count right on election night most important? MichMan Dec 2016 #7

They don't seem to be in any particular hurry. ucrdem Dec 2016 #9

Remember, this election was stolen Abouttime Dec 2016 #12

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #19

Cross-check may be to blame... Blanks Dec 2016 #28

With HRC winning 95% of the vote there not likely. nt texasmomof3 Dec 2016 #30

Hillary certain to win 95%, seems like a prime target to make sure those votes weren't counted brush Dec 2016 #34

They were all counted the first time MichMan Dec 2016 #35

From what I read and what said in the video report, cavalier attitude seems to sum up the concern ffr Dec 2016 #22

I agree MichMan Dec 2016 #23

47.5 to 47.3, much closer. were provisional votes ever counted? & what about the 90k 'blank ballots? Sunlei Dec 2016 #27

The provisional ballots are key... Blanks Dec 2016 #29

I can't even find a state count of how many provisional votes are pending, thought its about 50,000? Sunlei Dec 2016 #31

First a confession Uponthegears Dec 2016 #36

Trump received 3 % of the votes MichMan Dec 2016 #37