Glacier wrote:
Nuws
Computer scientists claim evidence of possible vote manipulation with electronic voting methods
Okay, my previous sentence, and the title of the article, may be a bit unclear. They don't have the proof to be 100% sure that votes where changed, rather, they detected some suspicious patters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which leads to the idea that there's a high probability that there was rigging in Trump's favor.
In Wisconsin, Ms Clinton received 7 per cent fewer votes in counties that depended on electronic-voting machines compared to countries that used optical scanners and paper ballots, and consequently Ms Clinton may have lost up to 30,000 votes. She lost Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.Today, Jill Stein is the one that request a vote recount
Note, that she's fundraising some money to do it, and that i found some comments saying that it's the actual reason. I'll give people and myself the benefit of doubt by mentioning this.
Remember how Hillary (barely) won the popular vote? (like 20k votes or .1% of votes). Well, as of this day, she has a 2 million lead . (up from 1.5m this sunday)
>Stein’s call came shortly after the report that the group of experts had told Podesta and Elias they saw evidence that Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in Wisconsin counties that used electronic machines instead of paper ballots or optical scanners.
>On Wednesday, however, J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan -- one of the experts -- clarified in a Medium post that he was not claiming to have evidence of a hack, but that he still recommends a full audit beyond the partial ones that are likely to occur anyway.