I don't think ballots were stuffed.
Why wouldn't the vote tallies be altered electronically? Because it's too difficult? Because of safeguards to prevent it? Because of the lack of will to tamper with the election results?
Here's my analysis: Was there the will to tamper with the outcome of the 2016 American presidential election and make Trump president rather than Clinton? If there was the will to do this, was there the means?
I think that the answer to both of these questions is an emphatic yes.
Regarding the second question first, from
https://www.alternet.org/2017/07/de...nic-voting-machines-and-e-poll-books-minutes/ we have:
- "Who says America's electronic voting machinery cannot be hacked? One of the world's largest and best-known hacker conventions, DEF CON, debuted an interactive "Voting Machine Hacker Village" this year at its annual gathering in Las Vegas. In some cases within minutes, and in other cases within a few hours, of the village doors' opening, hackers in attendance said they had successfully breached some systems. The security investigators claimed to have found major vulnerabilities or claimed to have breached every voting machine and system present."
OK, so we can assume that Putin had access to hackers just as smart as these.
Now ask yourself whether Putin had any incentive to install Trump into the White House, and whether he would if he could, or if he would decline even were it in his power to do so because it couldn't help him, or because it's just not right, or because it's just not democratic.
Looked at this way, I'd ask what the chances are that the numbers weren't modified by Russian hackers at Putin's behest assuming as I do that he possessed the will and had access to the skill. Isn't it a lot like asking what are the odds that a low-hanging apple on a tree will drop if someone hungry for it snips its stem, that is, if somebody with the will and skill to make it fall passes by?
Here's a second way of looking at the matter. Suppose the voting boxes had been tampered with and the vote counts altered to benefit one candidate over the other. What evidence of that might there be? We might expect that the results would deviate significantly from the polling, always in favor of the same candidate who was polled at being behind but then snatched a surprising upset victory in several significant states, and always by enough to prevent a recount. Would that raise suspicions?
From
You’re not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged
- "there were four swing states in which Hillary Clinton was definitively favored to win, but she ended up losing: Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. In the final tallies she lost each of them by right around one percent of the vote. That’s not how numbers work. If Trump had won those four states legitimately due to pockets of voters that pollsters didn’t know about, we would have seen a more random dispersion of the results. Trump might have won one of those states by four percent, won another of them by two percent, lost another one percent, and so on. It is statistically suspicious that in every state where Donald Trump pulled off an upset, he won it by right around one percent, just what he needed to win it, no more and no less. Results don’t naturally play out that way. The final tallies in Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan read like someone went through and nudged each of them just over the mark so Trump would win them, but didn’t want to arouse too much suspicion by giving him any larger of a victory in those states than he needed."
You can decide for yourself if inference of vote total tampering should or can be taken from that. It would be so much easier to dismiss the idea of a rigged election had one or two of the states predicted to go to Trump had gone to Hillary, or if Hillary had lost some states by much less than was predicted to indicate a random nature to these anomalies.