Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> The above two paragraphs are stating easily verifiable facts. I won’t bother editorializing.

If they are so easily verifiable can you provide some citations?

Those facts are not as easily verifiable as you might think. "Some academic articles about exit polls and vote tallies in swing districts" does not bring any relevant on the search engine I tried.

Your claims are extraordinary, so could you duly provide the extraordinary evidence?

Are they really such extraordinary claims?

Witness: the 2000 election. The voting machines that were hackable with a screwdriver and USB. The fact that even now, many states lack any paper trail. The termination of exit polls after double digit discrepancies in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_the_Unite... has many sources and stories for you to have a look at. It's ... Extraordinary.

While election shenanigans may not be as clearly, obviously bad as the flagged (!) GP claims, they are far from what I would call a basic minimum standard.

Huh, Google Scholar is significantly crappier than I remember (at least for this topic)

Here’s one from 2004:

https://ia903008.us.archive.org/9/items/files-all/rnc-electi...

Search terms (ddg):

academic study of exit poll discrepancies 2004

Reply on news.ycombinator.com