DamienSF

It's referring to the Richie Allen Show: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9k_-YZ04xSnXTwM5_25L9g

The price would go down until it finds enough buyers for a given price and there will be a price for which the stock is attractive again. For instance, if a company raises capital by doubling the volume of its shares, at half the price the company will be worth the same so there is no reason why nobody wouldn't buy shares of the stock at half the price. Now if there is for some reason 0 buyers, the stock is illiquid and the stock price goes to 0 but the company can still issue new shares.

The shares are issued on the public market so market participants would buy the shares. Order book and market orders will determine at which price these shares would be bought.

That would be true for private companies but I'm not sure what would prevent public companies to raise capital by issuing new shares. Obviously the stock price would take a hit but new capital would be raised. That's the function that public markets are supposed to fulfill.

If you read beyond the headline, you'll see that this is actually the conclusion of the article.

Paper ballots works well in every European democracies and is far more transparent and secured than the electronic machines we have today. As a matter of fact, Germany has tested electronic machines but went back to paper ballots to preserve the reliability of the vote. The article doesn't just cast the doubt on electronic voting machines, it shows they are set-up to enable election fraud. How many more proofs is needed to convince voters that sadly, elections results can't be trust?

The resistance isn't about the use of electronic systems for our elections but about the poor reliability and lack of transparency of the current systems. The vote count should be reliable and transparent. Is it to much to ask?

Systems aren't broken, they are set-up to enable corruption. The article points to a clear intent of enabling election fraud.

The article doesn't conclude "computers can't count correctly" but instead it says "voting machines are set-up to enable election fraud".

Thanks, good point. Indeed she works for Cendyn.

Wow! The registrant email is emcmullin@cendyn.com which could be Evan McMullin, the candidate financed by the anti-Trump movement within the GOP. Would there be a way to verify that Evan McMullin is the real registrant?

If you can't verify that the printed results have been counted correctly, it does not bring more guarantee. At least, the paper ballots should be kept and audited which is not the case in many States.

There have been many statistical analysis pointing out to potential election fraud due to the electronic counting of the votes. For those who missed it, here is a comprehensive report on potential election fraud during recent Democratic primaries: http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Democracy_Lost_Update1_E...

The last part is related to the electronic counting of the votes. Here what Fritz Scheuren, the 100th President of the American Statistical Association, had to say on the Democratic primaries “as a statistician, I find the results of the 2016 primary voting unusual. In fact, I found the patterns unexpected [and even] suspicious. There is a greater degree of smoothness in the outcomes than the roughness that is typical in raw/real data […] the difference between the reported totals, and our best estimate of the actual vote, varies considerably from state to state. However these differences are significant—sometimes more than 10%—and could change the outcome of the election”

So you are implying that Obama would have chosen as his counselor the type of guy willing to waste his time with a crackpot astronaut.

It is also interesting to note that Podesta is a long time proponent of a disclosure on UFOs -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khqZEXpfwjE

The authors of this report can be taken seriously as they put their professional reputation on the line. I am not sure that Fritz Scheuren, professor of statistics at George Washington University and the 100th President of the American Statistical Association (ASA), would risk his reputation by making statements we can't defend. Here is what he says: “as a statistician, I find the results of the 2016 primary voting unusual. In fact, I found the patterns unexpected [and even] suspicious. There is a greater degree of smoothness in the outcomes than the roughness that is typical in raw/real data.”

The debate around exit polls will only be settled with the publication of raw data by Edison Media Research. With so much polemic on the topic you would think that it would be in their interest to make these data public if they had nothing to hide. This isn't even a new issue. Exit polls data transparency was already the object of a debate during the 2004 Presidential Elections: http://electiondefensealliance.org/frequently_asked_question...

On one hand, we have an electronic vote count which can't be verified and on the other, we have raw exit polls data that are kept secret. What kind of Democracy is that??? Isn't transparency one of the most fundamental principal in a Democracy?

The American election process isn't transparent at all... How can we claim our elections to be democratic?

Election officials still need to respect election law and the National Voters Right Act which hasn't been the case in many instances according to the report.

Political parties are free to make their own rules to the extent that they comply with election law and the National Voters Right Act. The report points out many instances in which election officials broke the law.

Now a party may still decide to run its internal elections like a banana republic but in that case, this party should certainly not be named the Democratic party...

It has a lot to do with access to mass exposure by the candidates. The reason why Bernie had his message heard by so many is because he participated in debates covered by mainstream media through his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Third-party candidates don't gain this type of exposure during their primaries as the media don't cover their selection process.

Theoretically third-party candidates could gain exposure through the General Election debate however, the Commission on Presidential Debates which organize the debate makes it very difficult for a third-party candidate to be eligible to the debate. Indeed candidates need "a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations" as defined by the CPD.

You may then wonder who is the CPD? The CPD is a PRIVATE organization financed with PRIVATE money. They claim to be nonpartisan even though it is governed by former chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. No wonder why they don't want to open the door to third-party candidates...

I am not sure how the findings of this report can reinforce the expectation of fairness in the selection process. The reports points out to evidences of various election fraud tactics (voter suppression, registration tampering, illegal voter purging and fraudulent voting machine tallies) which have been carried out to eventually influence the outcome of the election.

Also, I wonder how can the Democratic party can still be credible in denouncing Republicans efforts to suppress voters the right to vote when employing the exact same tactics during the primaries.

American voters have the possibility to register as Democrat, Republican, Green, another party of their choice or none (NPP). Depending on the voter's State and which party he intends to support during the primary process, the voter may or may not be required to be registered under a specific party preference in order to vote during the primary.

For example, the Democratic New York primary is a closed primary which means only voters registered as Democrats have the right to vote. However, the Democratic Californian primary is an open primary which allows voters registered as Democrats or as NPP to vote.

Voters can change their party preference at any time but they may be required to be registered under a specific party for a certain period of time in order to be given the right to vote in some States. For instance, in order to vote in New York you needed to be a registered Democrat for the past 6 months prior to the election date. This is a disadvantage to candidates who are well supported by independent voters (NPP) as many of them did not change their registration on time. That said, these rules are those of the party and while they can be considered unfair, this doesn't qualify for election fraud.

An election fraud tactic the report mentions is "registration tampering" which consists in switching the registration of voters without their consent and knowledge in order to suppress their right to vote. There have been numerous reports of registration tampering across most States with voters being switched from Democrats to Republicans or from Democrats to NPP and so on. Registrations seem to have been switch electronically (change in the database) some even involving forged signatures.

The link suddenly disappeared from the homepage while trending...

Agree, we have to make hand counting possible in the first place.

Thankfully for Hillary, electronic machines will be flipping some votes in her favor. Will this be enough though?

This is very disturbing! Google just got caught manipulating search recommendations to influence the outcome of an election.

There are many distinctions to be made when it comes to voter suppression. The first category we are seeing during most elections is the legal voter suppression where voters cannot vote because of stringent requirements. However, we've seen numerous cases of unexplained voter suppression during these elections where voters purely disappeared from the voter roll without any explanations.

I am not saying this is favoring Clinton over Sanders but it certainly undermines the trust anyone can have regarding the final results.

I don't see why YouTube (the medium) is the problem here. Both reputable or non-reputable sources can post content on YouTube.

The first video is an interview of two poll workers expressing their concerns regarding the unusually high number of voters that were removed from the voter roll. There aren't any apparent reason why their testimony should not be considered as credible.

The second video shows a voter being shown a document she allegedly signed and that had for effect to switch her party affiliation from Democrate to Republican. However, it seems the signature on this document has been forged. There have been multiple reports of allegedly forged signatures during this election, most of them reported by voters on social media. Here is another example: https://www.facebook.com/groups/518955314959236/permalink/51...

Sure the validity of these reports need to be verified but I don't see why they should be dismissed beforehand.

The right to vote should be made easily accessible to all eligible voters and the voting counts should be independently verifiable. The Board of Elections isn't an independent structure as it is organized today.

I'm in favor of paper ballots counted by hand. Blockchain technology could also be an interesting possibility to explore.

The large number of unexplained switched voter registrations are very worrisome and the system in place has yet been incapable of offering answers on this matter.

For a comprehensive analysis of the voting data I would recommend to have a look at the blog of Richard Charnin: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/ny-democrati... as well as the research paper on electronic vote flipping by Francois Choquette and James Johnson: http://madisonvoices.com/pdffiles/2008_2012_ElectionsResults...