So who won the popular vote and by how much? Each news outlet has wildly different numbers, over a month later.
Authors note:
Counting, a 3rd grade activity, is something a nuclear-capable country's media cannot reliably, consistently do.
Also, the following demonstration is an argument against tallying, which can be accomplished by putting blockchain technology to use, to do what it's designed to do: to crypotgraphically securely send a vote (coin) to an address (candidate 'hat'), anonymously and directly (no intermediaries that can alter). With blockchain technology tallies are instant, receipts can be made, and even paper wallets for voting ('qrcode pre loaded with 1 votecoin') can be used for people who don't have technology to facility electronic voting. Blockchain tech was MADE for e-voting, and if you trust it with your money, you should trust it with your vote. /rant
(This op-ed was written originally Dec 2016, a month after the general election)
[Op-Ed]
Mainstream media overwhelmingly says Hillary won the popular vote. Trump says he did, if you don't count the illegals Clinton used. Here are the wildly different numbers:
| News Outlet | Clinton Votes | Trump Votes |
|---|---|---|
| USA Today (updated dec 7) | 62,521,739 | 61,195,258 |
| CNN (higher vote count than political orgs) | 65,844,954 | 62,979,879 |
| Breitbart | 61,047,027 | 60,375,961 |
| Politico | 62,523,126 | 61,201,031 |
| Politifact | 62.9M | 62.2M |
| PBS | 62,521,739 | 61,195,258 |
| NPR | 64.4M | 62.3M |
| FOX News | 62,521,739 | 61,195,258 |
| USelectionatlas.org | 65,844,610 | 62,979,636 |
| Washington Post | 65,844,610 | 62,979,636 |
| Cook Political Report | 65,844,610 | 62,979,636 |
| NBC News | 62,521,739 | 61,195,258 |
| CBS News | 64,429,062 | 62,352,375 |
| US Magazine | 65,316,724 | 62,719,568 |
| IBT (nov 14, not updated) | 61,039,676 | 60,371,193 |
My point is: No one can know an objective truth if we are getting numbers from a mainstream media that's already proved to be corrupt all the way to the top (Obama).^[1][2][3]
This is literally a filter bubble of reality.
Full Disclosure: I was a Bernie-or-Bust person. I don't support either candidate. I don't care who won, I didn't vote because my candidate wasn't on the ballot, and I was never shipped an absentee ballot--which the USPS IG still has not responded to my RFCs, but that's another story. I think the Electoral College breaks voting in America and it ought to be done with. But it is immaterial if we can't trust a voting system that can't have consistent numbers even a month and a half later!!
I just want to show you that you cannot know anything about an objective Truth, if your government controls the media, has been caught lying, cheating, stealing elections of the past (see votescam by collier bros), and if the numbers reported a month later are always different because ostensibly 'we don't fund the counting efforts enough'.
This is absurd that we can't get a definitive number, when the activity of counting votes is the very simplest, most basic form of math that we learned in elementary school.
She's dead, Jim
Voting in America is dead. My point in this post is to demand a new methodology for elections, that lets us
- ) Vote online, securely, consistently/uniformly when we want, and for whom
- ) And let us change our vote up to the last minute
- ) And let us tally our own vote and that of our neighbors by looking up their anonymous voter ID by number that they voluntarily give to us (peer reviewed)
- ) It protects us from state-sponsored retaliation, perhaps by outsourcing several competing interests than our own government to run the elections, or --gasp--maybe it runs as an open source project that protects our anonymity while ensuring our authenticity (secure registration).
Elections are possible over the internet, electronic and secure and uniform. Anyone saying it cannot be done is lying to you because they want to protect the corrupt, CIA run status quo that lets them mess with elections, or they simply are very ignorant of technology.
If you trust ecommerce and banking systems to safely conduct your personal affairs day in and day out, then you should trust this technology for elections also, since elections are far even simpler than the myriad complexities of online banking and ecommerce.
In fact, one could even use the banking system to run voting.
One simple way to do elections using the banking system would for the government to 1) give each voter an account number with 1 dollar in it upon successfully, securely registering by proving the voter is a valid US citizen.
- Each presidential candidate is given a government bank account, 3) By voting day, you either keep your dollar or you pay it to the candidate, 4) Any amount over/under the voting amount given per account or duplicate payments are either evaluated for technical glitches or thrown out entirely, 5) By the end of voting day, whomever has the most money wins, 6) After voting day, everyone can see how everyone else voted, by ID and demo data and you can tally your own vote and that of anyone who volunteers their voterID. 7) Gov takes back all the money and gives it to the dept of education for grants
This is literally the most basic way to run an election, and it's the "hat based voting" (put your ball in a hat), and it's how cryptocoin systems would work. In fact you use cryptocoin to run elections everyone will always have a public ledger of how everyone else voted called the blockchain. This could be literally done tomorrow with bitcoin and giving everyone .0000001 btc
There are groups working on cryptocoin-based-voting now, but I'm not sure if they are just hot air or not. Using the memo field or the system I described, you wouldn't have to change a THING about bitcoin, you could use it, unaltered, as-is and off the shelf.
And it would be a million times better than what we have now for the popular vote. And there would be no guessing or inconsistency as to the final numbers.
original post:
--911bodysnatchers322
Copy and pasting other people's work is a good way to get you flagged. You have been warned.