zlacker

> Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result?

If an athlete is caught doping, do we question whether they would have won anyway?

>>seizet+(OP)
In athletics, usually not. But perhaps surprisingly, in the American legal system, yes! The relevant question actually is whether "they would have won anyway".

The standard is that if the prosecution intentionally "cheats" and obtains a conviction through unconstitutional means, the conviction cannot be appealed unless it can be shown that there was a "reasonable probability" that the verdict would have been different without the violation of rights. Worse, in our adversarial system, prosecutors are essentially obligated to argue that any misconduct had no effect. One might even conclude that they are "obligated to cheat".

Ken White, a former prosecutor and legal blogger at Popehat has an excellent explanation of this in his recent piece "Confessions of an Ex-Prosecutor". I'm tempted to just quote entire sections from it, but perhaps better just to link to it. If pressed for time, start with the section "Prosecutors Are Duty-Bound to Argue That Rights Don't Matter": http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-ex-p...

So, while your point is excellent, one might ask whether our voting system should be more like an athletic contest, or a legal proceeding? And if the answer is "like an athletic contest", what does that say about our legal system?

>>seizet+(OP)
That's a poor analogy. In statistics you can have an acceptable level of error (called an error rate) where the primary pool of data is still sufficiently accurate enough to be usable.

So say they throw out 5% of the results or give a +/- rate you can measure to the final stats and use that to determine whether or not it was significant enough to warrant a recount or a new measurement. If not then it's probably not worth the time as you can assume the majority party will be satisfied with winning and the losing party would not benefit from a recount.

Additionally, the bar would have to be extremely high that the likelyhood it coulld affect the outcome of the results given the extremely high cost involved in doing the data collection or analysis over again.

So, basically, the OP made a fair point.

Whether or not society should be okay with the level of irregularity and fraud is another question. Even if it didn't ultimately affect the results, that doesn't change the morality or questions of legal responsibility of those who manipulated the results.

>>nkurz+F5
From a layman's perspective, it certainly sounds like the legal system needs to be changed, not replicated.

>>dmix+X5
The following comment is rather speculative, but I'm laying out a potential argument to demonstrate that there can be second-order effects beyond the questioned voting districts.

• There were emails in the DNC leaks that hinted at a suspiciously cozy relationship between the party and media organizations.

• During the DNC primary process, media reports often included superdelegates in Hillary's delegate count, making Bernie's case seem impossible. Media often failed to even mention the existence of Bernie Sanders in many cases, or calling him "unelectable" even while he was polling ahead of Hillary or Trump.

• In prior elections, some news channels may have gone as far as not even listing a second-place candidate they don't like in poll numbers.

• Voters can be influenced by a belief that their vote will be wasted by voting for someone who is not a "sure thing".

• Therefore, (assuming) the media manipulation or incompetence, DNC bias in favor of Hillary, and vote manipulation to give the impression of momentum to Hillary, even an insufficient number of delegates won by "cheating" could have swayed the election by second-order effects.