Rigging the System Against Hillary

IF THE RECENT ELECTION WAS RIGGED, it would appear to have been rigged in favor of Donald J. Trump, not against him, as he claimed it would have to be in order for him to lose. He never indicated that rigging was necessary in order for him to win, but it may very well have been. Hillary Clinton, when all the votes are counted in California, as they may well be within the next few days or decades, will have won the popular vote by two and a half million popular votes. Due to mail in ballots and a few other formalities, California has a laid back approach to tabulation, and, like, well, chill, dude. Never has a candidate been more favored by the general electorate and yet lost the election on account of safeguards against the popular will. The only more corrupt election within fairly recent memory is when Saddam Hussein used to run against himself, and rake in about ninety eight percent of the tally, or when Davy Crockett used to hand out swigs of moonshine and twists of chewing tobacco to his neighbors and buddies right about election time, which, he insisted, was purely coincidental. The problem, it would seem, is within what has pejoratively been termed "the rust belt", including the great states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. A computer science professor at the U. of Michigan noticed that in those three states, in every county in which voting was done purely electronically, Hillary's vote total was almost exactly seven percent less than in all the other counties of those three states. The pattern is consistent and pervasive. This interesting circumstance was also noticed by other computer science professors at other major universities, and they all concur; although there may have been no electronic rigging, and as yet is no direct evidence of it, they nonetheless "smelt a rat", to borrow a quote from Patrick Henry regarding the United States Constitution of 1787, the one we use today. All of these professors have contacted the now defunct Clinton campaign and recommended challenging the results. As a general rule, it is efficacious to accede to the advice of academicians. Was it Mr. Trump's dear friends the Russians? Impossible, some say. But, why? What's so impossible about a bit of hacking, rigging, and electronic signature resigning? Hell, happens all the damned time, don't it? Does the term "NSA" cone to mind? We know that any computer which can compute can be hacked. We know it can be done, the question is: was it done in this instance, and if so, who done it?