Polling error may indeed be the simplest answer, but it isn’t a perfect explanation. On early voting, I did some basic calculations to see if early voting could account for the exit poll discrepancies (http://marionumber1.blogspot.com/2016/05/could-early-voting-explain-exit-poll.html), provided exit polls were otherwise valid (not necessarily true, but good to test nonetheless). In some states, this was fine, but in others, it required unreasonable early vote margins. On response bias, enthusiasm gaps don’t seem to cause issues on the GOP side. Plus, since a significant part of Bernie’s base is the young, and the Deep South states skew older, it’s harder for that theory to explain the discrepancies there.

It could easily be the answer, of course, but both explanations (polling error and rigged electronic machines) need to be given equal consideration. Given that we actually have evidence of a Chicago voting machine audit turning up discrepancies, the prospect of fraud becomes more plausible. I hope that you can agree this at least merits investigation.

Is it really outlandish to drive up your vote count in areas where you’re strong anyway? Overperformance would simply be considered a reflection of your strength, and higher margins do help earn more delegates. The person committing fraud, though, isn’t what’s important. What’s important is identifying and correcting fraud if it does occur. I wouldn’t approve of Bernie supporters committing fraud any more than I’d approve of Hillary supporters doing it.

I don’t regularly read Counterpunch, and I’m not familiar with its reputation. But regardless, they had a pretty detailed analysis of which jurisdictions had more vulnerable voting machines, correlating them with Clinton’s performance. It’s worth a look, even if you abhor the site.

I don’t want this to become a witch hunt, but if fraud did occur in this election, it should be acknowledged. While I believe that the chances are reasonable, I don’t intend to point any fingers at people. This investigation should be focused on the exit polls and voting machines, not Hillary Clinton herself.

We may have a differing opinion on how to reform the system, though. Trying to hack-proof voting machines may not accomplish much, for two reasons. One, hackers are generally one step ahead of developers. Two, voting machine vendors and those who set up the machines can often access them even without hacks. My view is that electronic voting is a fundamentally flawed idea, since you can’t see the process leading to the final result. If it remains in place, there should be a paper trail and mandatory full hand counts to verify the electronic result.