I still don't think this is possible. I didn't think it was possible when Trump was crying about a Rigged election I don't see it now.

"The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000."

Others have explanations

Nate Silver
✔
@NateSilver538

...the effect COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS once you control for race and education levels, the key factors in predicting vote shifts this year.



Hillary Clinton Has Grounds To Challenge Election Results, Activists Say
They claim electronic voting machine tallies in key states show discrepancies that hurt Clinton.



I don't know about a recount but a spot check before the results are verified would seem to be in order. I know if the shoe was on the other foot the GOP and Trump would be screaming at the top of their lungs.

The people making the claim seem to be legit.

The Center for Computer Security and Society (C2S2) is an interdisciplinary center based at the University of Michigan.

But time is running short.

"The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. According to one of the activists, the deadline in Wisconsin to file for a recount is Friday; in Pennsylvania, it’s Monday; and Michigan is next Wednesday. Whether Clinton will call for a recount remains unclear. The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines."

Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States

Well you've been so right so far... /snark

Fair enough I asked my election prediction to be brought up any time I break out the crystal ball.

"I don't know about a recount but a spot check before the results are verified would seem to be in order. "
I hope spot checks are standard procedure, regardless of anyone contesting results. However, I can imagine the argument that it's just an unnecessary expense if the results are definitive and coincident with expectations.

But, yeah, with Nate giving it the all-clear, it seems unlikely to yield any significant discrepancies.

From what i have been hearing off and on in the news today it is because intercity people vote on different machines...that might be something to look into ..in the future.

Don't think there is spot checking especially one that covers a forensic examination of the machines...but that also sounds like something we might need to see about ..in the future.

If there was some irregularity spotted it would have to be 3 states wide to make a difference...don't see it. Clinton would have to run the table in the recounts all 3 states.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html

This is what we get for proving the damn things are hackable in the past, and continuing on using them naively thinking it won't happen again.

I'm not saying it's true, but I would NOT be surprised at all to soon see real evidence that it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html