>>>re: the hacking issue, there is zero evidence that any outside force tampered with votes. Even the President acknowledged that yesterday. As far as the election goes that's all that matters.
>
>There's plenty of conspiracy theories but AFAIK the only actual test of whether hacking affected the result, was in Wisconsin. If you recall, scientists claimed there was "persuasive evidence" of vote hacking in Wisconsin because HRC received 7% fewer votes on electronic machines compared to paper. This was used to justify a recount. According to election officials, the finding of the recount was:
>
>"There is no evidence that the numbers reported had anything to do with a hack of our technology."
>
>Until and unless some other state does a recount, that's the sum total of actual evidence about hacking. There was no hacking and the credentials of the "scientists" need to be reviewed, because their persuasive evidence is a just another example of what HRC described as appalling behavior that undermines democracy.

The appalling behavior invoked by HRC was the statement made by Trump that "the system is rigged" before any events took place, Surely, and as absurd as it may sound, there was zero evidence at that point.
Apparently, the recount was warranted by the evidence (as circumstantial as it may be, that was not only claimed but also presented as such) that persuaded the WES (regardless of the credentials of the scientists) to call and execute the recount using a different method. The recount was done and the conclusion was made. I don't see where the democracy was undermined. On the contrary, I'd say it was exercised properly, strengthening the confidence in the system,as opposed to discrediting it with self fulfilling prophecies.
*