Here's a video where a computer programmer who worked on voting systems is questioned under oath, and he makes some pretty good arguments that elections are rigged. At least the ones where electronic voting machines are used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxGGnmRQAs&t=92s
I'll admit, I didn't bother researching, but I'd understood a lot of electronic voting machines were used in the election we just underwent.
The results of the election only slightly surprised me, but I've gone to great lengths to avoid ingesting media from mainstream sources. Outside the mainstream, Trump's popularity was quite a bit more obvious.
My point is that candidate B claimed the election would be rigged against him; it's not a stretch to assume he thought candidate A would probably win at that point.
> That's about a 1% difference. I don't see how that translates to "surprised most of us"!
You can't use the result of the elections to claim that the result was "expected"!
The stock market expected a Clinton win, and so did betting markets outside the US:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wage...
Arguably, at some point even Trump indicated that he believed Clinton would win, when he claimed the elections were "rigged".