There is a sordid history of people using happenstance data and getting the answer completely wrong. The truthy wannabe facty suspicion you post here is no different. When using happenstance data, the researcher has to take into account co factors and test their hypothesis using control data (e.g. additional data from a separate analysis) to see if those variables influenced the result. With a more rigorous treatment of the data, where statisticians take into account demographics of each state, the relationship showing Clinton doing better in paperless and worse in paper tracking voter systems falls apart.
For example, take the relationship between age of Miss America and number of murders by a specific means:
Nobody really thinks there is causation implied here. The alignment of data is completely random.
If you want to, you can read an analysis of the "suspected" voter fraud" that pretty much debunks the truthy facty idea that Hillary had hackers steal 3 million votes by corrupting polling machines here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/12/1537438/-Election-Fraud-Myths-Are-we-witnessing-a-feckless-analysis