Why? You need reason to go to court, and thus far there are none.
Will Hillary become president after recount?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
More and more, these discussions remind me of the DRRR chatline. (Follow the discussion about why we might be having this discussion at all: Bowser at #3↑ touches on the question, but Capracus, at #5↑, aims to blow that part all to Hell, and then the aspect falls by the wayside after some right wing bi-czar-ro business. The only thing I wonder is how many of Trump's voters would celebrate a hack, or, at the very least, defend the hack as legitimate in order to protect Trump's electoral victory. Given the number of self-defeating symbols about the president elect in the context of voters who elected him, it is not impossible that, should there arise evidence of electoral fraud, Republicans would tout that as a sign of Trump's legitimacy.)
This is a lede we've been hearing since Tuesday:
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
(Sherman↱)
(Sherman↱)
As I wrote elsewhere↱ at the time: There is a reason this feels inevitable. Still, though, neither are these signals that should be raising or dashing hopes, nor sounding alarms from sea to shining sea that the Russians have finally won.
____________________
Notes:
Sherman, Gabriel. "Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States". New York. 22 November 2016. NYMag.com. 27 November 2016. http://bit.ly/2g28Fiy
That doesn't answer my question. What will they do with the remainder of those contributions?
Did you not read or understand my first 2 paragraphs? For your edification: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/will-hillary-become-president-after-recount.158329/#post-3419122
Ostensibly the money will be used as promised; there are no good reasons to believe otherwise. But if there are surpluses, those surpluses could be spent on any legitimate campaign effort. You do realize there are laws which apply here? The money must be accounted for and reported to the appropriate authorities. Right wingers are using the money as an opportunity to unfairly impugn the integrity of their challengers, e.g Dr. Jill Stein.
So apparently the recount won't happen in Pennsylvania, at least not not in time before the electoral college, so even if by some miracle Hillary gets the Wisconson and Michigan she will not get enough votes, better cross your fingers on that proof the Russians rig it all for their puppet Trump, even then good chance we would get President Pence and I'll take a principles boorish clueless huckster clown over Pence any day.
The margins by which Trump won all three states are much larger than the amount by which votes have been altered following any previous recount.
Barring evidence of very large irregularities in the vote counting, these recounts are very unlikely to change the results in the recounted states. And all three states would have to flip to Clinton for the overall election result to change.
Not impossible, but quite unlikely, I think.
Barring evidence of very large irregularities in the vote counting, these recounts are very unlikely to change the results in the recounted states. And all three states would have to flip to Clinton for the overall election result to change.
Not impossible, but quite unlikely, I think.
This H. A. Goodman is apparently a die hard Bernie Bro who can’t stand HRC, so it’s not surprising to see his near orgasm in attempting to describe a Pennsylvania recount impossibility. Here’s a portion of the article that got him erect.
Per Pennsylvania regulations, there is only one way remaining for Jill Stein to get a recount in Pennsylvania and it is a complicated process. BillyPenn reports that Stein would have to file for a court appeal and present a “prima facie case” showing that voter fraud took place. While prima facie has a lower burden of proof threshold than “beyond reasonable doubt,” it is still significant. Stein would have to prove in court that fraud was “probable.” This is going to be very difficult given that even the computer specialists recommending the recount say there is no proof of hacking or fraud.
The deadline to file an appeal in court for Pennsylvania is on Monday, November 28. Stein has said she is “filing” but has given no further details about the efforts. Should she file, the next step would be to prove her “prima facie” case in court.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3747002/20...ecount-in-pennsylvania-must-take-it-to-court/
I imagine the Stein and Clinton camps are not short on legal advice or talent, and are likely aware of any procedural hurdles necessary to proceed in Pennsylvania. The filing deadline is November 28, and there’s no reason to believe a court petition could not be processed quickly in the following days.
Trump is now claiming he lost the popular vote because of illegal voting in the states he lost, but will not acknowledge the possibility that illegal voting may have occurred in the states he won. If Il Duce to be was truly interested in the integrity of our electoral process as a whole, he should join Clinton and Stein, throw in some pocket change, and initiate a complete audit of the entire presidential election. In other words, put his money where his foot frequently occupies.
Last edited:
What does a recount actually entail? Is it just a literal recounting of the votes cast? Or is it some deeper inspection of where those votes came from? Or is the second inherently part of the first in the counting system in the US?
If the former, surely any fraud or hack would still be part of the recounted numbers?
If the latter, how long would the process take?
If the former, surely any fraud or hack would still be part of the recounted numbers?
If the latter, how long would the process take?
Everything to know about the Hillary Clinton-backed presidential recount effort
http://www.newsweek.com/presidential-recount-clinton-chances-success-wisconsin-525617
Not actually everything, but for the most part generally.
http://www.newsweek.com/presidential-recount-clinton-chances-success-wisconsin-525617
Not actually everything, but for the most part generally.
No... you don't say! oh by the way the sky is blue.
I am a Bernie Bro buddy, but as an elected committee member of my states democrat party I sucked it up and campaigned for and voted for Hillary, frankly being in a blue state and all, if I had to do it again I would have voted for Stain, wrote in Bernie or even voted for Transhumanist party... fuck it "Harambe", just for shits and giggles!
Back to the topic: Ok come on, honestly, how likely do you think it is that Hillary Clinton will become president of the United States instead of Trump, now? Give me your odds? I will give it 1:1000 and I think I'm being generous. Oh I'm all for a recount, if Jill wants to spend the money, great! Just the chance it will change anything is microscopic.
Aye... it would be quite entertaining, if not for the fact that this shit is now our reality...
Part of the issue is that some states (Pennsylvania being chief among them if memory serves) don't have a paper "backup" of the ballots... it's almost purely electronic. Which... as, someone with a few years of Infrastructure, Network, and Domain support and management under their belt, makes me cringe.
That... sounds rather concerning...Newsweek said:
Agreed that overturning the election is unlikely, but any effort to finally pay serious attention to the recurrent (since 2000 at least) pattern of statistical irregularities in the voting machine results of American elections, coupled with the inexplicable secrecy and aberrant behaviors of those managing the voting machines and the elections, should be welcomed and attended.
It's not a good scene. It smells to high heaven. It's at the point where if the US were under international observation for some reason this election - and the two that W won - would not have been certified nationally, and several States in the Obama elections would have had their electors excluded pending investigation.
Yes, definitely.
I just read this morning that in some counties, apparently, more votes were recorded in total than there are registered voters, which is either a sign that something isn't working correctly, or that somebody is manipulating results.
I don't know why people are willing to put up with a system that uses electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail. It seems like an invitation to fraud to me.
I agree with your assertion with respect to paper ballots. But the over count has been attributed to a clerical error during consolidation which was corrected.
Do you have a source for that? That is news to me, and I'm curious to know what kind of error resulted in being off by any significant amount.
"The Towns of Cicero and Grand Chute along with the Villages of Bear Creek and Hortonville are where unofficial election results showed less ballots cast overall, than the number of total votes in the presidential election. The discrepancies led some to take to social media, questioning what happened, calling for a Hillary Clinton victory.
In a statement to Action 2 News, explaining the discrepancy in Hortonville, Lynn Mischker, the Village Clerk-Treasurer wrote, “In order to give election returns to the Outagamie County Clerk’s office as quickly as possible the Chief Inspector added together the votes from the election machine tapes. An error was made while keying the numbers on the calculator during this process resulting in an incorrect number of votes reported on Election night." http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/wisconsin-to-recount-ballots-after-claims-of-irregularities/
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
I actually anticipated his reaction. Who better to ferret out voting fraud than a gambling casino mogul. Without such a disposition, crooked gamblers would have cleaned out more of his vast wealth than they already have.
Government probably does need people like that once in a while, if only to clear the air about who is inappropriately taking advantage of power. He made that into an issue in the election, and I don't fault him for that strategy.
But I didn't vote for him, and given the chance, I wouldn't again. I doubt anything was rigged. It would have been suspicious if those states had not voted for him.
*headdesk* Lol, that is an embarrassing error for sure!
I too was philosophically closer to Bernie, but didn’t think he had a chance with average voters. Nor did I think Donald Berlusconi had a chance with the average voter either, but those bizarro election results proved me and the pollsters wrong.
Realistically I don’t see these recounts giving Hillary an electoral victory. I do think that those states that showed significant discrepancies between exit polls and vote count should be systematically scrutinized not so much for their effect on this election, but for the legitimacy of elections to come. Check out the numbers and judge for yourself.