Jill Stein to file for recount in three states
thehill.com
thehill.com
But I can't help but notice that the media seemed to hammer Trump about the possibility of not accepting the results of the election. I strongly suspect if he were the one demanding a recount it would be treated very differently. It's disappointing that our society so obviously switches its standards based on someone's in-group or out-group status.
I think the whole issue was created to make him look bad. "Hey, if you lose, will you accept the results?" After Gore/Bush, I don't know if anybody would immediately say "Yes" without thinking about the possibility of questionable things happening. Would you accept the results of an election with fraud? Until the election happens, you can't have 100% confidence that you won't think there was some fraud.
A lot of us here have questions about voting machines, people voting who shouldn't, etc. These are natural concerns that should be Hillary's concerns (as they are now) and not just Trump's.
The question was not "Assuming there is iron clad proof of no voter fraud, will you accept the results if you lose?" The answer would almost certainly have been "Yes" in that case. I think all of us on this site are smart enough to assign non-zero probability to the chance that this question was asked WITHOUT the "no voter fraud" disclaimer specifically to elicit the reaction that it got.
...He created the issue.
He spent weeks/months claiming the system was rigged, the election would be rigged, that the only way he could possibly lose was if he was cheated because he was going to win by such a landslide. He kept calling for people to loiter around polling sites with guns to prevent funny business...
That wasn't post-2000 reticence about the preliminary call.
He loaned $45 million and gave less than $10 million, but mostly as in-kind gifts not cash. He said back in 2000 he could run for president and make money from the campaign. I think he succeeded, depending on the interest rate of that loan. He spent a bunch of campaign funds by buying from his own businesses.
> time and money
Maybe he just wanted to be on TV.
Is that illegal?
I thought only Republicans keep continuing the fairy tale of non-citizens voting, which they then use to justify voter suppression of poor people and minorities; which is the actual question this election.
Recount is also different then acceptance.
This recount is purely academic. You would have to alter tens of thousands of votes across several states to change this election's outcome. No harm in being academic I suppose. Hope the millions are worth it.
I have my doubts the outcome will be significantly changed, but I'd love it if the process involved an auditing of the voting machines, just from a curiosity standpoint...
However, this will absolutely enrage his base as they see it as an attempt by the elite to steal the election. Trump seems to be moderating on some of his previous stances, but will likely reverse and be even more extreme after he wins a recount. Also, look for pressure on the Senate to completely suspend the filibuster and push through a very right wing Justice.
Based on how President Obama and Hilary Clinton are handling this so far, I expect them to intervene to squash any recount and try to make the transition as smooth as possible.
Currently, Republicans hold the Senate (52,R vs 48,D). And, according to Wikipedia:
"On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted, in a 52 to 48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. A 3/5 supermajority is still required to end filibusters on legislation and Supreme Court nominees."
So, that is some context for anyone else not up to speed on the specifics.
" A candidate can’t actually file for a vote recount under Pennsylvania law. Instead, they would have to challenge a county board regarding its vote computations, and a state appeals judge would have to rule that a statewide recount is necessary. That means the Clinton campaign would either have to request a recount by petition in every voting district or present a prima facie case showing voter fraud. (Prima facie is a lower threshold than beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge would just have to rule that fraud probably occurred in order to call for a recount.) "
While a state judge just possibly might rule for Clinton for a recount, I seriously doubt a judge would do that Jill Stein as she has no realistic chance of winning the state.
If the election is questionable, the state legislatures can pick its Electors, and they should. That's what authenticates the process. Of course there needs to be more facts than just speculation there's been tampering or fraud; but the way these systems are designed, they may not have sufficient auditing to determine it, itself a big problem.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/23/michigan...
FTA: With your help, are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests significant discrepancies in vote totals," the page reads.
Source: Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-chall...
But Alex Halderman (the professor mentioned) posted a clarification, saying: "Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. " https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-wa...
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-wa...