Stein escalates recount push in face of criticism, goes to federal court in Pennsylvania

Posted by mminnick 7 years, 3 months ago to Politics
33 comments | Share | Flag

Apage from the Democrat/Progressive playbook.
1. Get the voters to give you what you want
2. If they don't, get the state courts to do it.
3. If that fails, get the Federal courts to give it to you.
Given the current leaning of federal judges, it is just possible that Stein could get the Feds to order a recount of the all ballots.
She is not asking for a machine recount but rather a hand recount. Just as she did in Michigan. Given the enormity of the ballot count it may not be possible to certify the counts by the 13th. this casts doubts on the ability of the electors to cast their ballots on the 19 for the final count of electoral votes. then it will be interesting to see what happens.
The other question is what happened if the votes don't change the outcome? What options are open to the Green party people and to the Dem's, who a gleefully support them?
SOURCE URL: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/05/stein-escalates-recount-push-in-face-criticism-goes-to-federal-court-in-pennsylvania.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 3 months ago
    If Jill Stein wants to get rid of the electronic voting machines, as she said, then I would support that. Here in Henrico County, Virginia, we vote on paper. Absentee and in-person ballots look exactly the same. The only difference is that when people show up to the polling place, they feed their completed ballots to a scanner. And the paper ballots always back the scanner up.

    But somehow I don't think a switch to that kind of system would suit Stein. Left-wing candidates and propositions win only on the votes of the dead, the move-outs, and the non-citizens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ohiocrossroads 7 years, 3 months ago
      Remember the Florida recounts of the 2000 election, where the media was so sure that "hanging chads" were clear evidence of a vote for Gore? The mainscream press went on a crusade for computerized voting machines, so millions of dollars were spent in upgrades. Sixteen years later, the same people of complaining of hacked vote computers. Apparently, there is no good method of counting votes if it leads to a win for Republicans.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Blanco 7 years, 3 months ago
      Yes, I too vote with a paper ballot here in Rockingham county, NC. I much prefer this method over the machines, as it's easier to use and in my opinion more reliable and trustworthy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 3 months ago
        Me dino also makes my ballpoint marks down here in Bama land.
        Not only is it harder to tamper with my vote, providing sheets of paper and repeatedly used cheap ballpoint pens has to be way less expensive.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 3 months ago
    The point isn't to validate the vote, but to tie up the states past the 13th so their electoral votes can't be counted on the 19th. This will throw the election to the House, with one vote per state, and given the balance between Republicans and Democrats, Trump will still be the President-elect.

    Why is Stein doing this, and why is Clinton letting herself be dragged into this fiasco? Stein's intent is to use the bitterness of Hillary's supporters to line her own pockets, and to become more well known for another run in 2020. Clinton, who is still in a state of denial, sees this as a way to draw question to Trump's victory.

    The Green party is furious with Stein, and has severed ties with her as a charlatan and a phony. They say that if this really was a question of the integrity of the voting system, she would have included New Hampshire and Minnesota in her challenge, as the results in those two states were much closer than in the three she did challenge. Of course those two states were wins for Clinton, so it makes it obvious Stein is carrying water for Clinton.

    Even Democrats think it's a bad idea for Clinton to be associated with the recount, as it doesn't respect the integrity of the voting system. After blasting Trump for saying he wouldn't necessarily accept the outcome, it really is hypocritical. Unfortunately, Clinton may actually be delusional enough to think the recount will show she actually won the electoral votes, or at least show the race was even closer. I think she actually thinks she will be able to challenge Trump in 2020.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 3 months ago
      Re: “The point isn't to validate the vote, but to tie up the states past the 13th so their electoral votes can't be counted on the 19th.” Even if they succeed in doing just that, Trump might still win the electoral vote. The 12th Amendment provides that “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” If these three states fail to appoint electors, Trump will still receive a majority of the electors appointed and voting. I think that would mean that Trump can claim the Presidency with fewer than 270 electoral votes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 3 months ago
        The electors have already been appointed, but can't exercise their vote if their state's voting tally hasn't been certified by the 13th. 270 represents the majority needed, so this could end up in the House.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rainman0720 7 years, 3 months ago
    One of the things that bothers me is Stein's narrow selectivity of where she's demanding recounts: Three states that were "supposed" to vote for the Hildabeast but didn't.

    If she really and truly was worried about the integrity of the process, then she would demand recounts in all 50 states and PR, since there could be problems everywhere votes are cast.

    (Putting on my conspiracy theory hat...)

    I had another thought over the past week, especially as I read stories about how the Dems were less than enthusiastic about the recounts. Some of them seem like they'd rather accept the results, lick their wounds, toss some more grenades at Trump and his deplorables, and move on to 2018.

    Why would Democrats be almost eager for the recounts to just go away? One possible reason would be as CG mentioned: What if Trump is right about voter fraud in California? What if the recounts turn up voter fraud NOT in Trump's favor, but rather to Shrillary's benefit? What if these recount show that for every 10 illegal votes cast, 7 or 8 went D instead of R?

    Maybe Jill Stein knows this, and her real motive is to expose the voter fraud knowing full well that at least big chunks of the fraud directly benefits Democrats, which will also prove Republicans right about having more Voter ID laws requiring everyone to prove that they are legal voters.

    Just a thought.

    (removing the conspiracy hat)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 3 months ago
    I don't find her request for a recount quixotic. They should do bi-partisan recounts to verify Stein is wrong about voting fraud in the Midwest and that President Elect Trump is wrong about voting fraud in California. If one of them should be right, we want to know.

    Regarding the hand count, there should be away to verify the machinery works, then do a a test run of a few thousand ballots, and then trust the results of the machine count.

    The OP says Stein is motivated by not liking the outcome rather than verifying the integrity of the process. That may be true, but she's right to check. If everyone acts the way the OP describes Stein, a democratic republic can't function. We need a process we trust, a clear set of rules, and a way to execute.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ HarmonKaslow 7 years, 3 months ago
      The problem is that the machine could be programmed to be accurate for the first 10,000 ballots (or choose any number) ... and thereafter be rigged. Or, the machine could be rigged to give an accurate count AFTER the election date. Whatever a programmer could dream, an electronic voting machine can do. They discovered this issue with Gas Pumps ... where they were accurate for the first 5 gallons (the amount measured by Gov't Weights & Measures (see: http://www.ringcar.com/3_641eb57106d4... and then shorted you thereafter. As a result, in my opinion, the only way to validate the machine is a 100% hand count. Now, I'm not weighing in one way or the other regarding the efficacy of the machines ... just telling you that if a programmer wanted to rig an election, then it would be easy to make it difficult to discover (short of a complete hand count).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ rainman0720 7 years, 3 months ago
        I'm a computer programmer, and your statements are absolutely correct. If I was programming these machines, I could pretty much determine the outcome of the election if I wanted to risk it.

        Another example of how I could do it: Even if there are paper receipts printed, I could code it so that every nth vote for Trump (based on something like time of day) would be dropped into Clinton's tally, but the receipt still said Trump.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 7 years, 3 months ago
    I think at this point Hill is probably asking her to stop...worrying about the evidence that may emerge...if you know what I mean...

    And, I think Jill is trying to gum up the electoral vote via delay...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 7 years, 3 months ago
    I live in Michigan, and think that Stein is totally wacko. It took Michigan until November 28 to declare the winner in the Presidential race. Why? Because they had some irregularities in some precincts downstate, and they wanted to make absolutely sure the count was accurate. At least that is what they told us on the local newscasts. Do you think this fact is being mentioned on any of the national news?

    So the recount is underway, but Michigan AG has filed suit in Federal Court to stop the recount on the grounds that Stein has no standing to ask for one. She got like 1% of the vote, and has no chance of winning the election. She is not the "injured" party. Shrillary is the one who is directly concerned, and should be the one to file for a recount. If Stein wanted Shrillary to be president, why did she run against her and siphon off votes?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 3 months ago
    It is to be expected that a person such as Jill Stein would do what she's doing. After all, the head of the Green Party? What the hell is the constituency of the Green Party anyhow? What irritates me is the people that go along to promote this utterly stupid waste of time and money.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gerstj 7 years, 3 months ago
    If recount challenges are allowed by 1% candidates, just think of the chaos that can be caused. Last minute challenges could be widely used to prevent certification of electors and the functioning of the electoral college. Sequential challenges could be used in various states to collapse the system. This sounds like Cloward Piven tactics.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 3 months ago
    She just wants to make a name for herself in the event she can replace trump with hillary. Her backers are just plain hacks who are wasting their money. At least that money goes primarily to wages for americans.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo