Stein escalates recount push in face of criticism, goes to federal court in Pennsylvania
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hillary has as much chance of being elected in 2020 as Trump has of draining the swamp in 2016. This swamp has teeth.
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)
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.
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.
Maybe they could mandate the the source code be made public.
And, I think Jill is trying to gum up the electoral vote via delay...
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?