Recount?

[OldJourno]

Only 20 states have automatic recount laws.

I doubt any of them kick in when one candidate has a 10,000-vote lead after all the ballots are counted.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Which raises the question of do the states in question?

And what precisely is Jill's argument because as I've been googling apparently part of it is a fear that the Russians may have hacked something and while nothing is perfect I assume if there was any evidence of that whatsoever we'd know it by now.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't see that Jill Stein has grounds to ask for recounts, even though I'd like recounts to be done--and to be done r-e-a-l slow and maybe take fifteen years or so.

 

[Ishmael]

Which raises the question of do the states in question?

And what precisely is Jill's argument because as I've been googling apparently part of it is a fear that the Russians may have hacked something and while nothing is perfect I assume if there was any evidence of that whatsoever we'd know it by now.

Precisely my point, there is no evidence, only paranoia and political leverage.

Ishmael

 

[toubab]

Which raises the question of do the states in question?

There will be no automatic recount in the three states in question. The only one that came remotely close to one was Michigan, where there would have been one if the margin of victory was less than 2000 votes. The margin there was more than five times that wide.

 

[Ishmael]

There will be no automatic recount in the three states in question. The only one that came remotely close to one was Michigan, where there would have been one if the margin of victory was less than 2000 votes. The margin there was more than five times that wide.

Actually the naming of Mich. in this fiasco is an indication of motives. MI has paper ballots, no possibility of 'hacking.' So the effort there is an exercise in futility.

More importantly is the continual escalation of the $$$$ required in this endeavor. The fees the states in question charge are fixed (and I hope that after this year they raise those fees by at least an order of magnitude). All of the escalation is being attributed to lawyers fees. Well, just go figure. All of that money raised by 'crowdfund' just to enrich some attorneys. Playing the slots in Vegas has a better chance of reaping a return on investment.

Ishmael

 

[Conager]

If it is possible for individuals and governments to hack into the most sophisticated government and corporate tech systems, why is it difficult to believe that elections could be hacked?

Because someone has to have physical access to each and every individual machine that they want to hack.

Far easier to do it was the Democrats always do it- they pick a district where there are no Republicans and they just simply add a couple extra boxes of paper ballots.

the exact same people who have screamed for years that we don't need voter ID laws, that we don't need better oversight at polling places that demand the justice department watch the poll watchers to keep the poll watchers from keeping the ballot stuffers from stuffing the ballot boxes, claim that there is zero evidence of any of this occurring are speculating on something highly unlikely that no one has any evidence occurred.

It is surreal.

 

[Ishmael]

Because someone has to have physical access to each and every individual machine that they want to hack.

Far easier to do it was the Democrats always do it- they pick a district where there are no Republicans and they just simply add a couple extra boxes of paper ballots.

the exact same people who have screamed for years that we don't need voter ID laws, that we don't need better oversight at polling places that demand the justice department watch the poll watchers to keep the poll watchers from keeping the ballot stuffers from stuffing the ballot boxes, claim that there is zero evidence of any of this occurring are speculating on something highly unlikely that no one has any evidence occurred.

It is surreal.

Not true. But what they do have to do is be able to not only alter the total vote, but each and every vote in real-time to ensure that the individual votes match the total. On top of that they have to make certain that no IP 'finger print' shows up in the log. You are talking about a prodigious effort by they entire working force of a small nation to pull it off.

As I mentioned earlier the goal here is not to alter the results of the election but to undermine the confidence of the results in the minds of the loser's.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Which raises the question of do the states in question?

And what precisely is Jill's argument because as I've been googling apparently part of it is a fear that the Russians may have hacked something and while nothing is perfect I assume if there was any evidence of that whatsoever we'd know it by now.

She doesn't need one. As a candidate she has a right in most states to have the state prove to her that they did their job correctly.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don't see that Jill Stein has grounds to ask for recounts, even though I'd like recounts to be done--and to be done r-e-a-l slow and maybe take fifteen years or so.

As a candidate on the ballot she certainly does have grounds to ask.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Precisely my point, there is no evidence, only paranoia and political leverage.

Ishmael

There doesn't need to be evidence.

 

[Ishmael]

There doesn't need to be evidence.

"A crime has been committed."

"Do you have any evidence?"

"No."

"Fuck off."

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

"A crime has been committed."

"Do you have any evidence?"

"No."

"Fuck off."

Ishmael

If it was done on purpose and they find the individual(s) who did it sure, there may be charges, but it may just be an honest mistake.

Stein is legally entitled by the people of Wisconsin to have the state or individual counties prove they did their job correctly at her expense. If you don't like that she has that right, take it up with the people of Wisconsin.

 

[Ishmael]

If it was done on purpose and they find the individual(s) who did it sure, there may be charges, but it may just be an honest mistake.

Stein is legally entitled by the people of Wisconsin to have the state or individual counties prove they did their job correctly at her expense. If you don't like that she has that right, take it up with the people of Wisconsin.

If there was any evidence it would have come to light already.

This is nothing more than a political exercise that will enrich no one but the attorneys.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If there was any evidence it would have come to light already.

This is nothing more than a political exercise that will enrich no one but the attorneys.

Ishmael

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Perhaps Stein doesn't trust the government as much as you do.

 

[Conager]

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Perhaps Stein doesn't trust the government as much as you do.

You think the Obama Administration is lying about seeing no evidence of any hacking?

 

[Conager]

If it was done on purpose and they find the individual(s) who did it sure, there may be charges, but it may just be an honest mistake.

Stein is legally entitled by the people of Wisconsin to have the state or individual counties prove they did their job correctly at her expense. If you don't like that she has that right, take it up with the people of Wisconsin.

A landslide in the Electoral College might have been an honest mistake?

Which is it? You think government might be hiding something or you think government might be incompetent? Why do you hate government so much?

 

[Conager]

As a candidate on the ballot she certainly does have grounds to ask.

Why??

 

[Ishmael]

You think the Obama Administration is lying about seeing no evidence of any hacking?

He's grasping at any straw available.

But besides that, he we have a guy who seems to think that "big" government will fix everything implying that the very government he wants to make larger and more intrusive is conspiring against him. He should be a charter subscriber to "Prison Planet."

Not only that, but the government conspired with a few chosen states, and only a specific few, and before any outcome of the election could be known, to thwart his desires.

Like I said in another thread, "If you thought the liberals were bat shit crazy before the election, you ain't seen nothin' yet."

Ishmael

 

[Conager]

He's grasping at any straw available.

But besides that, he we have a guy who seems to think that "big" government will fix everything implying that the very government he wants to make larger and more intrusive is conspiring against him. He should be a charter subscriber to "Prison Planet."

Not only that, but the government conspired with a few chosen states, and only a specific few, and before any outcome of the election could be known, to thwart his desires.

Like I said in another thread, "If you thought the liberals were bat shit crazy before the election, you ain't seen nothin' yet."

Ishmael

In the space of just a few posts, some posters are both hollering "Beware of the Red Scare" and whining about how unfair we were to Castro that wonderful exporter of freedom.

 

[about_average]

Whatever the actual reason for Stein asking for recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, such recounts are a complete waste of time and whatever money is spent on them. Realistically, there is virtually no chance of the results being overturned in any one of these states, much less all three, which is what it would take for Hillary to prevail.

They can't even do a recount in PA

Without diving into the rest of your reply, virtually all states have an automatic recount law in effect. In most states if the vote is within 1%, a recount is automatic.

There's no automatic recount in WI. In MI it's based on actual numbers, 2,000 votes. In PA a recount can't be done under any circumstances.

Moving on, if you agree, then what is the point of following your agreement with that question? If a recount were prescribed, it would have been done by now.

That's only for automatic recounts. They are prescribed if a candidate requests one, which was done before the prescribed deadline.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are definitely not close enough for a recount, in my opinion. Michigan perhaps would be, except they use paper ballots exclusively, so there is almost no chance of hacking being a problem and also very little chance of their having miscounted paper ballots by over 10,000.

The chance of Hillary coming out on top after these recounts is as close to zero as it gets without being zero.

Your opinion doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the law in the relevant states and the person requesting the recount.

 

[about_average]

Can and were. Two different notions. Anything is possible but it occurs to me that you'd better show proof that something DID happen before you take action. A hack is like any other crime scene, there is always evidence left behind. Show me the evidence, not some nebulous "it could have happened' bull shit.

I'm surprised you admit Clinton's private email server was never hacked.

Show me the evidence, not suspicions.

You mean they way you showed evidence Merrick Garland is an anit-gun nut?

I don't see that Jill Stein has grounds to ask for recounts, even though I'd like recounts to be done--and to be done r-e-a-l slow and maybe take fifteen years or so.

Under the law she does.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

A landslide in the Electoral College might have been an honest mistake?

Which is it? You think government might be hiding something or you think government might be incompetent? Why do you hate government so much?

When Quenager doesn't like the way the conversation is going he makes up his own.

 

[about_average]

Because someone has to have physical access to each and every individual machine that they want to hack.

Wrong.
Access to the software would make it possible to hack electronic voting. To the best of my knowledge no state uses open source software in their voting machines or make it available for anyone to examine.

 

[Conager]

When Quenager doesn't like the way the conversation is going he makes up his own.

You participate in "conversations?"

Don't you simply ask pointed questions?

I've asked you some questions; does that mean we're having a conversation?

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Are you afraid to answer them?