Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

The Recount Circus

37 Comments

It should effectively be over, because Michigan has certified for Trump. Even if Wisconsin hadn’t rejected the request for a hand recount, and Pennsylvania would allow one, Trump would still (absent faithless electors) have a majority of the Electoral College which (I don’t know why the ignorant continue to whine about the popular vote — Oh, wait, yes I do) is how we elect presidents in the United STATES of America. But it will continue, because it has nothing to do with the “integrity of the vote,” and everything to do with Green Party fundraising, and continuing chaos.

37 thoughts on “The Recount Circus”

  1. I’m still very worried over the faithless electors issue, because some of those electors are receiving massive harassment, and in some cases death threats. And those electors have families, including children, that can be threatened. Some may well fold, using the “popular vote” as an excuse.

    One possibility regarding motives for the recount; narrow the electoral vote enough to make it possible to swing this via threats and extortion against the electors. I hope this is all just a fundraising fraud by the Green, but given the criminal inclination and leadership (literally) of the democrat party, I fear the worst.

    As for the popular vote, take California out of the picture and Trump won that too, by about 2 million. It’s also worth remembering that California has a rigged election system, which resulted in, in many areas, in the only Republican on the ballot being Trump/Pence; the other races (Such as local races, a slew of House races, and the Senate race) were democrat vs. democrat, no other choice on the ballot. I can’t think of a better way to suppress the Republican vote in a blue state.

    1. Short of something really wacky happening in the next three weeks (such as an Epstein blackmail tape surfacing), I don’t expect to see a single elector pledged to Mr. Trump voting otherwise, but haven’t we already heard from one or two Washington state electors pledged to Ms. Clinton who say they won’t vote for her? Are you concerned about that (or an even larger Dem. elector defection) renewing discussions about the modern relevance of the Electoral College, particularly when Mr. Trump has indicated that he would like to see it abolished?

        1. What reason would a person who won under this system want to change that system?

          If this is so stinkin’ terrible, why didn’t Obama try to change it back in ’08!

          1. As Mr. Trump rightly pointed out, he campaigned according to the rules in place at the time and won, and had the election been based on the popular vote he would have campaigned differently, and, in his humble opinion, he believes that he would have won in that case as well. Additionally, it is always possible for someone of principle to support a change they believe to be for the greater good, even were it to their disadvantage.

        2. You’re so right Rand. Trump is a failed president. Look at how he’s trying to con us by appointing patriots to his cabinet.

      2. Oh, concern trolling… like concern for Hillary not keeping her word either in the debate or during her concession speech about accepting the vote?

        I’m not concerned, because Hillary lost, and that’s just awesome for the country.

      3. @ Kirk;

        Of course I’m concerned about faithless electors, regardless of to whom they are pledged. Electors should vote as their state did, so any defections are of course of grave concern. I don’t care if they are pledged to the losing candidate; wrong is wrong.

        However, I’m even more concerned over coercion of electors (threats, blackmail, etc), and I’m even more concerned if there’s a danger of faithless electors changing the result of an election.

        I’ve been in favor of making the first round of EV balloting automatic for a very long time, because a close election could be swung otherwise. It doesn’t even have to be intentional; the largest category of faithless electors, by far, in the history of the Electoral College is electors who did not vote due to having died. There’s also the Minnesota 2004 case; one of Kerry’s electors voted for Edwards for both VP and president. I’ve long suspected that was an accident, but had the election been closer in EV count, it could have made a difference.

        1. Yes, I’d expect automatic electoral balloting would be a feature of any modern arrangement conceived of today. Such a change now would require an amendment, wouldn’t it? I’ve read that Michigan and Minnesota law invalidates the votes of a faithless elector, but I don’t think it corrects their vote.

          [An aside, and not meaning to nit pick, but you wrote of “the first round of EV balloting”. There is only ever one such vote per election, right?]

          1. I happen to like nitpicks as I find them educational, so I’m glad you did that. 🙂

            You are correct, there is one balloting. Mea Culpa. I also note that I misremembered regarding the largest category of faithless electors. It wasn’t, as I misremembered, due to electors dying, but due to a candidate dying (between the election and the electoral college vote). Mea Culpa, again.

            If a state can (and some already do – though as you say, none correct the vote) invalidate the vote of a faithless elector, why couldn’t a state correct said vote too? IMHO, if it’s in their power to do one, why not the other?

    2. Some may switch, one Texas elector has resigned, over principle, so that someone else can be appointed in his place, but not the 46 that would be required to elect Clinton.

    3. If Trump had won by only 1 or 2 EV’s, it might be a concern. The pressure on individual electors could be enormous.

      But Trump won with 306 electoral votes. Which means activists would have to somehow flip 37 electors. And that’s just not happening.

  2. Stein’s probably happy MI went ahead and blocked her. Now she can squawk about it while not having to spend any of the money there. That’s probably an extra $2 million for her pocket.

  3. I don’t understand the problem here. State laws say that they have to be able to complete a recount before 13 Dec. in order to certify a slate of electors in advance of the 19 Dec. Electoral College vote. If they can’t pull that off in time, isn’t it better to find out in a year were no one is seriously questioning the results than wait for a year where the election is hanging on a single state which can’t conduct their recount in time? Consider it a stress test, paid for by voluntary donations.

    1. After Bush was inaugurated a bunch of newspapers came together and sponsored an analysis of the Florida vote. Of course there wouldn’t be any point in doing that this time because Trump’s margins in the three key states were vastly larger than the Bush/Gore gap.

      2. The narrowest margin of victory in any state was, ironically, a Hillary state – New Hampshire, which she won by less than three thousand votes.

    2. That is a good way to look at it, and Hillary/Stein have every right to pursue all legal remedies. However, that doesn’t mean they are exempt from criticism for doing so.

      Trump was roundly criticised by the media and Hillary as being the next Hitler if he didn’t support the peaceful transition of power. Now that Hillary/Stein are challenging the results in the courts and through riots in the streets, they are suddenly heros to the press. It is this type of one sided journolism that Trump campaigned against and at every opportunity, the Democrat media proves he was right.

      Look at how the “news” frames Trump’s statements about illegal immigrants voting in California compared with how they treat how the Democrat party is acting in regard to recounts and riots.

    2. The initial deadline for Pennsylvania has indeed passed, but it is still apparently possible to get it via some sort of court proceedings which Ms. Stein’s lawyers are pursuing. I don’t know the details, but the deadline for that is tomorrow.

      1. apparently possible to get it via some sort of court proceedings

        Tomorrow’s headline: “Ham Sandwich Indicted for Flying without a License!”

          2. It looks like they hit some ash. Wonder what eruption it was from. Also, while they say it is pointless, it will make someone a nice fishing pond.

          4. Wodun, I have to agree with you. The hole may be pointless, but it depends on what happens next.

            I also thought it a good test of Keynesian economics, and a lot cheaper than TARP.

      2. I hope that the Pennsylvania recount request succeeds, if only to highlight the fact that PA voting machines don’t leave any paper trail at all.

        1. So how do you “hand count” (or even recount) a vote that is a state transition in an electronic device? There is no paper, no mark, no hanging chad?

      3. I remember about twenty years ago, the Democrat candidate for senate in Pennsylvania died suddenly, after the deadline to put a new candidate on the ballot had passed. The Dems sued, the court said, “Oh, the law doesn’t matter, change the ballot,” and they got their new man on.

  5. Hot Air has a piece up raising a possible motive for Clinton in this recount circus; she’s keeping her options open for 2020.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/28/could-hillary-clinton-be-thinking-of-running-again-in-2020/

    I disagree with the points raised on why she won’t, because compelling though they are, almost every single one of them applied this year as well, but they still ran her.

    Normally, with either party, you got one shot – lose the general, and you’re done. But if Clinton can muddy the waters enough to make the claim the election wasn’t valid, she has a way around that.

    Are we doomed to a remake of Groundhog Day (or a zombi movie), with Hillary Clinton running every four years forever?

    4. Normally, with either party, you got one shot – lose the general, and you’re done.

      That was not historically the case – Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan, and Adlai Stevenson leap to mind – but it seems much more difficult to manage since the party caucus reforms of the early 1970’s.

      I think the greatest handicap for Hillary, however, is her age. I think this was really her last shot.

  6. First off there should be a rule (passed by each state) that no recount will be done if the person asking for the recount cannot possibly win. For example no matter how the recount would go, Jill Stein is NOT going to win. So she should be refused a recount. It’s a waste of taxpayer time and money.

    That means that Hillary would have to actually ask for the recount herself – which, in my opinion, she didn’t want to do and that’s why she got Jill Stein to front for her.

Comments are closed.