Outcome of Recounts in WI, PA and MI

Wisconsin still has time before it reports. Supposedly all legal issues must be cleared up by the 13th of December.

 

Last WI recount took a mont with 1/2 of today's vote count.

 

I don't dispute that. But for the president election, they must have all legal issues concluded by the 13th.

 

Yes the vote has to be verified by the 13th. I believe legal challenges can be presented for another five days after that.

 

Based on the voting patterns and trends from counties in many states that only do paper balloting, I see no evidence that there was hanky-panky in those three states. I also said the same thing in 2004. Bush won in 2004, fair and square. That being said, with a margin of only 10,000 votes in Michigan, an automatic recount should have been triggered. Most states mandate an automatic recount with margins less than +0.50%. Michigan, apparently not. Trump, for good or for bad, is going to be our next president. End of story.

 

The Wisconsin Elections Commission has found no evidence that any of its voting machines were hacked during the Nov. 8 election, a spokesman said Saturday.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on Friday filed a petition to have a state recount on the sole grounds that data experts believe there may have been a cyberattack. They have no evidence, but contend that Democrat Hillary Clinton performed better where paper ballots, rather than electronic ones were used.

The Washington Times asked commission spokesman Reid Magney if there has been any indication of hacking.

“No evidence of hacking,” Mr. Magney said in an email.

The commission previously issued a statement saying it will routinely audit the performance of a sample of machines, which must achieve a performance rate of no more than one mistake per 500,000 votes. Since performing the audit beginning in 2006, not one machine has failed, the

Ms. Stein is raising a huge sum, heading toward $7 million, to pay for recounts in three battleground states where Republican Donald Trump scored upsets and won the presidency –– Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.....snip~

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/27/wisconsin-elections-officials-see-no-proof-of-hack/


Data experts says Stein.....yet Wisconsin and BO peeps says all she has is an allegation. No proof and no evidence.

It will stand and Stein will lose money.

 

In Michigan Statewide elections decided by 2,000 or less votes trigger an automatic recount.

 

Did you read the election law I posted where it has the Dec 13 drop dead date?

 

That is the dropdead date for the verified vote from the state. That does not mean legal challenges cannot be mounted. Also, if it is not supplied by the 13th it is not counted. If that count drops both candidates below 270 then it goes to the Congress. Some theorize that this is the goal of the recount because time is limited.

 

I suggest you reverse course, fall back to the link I posted and see if you still believe legal challenges can follow the drop dead date. It says that legal challenges must be concluded.

If you find I am wrong, well ... I am pleased.

 

I could be wrong, I read somewhere that there was five days the legal challenge could be brought.

 

Equally, the only way they can prove perjury is to look into whether or not the citizen is registered as a citizen. But as mentioned by Alpha: It's deemed RACIST to do so. So the "threat of perjury" has literally no standing.

 

Flawed? I would say corrupt is a better description.

 

Hey, if even this joint effort helps unites Greens, Sanders Stein and Clinton Democrats,
that's better than dividing and wasting resources fighting each other that poor minorities cannot afford!

Maybe next time they will unite on raising 7 million toward even better causes, such as
saving historic businesses and houses to create jobs for workers to run their own campuses and health care programs.
http://www.campusplan.org
http://www.rightsfortheworkers.org

Why not take on trafficking together, reclaim restitution for victims, and invest it in buying up land along the border for developments owned and managed by immigrant families and workers:
http://www.earnedamnesty.org

 

Its a great fitting end for that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Not only losing but losing in smug....well here is the video
[video=youtube;blMxB09L5q0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blMxB09L5q0[/video]

 

I have another question. Why is Donald Trump so obsessed with denouncing this recount? For somebody who seems so sure of his victory, he seems to be mighty obsessed with denouncing a recount that would solidify his victory. If he's so sure of his victory, why doesn't he just welcome the recount? I still don't think that these re-counts will change a thing. But given the way Trump is acting right now, it makes him look somewhat suspicious. I'm more inclined to believe that it's just him being an idiot as usual. Nevertheless, it draws some bit of suspicion towards Trump.

 

Because he is right and the losers are acting out like they claimed he would.

 

Hopefully by end of the day this will be a dead issue and a dead thread. Bold added by me
http://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrma...ble-with-recounts-in-the-name-of-hacking.html

4) The threshold for a recount will likely not be reached in Pennsylvania. There would need to be evidence of widespread voter fraud for a court-ordered recount in PA. For example, “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 (or in this case Ms. Stein’s team) 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.)”

However, Jill Stein said she does not have evidence of fraud.

Further, as the article explains, “What should be most troubling for Clinton supporters who want her to ask for a Pennsylvania recount is that in the past, these recounts have yielded a shift of just a couple hundred votes, certainly not enough to overturn anything in Pennsylvania. Clinton’s team would have to rely on proving massive voter fraud enough for a Pennsylvania court to rule the entire state invalid — an unprecedented and nearly impossible feat.