barneystinson69 said:
Now we all know the green party leader Jill Stein is spending millions of dollars trying to get recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. While I understand that recounts are important in very close votes, the results in 2 out of 3 of these states are hardly what I consider "close"
http://billypenn.com/2016/12/01/hillary-clinton-lost-pennsylvania-by-just-46000-votes-latest-figures-show/
http://wisconsinvote.org/election-results
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan
Now I will say this, the Michigan vote is quite close, I mean 10000 votes is a very small margin (less than .2%), so I guess we can see how that turns out. But considering Trump won Wisconsin by a 1% margin, and Pennsylvania by 46,000 votes, those two states are hardly close enough in which recounts should be had. I guess it pleases those who still hope they can force Trump not to be president, but its unlikely to go anywhere, and is just an utter waste of time any money. She would have to somehow flip ALL 3 of these states in order to have 270 electoral college votes. Losing even 1 will result in her not having enough electoral votes, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania seem to have far too much of a gap in order to achieve a win. So what do you guys think? Will she be able to flip these states, or is all of this is gasping for air?
|
I completely agree that the chances of all states being flipped for Hillary on a recount are vanishingly small, so a recount bears the hallmarks of desperation. However it is not right to charactierise is a hope to "force Trump not to be president". In the unlikely event that the recount does hand all those states to Hillary the outcome is merely a validation of the correct counting of the votes. There is no forcing invloved when the outcome is determined 100% by a correct measure of the "will of the people". If the ECVs for those states get legitimately and legally handed to Hillary by some miracle then that outcome is as beyond reproach as will be the more likely outcome that Trump winning those states being confirmed.
The only reason to force Donald not to be president is if Donald decides to refuse to accept the recount and he calls for some uprising in response to him being denied what he regards as rightfully his. If the vote turns out not in Donald's favour then there is no basis for him to claim that the presidency is rightfully his.
I think 2 states are withing turning distance on a recount. But that is by the by since it requires all 3 states to turn for the outcome to change. But just as owning guns in the US is a right, demanding a recount on payment of the appropriate fee is also a right. And if people want to spend money exercising that right then who are we to question it?
One might also argue that in this election in particular an open and transparent recount in these close states serves a greater democratic purpose, in that it will validate the electoral process regardless of outcome. If Donald is confirmed, then there is renewed confidence that voting systems and processes are performing as expected and required to be satisfied that free and fair elections are happening. If Hillary is given the wins, then it confirms the checks and balances of the electoral system work now in a way that arguably did not work in 2000. So in terms of testing and validating the system can it ever be said that a recount is a waste of time and money.
Personally, I think there should be a threshhold that automatically triggers a recount, that way recounts get depoliticised.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
