The US system is odd. In the UK, if there where significant irregularities the election would be re-held, probably within about two months.
There were no irregularities though. If there were, Clinton would sue and there would be a fact-finding. I have no idea what the remedies would consist of, but I am taking a class on election law next semester so maybe I can figure it out .
But even if there where, if my understanding of the US system is correct, the law would not allow the election to be rerun, and quite possibly the result would have to stand.
I imagine an adjusted recount would be the remedy, which is much better than a do-over. I'll have to ask my professor next semester. He was actually the head of Bush's legal team during the 2000 recount, so I'm sure he knows.
Jill Stein, one of the few people capable of requesting a recount, is crowd funding the $2.5M needed to fund recounts in three critical states with voting irregularities.
Also, Clintons popular vote lead has grown to more than 2 million votes.
Quote
"With your help, we are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals.
This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! We need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we’re turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.
Your immediate support is crucial - Please donate now and share widely."
On the one hand, I'm very skeptical of EVERYTHING that happened in this election. On the other hand, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Then again, I put nothing past these people. We already had one election stolen in 2000. The problem here is, the cake has already been baked. The media is NOT going to take this seriously, even if it turns out to be legitimate, and over the course of time, people who talk about this will be spoken of in the same breath as 9/11 Truthers. I have alot of suspicions about this. I put nothing past Republicans. But I have serious doubts this is going to go anywhere.
If there is reasonable doubt, wouldn't there be a reasonable investigation? Why would taking money from people people make a recount happen?
It costs money to do a recount apparently if you want a recount, you have to pay for it to the state. That's the rules of recounts. The states won't do it for free.
If there is reasonable doubt, wouldn't there be a reasonable investigation? Why would taking money from people people make a recount happen?
Not really. It's a matter of perception. In hindsight, there is almost NO doubt Gore won Florida in 2000, if the vote counting had continued. Most people have no idea this is the case. There were serious irregularities in Ohio in 2004 as well, but there wasn't as much of a case to be made then because Bush won the popular vote handily (ironically, by roughly the same margin Clinton is leading now). Electronic voting machines are a serious problem, and we should all be using paper ballots. The problem with that?? The impatience of the American people. We have been conditioned to know the results by bedtime on Election Night, and it would take more than a month to get a real tally, as evidenced by the count still taking place as we speak. As we go further, the States that put Trump over the top inch ever close, and Hillary's popular vote lead continues to expand even wider. It's why these stories are coming up. I'm not saying this line of questioning isn't legit. I am saying the Republicans and the media will NEVER let it get anywhere, even if the Clinton camp decided to challenge the results (and there is no indication yet that they are going to).
Here are the filing fees and deadlines for each state:
Wisconsin: $1.1 million by Nov 25 Pennsylvania: $.5 million by Nov 28 Michigan: $.6 million by Nov 30
And yes it would be tough for Clinton to do this. So she's not.
Green Party's Jill Stein is.
Her reason: Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton.
These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.
And: "After a divisive and painful presidential race, in which foreign agents hacked into party databases, private email servers, and voter databases in certain states, many Americans are wondering if our election results are reliable. That's why the unexpected results of the election and reported anomalies need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust." -- Dr. Jill Stein.
I agree it seems bizarre that counting is still going on in the US. I could just about imagine that happening in a 3rd world country with poor infrastructure, but how is it possible to justify such a slow system in the US? Imagine the problems it would cause if the final result of the election depended on a count that took several weeks - would anyone even believe the figures after such a long delay?
@jjstraka34: It's my understanding that a commission found that whether or not Gore won Florida depends on how you interpreted ambiguous ballots. It was just a possibility, not a certainty, that Gore won the electoral vote.
I'm not as upset about the 2000 election as I used to be. The 2016 election is modern politics, but the 2000 election feels more like history.
It's obvious that the US needs election reform. A national voting standard would be best. To many states screwing things up. And no more voter suppression would be nice. A nice clean standard needs to happen - one person one vote. Maybe we need a national ID card and that's what you use to vote.
This article here goes into extreme detail on how Trump sympathozers might have rigged it and nuts and bolts problems with various state voting procedures and irregularities found already.
If there is reasonable doubt, wouldn't there be a reasonable investigation? Why would taking money from people people make a recount happen?
Not really. It's a matter of perception. In hindsight, there is almost NO doubt Gore won Florida in 2000, if the vote counting had continued. Most people have no idea this is the case.
Not to mention that Gore only had recounts in the two most heavily Democratic districts in the entire state... and still couldn't get anywhere near the 537 votes he needed.
It's obvious that the US needs election reform. A national voting standard would be best. To many states screwing things up. And no more voter suppression would be nice. A nice clean standard needs to happen - one person one vote. Maybe we need a national ID card and that's what you use to vote.
This article here goes into extreme detail on how Trump sympathozers might have rigged it and nuts and bolts problems with various state voting procedures and irregularities found already.
I'm sorry, but if people on this forum dismiss The Federalist as a news source, then stories reported only the daily kos needs to be treated like historical fiction at best, and that is being generous.
Feel free to dismiss dailykos but other sources are saying there's something there. Too that was just one with details I found off a joss whedon tweet.
Feel free to dismiss dailykos but other sources are saying there's something there. Too that was just one with details I found off a joss whedon tweet.
I just don't think anyone should get their hopes up. I simply cannot foresee anything actually coming from this. Quite honestly, there is probably a greater chance of getting electors to turn on Trump when the Electoral College meets, and that stands at less than 1% itself. There is no way the power structure of the Republican Party in 2 of those 3 states is going to allow this to happen.
@Mathsorcerer Nixon wasn't the only one. Learning about the Korean and Vietnam wars, with the corruption of LBJ, Esienhower, and even revered, martyred Kennedy was one of the most disheartening and eye opening things I have ever done. Very discouraging.
Woah, we all know about LBJ and Kennedy but what was corrupt about Eisenhower? As far as I know he is universally admired and had a clear record when it comes to corruption.
Eisenhower set up a lot of he crap that happened over in Vietnam. He was president from 1953-1961. The Vietnam War started in 1954. You can almost say he was responsible for the puppet government plan that Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon had to deal with, and that he set the stage for the Watergate Scandal that happened 20 years later as a result...but it all really started with the Korean War, though I doubt Truman and Roosevelt realized the far reaching consequences their actions would have when they helped the French against the Koreans despite the French being in the wrong.
The US system is odd. In the UK, if there where significant irregularities the election would be re-held, probably within about two months.
There were no irregularities though. If there were, Clinton would sue and there would be a fact-finding. I have no idea what the remedies would consist of, but I am taking a class on election law next semester so maybe I can figure it out .
But even if there where, if my understanding of the US system is correct, the law would not allow the election to be rerun, and quite possibly the result would have to stand.
I imagine an adjusted recount would be the remedy, which is much better than a do-over. I'll have to ask my professor next semester. He was actually the head of Bush's legal team during the 2000 recount, so I'm sure he knows.
But if it does turn out that electronic voting machines had been hacked by the Russians or Chinese, then a recount would not be possible, as there would be no papertrail.
Interestingly, the company that makes the electronic voting machines tried to pursuade the UK to use them for the referendum vote, but the offer was turned down on the grounds that the government was not convinced that the system was "sufficiently secure".
Maybe we need a national ID card and that's what you use to vote.
Wait what ? You don't have those ?
In most states, you register with your drivers license or photo ID before you vote. At the booth, they don't ask to see your ID in most states, they just cross your name off a list.
As far as voter fraud, I SERIOUSLY doubt that Trump could have organized such a massive scale thing to get himself elected. First off, he doesn't have the friends in high places that Hillary does; secondly, he is not a government official; thirdly, everyone hated him way too much for it to be even mildly plausible; fourthly, the media spent months driving home the point in the polls that Hillary was going to win.
That he won this election, despite my absolute distaste for him, actually restored my faith in the lack of voter fraud, because his victory was supposedly so unlikely, or so everyone said. If anyone even could have committed voter fraud on such a large scale organized to swing so many states one way, it would have been Hillary.
She lost almost every swing state and even a few that often go blue. I don't think that much could have been voter fraud.
Voter fraud is historically committed on small scales, like a city intentionally leaving rural votes off the count. Connecticut is huge for democrat voter fraud, but it still went blue.
Maybe we need a national ID card and that's what you use to vote.
Wait what ? You don't have those ?
In most states, you register with your drivers license or photo ID before you vote. At the booth, they don't ask to see your ID in most states, they just cross your name off a list.
What is a photo ID ? And if you don't drive ? (those are genuine questions I swear)
As far as voter fraud, I SERIOUSLY doubt that Trump could have organized such a massive scale thing to get himself elected.
I don't think it is being seriously suggested that Trump engineered it himself. The Russians and Chinese both stand to benefit enormously from a Trump presidency.
Maybe we need a national ID card and that's what you use to vote.
Wait what ? You don't have those ?
In most states, you register with your drivers license or photo ID before you vote. At the booth, they don't ask to see your ID in most states, they just cross your name off a list.
What is a photo ID ? And if you don't drive ? (those are genuine questions I swear)
You don't get to vote. One of the reasons for low turnout amongst the poor.
The UK also does not have national id cards. Nor does it require proof of identity at polling stations. I can't see that lasting.
As far as voter fraud, I SERIOUSLY doubt that Trump could have organized such a massive scale thing to get himself elected.
I don't think it is being seriously suggested that Trump engineered it himself. The Russians and Chinese both stand to benefit enormously from a Trump presidency.
I'd sooner believe space aliens engineered Trump's victory...
To put voter ID in perspective, I was in Sierra Leone during the general election in 1996 and in that instance voters were fingerprinted at the polling station. This was not to identify voters (they didn't have a fingerprint database of any kind) but simply to stop people voting twice. The problem however was that this was the first election for nearly 20 years and it was being held in order to replace what was effectively a military junta - unsurprisingly the army wasn't thrilled by the concept and sent soldiers out into the countryside cutting off the hands of anyone with voting ink on their fingers 'pour encourager les autres'. Of course the voting population weren't best pleased by this and retaliated in kind, in one instance decapitating a soldier and playing football with his head.
Moral of the story? However bad you think your situation is, there's always someone else a lot worse off.
Comments
I put nothing past them either after voter suppression, the voter fraud which have been trump supporters.
https://news.vice.com/story/trump-supporters-keep-committing-voter-fraud
And look at NC Governor race, the incumbent is trying to cheat to stay in power.
Wisconsin: $1.1 million by Nov 25
Pennsylvania: $.5 million by Nov 28
Michigan: $.6 million by Nov 30
And yes it would be tough for Clinton to do this. So she's not.
Green Party's Jill Stein is.
Her reason:
Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton.
These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.
And:
"After a divisive and painful presidential race, in which foreign agents hacked into party databases, private email servers, and voter databases in certain states, many Americans are wondering if our election results are reliable. That's why the unexpected results of the election and reported anomalies need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust." -- Dr. Jill Stein.
And don't use population as an excuse. America can just use more people to count the results.
This is really going to happen.
EDIT: now over $2M
I'm not as upset about the 2000 election as I used to be. The 2016 election is modern politics, but the 2000 election feels more like history.
This article here goes into extreme detail on how Trump sympathozers might have rigged it and nuts and bolts problems with various state voting procedures and irregularities found already.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/20/1602092/-HRC-Campaign-Please-challenge-the-vote-in-4-States-as-the-data-says-you-won-NC-PA-WI-FL
Not to mention that Gore only had recounts in the two most heavily Democratic districts in the entire state... and still couldn't get anywhere near the 537 votes he needed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
Eisenhower set up a lot of he crap that happened over in Vietnam. He was president from 1953-1961. The Vietnam War started in 1954. You can almost say he was responsible for the puppet government plan that Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon had to deal with, and that he set the stage for the Watergate Scandal that happened 20 years later as a result...but it all really started with the Korean War, though I doubt Truman and Roosevelt realized the far reaching consequences their actions would have when they helped the French against the Koreans despite the French being in the wrong.
Eisenhower also had a big hand in "Operation Wetback".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
You don't have those ?
Interestingly, the company that makes the electronic voting machines tried to pursuade the UK to use them for the referendum vote, but the offer was turned down on the grounds that the government was not convinced that the system was "sufficiently secure".
That he won this election, despite my absolute distaste for him, actually restored my faith in the lack of voter fraud, because his victory was supposedly so unlikely, or so everyone said. If anyone even could have committed voter fraud on such a large scale organized to swing so many states one way, it would have been Hillary.
She lost almost every swing state and even a few that often go blue. I don't think that much could have been voter fraud.
Voter fraud is historically committed on small scales, like a city intentionally leaving rural votes off the count. Connecticut is huge for democrat voter fraud, but it still went blue.
And if you don't drive ?
(those are genuine questions I swear)
The UK also does not have national id cards. Nor does it require proof of identity at polling stations. I can't see that lasting.
Of course the voting population weren't best pleased by this and retaliated in kind, in one instance decapitating a soldier and playing football with his head.
Moral of the story? However bad you think your situation is, there's always someone else a lot worse off.