Recount - can anything come of that?

[bits]

Looks like WI, PA, and MI will do recounts.

Let's say Hillary comes out on top. Can anything be done to give the electoral votes to Hillary? Or is this just a recount to ensure there wasn't any hacking?

[boots-aregard]

Here's one article. No idea if it's sound...

http://qz.com/845671/us-election-recoun ... still-win/

[WheresMyWhite]

Each state will have to decide if they do want to do a re-count and re-counts are expensive.

In reading the article, sounds like the states most likely would not re-count unless HRC pushes for it.

I didn't look at the electoral counts for each of the states in question other than, I think it was MI, to see if all 3 states' re-counts would tip the the way how how the electoral college would fall.

[KathyK]

Hillary's not pushing anything. Jill Stein is requesting the recounts.

[WheresMyWhite]

And so far sounds like WI is the only one gearing up for a re-count.

And as noted, unclear even with the recount that it would swing the electoral college...

Sounds like it will be an interesting exercise if nothing else to discover if WI did actually have voting irregularities or just the suspicion of.

[khall]

MI is still too close to call so those electoral votes have not been alloted to either of the candidates. So far WI, which had a deadline today to file for a recount, is the only one JS has filed for recount of their votes, but JS has the money to start the process (4.7 million) is trying to raise 7 million for recount in MI and Penn. Don't know when their deadline to file is, don't know if MI will have automatic recount since it is too close to call either way. If these 3 states end up going to HRC then she will have enough electoral college votes to be President.

[clanter]

Appears everything has to be wrapped up before December 13, 2016

States must make final decisions in any controversies over the appointment of their electors at least six days before the meeting of the Electors. This is so their electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress.

Decisions by states’ courts are conclusive, if decided under laws enacted before Election Day.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... dates.html

about Michigan: Trump has been declared the winner. Also of note there was a significant under-vote on Nov. 8, when an estimated 85,000 people cast ballots but did not make a selection in the presidential race (I wonder how the integrity of those ballots will be maintained--just need to "select" a candidate on some to change everything) . Michigan used paper ballots, all nearly 4.8 million would be hand re-counted if challenged

A recount can’t be requested in Michigan until the vote is certified, which is scheduled to happen at 2 p.m. Monday Nov 28th), when the Board of Canvassers meets to make the results — which show Republican Donald Trump with a 10,704-vote lead over Democrat Hillary Clinton — official. After the certification, the deadline for a recount request is Wednesday afternoon.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politic ... /94429196/

Since Stein got only 51,643 votes in Michigan compared with more than 4.5 million for Trump and Clinton combined, the cost per precinct for Stein would be $125 because her margin is not within 0.5%. If Clinton had asked for a recount, her cost would be $25 per precinct because she lost by such a slim margin. Stein also has estimated that she needs to raise several million for legal costs.

But the Whitehouse seems to no be on board at all, maybe they are concerned about what might be uncovered when the rocks are turned over to really look at the voters

The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/po ... .html?_r=0

So nothing much else to do but wait

[WheresMyWhite]

I just had a thought...

A la Survivor, we should vote again for POTUS with only both Trump and HRC being ineligible

[Tarlo Farm]

My thought - and what I said at 7pm November 8th - is that either Clinton had to win in a landslide, or he had to win.

One or the other. I figure having him in office for a year or two (assuming he'll be impeached) is the only way his trumpettes will understand that he won't bring "all the jobs back", that he won't "build the wall", that he won't "hire a special prosecutor" to charge HRC, that he won't "drain the swamp"... and on and on... And that he will in fact raise their taxes and increase the federal debt.

So it's possible the White House and other Dems think as I do.

[WheresMyWhite]

As long as you realize that impeaching DT will not remove him from office. Impeachment is analogous to indicting someone. It simply allows charges to be brought.

The Senate would try the impeachment. No President has been removed from office subsequent to a successful impeachment and conviction in the Senate. Nixon resigned before he was impeached.