Recounters denied access to actual ballots - so what is there to hide?

[KrazyK923]

Its funny, cause you would NEVER had agreed to a recount either if the klan party had won.

Agreed? I have no say either way, but I wouldn't be talking about bullshit about conspiracies just because a vote was close and a recount happened. It would validate my candidate's win assuming I thought it was a fair election, which I still think this one was. I've repeatedly said I don't really think there was any kind of shenanigans going on, but recounts have been a thing for years and years. Its like people forgot 2000 happened, when most of the people bitching about this were most likely alive for that recount occurring.

When you're the winning party and you're actively attempting to stop recounts, it looks bad. And while I still don't think really anything shady happened, why not have one? It will just reaffirm Trump's win. Just like it would reaffirm Hillary's if the roles were reversed.

However when you throw a tantrum and talk about recounts being conspiracies or filing lawsuits to stop a recount or trying their absolute damnest to stop a recount (Like Wisconsin is doing), THAT looks shady. THAT looks like there's something to hide. And if/when the recount happens, and assuming nothing is revealed (Like I assume nothing will), then it will make you come off as incredibly fucking petty for trying to stop something that is part of our electoral system as the victor.

Also, wut? The Klan Party?

[Daerio]

I'll say that when this exact issue was brought up during the primary audits, the response was this:

A) Only officials are allowed to touch the ballots.
B) Officials are under no obligation to show, explain, or slow down in their job. Observers are only there to observe the process, not participate. When it was brought up that auditors were "hiding" what they were doing, putting their arms over the tallies as they were working, etc. - this was irrelevant during the primaries.
C) It was observed that the auditors failed to match the original vote tally, it was ruled as immediately irrelevant due to not being a large enough margin to effect the outcome (even though it actually was large enough) and the audit was ruled completed and the results certified as correct.

If these are the rules we're following then basically goodluck. Wisconsin election board officials aren't going to volunteer to stick their heads on the chopping block any more than any other states'. They fight the audit process because they're the ones who certified the fucking results in the first place. Of course they're not a neutral party, because our system is shit.

Additionally, some states have passed these automatic audit processes with the intention of proactively showing that their elections are legitimate with no errors. Unfortunately since they always find errors and they're not able to certify their state election results without performing these mandatory audits, the audits get rigged and handwaved so there's no problems. That's not necessarily a partisan effort; no state election board wants the public to realize they're dumbasses.

[DarkTZeratul]

When this whole thing turns out to be a failure and a waste of time, Dems won't own it. They'll say it was the Green party and Clinton had nothing to do with it, like they already are even though it's completely ridiculous.

That's because it WAS the Green Party, and Clinton DID have nothing to do with it. Her campaign flat-out said, at the very beginning, that they didn't see any strong evidence of election fraud that would lead them to request a recount, and they're only going along with it to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the recount--something the Republican Party should have a vested interest in doing as well, ESPECIALLY since their guy won.

[Daerio]

That's because it WAS the Green Party, and Clinton DID have nothing to do with it. Her campaign flat-out said, at the very beginning, that they didn't see any strong evidence of election fraud that would lead them to request a recount, and they're only going along with it to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the recount--something the Republican Party should have a vested interest in doing as well, ESPECIALLY since their guy won.

So since only the Green party apparently wants a recount, and there's no chance of them winning any election of any sort, aren't we done here?

[XangXu]

It comes down to classic "No I won't cooperate because you are on Team B" bullshit that has torn your country apart.

Nothing new.

[turboether]

The recount is gonna be done by the same people and same protocols as the real thing. That means nobody gets to see the votes except those counting. Is this a foreign concept? They're gonna recount them, not make individual ballots available to the public.

[ati87]

So since only the Green party apparently wants a recount, and there's no chance of them winning any election of any sort, aren't we done here?

If you want to ensure the integrity of the election then a recount needs to be on the table, instead of blocking the freaking thing.

This isn't like Trump saying 2 months ahead (and then a week ahead shutting up about it) the election is rigged.

[lokithor]

Plot twist: Recount is being denied because it shows voter fraud in favor of clinton

I would laugh my ass off.

[Daerio]

If you want to ensure the integrity of the election then a recount needs to be on the table, instead of blocking the freaking thing.

It's on the table, but not just because one side didn't like the outcome of the election.

[Deleted]

Its clear Obama rigged this for Trump the most establishment candidate ever

[Kaeth]

Plot twist: Recount is being denied because it shows voter fraud in favor of clinton

M. Night Shyamalan Plot Twist: Recount is being denied because Wisconsin prefers Details! or Skada.

[Deleted]

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania all had wonky goings with exit poll data and wins on razor thin margins. If there WAS tampering in the election at all, in any state, it would have been there.

Wisconsin has just acting shady about the whole thing from day 1 which is fueling the fire even more.

The video posted was actually really good.

So dead people voting democrat is not in any way shady?

[Daerio]

.. Source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.0c1e1a755c74
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/2...d-swing-states

Maybe we should be doing a recount in Virginia. Why didn't Jill Stein raise any money to look at election "irregularities" in that state? Oh, because Clinton won that state... barely.

[Underverse]

They should hand it over. But, no one is going to accept an answer that isn't "Trump cheated and can't be president". No one does a recount unless they believe they deserve to win.

And she should accept it. She said accept it and Obama said deal with it when he won. The party all about accept the outcome needs to put up or just continue being the exact same kind of babies that didn't accept Obama won.

If you read the statement released by the Clinton camp, they basically said that they saw no reason for a recount, but since Stein was going for one they would participate since they were a major involved party.

Clinton has already accepted the results. She's doing this as a courtesy to her followers and to the democratic process - which, of course, is kind of ironic.

[Deleted]

.. Source?

Wikileaks

Seriously man, it's been going on for ages.


inb4 wikileaks is russia.

Well democrats didnt seem to mind Wikileaks when the Iraqi buissness got leaked.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

If you read the statement released by the Clinton camp, they basically said that they saw no reason for a recount, but since Stein was going for one they would participate since they were a major involved party.

Clinton has already accepted the results. She's doing this as a courtesy to her followers and to the democratic process - which, of course, is kind of ironic.

Very convenient, to say the least.

[Deleted]

1. Link it, fcs.
2. How is Wikileaks proving that thousands of dead people vote? They just hack mails.

It's in the podesta emails. numerous of videos have been made about it, to link the specific one is kind of moot at this point. Also, you have recived other replies linking sources from washington post, fox etc.

[Daerio]

Don't a lot of people get automatically registered to vote? Either way, there were still no dead people voting in those sources. And yes, it would be stupid to pay millions of dollars from donations to recount a state they won.

In some states there's automatic voter registration. Not in mine though, and I don't know any specifics on it.

There's no question that the perpetrator in that case was registering dead people with the intention of voting for them. Dead people don't accidentally get registered to vote post-mortem.

[Vizardlorde]

It would be funny if they disqualified ballots for writing insults next to the candidates name

[Forogil]

There's no question that the perpetrator in that case was registering dead people with the intention of voting for them. Dead people don't accidentally get registered to vote post-mortem.

Can we be sure that was the intention?

I agree that it seems likely - but there are other alternatives: mistaken identity, lying to get rid off annoying vote-register persons, and trying to get credit for registering a lot of voters.

http://www.dnronline.com/update/new-...10329fe3a.html
claims that the motive was personal and non-political; which indicates that the intention wasn't voting for dead people.