When is a recount a sham?

[Coyotl]

When is a recount a sham?
Election Watch November 25, 2016

Recounts provide a peaceful dispute mechanism to help ensure that elections will be free and fair and equal to all. But the mere act of having a recount is not what helps elections be free and fair. The recount must be accountable to the public and fully transparent.

There is a great deal at stake in any recount. Observers should not make assumptions that every recount is honest, or that every statement made by public officials is true. The purpose of observation is authentication, and this responsibility should be taken seriously.

SYMPTOMS OF A SHAM RECOUNT

1) Is observation meaningful? That is, can public observers see and document the marks on each ballot?

Example: A contentious Pima County, Arizona election in 2006 resulted in litigation, culminating later in an offer to recount the ballots. However, the count was set up such that observers were unable to observe the marks on the ballot, and could only observe “the process” (people walking about in a room, moving boxes, handling papers).

All recounts should be conducted in “public meeting” — which means with public notice as to time and place, and permitting any person to conduct meaningful observation, which must include the ability to actually see that the marks on the ballot correspond to the verbal count. .............

[guillaumeb]

1. When electronic voting machines have no back-up that can be examined. eom

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. Excellent article

Except for the first item, with which I disagree only because it would be a nightmare trying to count ballots with 50 people offering their opinions.

All of the other items in the list are spot on though, IMO.

[oberliner]

5. Which is the case in PA, I believe

[guillaumeb]

9. True, and in other states as well. eom

[Glassunion]

11. You are correct

[womanofthehills]

28. esp when these electronic machines are old, outdated and use very old software

like those in Pennsylvania

[guillaumeb]

30. Possibly by design? eom

[HassleCat]

2. Wrong. Maybe

The counters represent both candidates, so observers are not allowed to get too close. This is to prevent Tea Party style "observers" from disrupting the process. At least that's the way it works in my state.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. Exactly

I've never worked a recount, but in elections I've worked, both major parties MUST be represented at each precinct by an election official, both of which must sign each piece of paper work submitted from the election.

The last thing we need is 50 people wanting to get a look at each ballot so that they can offer their opinion on whom should get the vote in question. The recounts would run until the 2018 elections.

[TheFrenchRazor]

16. who said you need 50 people? 1 from each party and maybe an independent person would work. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. I was just going by what the OP said

All recounts should be conducted in “public meeting” — which means with public notice as to time and place, and permitting any person to conduct meaningful observation, which must include the ability to actually see that the marks on the ballot correspond to the verbal count

[Hoyt]

6. We've already gone from voting was hacked to recount is a sham. What conspiracy will be next.

Christ, we are sounding more and more like GOPers have for the last 8 years.

Let's just say Clinton somehow wins, although unlikely. Next Democrats will start trashing Clinton just like they did Obama, calling her 3rd Way and God knows what else (as many did often in primaries). Won't take folks long to forget the catastrophe we faced with PElect Trump.

It's time to move on, as far as I am concerned. I don't think the recount will do us any good.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. Yep

And for God's sake, don't try to insert any sanity into the conspiracy conversations; you'll be accused of having an ulterior motive for doing so.

The chances of Hillary Clinton winning this election due to recounts is about the same as monkeys flying out of my ass...not gonna happen. But you can bet that when she doesn't win, the next set of conspiracy theories will be about how the recounts were rigged.

It seems to be much easier to blame a lost election on cheating than to accept that as a party, we failed to reach some of the voters we needed in order to win.

[tavernier]

21. On election night, the chances of trump winning

were the same as monkeys flying out of your ass (per all the polls and predictions). So I'll take those odds.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. I guess you didn't see Nate Silver

It was only around 21%, but it hovered between 20%-30% for the week before the election. But any mention of that here was shot down with "concern troll" responses.

[bigmonkey]

12. What is your perspective on the article?

It's a warning of some of the issues involved in recounts? It's an indication that recounts are hackable? Voting procedures are irrelevant to elections? Could you explain?

[Hoyt]

15. The article is like a 1000 more just like it discussing what COULD happen. Fact is we lost.

A recount may move a couple of votes around, but won't change the outcome and we'll move on to the next conspiracy theory. It's a waste of time and makes us look just like whiny GOPers.

Again, if wrong, I'll enjoy eating crow.

[seaglass]

13. I don't either and Jill Stein cannot be trusted. She's a fucking tool. Does she think it's the

Greens or now-converted-Greens who are sending her money?

Dr. Jill Stein Verified account
‏@DrJillStein

Why would Hillary Clinton—who conceded the election to Donald Trump—want #Recount2016? You cannot be on-again, off-again about democracy.
4:41 PM - 26 Nov 2016

[DemonGoddess]

24. I guarantee you

it's not Greens funding this. It's DEMOCRATS.

[TheFrenchRazor]

17. blind faith in computers is the true conspiracy. nt

[Hoyt]

23. Have you ever worked at a polling place? There are a number of procedures

to ensure accuracy. Do errors occur? Sure, and they did with paper ballots, throwing rocks in a bowl, etc. Sure computers COULD be hacked, but I trust Obama, Clinton, and others who say no evidence of hacking was found.

[vi5]

26. A lot of people just don't want to admit...

...that we lost. We took a gamble with a particular candidate, with a particular approach, and a particular campaign staff. And that gamble did not pay off.

The problem with this recount business is the same problem we faced before the election. It's less about reality, less about the good of the country or the Democratic party, and almost entirely predicated on not being able to believe or process that Hillary Clinton did not win and that she may possibly have not been the best candidate. Add on top of that who she actually lost to, and it's almost like the whole thing is just some kind of post-traumatic stress that certain people are unable to process.

[radius777]

27. Sanders would've lost even worse, anti-semitism is at its height, and

he had no appeal to PoC, women, moderates, metro/urban voters - who he lost in droves in the primaries - and only hung around due to the (undemocratic) caucuses, which are highly dominated by alt-left activist types.

Without Comey, who illegally meddled in the election with 11 days to go, Hillary wins easily. Even with voter suppression, which was massive, the culmination of a decade long effort by the GOP all across the country.

This was also the first election in 50 years not protected by the Voting Rights Act, which was repealed in 2013.

[vi5]

29. I didnt say anything about Sanders

He wasn't our nominee. Hillary Clinton was, and she lost. Hence, she was not the right candidate. Who else may or may not have won is irrelevant. She was our nominee and she lost the lection by not winning enough electoral votes. And even after losing people are placing blame evrywhere but on her and her campaigns shoulders. Do they desrve all the blame? No. but people who act like she bears no culpability at all are being short sighted and self centered.

[randr]

8. When you send a bus load of lackies to Florida

to pose for the press with fake bullshit.

[mtnsnake]

10. I just hope Stein isn't trying to divert attention from the Russian voter manipulation issue

I hope she is sincere in this effort to insure that we get an accurate vote count.

[bigmonkey]

14. This article is a set of cautionary tales, indicating that recounts can be gamed.

That seems incontrovertible. What is the point being made by posting it here? To cast a shadow on recounts? To encourage them? What is the point?

[ucrdem]

20. BBV is bit of a black box itself.

Pretty much 100% useless. Lights on, no one home.

[TheFrenchRazor]

25. that is true; the recounts should involve eyeballs on paper, not just re-running the same bogus

software.

[ucrdem]

19. The strange case of Bev Harris.

What did they do to her anyway?

[lonestarnot]

31. When stupid fucks yammer on about how it will make not difference in the outcome before it even

starts on Thursday if paid in full by tomorrow. Russian state interference could absolutely change the outcome. Still no evidence that a forensic expert will be involved. What are the credentials of the recounters, investigators.