Deos Everyone Know the Difference Between "Not Accepting the Results" and a Recount?

[louis c]

A recount is part of the process. Every candidate has a right to request a recount of close results. In some states, they are automatic in cases when the election results are extremely close.

"Not accepting the results" is a different matter. That means you think the whole system is fixed.

Let me make a football analogy. There is a call on the field that a fumble was recovered by the defense. The offensive team believes that the call on the field was wrong. They go to the replay to overturn or confirm the call on the field. Asking for that review does not say that you think the game is fixed. It does not say that there was intentional wrong doing by the refs. It's part of the game. It's part of the process.

That's what a recount is. It's part of the process. It's every candidate's right. If, after the recount has settled the results, then everyone has to accept the outcome and respect the process.

[onecaliberal]

1. I want an audit.

[JHan]

2. Trump knows his followers don't know the difference..

Actually not sure even he knows the difference.

[apcalc]

3. You are free to accept the results. Unless we have an audit, and recount all close states,

I don't have to accept the results.

Were I working in a government setting, yes, I would go with the official results, do what needed to be done.

But, as a private citizen, I don't HAVE to accept partial results. Of course , to go with your analogy, I'm watching from the sidelines, a spectator. My opinion is inconsequential to the outcome.

[msongs]

4. good idea to exercise one's legal rights and not surrender them be default nt

[Hoyt]

5. Yeah, but you only get so many replays in football and you get penalized if you are wrong.

I think most of those pushing a recount just can't accept we lost. I understand that feeling, but I think we look just like GOPers, whining and believing all kinds of conspiracy junk.

We've already seen people claiming the recount will be a sham. There will be more conspiracies to come.

I'm more than ready to eat crow if the recount shows anything other than a few minor errors.

[louis c]

6. All Turnovers and Scoring Plays are Automatically Reviewed

Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan fall into one of those two categories.

[Hoyt]

8. Then, that should have been the rule beforehand. Plus states do check

the tally. How many reviews are you prepared to request before accepting we lost.

[TheFrenchRazor]

10. i don't accept *any* invisible votes. maybe we lost, maybe we didn't.

who knows. you don't know, even if you think you do.

[louis c]

14. One in each close state.

[kcr]

16. What is the penalty? n/t

[Hoyt]

17. Loss of timeout if call on field is upheld. It's to prevent harassing and Hail Mary reviews/recount.

[kcr]

19. Oh! I see what ya did, there.

Gosh, that was clever. And how those games are so important with what those refs do there. I bet the stress eats them alive, I tell ya. Boy, I wish I was half as smart as you.

[Ruth Bonner]

7. Nicely stated!

I've mentioned several times that recounting these states could be a positive model for future elections. Voter verified paper ballots counted by machine and followed by a 100% hand count should satisfy most concerned citizens and be a powerful deterrent of cheating.

I teach. Long ago pop quizzes - on randomly selected days - stopped being effective, if they ever were because then students think the "reason" to come to class is to make sure they are in case of a quiz. Then they start guessing about when the next quiz will be and get mad if there are several in a row - because they don't understand what "on average, twice per week" means. So I give quizzes and/or exercises daily. No guessing games.

Political parties will give up their guessing games when they know 100% will be recounted. Statisticians who recommend a random selection of counties understand probability, but not psychology of human decision-making.

[TheFrenchRazor]

9. i'm not a faith-based voter; i don't accept votes that nobody can see or verify. nt

[JSup]

11. I know the difference...

...but even if this recounting doesn't fix things (I know it's very unlikely) I'm think I'm just going to go ahead and refuse to accept the results. Logically I should accept it but you know what? Fuck it. Being crazy worked for them, maybe I should try it.

Maybe I should also start a fake news website and tell news stories about Trump stealing organs from poor, unemployed people and giving them to his rich friends. And making deals with the Devil to create a parallel universe where he won the election and we're all trapped in it. Or something.

Asylum or bust.

[DFW]

12. The mere announcement of the recount led Wisconsin to "discover" 5000 fictitious Trump votes

That alone should justify looking at the rest of them

[Bob41213]

13. Really? Proof please.

[Hoyt]

15. Not true, that 5000 was corrected much earlier after the UNOFFICIAL vote was corrected by election

officials.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Does EVERYONE? Oh hell no. Do I certainly and that is why I felt it was too cocky

to press and get boxed in the subject in the public's mind and foolish to concede with votes still being counted and/or close enough to be in recount territory just so the media could have their TV conclusion to their artificially generated horse race in time.