My hats off to Jill Stein. If she can get anything accomplished I'm appreciative.
After viewing most of the comments posted over the past few days regarding the recount, it appears that the rules for recount were designed to ensure that nobody gets a recount. From what I have surmised over the past week since the recount effort was announced (this information is based on my recollection of all the absurd thngs I've read over the past several days related to the recounts and not guaranteed to be factual but to highlight the absurdity) :
Ohio was not eligible for a recount because their count had already been certified. However in the other states Stein was seeking a recount, it seems that you can't request a recount until the vote count has been certified.
I learned that within the three states seeking recounts Wisconsin has over a thousand precincts and each one needs at least 3 volunteers. They haven't decided for certain how much exactly a recount will cost, even though the States' website originally stated cost was $25 per precinct if the losing candidate is within a 2 percent margin. If not within the 2% margin than the cost is $125 per precinct. Should you put up the amount necessary for the recount, then you can only request a computer recount not a hand count. A hand count is preferred since a computer recount is considered likely to produce the same results as the original computer tabulated count but the precincts are not willing to do hand counts and the costs have now risen over the costs which were previously posted.
There are various types of recount audits that can be requested and one would have to know the type to request up front to ensure the chance of the desired outcome, i.e. if errors are found similar type errors are also identified. And sometimes the states reserve the right to deny a recount after you've requested one and jumped through all their pre-determined hoops, just because ...
Those are just some of the information I have gleaned from the many posts related to the recount process. Of course many people here have posted negative comments condemning Jill Stein and her recount even though they have no skin in the game and apparently just want to vent. I thank her for taking on a most thankless job that no one else was willing to take on. I know there are many here who have stated that those who wanted one were stupid as we were just wasting money and that the process would not change the outcome. Well if that is your opinion, than so be it but don't begrudge those of us who get pleasure out of throwing money down the drain from throwing OUR money down OUR drain. I contributed and I hope the recount goes through and if produces no other result than to produce change in future elections, i.e. processes must be changed to produce election results which have auditable outcomes; a paper trail for all entries, uniform rules for how recounts will be conducted, who and how many participants per precincts and their roles, the costs involved, and the information posted prior to the election, to include certification dates and filing dates.
I don't know where the recount will take us, but no one was adequately addressing the questions raised by the computer scientists who was ringing the alarm bell that something appeared rotten in Denmark, as it related to the exit polling which has in the past been notoriously accurate, except this time. And while there was some possible theories being thrown up against the wall, those theories provided no proof that every polling company missed the mark because their assumptions were wrong. And even if the polling data was wrong, the exit polling data is not based on assumptions. I assure you if the situation was reversed and it was the GOP who was ahead in all the polls leading up to election day, and all the exit polling was pointing towards a different outcome than the tabulations were reporting, don't think that the GOP wouldn't be calling foul as well.
= new reply since forum marked as read
