Election Recounts

So Jill Stein has raised millions for recounts, and the pre-recount in Wisconsin is not going too well for Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le43c7cYeZA

Some of Trump's close victories have been outside the margin of error from exit polls (including Wisconsin).

Despite Hillary Clinton conceding the election to Donald Trump, her campaign fully supports the recounts.

Should recounts occur in all of the close states to be fair? Including the ones Clinton narrowly beat Trump? What do you think the results will be of the recount? Will the results change anything? Will questions be raised about Clinton's possible "shady" win in Ohio against Bernie in the primaries?

Stein missed the Pennsylvania deadline, but she's still working on it there. Michigan was also certified for Trump today.

It's a fruitless effort and Clinton conceded. Of course she supports a recount because it's a last ditch shot. She would've raised a bigger stink about it if there was anything fishy going on worth calling to attention. Stein is doing this for $$$ most likely, since there's really no other reason for it than to get people to feed into their hopes he didn't actually win and rake in the money. Consider she's raised a few million and now there's at least one state she potentially won't be pursuing a recount in (+ Michigan being certified means another).

If Hillary Clinton thought the vote was not legitimate, she would have been the one calling for recounts, not Jill Stein.

EvilChameleon said:

If Hillary Clinton thought the vote was not legitimate, she would have been the one calling for recounts, not Jill Stein.

Click to expand...

Her team even said there wasnt anything awry with the election process or casting ballots. No fraud.

If the recounts favor Clinton somehow, I fear massive backlash even though Trump will still win. Just a feeling.

Really, recounts?

I think Klippy is right about this one. These recounts aren't even being done by Clinton herself, and it sounds like a ploy to rake in a lot of money from angry people.

If they recount the apparant hacked Trump states they really should recount states where Clinton was accused of rigging the primaries against Sanders

Remember how the only people arrested for election fraud this year were Republicans trying to vote twice (in Texas and Iowa) because they had heard about how half of Democrats do it? Did you notice how all "election integrity" laws have been designed to actually disenfranchise minority citizens (in most Republican-held states, special props to North Carolina)? It seems to me that all this talk about "election fraud" is essentially designed to work as a justification to pass bills effectively commiting "legal fraud" by disenfranchising actual people from the polls- all the while delegitimising victories from the Democrats, who we all know, "commit mass-fraud all the time". The fact that now even the left-wing people are convinced that Republicans commit mass fraud -mind you, the 300k people disenfranchised by Wisconsin's ID law were more decisive than any "fraud"- likely means that soon nobody will accept the results of any election. Because fraud. Always. By both sides. Even if nobody can actually point at a single substantiated case.

Now imagine this in four years, when Trump is the one controlling the administration and the security forces. What if he loses and then says "Fraud! I actually won!"?

I agree with Ivysaur's sentiment- restrictive, targeted, voter ID laws are way more dangerous and prolific than fraud itself.

But yeah this is going to be mostly fruitless, and i'm not sure if i believe that Jill Stein is out for the money in this, but she's definitely misguided.

It's not surprising that Trump is now pushing a narrative that "three million people illegally voted" and that's why he lost the popular vote, but it's a little eye-roll inducing. Four years of this is incoming.

Even some Republicans have admitted that voter ID laws were intended to prevent minorities from voting.

BadSheep said:

Even some Republicans have admitted that voter ID laws were intended to prevent minorities from voting.

Click to expand...

Several republican voter ID laws (and lets be frank, they're all republican because minorities are generally democrat voters) were repealed because they explicitly targeted and disenfranchised minorities and were drafted with explicit intent to do so.

Since 2013 when the US supreme court decided that parts of the voting rights act that prevented these kind of discriminatory laws was "out of date" and thus unconstitutional, there's been a monstrous rise in this kind of thing

Aliencommander1245 said:

Several republican voter ID laws (and lets be frank, they're all republican because minorities are generally democrat voters) were repealed because they explicitly targeted and disenfranchised minorities and were drafted with explicit intent to do so.

Since 2013 when the US supreme court decided that parts of the voting rights act that prevented these kind of discriminatory laws was "out of date" and thus unconstitutional, there's been a monstrous rise in this kind of thing

Click to expand...

Right. Thats why we have those laws. Literally as soon as some of the voting rights act was repealed, some states immediately reverted back (I think Texas was the first).

To be fair though, Democrats want to expand voting as much as possible to increase their own chances of winning. Neither side is exactly noble in their crusades against voter fraud or voting rights.

This is where true Progressives should get credit- they actually want voting rights on philosophical grounds. Not for political gain.

BadSheep said:

Right. Thats why we have those laws. Literally as soon as some of the voting rights act was repealed, some states immediately reverted back (I think Texas was the first).

To be fair though, Democrats want to expand voting as much as possible to increase their own chances of winning. Neither side is exactly noble in their crusades against voter fraud or voting rights.

This is where true Progressives should get credit- they actually want voting rights on philosophical grounds. Not for political gain.

Click to expand...

I'd say that all things considered, the motivation for doing good should rarely if ever outweigh the action itself.

gimmepie said:

I'd say that all things considered, the motivation for doing good should rarely if ever outweigh the action itself.

Click to expand...

I agree if you are looking at the action singularly. But in the grand scheme, do you really want a major political party in your country acting for their own benefit or for the people?

This is just testament to the Democratic Party's true intentions. For that matter, the Republicans as well.

BadSheep said:

I agree if you are looking at the action singularly. But in the grand scheme, do you really want a major political party in your country acting for their own benefit or for the people?

This is just testament to the Democratic Party's true intentions. For that matter, the Republicans as well.

Click to expand...

So long as what benefits them is also benefiting the people/the country then I don't really care. The minute that ceases to be the case - like with the Republicans/Liberals/Whatever the UK's Jerkass party is - then my vote goes elsewhere.

Ivysaur said:

Wisconsin's ID law

Click to expand...

Edit: Oops, got off track there. Jill Stein is either a loon or a con artist. There.

If you don't have an ID you:

Can't fly
Can't drive
Can't buy a gun *Legally
Can't get a credit card
Can't get a bank loan
Can't buy a house
Can't get medi-care or Obama Care
Can't get married
Can't get divorced
Can't buy insurance
Can't buy alcohol *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't purchase cigarettes *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't gamble at a casino
Can't get a library card *some cases
Can't go to college
Can't get a job *most cases require photo ID, birth certificate and a W-2
Can't buy a cellphone *most cases, prepaid excluded
Can't buy prescription drugs
Can't travel to another country
Can't get a passport

Trust me. Having a photo ID isn't the problem. Not having a photo ID is the problem. If you can in no way verify that you are who you say you are either with a birth certificate and a photo ID, then maybe a re-prioritized list of things to do is in your best interest. If you cannot get a photo ID due to transportation issues, public transportation is available in most cases. If you cannot pass the Driving License exam (if you can't, then you are most likely legally blind) then a State issued ID is available to you in most states, although a Driver's license is easier to obtain in most cases.

Honestly, I have no idea how people mosey on in life without a form of photo identification. Would it be wise not to have it? What if you're hit by a car? Did you know that certain photo IDs carry allergy information? If voting is really important to you, if traveling, boozing, shmoozing or having a job *in most instances, then you will get a photo ID. Making excuses on how 'the man has got me down' is not acceptable. Either you're too lazy to get one, or you're a liar. If you've been arrested, chances are that they have you on file, and you can then use that to obtain an ID. Obtaining an ID isn't rocket science and some people make it sound like it's the end of the world if you're supposed to have one when you vote.

Even you're own example proves this point. Claiming that voter ID is required isn't a way to disenfranchise. It's for verification and security. You mentioned Republicans being arrested in Texas and Iowa. Is it any wonder how they got found out? Texas and Iowa both have voter ID laws in place to protect against the very thing you are against! From your perspective, should the Texans and Iowans not be charged with fraud? Should all of the 30 states that require ID have those laws removed? Stating the need to have an ID isn't disenfranchising in my opinion. Even the mail in ballots require some kind of identification to even register.

Having an ID enables you to do so much more than those without one. This is Occam's Razor, really. 'How do we stop voter fraud?' is a simple enough question to answer, Require ID.

A simple search lead me to Texas and on how to obtain ID. The list below, which can be accessed from any public library with a computer with at least windows '95 and dial up.

On August 10, 2016, a federal district court entered an order changing the voter identification requirements for all elections held in Texas after August 10, 2016 until further notice. As a result, voters who possess an acceptable form of photo identification for voting listed below are still required to present it in order to vote in person in all Texas elections. The acceptable form of photo identification may be expired up to four years. Voters who do not possess an acceptable form of photo identification and cannot obtain one of the forms of acceptable photo identification listed below due to a reasonable impediment, may present a supporting form of identification and execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter's reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of photo identification, and stating that the voter is the same person on the presented supporting form of identification.

This requirement is effective immediately.

Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID:

Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person's photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person's photograph
United States passport
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 4 years before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.

Election Identification Certificates are available from DPS driver license offices during regular business hours. Find mobile station locations here.

Here is a list of the supporting forms of ID that can be presented if the voter does not possess one of the forms of acceptable photo ID and cannot obtain one due to a reasonable impediment:

Valid voter registration certificate
Certified birth certificate (must be an original)
Copy of or original current utility bill
Copy of or original bank statement
Copy of or original government check
Copy of or original paycheck
Copy of or original government document with your name and an address (original required if it contains a photograph)
After presenting a supporting form of ID, the voter must execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.

Click to expand...

JDJacket said:

Edit: Oops, got off track there. Jill Stein is either a loon or a con artist. There.

If you don't have an ID you:

Can't fly
Can't drive
Can't buy a gun *Legally
Can't get a credit card
Can't get a bank loan
Can't buy a house
Can't get medi-care or Obama Care
Can't get married
Can't get divorced
Can't buy insurance
Can't buy alcohol *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't purchase cigarettes *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't gamble at a casino
Can't get a library card *some cases
Can't go to college
Can't get a job *most cases require photo ID, birth certificate and a W-2
Can't buy a cellphone *most cases, prepaid excluded
Can't buy prescription drugs
Can't travel to another country
Can't get a passport

Trust me. Having a photo ID isn't the problem. Not having a photo ID is the problem. If you can in no way verify that you are who you say you are either with a birth certificate and a photo ID, then maybe a re-prioritized list of things to do is in your best interest. If you cannot get a photo ID due to transportation issues, public transportation is available in most cases. If you cannot pass the Driving License exam (if you can't, then you are most likely legally blind) then a State issued ID is available to you in most states, although a Driver's license is easier to obtain in most cases.

Honestly, I have no idea how people mosey on in life without a form of photo identification. Would it be wise not to have it? What if you're hit by a car? Did you know that certain photo IDs carry allergy information? If voting is really important to you, if traveling, boozing, shmoozing or having a job *in most instances, then you will get a photo ID. Making excuses on how 'the man has got me down' is not acceptable. Either you're too lazy to get one, or you're a liar. If you've been arrested, chances are that they have you on file, and you can then use that to obtain an ID. Obtaining an ID isn't rocket science and some people make it sound like it's the end of the world if you're supposed to have one when you vote.

Even you're own example proves this point. Claiming that voter ID is required isn't a way to disenfranchise. It's for verification and security. You mentioned Republicans being arrested in Texas and Iowa. Is it any wonder how they got found out? Texas and Iowa both have voter ID laws in place to protect against the very thing you are against! From your perspective, should the Texans and Iowans not be charged with fraud? Should all of the 30 states that require ID have those laws removed? Stating the need to have an ID isn't disenfranchising in my opinion. Even the mail in ballots require some kind of identification to even register.

Having an ID enables you to do so much more than those without one. This is Occam's Razor, really. 'How do we stop voter fraud?' is a simple enough question to answer, Require ID.

A simple search lead me to Texas and on how to obtain ID. The list below, which can be accessed from any public library with a computer with at least windows '95 and dial up.

Click to expand...

In my case, my complaint is a bit more nuanced. Here we need photo ID to vote as well... except we are legally required to obtain a photo ID at the age of 15, and there are drives at schools to get every kid an ID as required by law, so when you actually get to vote at 18, you don't have to spend a split-second thinking about it. The problem is when, after the law is introduced, the State doesn't do enough effort to actually offer everybody an ID, and it's more like "well most people already have a licence and the ones who don't only have to do X and Y if they want to vote/do other stuff". Especially when the people who tend to fall through the cracks are precisely blacks/hispanics/poor people.

If the States did a full-on ID handling drive accross the land or allowed you to get your IDs in every McDonald's for a year or two until everybody is properly registered, and then did things like the school thing to ensure every new generation is registered by default, I'd be 100% fine with it and wouldn't complain at all, because I do believe that ID is a good solution against the (vanishingly rare) fraud. But as long as the burden to comply falls on the citizens and the states don't do as much as they can to make it as simple as possible, I do have a complaint.

Ivysaur said:

In my case, my complaint is a bit more nuanced. Here we need photo ID to vote as well... except we are legally required to obtain a photo ID at the age of 15, and there are drives at schools to get every kid an ID as required by law, so when you actually get to vote at 18, you don't have to spend a split-second thinking about it. The problem is when, after the law is introduced, the State doesn't do enough effort to actually offer everybody an ID, and it's more like "well most people already have a licence and the ones who don't only have to do X and Y if they want to vote/do other stuff". Especially when the people who tend to fall through the cracks are precisely blacks/hispanics/poor people.

If the States did a full-on ID handling drive accross the land or allowed you to get your IDs in every McDonald's for a year or two until everybody is properly registered, and then did things like the school thing to ensure every new generation is registered by default, I'd be 100% fine with it and wouldn't complain at all, because I do believe that ID is a good solution against the (vanishingly rare) fraud. But as long as the burden to comply falls on the citizens and the states don't do as much as they can to make it as simple as possible, I do have a complaint.

Click to expand...

Getting an ID isn't the most difficult thing in the world. I don't know. I still don't believe it's too hard to get one, given the ease and choices of alternative IDs. I don't feel the state should be responsible for someone else's responsibility. I was a poor person for a long time. Still had my state issued ID, in two different states even. I doubt Voting is someone's priority if they don't have ID is what I believe. Like the list I showed above, the benefits far outweigh the cons of owning an ID.

The problem is when voter ID laws are done very clearly for the purposes of restricting certain groups.

Are the changes broadcasted and made sure that everyone KNOWS what they need to vote, or are they slipped through without and public information campaigns?
Why, explicitly, do you need photo identification to vote? For what purpose when voter fraud is near nonexistant?

Is it a coincidence that the form of identification they're asking for just happens to be the one their opponent's voter base is more likely to not have? (No, it's not)

Aliencommander1245 said:

The problem is when voter ID laws are done very clearly for the purposes of restricting certain groups.

Are the changes broadcasted and made sure that everyone KNOWS what they need to vote, or are they slipped through without and public information campaigns?
Why, explicitly, do you need photo identification to vote? For what purpose when voter fraud is near nonexistant?

Is it a coincidence that the form of identification they're asking for just happens to be the one their opponent's voter base is more likely to not have? (No, it's not)

Click to expand...

Considering the long list of acceptable identification purposes to obtain an ID I still maintain that if you don't have one you're either lazy or have no clue how to obtain one.

I feel that the argument of 'well, fraud is so rare we don't need these laws' is a poor one and is akin to 'well, hijacking planes is so rare that we don't need the TSA' or 'Well, electrocutions are so rare we shouldn't be mandated to have grounding wires in our power tools' or 'Oil spills are so rare that we don't need to regulate'. It's all the same argument and I feel that it's a poor one. Perhaps fraud is so rare because 30 states require some form of ID to prevent you from going from booth to booth voting? I would put money down that the states with more fraudulent votes per capita have no voter ID laws? This is Occam's Razor, and I'm sure that what makes sense is having a photo ID or some form of identification present when voting.

It is not that hard to get an ID. People who . . . wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

Recounts should just be mandatory in all elections. Or at least in any nation-wide vote like a presidential election.

It's important for our peace of mind to know that there isn't any rigging or hacking of elections. Especially in close races. And also with electronic voting machines, which practically invite election fraud. Of course if we didn't make the election process so difficult in the first place it might not be as necessary. Ivysaur's point is well taken. If you make it easy for people to get IDs then it's not a burden to ask for ID.

And yeah, lots of people don't have IDs because they don't need them. Think of people in cities who don't drive. Think of elderly people who haven't renewed a license in years. Think of young, poor, overworked people who don't can't afford to take a day off of work to stand in line. Red states have closed many DMVs in rural/poor/black areas so getting an ID is made more difficult for them as a result. It's the same tactic used in state government by people against abortion. Restrict access as much as you can without making it outright unobtainable and then say "if you really wanted it you could get it."

Also, election day should be on the weekend or be a holiday. It's frickin important and if we really thought that people should vote then we'd not make it as hard as it is. I'm not saying it's arduous. Obviously plenty of people can and do vote, but you look at places around the country where people are waiting 3, 4, 5 hours in line and you've got a systemic attempt to disenfranchise voters.