The white working-class, (among other demographics), voted differently than many voting models had predicted, amid unprecedented foreign intervention in our presidential campaign by Russian hackers, so many Americans want a recount to ensure the election was not hacked.
However, the specific reasons Dr. Stein and supporters have for requesting a recount are beside the point.
The election rules of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin afford opportunities for a recount, and do not condition a recount on the concerns of the petitioner(s) other than a broad stated belief that, for example, a "mistake or fraud has been committed in a specified ward or municipality in the counting and return of the votes cast for the office or upon the question or that another specified defect, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the conduct of the election," (Wisconsin State Statute).
The post-election conventional wisdom, collectively devoid of irony as an industry of experts deride the recount petition with the same certainty presented in falsely predicting the 2016 election results, does not address the rights and rules of the recount processes, (Wisconsin Elections Commission).
Correct?
Worth noting is the fact recounts are also a project with the added benefit of promoting confidence in the 2016 election, a plank of the Green Party platform calling for "publicly-owned, open source voting equipment [deployed] across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; [a process using] verifiable paper ballots; and [instituting] mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results," (Green Party).
Recounts will continue because state statutes were drafted contemplating the broad election-administration concerns of Jill Stein, free and fair election activists and the voters.
With respect to 538.com and other anti-recount political sites, if you do not want a recount, don't petition for one.
No comments:
Post a Comment