Clinton Allies Still Cold to Recounts, Bernie Sanders Applauds and Acclaims Civil Rights

The Recount effort in Wisconsin faced ridicule by pro-Hillary Clinton political sites, Wisconsin Republicans and Donald Trump since the inception of the successful fund-raising effort last week.

Now, an unequivocal ally, Bernie Sanders, has stepped forward. Figures.

Informed of Republican objections to the Wisconsin Recount, Sanders on Sunday bluntly replied, "Nobody cares," (NBC News).

Sanders offered several times rejoinders to objections to the recounts, fanned by Hillary Clinton sites and Republicans.

It's their "right," Sanders pointed out.

Contrast this appeal to liberty and rights with the Clintonesque, liberal response to the recount, and one can see why Bernie Sanders would have made a much stronger general election candidate than Clinton on every issue.

Democrats screwed-up badly. Told you so, and so and so, dumb Dems, as did millions of Americans.

For more information on the Wisconsin Recount, see Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution, indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

Recounts in Wisconsin and Two States Go Forward

Jill Stein campaign's check on election integrity is successful

Updated - Clinton campaign attentive to concerns animating recount, vows to take part in recount effort, reports Reuters. Damn well better.
 ---
Recount petitions addressing the presidential general election in Wisconsin were received today by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, reports Steve Hanson in the Uppity Wisconsin political site.

The Jill Stein and Rocky Roque De La Fuente 2016 presidential campaigns have both filed recount petitions in Wisconsin. Recount petitions are expected to be filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania next week.

Opposition to the Jill Stein recount petition, paid by the Stein campaign supporters, has come from Wisconsin Republicans and some liberal political sites editorially supportive of, [see update above], but separate from, the Hillary Clinton campaign.

As noted in the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, Wisconsin is composed of 72 counties that will be the authorities for the recount. Municipalities in the counties will conduct the actual processes, with the state Commission offering logistical, legal, and other support in a partnership capacity.

Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution are indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

From the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, a press release announcing the recount petitions and the current popular votes for president are posted.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Receives Two Presidential Election Recount Petitions

Date: November 25, 2016

MADISON, WI – The Wisconsin Elections Commission today received two recount petitions from the Jill Stein for President Campaign and from Rocky Roque De La Fuente, Administrator Michael Haas announced.

“The Commission is preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States, as requested by these candidates,” Haas said.

“We have assembled an internal team to direct the recount, we have been in close consultation with our county clerk partners, and have arranged for legal representation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice,” Haas said. “We plan to hold a teleconference meeting for county clerks next week and anticipate the recount will begin late in the week after the Stein campaign has paid the recount fee, which we are still calculating.”

The last statewide recount was of the Supreme Court election in 2011.  At that time, the Associated Press surveyed county clerks and reported that costs to the counties exceeded $520,000, though several counties did not respond to the AP’s survey.  That election had 1.5 million votes, and Haas said the Commission expects the costs to be higher for an election with 2.975 million votes.  “The Commission is in the process of obtaining cost estimates from county clerks so that we can calculate the fee which the campaigns will need to pay before the recount can start,” Haas said.  The Commission will need to determine how the recount costs will be assessed to the campaigns.

The state is working under a federal deadline of December 13 to complete the recount. As a result, county boards of canvassers may need to work evenings and weekends to meet the deadlines. “The recount process is very detail-oriented, and this deadline will certainly challenge some counties to finish on time,” Haas said.  

A recount is different than an audit and is more rigorous, Haas explained.  More than 100 reporting units across the state were randomly selected for a separate audit of their voting equipment as required by state law, and that process has already begun.  Electronic voting equipment audits determine whether all properly-marked ballots are accurately tabulated by the equipment.  In a recount, all ballots (including those that were originally hand counted) are examined to determine voter intent before being retabulated. In addition, the county boards of canvassers will examine other documents, including poll lists, written absentee applications, rejected absentee ballots, and provisional ballots before counting the votes.

Haas noted that the Commission’s role is to order the recount, to provide legal guidance to the counties during the recount, and to certify the results.  If the candidates disagree with the results of the recount, the law gives them the right to appeal in circuit court within five business days after the recount is completed.  The circuit court is where issues are resolved that may be discovered during the recount but are not resolved to the satisfaction of the candidates.

“Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system in the United States,” Haas said. “The system has strong local control coupled with state oversight, resting on the partnership between the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the 72 county clerks, and the 1,854 municipal clerks. State law clearly gives each county’s Board of Canvassers the primary authority to conduct the recount, and to decide which ballots should and should not be counted.  Recounting votes is an open, transparent process in which each of the candidates may have representatives present to raise objections, and where the public may be present to observe.” ...

Recounts Should Proceed

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and myriad Americans want a recount of three swing states comprising the Scranton-to-Oshkosh 'rust belt' corridor.

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.

Bizarre Opposition to Verifying Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Presidential Results

Don't verify election results, just trust polling experts, argues 538.com

Update II: Jill Stein confirms intention to request recount in three swing states.
 
Update: Green Party raises $2.5 Million for recount in Wisconsin as corporate media and Clinton campaign throw wet blanket over recount-verification effort, (O'Brien, Reuters). What excuse could anyone possibly have to not verify the results of this election?
 ---
After Jill Stein joined the effort to verify the presidential elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a paper ballot recount, the project has drawn an unlikely opponent—538.com.

Recount proponents make a persuasive case for a recount of three swing states, and pointedly do not make specific hypotheses positing the states were hacked or the election results otherwise improperly tabulated.

Recount advocates do wish to ensure confidence and accuracy in the election results, which represent the will of the American voters.

In reaction, 538.com in a perverse column by Carl Bialik and Rob Arthur states with certainty, Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Result, and cautions recounts should be discouraged because they subvert confidence.

What?

Bialik and Arthur's concluding bizarre paragraph reads in part, "It’s possible nonetheless that the election was hacked, in the sense that anything is possible. ... The paradox is that in our current electoral system, without routine audits, seeking proof requires calling for a recount, which in itself can undermine confidence in the vote."

So in campaign 2016 we have foreign agents that all agree imposed a foreign power into the American presidential election, we have a major political party that was hacked by a foreign power, we have results almost no one saw coming determining the election, and we have election and statistical experts as well as a presidential candidate, Jill Stein, calling for a recount; therefore Bialik and Arthur conclude: No recount because the precision obtained in a recount will undermine confidence in the election.

Bialik and Arthur may have penned the dumbest column yet of campaign 2016.

Below is the press release by Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president 2016 calling for a recount:

Election Integrity depends on YOU!

The Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign is launching an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections. We are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where there is a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals. Please donate to this initiative today.
To give you a sense of the problem, the voting machines used in Wisconsin were banned in California after they were shown to be highly vulnerable to hacking and malicious programming due to lacking security features.

"After a divisive and painful presidential race, in which foreign agents hacked into party databases, private email servers, and voter databases in certain states, many Americans are wondering if our election results are reliable. That's why the unexpected results of the election and reported anomalies need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust." -- Dr. Jill Stein.

This is about more than the results of this one election. This is about protecting our democracy and ensuring that "We the People" can have confidence in reported results.

We need your help to make sure your votes were counted accurately on Election Day. Please donate now to help maintain integrity in our elections. Please donate to this effort to protect our democracy.
This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! In order to make this happen, we need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we're turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.

Click Here to Donate Today! We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state. If we do not raise enough for any recount (which is highly unlikely) we pledge to use the money for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform.