Should Hillary Clinton call for a recount?

Should Hillary Clinton Call for a Recount?

There’s a case to be made for routine election audits—but not for spreading unsubstantiated claims or speculation about the outcome of an election.

Daniel Lombroso and Yoni Appelbaum
President-elect Donald Trump is assembling a team of advisors and cabinet officials, but calls for Hillary Clinton to demand a recount of the presidential election results have not subsided.

A New York Magazine article published on Tuesday added to that furor when it declared: “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump,” asserting that the group of individuals in question “believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.”

The report has subsequently fueled speculation on social media that the vote count might have been compromised—despite the fact that the report itself emphasized that “the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation”—as well as demands for a recount. “Please challenge the vote, Hillary. Something is not right here,” one Twitter user implored. “The most frightening thing that could happen is if we turn a blind eye and act like something isn’t completely wrong,” another user ominously tweeted.

It’s not surprising that voters desperate to stop Trump from becoming the next president could be convinced that the election was rigged. Cyber security experts have expressed confidence that Russia directed the hacks of emails from the Democratic National Committee that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks. In October, the Obama administration publicly announced that “disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks … are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” and added that “these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

Meanwhile, Clinton’s lead in the popular vote continues to grow, and recently surpassed more than two million votes, contributing to a sense among Clinton supporters that Trump’s victory is unfair and does not reflect the will of the people.


More: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clinton-vote-recount-audit-hacking/508655/

If she doesn't, there will always be that cloud over the Trump presidency. Imagine seeing this posted in every Post Office in the land...

Donald Trump, 45th president*

*Elected with the aid of the Kremlin.

Why is it when they don't get the result they want, they all want a recount.

No there shouldn't be, like there shouldn't be another vote for Brexit, its done now, move on.

They cant pick and choose what bits they don't like in a vote.

If genuine fraud can be established then of course the election should be rerun - to do otherwise undermines the democratic process.

magica wrote:Why is it when they don't get the result they want, they all want a recount.

No there shouldn't be, like there shouldn't be another vote for Brexit, its done now, move on.

They cant pick and choose what bits they don't like in a vote.

Do you want to toss out democracy, too?  We know he lost the popular vote by a count of 1.7-million votes.  There are certain quantitative anomalies that don't add up in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  The statistical experts are telling us those states were rigged, and legal experts are saying the results are questionable.

Unless the US wants to go down as just another Banana Republic, the integrity of elections should be of the highest priority.  Otherwise--seeing the success of this rigged election--attempts to rig elections will become commonplace and democracy will be no more.

Brexit is a separate matter.  I haven't heard the evidence on that vote, and I surmise by the silence, there is no similar question.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:Why is it when they don't get the result they want, they all want a recount.

No there shouldn't be, like there shouldn't be another vote for Brexit, its done now, move on.

They cant pick and choose what bits they don't like in a vote.

Do you want to toss out democracy, too?  We know he lost the popular vote by a count of 1.7-million votes.  There are certain quantitative anomalies that don't add up in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  The statistical experts are telling us those states were rigged, and legal experts are saying the results are questionable.

Unless the US wants to go down as just another Banana Republic, the integrity of elections should be of the highest priority.  Otherwise, attempts to rig elections will become commonplace and democracy will be no more.

Brexit is a separate matter.  I haven't heard the evidence on that vote, and I surmise by the silence, there is no similar question.

The Brexit vote was not binding - so is a different order of magnitude.

Ziz wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Do you want to toss out democracy, too?  We know he lost the popular vote by a count of 1.7-million votes.  There are certain quantitative anomalies that don't add up in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  The statistical experts are telling us those states were rigged, and legal experts are saying the results are questionable.

Unless the US wants to go down as just another Banana Republic, the integrity of elections should be of the highest priority.  Otherwise, attempts to rig elections will become commonplace and democracy will be no more.

Brexit is a separate matter.  I haven't heard the evidence on that vote, and I surmise by the silence, there is no similar question.

The Brexit vote was not binding - so is a different order of magnitude.

Thank you...I have been trying to point that out to my UK friends til I'm blue.  

Nevertheless, when any election can be rigged, all elections can be rigged...regardless of what is at stake.  The real question is: do you want to encourage election-fixing as a means of determining political success in the future?  

I can just imagine Putin and Trump on their first get-together:

Putin: I told you democracy not worth shit!

Trump: Anything can be bought, vlad!

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:

The Brexit vote was not binding - so is a different order of magnitude.

Thank you...I have been trying to point that out to my UK friends til I'm blue.  

Nevertheless, when any election can be rigged, all elections can be rigged...regardless of what is at stake.  The real question is: do you want to encourage election-fixing as a means of determining political success?  

I can just imagine Putin and Trump on their first get-together:

Putin: I told you democracy not worth shit!

Trump: Anything can be bought!

Exactly so - and the answer from some political ne'er-do-wells appears to be, "it's fine when we're winning."

The Brexit vote was still a fairly-won vote.
This article speaks of fraudulent activities which could affect the actual outcome of the vote.

There's a world of difference.

Ziz wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Do you want to toss out democracy, too?  We know he lost the popular vote by a count of 1.7-million votes.  There are certain quantitative anomalies that don't add up in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  The statistical experts are telling us those states were rigged, and legal experts are saying the results are questionable.

Unless the US wants to go down as just another Banana Republic, the integrity of elections should be of the highest priority.  Otherwise, attempts to rig elections will become commonplace and democracy will be no more.

Brexit is a separate matter.  I haven't heard the evidence on that vote, and I surmise by the silence, there is no similar question.

The Brexit vote was not binding - so is a different order of magnitude.

From the government referendum info booklet/leaflet sent out to every household before the vote...


An important decision for the UK

On Thursday, 23 June there will be a referendum. It’s your opportunity to decide if the UK remains in the European Union (EU).

It’s a big decision. One that will affect you, your family and your children for decades to come.


A once in a generation decision

The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

The leaflet isn't law - the referendum did not bind the executive.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:

The Brexit vote was not binding - so is a different order of magnitude.

From the government referendum info booklet/leaflet sent out to every household before the vote...


An important decision for the UK

On Thursday, 23 June there will be a referendum. It’s your opportunity to decide if the UK remains in the European Union (EU).

It’s a big decision. One that will affect you, your family and your children for decades to come.


A once in a generation decision

The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

We've read the leaflet, tommy. We know your argument; the leaflet doesn't legitimize any more that it is. There is this referendum, and it never had an enabling clause. Tough luck. The guys who arranged this dance, didn't know how to dance.

This isn't about Brexit.

eddie wrote:This isn't about Brexit.

I think magica brought up Brexit, and tommy wants to pursue that line of thought. You must admit, both the election of Trump and Brexit have that strain of unorthodox populism in them, and that makes people wonder if they shouldn't look twice at the result.

But I agree, I don't see the comparison. There are serious questions about anomalies in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. I've heard no such detail about Brexit.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:This isn't about Brexit.

I think magica brought up Brexit, and tommy wants to pursue that line of thought.  You must admit, both the election of Trump and Brexit have that strain of unorthodox populism in them, and that makes people wonder if they shouldn't look twice at the result.

But I agree, I don't see the comparison.  There are serious questions about anomalies in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  I've heard no such detail about Brexit.

Exactly. There are serious questions about the U.S voting in those states....not so with Brexit; that's about the decision, about what to do, about the voting!

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:This isn't about Brexit.

I think magica brought up Brexit, and tommy wants to pursue that line of thought.  You must admit, both the election of Trump and Brexit have that strain of unorthodox populism in them, and that makes people wonder if they shouldn't look twice at the result.

But I agree, I don't see the comparison.  There are serious questions about anomalies in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  I've heard no such detail about Brexit.

Exactly. There are serious questions about the U.S voting in those states....not so with Brexit; that's about the decision, about what to do, about the voting!

Both Brexit and Trump's "election" are awfully good outcomes for Putin as well.

Bae the Cray wrote:

eddie wrote:

Exactly. There are serious questions about the U.S voting in those states....not so with Brexit; that's about the decision, about what to do, about the voting!

Both Brexit and Trump's "election" are awfully good outcomes for Putin as well.

Point well taken. I'm sure the programmers will reverse-engineer any shenanigans, and if they lead to the Kremlin, loud noises will be heard.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:This isn't about Brexit.

I think magica brought up Brexit, and tommy wants to pursue that line of thought.  You must admit, both the election of Trump and Brexit have that strain of unorthodox populism in them, and that makes people wonder if they shouldn't look twice at the result.

But I agree, I don't see the comparison.  There are serious questions about anomalies in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  I've heard no such detail about Brexit.

I did Quill just to say that because the outcome isn't to elitist pleasure, they want another vote.

Not saying Brexit is to do with America, just making similarities.

Perhaps Hillary could claim that the result of the election was just "advisory".

magica wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think magica brought up Brexit, and tommy wants to pursue that line of thought.  You must admit, both the election of Trump and Brexit have that strain of unorthodox populism in them, and that makes people wonder if they shouldn't look twice at the result.

But I agree, I don't see the comparison.  There are serious questions about anomalies in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  I've heard no such detail about Brexit.

I did Quill just to say that because the outcome isn't to elitist pleasure, they want another vote.

Not saying Brexit is to do with America, just making similarities.  

I understood you. Tommy has picked up the theme since then.

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps Hillary could claim that the result of the election was just "advisory".

I don't think there will be any consequence on this election as a result of the recount. America has a history of not complaining about election manipulations. It's generally chalked up to local politics, and not seem for the national implications.

The closest they came was 2000, questioning the Florida count. But people remember: the governor of Florida at the time, we now call low-energy Jeb.