Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gilliam said:
Clinton Campaign Will Participate in Stein’s State Recounts

Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer announced plans to participate in vote recounts of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan if they take place, yet doesn’t expect to overturn the election of Donald Trump as president.
bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-26/clinton-campaign-will-participate-in-stein-s-state-recounts
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am dense, but what is the point? To those who favor this, Trump won. Get over it.
 
mary_bobo said:
Perhaps I am dense, but what is the point? To those who favor this, Trump won. Get over it.
Click to expand...
Two immediate points come to mind. One, leftists want to make Trump presidency appear illegitimate.

And two, after all the braggadocio about Trump having no chance of winning, they just can’t get over it. They’ll hold on to whatever little scrap of hope there is that somehow, things will still turn out the way they want.
 
If trump does it its unamerican, a threat to democracy, and being a sore loser.

When somebody else does it its heroic?
 
Padres1969 said:
It’s a way to verify if he did in fact win.
Click to expand...
It’s a waste of money, but yes, it is a way to verify the results as remaining unchanged. I mean, there’s a nearly 50,000 vote gap in Wisconsin. Probably better to try and overturn Michigan which has a narrower margin - I think about 11,000 votes. Pennsylvania has a nearly 70,000 vote gap.

The problem for Stein is that she’d need to overturn all three to move the election to Clinton’s favor and then hope for about seven of eight faithless electors to be cast her way to force it to the House of Representatives and then hope the Republican-controlled House decides to elect her President.

What a waste of time and money. 🤷

Maybe the hope is that one of the three state get overturned so people think Trump won illegitamately and pound that over and over for the next four years.
 
z_0101 said:
This is as bad as the popular vote issue, close to 2,000,000 for Mrs. Clinton.
Approximately 219,000,000 eligible voters
only about half are registered: 109,500,000
of that only about 55% voted: 60,225,000
Margin of error is around 2% for either manual or electronic count
Click to expand...
How do you figure the margin of error is 2%?

That would be true if you are using a random sample size of around 2500. (Note I said random and very few polls are)

But when your sample is 130,000,000 actual voters it would be much less than .01%, (.0003% by my calculations) presuming all the votes have been counted the first time.
 
I support a recount when the margin is so close. And I’m a trump supporter. What I don’t support is the double standard that applies and if trump had initiated a recount what would have happens. I also don’t like the media acting like this is any sort of story with legs.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
It’s a waste of money, but yes, it is a way to verify the results as remaining unchanged. I mean, there’s a nearly 50,000 vote gap in Wisconsin. Probably better to try and overturn Michigan which has a narrower margin - I think about 11,000 votes. Pennsylvania has a nearly 70,000 vote gap.

The problem for Stein is that she’d need to overturn all three to move the election to Clinton’s favor and then hope for about seven of eight faithless electors to be cast her way to force it to the House of Representatives and then hope the Republican-controlled House decides to elect her President.

What a waste of time and money. 🤷

Maybe the hope is that one of the three state get overturned so people think Trump won illegitamately and pound that over and over for the next four years.
Click to expand...
It’s their money, not mine.
 
Fair is fair, it’s time to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton.
 
Seamus_L said:
Fair is fair, it’s time to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
First things first, Donald has to get into the whitehouse before that can even happen. He’s saying he won’t pursue charges, but who knows.

That may be another reason why there’s so much scrambling to find whatever way possible to keep him outta there (death threats, vote recounts, whatever’s next). Maybe it’s not just Hillary that needs to keep a lid on things, there might be a whole lot of folks in the swamp that don’t want any outsiders nosing around.
 
ProVobis said:
How do you figure the margin of error is 2%?

That would be true if you are using a random sample size of around 2500. (Note I said random and very few polls are)

But when your sample is 130,000,000 actual voters it would be much less than .01%, (.0003% by my calculations) presuming all the votes have been counted the first time.
Click to expand...
General statistics?

Schneier on Security
Error Rates of Hand-Counted Voting Systems (link)
The error rate for hand-counted ballots is about two percent.
All voting systems have nonzero error rates. This doesn’t surprise technologists, but does surprise the general public. There’s a myth out there that elections are perfectly accurate, down to the single vote. They’re not. If the vote is within a few percentage points, they’re likely a statistical tie. (The problem, of course, is that elections must produce a single winner.)​

Survey Sample Sizes and Margin of Error (link)
The margin of error in a sample = 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample

Estimation and Margins of Error (this link talks about the general polling error; however, still pertinate to the 2% I stated) herein however, they give 3% at the 95% confidence interval, I reduced the 3% to 2% based upon other peer reviewed journals, one such was:


Amy Hodges, Rice News (link)postelection auditing procedures finds error rates of up to 2 percent

In this document they cite 1% to 2.5% potential error yali.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/01/Assessing-and-Verifying-Election-Results-Summary-Document.pdf (PDF - Link)

The 0.5% potentially fraudulent votes… I had intended to edit that to say “invalid” votes… that I will admit to being more my own number; however, based upon a lot of reading. The biggest problem here being that there appears to be very little data to actually support one side or the other when it comes to the potentially fraudulent/invalid votes.

You get sites such as FactCheck.org that claim that there is no fraud (link) and The Washington Post (link) and yet their evidence is that, while there have been a few “isolated cases, there really isn’t any evidence” to sites and documents that claim a much higher percentage -upwards to 2 and 3%. Then we have President Obama outright telling undocumented persons not to worry about being deported if they go vote because no-one will know that they voted and with around 11 million undocumented workers in the US and President Obama apparently encouraging theme to vote (CAF Thread here: Re: Voter fraud: California man finds 83 ballots stacked outside his home Post#14 ) and we do know that there are cases of documented voter fraud (Washington times (link))

So, to arrive a the 0.5%, I took all of the figures of potentially invalid votes together and split the difference, erring on the side of caution, then took a simple root-mean-square as one would do for progressive errors in measurement.

I have degrees in Mathematical Sciences and Analytical Chemistry - kind of my stock in trade to know this information. 😊
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I support a recount when the margin is so close. And I’m a trump supporter. What I don’t support is the double standard that applies and if trump had initiated a recount what would have happens. I also don’t like the media acting like this is any sort of story with legs.
Click to expand...
This whole post-election nonsense stands on ZERO principle. This is only securing the Rust Belt for Trump in 2020 and will help us win back some Senate seats in 2018.

Just let them waste their money and let’s keep the cameras rolling.
 
RosyAnne said:
First things first, Donald has to get into the whitehouse before that can even happen. He’s saying he won’t pursue charges, but who knows.

That may be another reason why there’s so much scrambling to find whatever way possible to keep him outta there (death threats, vote recounts, whatever’s next). Maybe it’s not just Hillary that needs to keep a lid on things, there might be a whole lot of folks in the swamp that don’t want any outsiders nosing around.
Click to expand...
I think Trump was prepared to leave out putting a special prosecutor onto the case of Hillary Clinton. After her attorney has said what he did regarding this recount, I’m not sure the idea of Trump putting a special prosecutor onto Clinton’s case is going to be something that looked like it was to remain in the past.
 
ProVobis said:
It’s their money, not mine.
Click to expand...
AbideWithMe said:
I read that in PA it would take millions in taxpayer money. :mad::mad:
Click to expand...
I’m from Wisconsin, and having been through some very tight election cycles in the recent past, I can attest that if the margin is within a certain range, the taxpayers will foot the bill. However, if it is over a certain threshold, then the candidate would foot the bill.

I presume that similar laws are in place in Michigan and Pennsylvania. The margin is wide enough in Wisconsin that Stein would be footing the bill. Probably likewise in Pennsylvania. However, the margin is very close in Michigan so the taxpayers there would likely have to pay.

Regardless of who’s paying, it is a waste of money. Stein will not be the next President of the US…unless of course that really isn’t her goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top