Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stylteralmaldo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Making the history books or setting some precedent maybe.
 
I wouldn’t mind a national recount. Limiting the votes to actual legal, living, citizens of the USA…
Hillary might not like it though…
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I wouldn’t mind a national recount. Limiting the votes to actual legal, living, citizens of the USA…
Hillary might not like it though…
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s time for this side of the people to go protest. What a farce it is to drag the nation into this fiasco and for what???
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I hope that’s the case in PA if a recount occurs.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I wouldn’t mind a national recount. Limiting the votes to actual legal, living, citizens of the USA…
Click to expand...
Now how exactly would you do that? And making sure there is no voter suppression at the same time? They have been deporting legal citizens too, or haven’t you heard?
 
Stein states her reason for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as:
“We are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals,” the Stein campaign writes. “We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.”
Click to expand...
What a coincidence that these are three states Trump won that Clinton expected to win.
Hmm. In Pa, Trump won by 70,000 votes. Trump lost NH by less than 3,000 votes, and Minnesota by roughly 40,000 votes, and Stein isn’t curious about them. :hmmm:
 
JonNC said:
Stein states her reason for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as:

What a coincidence that these are three states Trump won that Clinton expected to win.
Hmm. In Pa, Trump won by 70,000 votes. Trump lost NH by less than 3,000 votes, and Minnesota by roughly 40,000 votes, and Stein isn’t curios about them. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Yes, This.
 
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...
And this. I agree January 20th can’t come quick enough for me either.
 
z_0101 said:
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.
​
Click to expand...

One would have to look at the actual ballot form to determine that, I would think. Those chads in Florida, for example, could have been taken several ways, especially with write-in candidates.
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
​
Click to expand...

That’s assuming p is almost equal to q. And you’re talking two std deviations, right?

Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, by Paul G. Hoel​
 
ProVobis said:
One would have to look at the actual ballot form to determine that, I would think. Those chads in Florida, for example, could have been taken several ways, especially with write-in candidates.
Click to expand...
they have actually looked various errors such as stray marks, chads, etc…
ProVobis said:
That’s assuming p is almost equal to q. And you’re talking two std deviations, right?
Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, by Paul G. Hoel
Click to expand...
I hadn’t intended to give a treatise on basic statistics and I think this does nothing more than cloud the issue…

I don’t have access to Dr. Hoel’s textbook; however, given the title, I can only guess that you are talking about Q as in q=1-p as one would have in a Bernoulli Trail (which this could potentially classified as such if the examiner’s own bias doesn’t preclude the equal probability of success/failure of the individual trail). However, I suspect that you are really after, the q-value that takes into account only those trail results that are below the selected threshold (which I think more likely given that offsetting the examiner bias might have the taken into account), unlike a p-value that deals with percentage of false positives to expect for the entire number of trails being ran?

In this case, the sample population should be large enough that the results would approach the population; thus, it wouldn’t be unreasonable that these could potentially approach parity depending on what your threshold criteria is as one could see in testing such as in RNA sequencing - (this document has a much better explanation than I care to get into within a forum not related to mathematics: (science.smith.edu/cmbs/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2015/09/P-and-q-values-in-RNA-Seq.pdf). In either case, 95% confidence interval wouldn’t be unreasonable for the vote count against error in the determination of the intended selection.

Either accept the 2% or don’t, it really doesn’t matter to me; however, the 2% I suggested in my earlier post for the potential erroneous vote count wasn’t a value from my own research but the value as given in the research of several other individuals, peer reviewed in many cases, and included in the information in a government publication.; thus, experts within the field.
 
ProVobis said:
Now how exactly would you do that? And making sure there is no voter suppression at the same time? They have been deporting legal citizens too, or haven’t you heard?
Click to expand...
Just checking ID would be a start. Or enforcing laws that prevent voter fraud.
Wouldn’t have many illegal citizens voting if a punishment were forthcoming. Don’t see a lot of voter fraud with felons.

I could have voted at the very least 20 times in my city and probably another 20 in my former state.
 
Thorolfr said:
A new and ridiculous tweet from Donald Trump:

Donald J. Trump ✔️ @realDonaldTrump
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
12:30 PM - 27 Nov 2016

nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/tweet-flurry-president-elect-donald-trump-calls-recount-efforts-sad-n688761

He just can’t stand the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by at least 2 million votes.
Click to expand...
He shouldn’t care. The election nationwide popular vote means nothing.
 
JonNC said:
He shouldn’t care. The election nationwide popular vote means nothing.
Click to expand...
Mr. Trump’s loss of the popular vote by such a large margin (over 2 million votes) is still meaningful in that it demonstrates that he did not receive any sort of overwhelming popular “mandate” for many of the policies he will likely try to implement. A shift of only about 107,000 votes in only three states (Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania) would have left Clinton the winner of both the electoral college and the popular vote. That 107,000 votes that allowed Trump to carry the electoral college is only a fraction of the vote margin by which Clinton won the popular vote.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I could have voted at the very least 20 times in my city and probably another 20 in my former state.
Click to expand...
That’s another thing. Too many have dual addresses. In Florida they call them “snowbirds,” spend 6 months there in the winter, 6 months at a northern city.

I hope the polling places don’t accept those with PO boxes and such.

The homeless are another story.
 
=Thorolfr;14312080]Mr. Trump’s loss of the popular vote by such a large margin (over 2 million votes) is still meaningful in that it demonstrates that he did not receive any sort of overwhelming popular “mandate” for many of the policies he will likely try to implement.
Click to expand...
It means he was very unpopular in two states - New York, but mainly California. All that means is Clinton got the electoral votes from New York and California. That’s all it means. It means nothing to any other state and how they voted.
A shift of only about 107,000 votes in only three states (Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania) would have left Clinton the winner of both the electoral college and the popular vote. That 107,000 votes that allowed Trump to carry the electoral college is only a fraction of the vote margin by which Clinton won the popular vote.
Click to expand...
70,000 give or take in PA. 27,000 give or take in Wisconsin. 11,000 give or take in Michigan. Those numbers only mean something in those states. But you are right, had that happened, or Clinton had carried Florida and North Carolina, and she’s president.
It is a mistake, however, to think of the election in terms of a plebiscite of a national vote, because it isn’t. It is actually 51 elections in 50 sovereign states and DC. The national popular vote means nothing.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top