Green Party Calls For Recount, Wants To Push For Open-Source Voting Machines (nbcnewyork.com)

The Green party candidate in the U.S. presidential election, Jill Stein, has raised over $5 million in donations to fund a recount in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are the states key to Hillary Clinton's loss on November 8th. She is seeking a recount in these three states after computer scientists discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e-voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots. An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: On November 23, the Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign launched an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections," calling for "publicly-owned, open source voting equipment." In approximately 48 hours (as of 1:20pm EST (GMT-5) on Nov-25-2016) $5,026,516.15 has been raised to pay for a recount in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and [they are] currently collecting towards a recount in Michigan. The Green party also states: "The Green Party Platform calls for 'publicly-owned, open source voting equipment and deploy it across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; use verifiable paper ballots; and institute mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results.'" More details can be read on MSNBC news. The Washington Post asks: Why are people giving Jill Stein millions of dollars for an election recount? UPDATE 11/25/16: Washington Examiner is reporting that Green Party officials have filed for a presidential vote recount in Wisconsin.
UPDATE 11/26/16: Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday that it will take part in the recount in Wisconsin.

Comments

"Open source" voting machines are stupid

[Smidge204]

There is no way to verify the integrity of the machines on voting day, nor to safeguard the integrity of the polling data between the voting machine and the final tally. Open source means nothing here.

Electronic voting as a whole is a gigantic boondoggle. There are only three reasons for it to exist: People who are too impatient to wait for manual counting, people who are looking to make a tidy profit selling a broken solution to a problem that doesn't need solving, and people who are interested in a way to fuck with the polls without getting caught.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a slip of paper and a pen. Or have people dip their finger in ink like we've all seen done...
=Smidge=

Lets call Bullshit

[frovingslosh]

Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won". Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state. Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.

Re:Lets call Bullshit

[quantaman]

Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won". Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state. Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.

So you're alleging that the real objective of the Green Party recount is not in fact abstract curiosity about the election integrity, nor even to see if Jill Stein really won.

What you're actually claiming is they want to see is if a recount would flip those three states to Clinton and give her the Presidency, and in fact most of the donors to the recount campaign are hoping for this exact outcome.

Well yeah.... that's all actually quite obvious.

As for them not asking for recounts in the states Clinton won, it costs millions of dollars to do a recount, you can hardly expect them to raise millions of dollars for an action that could only help their opponent.

Re:Lets call Bullshit

[Gravis Zero]

Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won".

Correct because the states selected could change the outcome of the election. I think all states should have a recount but there isn't enough money to do that.

Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state.

Because it's not about Stein, it's about the possibility that the election may have been stolen.

Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.

I actually had the same thought and considered that it's quite possible that people across the globe are giving money for this recount because they fear what Trump may do as president.

yeah..

[starblazer]

yeah... its "over"... but they have the right to request the recount, so they are taking them up on that option.

And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.

Oh well, if the Greens want to waste their money, let them.

To the ACs whining about "They can't accept the outcome"... they are using legal avenues to make sure its right. It's not like the Greens are asking for special consideration because "AWMG RIGGED!!!"

Trump was crying like a 2 year old about everything (CROOKED, RIGGED, WAHH) was so unfair and as soon as he got his way, he smiled and sat contently in the corner. Just like a two year old that got his way.

Let them, they are allowed to request it and they did.

Re:Two big problems here

[smooth wombat]

In PA you need to show proof of it and what they provided was nothing close to be counted as proof.

Just like in PA where the claim of "massive" voter fraud has been tossed about for years despite not a single case being shown as proof. Yet apparently not providing proof was sufficient enough for the legislature to pass a law to prevent this "massive" voter fraud.

If no proof of "massive" voter fraud was sufficient to get the gears rolling then there's no reason not to recount the ballots despite the limited amount of evidence presented. You can't have it both ways.

Also, while Michigan may use paper ballots, it still uses a computer to record the votes. Straight from the Michigan Secretary of State web site:

All voters in Michigan use optical scan ballots. Optical scan voting requires voters to either darken an oval or connect the head and tail of an arrow next to each of their choices on their ballot. Completed ballots are fed into a tabulator, which scans and records the votes. (italics mine)

That right there is the rub. How does one know the electronic machine is correctly recording the votes? Just because a vote is registered does not mean it was registered correctly. Since Michigan has paper ballots, hand count them. It's the easiest way to see if there are any irregularities.

So much hypocrisy

[execthis]

There's so much hypocrisy in this. On the one hand they don't really give a shit about election integrity and very important things to ensure that our elections really are meaningful and accurate. They don't support biometric voter registration which is standard in many countries now. They don't give a shit about vote weight disparity (in Japan some elections have actually been invalidated in their highest court because of such disparity). They don't really give a shit about meaningful election forensics.

Basically this is just more bullshit from people who engage in nothing but bullshit.