Report: Clinton Activists Want 3-State Recount

11

A group of computer scientists and election lawyers are reportedly urging Hillary Clinton’s campaign to call for a recount of the votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, are contending in private that they believe they’ve found evidence that votes in these three crucial states were manipulated or hacked.

Among their findings was the fact that Clinton got 7 percent fewer votes in Wisconsin counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to counties with scanners and paper ballots. It is unclear if the Clinton campaign will pursue this avenue. Read more at NEW YORK MAGAZINE.

{Matzav.com}

11 COMMENTS

  1. Babies
    This is what they were crying that Trump would do.
    Hypocrisy
    How they ask for tolerance but are intolerant of others. Eg religion.
    They should grow up and accept other people can have other opinions and sometimes they can be wrong

  2. Oh my goodness. Are these people trying to find a new lowest common denominator for the term “sore loser”?
    -They’re claiming that somehow “the vote was hacked” in three separate states.
    -They want electors pledged to Trump to switch sides and vote for Hillary, never mind the will of the people.
    -Perhaps we should just coronate Hillary, with Chelsea designated the princess-in-waiting?

    I voted for Hillary, but the fight has been fought, the winner was fairly decided, and it’s over. There are only fifty states in the U.S. and Denial ain’t one of them.

  3. This is interesting When election day during Obama presidency there were counties that were 119% for Obama and no one called for a recount of those counties. I ask how can you have 119% isn’t 100% all you can get, and I bet there must have been at least a few Republicans in those counties, but I never heard too much about recount then. It seems some people are called poor losers and they call for recount and I am sure they will find ballots in boxes in peoples basements if they look hard enough, and when machines were voting for Obama no matter who you voted for there was no hysterical recount call then either. Poor loser is a poor loser.

  4. There should be a panel which focuses on how to improve voting machine security and integrity for next and future elections. This is a great idea in every state and not just in those who happen to have a close number of votes. There should be scientists as well as Dem, Rep and independent politicians with a healthy representation and a healthy debate.

    Asking for a recount at this point would bring ridiculous upon the institutions, and Ms Clinton likely will never run again for any political positions, but there will be(*) future elections, and D and R candidates who should be respected and challenge each others in a fair vote.

    (*) Of course we all wish for Moshiach to show up this very day, but we have to plan for future elections in the USA and elsewhere.

  5. If there are reasoned fact-based arguments that will stand up in court that the election wasn’t conducted fairly in those states for sure they should do it, otherwise not. These people are lawyers with expertise in these matters. What does it matter if there were irregularities in previous elections? What counts is now.

  6. This is a very interesting consideration. The votes if manipulated can be a scared thought for all future elections. If there is any voter tampering one must investigate. One does not know but if the populist care has indeed increased to the level an election was won, there is more concern than just voting irregularity.

    The values of freedom and human commercial interest are a constant fear in a populist driven hate culture.

    Good to see this story might be worth someone’s time and expense. We must have rights in a human democracy.

  7. I don’t think the issue is whether the current system is susceptible to “problems”: most of us would agree with that, whether we voted Trump, Clinton, another candidate or did not vote. Actually Mr Trump himself said so, and was grilled for daring saying so out loud. But luckily, susceptibility does not translate into actually happening, and even if a number of votes were incorrectly recorded or counted, this does not necessarily translate into a different winning candidate. This year’s elections gave very clear results (as opposed to Bush vs Gore 2000) and we should make sure that from now on, the election process can be trusted by all, even if there is a small margin in a state like Florida, and even if the losing candidate is not-so-gracious, won’t concede, and is willing to exhaust all legal avenues for contesting the result.

LEAVE A REPLY