The Democrats’ Real Strategy in Launching Recounts

11

By Richard Baehr, American Thinker

The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania, will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time Pthis happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

{Matzav.com}

11 COMMENTS

  1. That’s a genius ploy!
    It really paints the dems as demons but nonetheless itsa brainchild effort to cut the pompous ones gaayva!
    Sore losers are sore losers still!
    Hill abd Bill should both be prosecuted – their crime is certainly more egregious than Rubashkin.

  2. The constitution and laws exactly have a roadmap for this scenario (as opposed to a few others which slipped through the jurists’ paperwork). If Trump were to be elected as above, his election might be disliked by those who did not vote him, but it would be perfectly and fully legitimate. I did not notice legal challenges to Bush after 2000, despite the open questions which, I think, we all are aware of, and despite the fact that surely Democrats did not like the elected president.

  3. The country is ripe for and needs a non violent Revolution
    The Democrats are hard at letting the air out of the balloon and wind of the sails

  4. After Britain’s election of 1874,
    Conservative Party
    led Disraeli
    transformed Britain forever and [re]created the British Empire
    though they
    received less actual votes than the Liberal Party and Irish Parties
    but received a majority of the House of Commons due to the [District First Past the Post, similar to US Congress] System

    Similar story in 1955 ,though Labour received more votes yet lost the election

  5. If all 3 states miss the deadline,……….
    yes, but wait a minute – … eventually they WILL be counted…
    & he will have won alot more than 270!!!!!!

  6. Esteemed lawyers and jurists on the website, please explain us. What happens on Dec 19 should the recount not yet be finished? Are we sure no one would reach 270? What are the rules in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania that bind electors, should there be a challenged (but certified) result which is being challenged with a recount in progress? Are there rules which bind the delegates not to vote, or possibly to vote in a certain way? Inquiring minds who didnt go to law school are curious to know 🙂

  7. This is very strange.
    Michigan has a law that only a grieved party can demand a recount. This means someone who has a hava mina of actually winning. Jill Stein got about 1% of the vote here. Not happening.
    More than that, there is an alleged concern that so many people didn’t vote for president, about 80,000, that there might be reason to recount. Well, hello, with these candidates a whole lot of people left that line blank. Is there potential for fraud among the counters in a recount? And as I speak, a local radio host is asking the secretary of state why just president is being recounted? What about all the proposals, judgeships, etc. left blank? She doesn’t sound so thrilled about this recount.
    And who is funding this? Where did Jill Stein get so much more money than she made in her whole campaign?
    And why should Michigan foot $4 million dollars in projected recount costs, while Stein is only on the hook for $900,000?

LEAVE A REPLY