WI election commission denied Jill Stein's request for "a hand recount" of ballots. Instead ballots to be checked by machine. Stein can sue of course but it's unlikely that the suit would be done by the 19th.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../94539210/

Quote:The Wisconsin Elections Commission set a timetable Monday for a recount of the presidential election but rejected a request to conduct it by hand made by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who quickly responded that she would sue.

...

For some counties, hand recounts might be faster and less expensive because they could avoid reprogramming their voting machines, according to the Elections Commission.

...

Electors must meet on Dec. 19 this year, and that deadline is more crucial, election experts says. Missing that deadline could put Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes at stake.

Last one is the biggie. If the screw around on the recount, it puts Wisconsin's votes at stake.

Somebody will sue to challenge the recount and then sue to challenge the recounted recount count

MUH HANGIN CHADS!

(11-28-2016 02:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../94539210/

Quote:The Wisconsin Elections Commission set a timetable Monday for a recount of the presidential election but rejected a request to conduct it by hand made by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who quickly responded that she would sue.

...

For some counties, hand recounts might be faster and less expensive because they could avoid reprogramming their voting machines, according to the Elections Commission.

...

Electors must meet on Dec. 19 this year, and that deadline is more crucial, election experts says. Missing that deadline could put Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes at stake.

Last one is the biggie. If they screw around on the recount, it puts Wisconsin's votes at stake.

Gotta believe that was the end game anyway. Stein is doing in Wis. and now Pennsylvania what she was paid to do.

(11-28-2016 02:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../94539210/

Quote:The Wisconsin Elections Commission set a timetable Monday for a recount of the presidential election but rejected a request to conduct it by hand made by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who quickly responded that she would sue.

...

For some counties, hand recounts might be faster and less expensive because they could avoid reprogramming their voting machines, according to the Elections Commission.

...

Electors must meet on Dec. 19 this year, and that deadline is more crucial, election experts says. Missing that deadline could put Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes at stake.

Last one is the biggie. If the screw around on the recount, it puts Wisconsin's votes at stake.

I think that's entirely the point.

(11-28-2016 03:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Stein is doing in Wis. and now Pennsylvania what she was paid to do.

Can't imagine she gets even THIS far in PA. As I understand it, ANYONE can 'demand' a mechanical recount in Wis if they pay for it... but in PA they have to show some reason/evidence of fraud.

(11-28-2016 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 03:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Stein is doing in Wis. and now Pennsylvania what she was paid to do.

Can't imagine she gets even THIS far in PA. As I understand it, ANYONE can 'demand' a mechanical recount in Wis if they pay for it... but in PA they have to show some reason/evidence of fraud.

She has filed for recount in 100 districts in Pennsylvania. I'm sure if any irregularities are found in any of those she will use it to sue for a state wide recount.


Source:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKBN13N216

Trump has nailed this. It is a scam by Stein to raise money. The idiot Dems are throwing money at it like drunken sailors. A fool and his money are soon parted.

(11-28-2016 03:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 03:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Stein is doing in Wis. and now Pennsylvania what she was paid to do.

Can't imagine she gets even THIS far in PA. As I understand it, ANYONE can 'demand' a mechanical recount in Wis if they pay for it... but in PA they have to show some reason/evidence of fraud.

She has filed for recount in 100 districts in Pennsylvania. I'm sure if any irregularities are found in any of those she will use it to sue for a state wide recount.


Source:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKBN13N216

filing for recount and having a judge approve it are not the same thing. I could be wrong, but as i understand it, you have to get a judge to sign off on the recount, which USUALLY means you have to put forth some sort of evidence that you have reason to believe that there were irregularities. Obviously politics can now play a hand, but that seems rather obvious. Judges rather routinely deny suits lacking evidence to proceed against convicted child molesters.

Don't get me wrong... I don't care. I just think the idea that because she filed suit means that she gets a recount are dubious at best.

There's a reason they filed Wisconsin first, then PA, then Michigan. It's because Wisconsin just needed money. PA needs a judge. Michigan needs an aggrieved party, meaning Hillary or the DNC to file suit... which they won't want to do unless it will matter.

(11-28-2016 03:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Gotta believe that was the end game anyway.

(11-28-2016 03:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think that's entirely the point.

No, it just means they need to do the faster, cheaper hand recount instead of the slower, more expensive machine recount.

They just want a machine recount to be cute, as voting machines are the contention in the first place.

(11-28-2016 06:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 03:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Gotta believe that was the end game anyway.

(11-28-2016 03:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think that's entirely the point.

No, it just means they need to do the faster, cheaper hand recount instead of the slower, more expensive machine recount.

They just want a machine recount to be cute, as voting machines are the contention in the first place.

Good lord, ALice... here we go down the rabbit hole.

So that wasn't the law going in? They're just being cute? They KNEW it would be Hillary contesting the election, not Donald.

Why would a machine recount be more expensive than a hand recount? Seriously, in what world is a machine, once paid for (and they obviously are) cost more to operate than a person?

Hint... it doesn't. That's just the excuse the DNC has told people to believe.

It costs more and is slower for a scanner at a grocery store to tabulate your groceries, that's why they use them rather than having the cashier read and type in the cost. They just do it to be cute.

(11-28-2016 07:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Why would a machine recount be more expensive than a hand recount?

See the article.

My guess: it would take longer and cost more to have the machines programmed to read the ballots than just starting right away using humans.

I thought we were supposed to accept the results of an election?

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

(11-28-2016 08:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 07:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Why would a machine recount be more expensive than a hand recount?

See the article.

My guess: it would take longer and cost more to have the machines programmed to read the ballots than just starting right away using humans.

I read the article... I don't buy it. 'reading the ballots' is specifically what those machines are designed to do.

In any event, as I said.... the means to request a recount were decided in advance, and if you had asked in advance which party would be requesting the recount, it wouldn't have been Democrats.

Follow the rules. If you want to change the rules for NEXT time, then by all means you have 4 years to make those arguments. 2 weeks after the election and 2 weeks before votes are to be certified is NOT the time to be arguing to change the rules.

Period

Petulant children.

(11-28-2016 08:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 07:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Why would a machine recount be more expensive than a hand recount?

See the article.

My guess: it would take longer and cost more to have the machines programmed to read the ballots than just starting right away using humans.

Weren't the machines already programmed to read the ballots.

The last time Wisconsin did a hand recount it took more than a month despite only having as many votes as this presidential election.

“hand counting is a little more difficult. It's exactly what it says — each ballot will be examined and hand tallied. And these new machines are much faster." -- Joe Czarnezki, a Milwaukee County clerk

(11-29-2016 04:24 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 08:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 07:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Why would a machine recount be more expensive than a hand recount?

See the article.

My guess: it would take longer and cost more to have the machines programmed to read the ballots than just starting right away using humans.

Weren't the machines already programmed to read the ballots.

The last time Wisconsin did a hand recount it took more than a month despite only having as many votes as this presidential election.

“hand counting is a little more difficult. It's exactly what it says — each ballot will be examined and hand tallied. And these new machines are much faster." -- Joe Czarnezki, a Milwaukee County clerk

The machines need to be recalibrated for the recount. I recommend a man named George Soros do it.

(11-28-2016 09:07 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I thought we were supposed to accept the results of an election?

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Let's not forget that Trump is still floating the idea the the election was rigged and he won?

That's like winning the Super Bowl and complaining about the refs.


You just can't make this stuff u p.