jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (11 posts)

Should there be a recount of votes for the 2016 election?

  1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image97
    Marcy Goodfleischposted 15 months ago

    Should there be a recount of votes for the 2016 election?

    Do you think the results of the presidential election would change?  What should happen?

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    I doubt it would change the electoral college count.  A recount is not necessary to show 2,000,000 more people voted for Clinton than Trump.  We know that.  In this country, that fact doesn't matter.  One person, one vote doesn't exist here.  We have a system that is supposed to protect us.  This year? Not so much.

    1. FitnezzJim profile image82
      FitnezzJimposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Yup, I read somewhere you don't score points in a football game with a slam-dunk on the basketball court.

  3. peoplepower73 profile image94
    peoplepower73posted 15 months ago

    No, I don't think it will change the outcome.  But if 2 million more people voted for Hillary than Trump, then according to Trump at least 2 million people must have voted illegally. Because he says he won the popular vote if you discount all those who voted illegally...and if pigs had wings, they could fly. 

    That's the kind of logic this man wants us to believe. He insults my intelligence almost every time he opens his mouth and/or tweets.  If they do the recount and the outcome shows he didn't win the electoral votes, it would be cataclysmic for this country and the Trumpsters.

  4. TLStahling profile image86
    TLStahlingposted 14 months ago

    My concern is that the country is already highly split with conflict.  Should Hillary end up with more votes in the recount of specific states; it could mean more electoral votes - then this situation is going to get worse. 

    Although, I don't see the election being overturned, it is still fueling the fire.

    I also think the 2 million+ popular vote that Hillary carries is from California.  She won by 4 million votes. That's a good argument for the Electoral College.  Otherwise, California could decide the winner on its own.

    I have to bring out my sense of humor and laugh at this or I could get caught up in it as well. 

    What I think should happen? We should accept the president-elect. Democrats should focus on regaining House and Senate seats in 2018. Put their energies there. Bring this nation back together.

    1. FitnezzJim profile image82
      FitnezzJimposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Fueling the fire is consistent with the Green Parties stated goals.

  5. FitnezzJim profile image82
    FitnezzJimposted 14 months ago

    Q: Should there be a recount of votes for the 2016 election?
    A: That depends.  If someone has the dollars to pay for the recount and can show a reasonable evidence that miscount is likely, or that fraud has occurred, sure.  Just so long as taxpayers do not pay the bill.

    Q: Do you think the results of the presidential election would change?
    A: Given the information on how that is going so far, no.

    Q: What should happen?
    A: In this case, the request for recount has been brought forward by someone who represents for a party whose stated goal is to protest any cause they can.   They are paying the bill for that recount.  In terms of votes, so far, she has spent $5 million to gain one vote for Hillary.  Perhaps when it is all done, the cost-per-vote will be a bit less, but we'll see.   

    What she has succeeded with is drawing attention to her name, and in contributing to chaos. Only she could tell us whether she is seeking to take the label "Mad Dog" away from General Mattis.  Time will tell.

  6. Sustainable Sue profile image98
    Sustainable Sueposted 14 months ago

    There's a lot more to this recount than what appears on the surface. If you read what Jill Stein has said about it, coupled with her intended use of whatever money is left over after the recount, you'll see what she's really addressing. It's not just getting Hillary elected. I don't think she wants that. Nor is she aiming to get her name recognized.

    What she's really doing is addressing the constant frustration the electorate feels about a system we all believe is rigged or, at the least, is highly inefficient. She's looking for answers to the question, "How can we create an efficient, open and secure voting system that the electorate can trust?" These recounts, if they go through, will give us basic, practical information we can use to start designing a different system.

    1. FitnezzJim profile image82
      FitnezzJimposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Can you provide a source link for what Jill Stein has said about it?
      My previous comments are based on what was published on the Green Party web-site as of December 3, 2016.

    2. Sustainable Sue profile image98
      Sustainable Sueposted 14 months agoin reply to this
    3. FitnezzJim profile image82
      FitnezzJimposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Got it.  That article comes across better than the one of November 20 at http://www.gp.org/greens_against_trump .

      Repeal the 17th amendment, that will bring back our sanity check on what is feasible for a government to try to do.

 
working