Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Who's Counting?

There's a lot of talk about the recount that Jill Stein has started. Mostly the talk is it's a waste of time.  (Some have said it's a strategic recount designed to prevent enough electors from being certified so there'll be no majority leader when it's time to vote.  This makes no sense to me.  If it were that easy to stop the electors, why wouldn't the loser try this every election?)

But here's the part that's really weird--they're still doing the original count.  How can you have a recount till that's over?  Every day since the election I've been watching the numbers as Hillary Clinton keeps increasing her lead in the popular vote.  As I write this, she's got about 65.3 million votes while Trump has around 62.7 million.*

So she beat him by more than 2.5 million.  Impressive, though, if you like, you can claim that's all California, where, bucking the national trend, they went nuts for Hillary, voting for her 2 to 1 over Trump, with a greater than 4 million vote lead. (Many of whom, Trump supporters would claim, are illegal votes--if they have any evidence about that they really should turn it over.) At present, she's got about 48% of the vote and he's got about 46%**.  Johnson got a bit over 3% and Stein finished fourth at around 1%.  So they'd have to do some wild recounting for the good doctor to even show.

How much longer will this original count go on?  If they've still got a few more days to go, Clinton could even surpass Obama's 2012 total of 65.9 million votes.  Trump has long ago passed Mitt Romney's total of 60.9 million votes. (That didn't stop people from saying on election night that Trump didn't get as many votes as Romney--they really should have waited.)

Since we can have a count and a recount at the same time, let me suggest we start a second recount.  (Sort of like a second mortgage.)  Who knows what we'll find?  And it'll only cost a few million.  Anyone willing to donate?

*Another number that might be of interest--Clinton spent $150 million more than Trump. I guess that's good news for the people who are tired of big money in politics.

**The average of the final polls showed her a bit more than 3% ahead, so they weren't that far off.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Denver Guy said...

This will be a mantra for 4 years, just as it was during George Bush's first 4 years. It will be a disservice to the Democrats, because it will convince them they have the 2020 election in the bag, just as they thought in 2004, when despite the close race in 2000, Bush won comfortably.

As far as proving illegal votes - especially rampant fraudulent voting - how would you go about doing that? It's my understanding that anyone can get a State Driver's license in California. It is also fairly easy to register to vote in California - maybe even when you get your driver's license. What proof of citizenship do you need to have when you register to vote? I suppose a Social Security number. But we know those aren't hard to come by - even Obama's number, which apparently originated in Conn., a state he never worked in, raises questions.

In the 1980s, I changed my middle name before starting college simply by telling the the college this is my middle name. I then registered for Selective Service when I turned 18 (after I started college). And then using my selective service card, I got my social security card with the name I had chosen. I did spend the money to have it legally changed 4 years later when I was starting law school and didn't want to be caught messing around.

I also know a person who lived in Colorado in 2012 and registered to vote. He then moved to another state where he also registered to vote. He is still registered to vote in Colorado. I have no reason to believe he voted in both states, but I don't see how he possibly could have been caught doing so.

Despite my libertarian leanings, I believe the country should issue national voting ID cards. Only the States can't police the whole nation, and in fact apply different levels of scrutiny to establishing citizenship. Although I am unhappy that Trump is not moved by libertarian ideals, this is one area where I think his desire to apply common sense to issues like "who should be allowed to vote?" may lead to the natural conclusion that the Federal Gov't should register people to vote in national elections.

9:08 AM, December 07, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You need to get out more, DG

4:28 PM, December 07, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DG- seriously if you buy the whole voter fraud line, I worry about you showing up in a pizza shop with a gun

6:21 AM, December 08, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter