I was suspicious of Stein but am very thankful that she stepped forward and got this started. By her starting it, and then allowing the Clinton campaign to assess the support before they stepped in, this is a good thing. The recount may show that the Green Party got 5% and that is OK if they did. If they did, they should be credited with it and qualify for matching funds for the next election. If they didn't, that is OK too. The important thing is that at least in three states we will have some level of verification.
I think Democrats wanting to see a recount should contribute to the Clinton campaign instead of to Stein. That way any excess will go toward Democratic initiatives instead of third party initiatives. Go to HillaryClinton.com donate.
OTHER STATES WITH POTENTIAL VOTER FRAUD:
States like Texas probably had voter fraud but it is much too expensive and complicated to verify anything here. The patchwork of independent systems is very complex in Texas. In Dallas this year they used paper ballots and they continued to have majority Democratic results.
In Tarrant we used paperless electronic machines exclusively for early voting and partially for election day voting. We are turning Tarrant blue (at least purple) but we continue to consistently lose races by the early voting turn out margins. I do not know that there was vote tampering but I do know that the Election Administrator and Assistant Election Administrator are not trustworthy to ensure the integrity of the election. They pick and choose what parts of the election code to enforce and instruct election judges/workers that it is not necessary to enforce the prohibition against wearing/displaying emblems, insignia, logos and other clearly recognizable communication devices within 100' of the entrance to a polling place or inside a polling place. See Daily Kos Story for more on how the Election Administrator mishandled this very high profile 500 million dollar measure that was on the ballot in Tarrant County in November.
The Election Administrator and Assistant Election Administrator decided to ignore part of the election code. They instructed election judges and election workers was not necessary to uniformly enforce the election code which prohibits wearing the garb/logos of the team whose name was listed in the measure on the ballot. Initially I thought it was an oversight, but after discussing it with the Election Administration officials, it became apparent that they had decided to ignore the code instead of enforcing it uniformly.
I was more concerned about the violations of the election code than I was about the actual outcome of the vote on the measure. I went to the Election Judge. I phoned the Election Administration office. I phoned the County Judge. I phoned the mayor (who never responded). I contacted the media. The election was not being administered uniformly without bias. Because the measure was for a very popular sports team, my concerns about the process were usually drowned out by the support for the team or opposition to this particular measure by some and concerns for irregularities in the process got little attention. To me, it was a big deal because it impacts the integrity of our electoral process. It showed me that the Tarrant County Election Administrator has little concern about enforcing the election code uniformly without bias. It frightens me because if he shows bias in enforcement (or lack of enforcement of this rule, it is probably that he’ll show bias on enforcement of other rules.
Election Judges are trained by the Election Administrator or employees directed by the Election Administrator. Election Judges asked about this specific rule at training and were told by the Election Administrator and Assistant Election Administrator “not to worry about it. There was no need to tell people that they could not wear team hats, shirts, etc. into the polls..” I personally phoned and the assistant election administrator told me that team garb could “be worn in all early voting sites because the "team was not on the ballot, only a stadium was on the ballot." However the measure on the ballot and the notice of Election both clearly identified the measure as "Team name sports complex". Since the Election Administrator decided to ignore this part of the code in this instance, why would be think that he would be fair and unbiased in regard to other candidates or measures on the ballot. No citizen should have to file a lawsuit in district court or appeal to a board headed by the very people who mishandle the election to be assured that the process is fair, administered without bias or favoritism, and the votes are tallied and reported accurately.
Citizens deserve to be assured that the paid employees in the County Election Administration Office are beyond reproach!
There were enough problems in Denton County that the Election Administrator has been replaced. I do not know if these snafu's impacted the outcome there or not. I suspect. Because we have no means of initiating or funding verification procedures in Texas unless they are within a very close margin and/or initiated and paid for by a candidate, most elections in Texas go unchallenged even when there are obvious discrepancies. Point in fact: When the current voting machines were implemented almost a decade ago there was over a 100K overvote in the Lt Gov's race during the Democratic Primary. The interim election administrator started to do a recount but was stopped because state law prohibited such unless a candidate challenged and paid for it!
PROBLEMS IN OTHER STATES
Voter intimidation and supression in NC has been in the news. In Florida it has been reported by American Intelligence that there was infiltration of the computer system of the vendor who maintains all of the voter registration lists for the entire state of Florida. Other states experienced inflitration of their voter registration systems before the election. We have no verification that there was not infiltration during the election. This is a grey area and is not covered by existing election recount procedures. It is an area where US intelligence agencies might detect tampering but have no guidelines to report/disclose it before the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19th. Even if they report infiltration, there may not be procedures in place to allow the election to be overturned!
We need to assess our nation's voting and election verification processes. There are too many holes in the security of election systems with the patchwork that exists in this nations. All systems should have a paper trail. All systems should have funding for verification written into the election cost. Citizens should not have to rely on candidates to verify questionable elections. Candidates should not be forced to pay enormous amounts of money to verify that they won fair and square. Our election process should verify the accuracy of an election. All employees should be held to high standards of impartiality and proficiency.
This year we have many reasons to suspect international tampering with our election systems. We know that Russian hackers inflitrated the election systems of several states and the system of the vendor in Florida which maintains the voter registration lists for the entire state of Florida. This year the integrity of the election moves beyond the level usually addressed in normal recount procedures.
PARTISAN BIAS
Gerrymandering and incumbency preference is a reality in the American political systems. This year the Supreme Court has ruled on one case that partisan gerrymandering was a problem. It is unknown if this ruling will have nationwide impact. In states such as Texas, if cherry picking voters bases on political party voting history in drawing district maps is ruled unconstitutional, the entire map will have to be redrawn. Currently on just the Congressional basis, the state is drawn to carefully protect incumbents. The state has 36 Congressional Districts and only one district is a swing district. Geographic cohesion is ignored and districts are drawn to stretch many hundred of miles while ignoring population groups substantial enough in closer more cohesive communities For example, District 23 reaches from El Paso to San Antonio and contains the landmass of 9 states! District 33 ignores precincts in Dallas and Fort Worth large enough to meet the population needed to comprise a Congressional District. They drew a bump around my apartment to place us in the “Democratic opportunity district” when 33 was created. There is a small strip that goes through parts of Arlington and Grand Prairie to link parts of Dallas and Fort Worth together in 33. This district was drawn specifically to move Democratic voters out of Joe Barton’s district and to help keep that one GOP controlled as Arlington turns more purple. It was also drawn to protect District 12 and to ensure that district remains Republican by moving majority Democratic voting Latino and Black majority precincts into 33.
WHAT IMPACT DOES THIS HAVE ON ELECTION OUTCOMES?
Obviously it impacts the political party of the Congressional Incumbent. It also impacts races up and down the ticket. It impacts who is in positions of influence when it is time to redistrict and redraw the voting district maps. It influences who is in positions of influence when it is time to hire or instruct or fire County Election Administrators. Granted, the US Congressman does not hire or fire the Election Administrator. However, the political party of the majority of the incumbents in a county definitely influences such choices. When an election is appealed to an election board, the board is chaired by the County Election Administrator. In Tarrant the members are the County Chairs of the Republican and Democratic Party’s, the County Judge, Sheriff and Election Administrator. In Tarrant that means that only one member of the board is currently a Democrat. If there are problems in the administration of elections in Tarrant County which have a partisan bias, it is unlikely that members will vote against a system which favors their party. I am not saying that they won’t vote fairly. I am however, pointing out the political reality that if they vote against the processes which help keep their party in power, the backlash would likely be detrimental to their continuing in their positions of power. Appeals to the Election Board by a candidate or member of a political party which is represented by only one of the 5 members of the board would probably be futile.
Voter suppression and hacking are areas which infringe on the integrity of the election and are more subjective to address than merely recounting the votes to see if the votes tally.
When one candidate carries all counties which have a paper trail and another candidate carried all counties without a paper trail, that merits closer inspection. When more people vote than are registered in a precinct, that certainly deserves closer inspection. When there the percentage of votes for one candidate and the exit polling data are outside of the range of acceptable margins of errors, those voting sites should be verified.
I have some "tech background" but am by no means "expert" on cyber security. There are many who are much more tech saavy than I am and they have the skills necessary to identify holes in current systems and to recommend ways to close many of them. We need to move forward on this. The 2016 election should be verified/audited/recounted. We should fix the problems before the next election and institute national guidelines to assure that vote tampering/ mistakes/ and hacking do not impact future elections.
Verifying an election used to be much more straight forward and simple. The first contested election I remember hearing about was in my hometown. One particular County Commissioner was noted for consistently receiving more votes on election day than the number of people who were of voting age living in his district. Usually it went unchallenged. However, my sixth grade history teach ran against him and contested the election results. He got a recount of the paper ballots and checked the names of those who signed in to vote against the voter registration rolls. A number of dead people showed up to vote for the incumbent County Commissioner. The school teacher appealed his case all the way to the state supreme court. It was costly and he was never sworn into office on the Commissioner’s Court. However, I doubt that anyone in the county truly doubted the accuracy of the outcome of that election by the time the process was complete. There was widespread voter fraud in that election which favored the incumbent. This may be the result of this year’s audit and recount. It will probably demonstrate and unearth considerable problems with our electoral system. It may not result in a different president-elect. Honestly, I truly hope it does. I find Donald Trump highly unsatisfactory for any public office, especially for the Presidency of the United States of American. However, my preference or fears or opinions are not what is important here. What is important is finding out who truly won the 2016 Presidential election and whether enough votes were attributed to the wrong candidate in enough states to change the electoral college votes. It is also important to identify the flaws in the systems and to fix them before we repeat the same mistakes.