Friday, November 25, 2016

YES! Let The Election Recounts Begin In Three States!

Jill Stein by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Former Green candidate Jill Stein, has raised more than $4 million to do election recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Americans, by and large, are too gullible and accepting of democratic process - and despite painting themselves as fierce "patriots" - they often fall short where the rubber meets the road. I am talking here about the basic processes for electing our highest officials including for President - an office that arguably is the most powerful on Earth.  Such an election is particularly critical if the capture of the Presidency, for example, represents the final linchpin in one party having total control of government. Hence, by its appointments  (including Supreme Court) and agendas it can then literally affect the lives of tens of millions for good or ill. If the wrong person gets in, sneaks in, really by failure of election processes, it can mean upending the lives of a majority of citizens.

Author Greg Palast, who investigated the 2000 fake Florida (Choicepoint) voter felon rolls, has noted the stark consequences:

"No way around it, this is one frightening moment.  Decades of progress created with sweat and determination face destruction.  Within the next six months, we may see the Voting Rights Act repealed—and civil rights set back 50 years; the entirety of our environmental protection laws burnt in a coal pit; police cruelty made our urban policy; the Education Department closed to give billionaires a tax holiday; and a howling anti-Semite as White House Senior Counselor.."

In respect of this 2016 Presidential election, many critical eyes - not just on the left - have looked askance at what has transpired, especially in view of the Supreme Court's torpedoing of voter protections hitherto assured under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  But beyond those issues, there is the one that overshadows the use of electronic voting machines and whether, indeed, they can be trusted in giving reliable results.

For any who gullibly believe Diebold machines - for example- are as good as paper ballots, I invite you to take a gander at the machine below showing vote switching (from 2012) in action, e.g. at:

Arguably, if the total election results had been much closer, a much narrower margin for Obama, it is quite conceivable the 2012 election could have been stolen. The narrower margins would have made election theft more successful, effective.

The incident shown in the link was not unusual, or exceptional. On Nov. 6, 2012, at  precisely 8.30 a.m. Mountain time, wifey and I stared spellbound while watching KOAA-TV, as the newscaster noted two electronic machines in Adams County had 'switched' voters' choices for President - from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney! Like smart citizens who check their grocery receipts for errors after each purchase, the voters checked their paper printouts and sure enough.....there on the paper was 'Mitt Romney (R)- Paul Ryan(VP)' instead of 'Barack Obama(D)- Joe Biden (VP)'. The voters complained and precinct specialists attempted to replicate the errors, but to no avail.  However, they then performed the legit fail -safe action (demanded) of taking the machines out of commission.

Had the Colorado electoral vote total been determined by those voting machine differences, Colorado would have gone for Romney instead of Obama. THAT is why electoral processes need to be examined especially in close, nail biter elections. It is stupid to just say "Well, the election is over, deal with it!". No, uh uh, not when so many millions of lives are at stake in terms of their life quality.
This is why I am vexed and impatient by people why assert we need to "move on" or those like Kellyanne Conway saying HRC voters "can't accept the results of this election". Yes, they can- IF it is fair.

Recall that back on April 19, I warned of a possible heist using electronic voting machines in Repub states, i.e. states in which Republican governors had control of the voting stations, regulations, accessibility etc. The header of my post was 'The Fix May Already Be In For Gooprs to Steal the 2016 Election'. Therein I cited a blog post by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman  on

There are two things we all need to know about the upcoming 2016 election:
  1. Millions of likely Democratic voters have already been stripped from the voter rolls in critical states like Ohio. The key reporting on this has been done by the great Greg Palast, who has shown that a computer program coordinated by the Republican secretary of state of Kansas is being used in some two dozen states to steal from a substantial percentage of the citizenry their right to vote. The raw numbers are high enough that they could have a significant impact on the presidential, US Senate, House and many other elections this fall. The ACLU has now sued Jon Husted, Ohio’s secretary of state, over the stripping of two million citizens from Ohio's voter rolls.
  1. There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the software is proprietary, making the vote counts beyond public scrutiny. In fact, they are beyond all independent monitoring altogether. In many key swing states (including Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona) GOP governors and secretaries of state will have a free hand to flip the vote count to whatever they want it to be without detection or accountability. This could turn control of our government over to the GOP come November, as it did in 2000 and 2004.
These two critical markers of the upcoming national election were at center stage in their upcoming report :  The Flip & Strip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft ( /,

In the wake of the historical findings and proof that electronic voting machines CAN switch votes and given the close (as well as suspicious)  results in three industrial states - two of which flipped, and one still close to call - it boggles the mind the media is in such a rush to foreclose the election. This is why Jill Stein merits kudos for undertaking a task that Hillary wouldn't. This despite Hillary getting hundreds of millions of bucks in campaign donations more than Stein.  But obviously, the Clinton campaign is more invested in the "optics" of looking graceful in defeat and honorable - despite the fact many more (2.2. million at last count) voted for her and therefore over 62.5 million stand to have their votes trashed in the dumpster of history. (Even as our nation risks having its reputation and integrity trashed by a Trump administration.)

I applaud Stein's efforts, as everyone should,  and that basically means doing a very simple thing in the three states noted: comparing the electronic vote results with the paper ballot records.  If the totals square off with each other and whatever differential doesn't lead to a reversal in the state's electoral votes, then fine and dandy. award that state's electoral votes to Trump. If not, then no, you can't do that.

As for Hillary, she's being urged by many to officially request a recount in those states. But don't hold your breath, it was far easier for her campaign to grab donated money for the initial run than to protect the integrity of the results after the fact. Also, according to a UK Guardian report "several senior Democrats are said to be intensely reluctant to suggest there were irregularities in the result because Clinton and her team criticized Trump so sharply during the campaign for claiming that the election would be “rigged” against him."

Yes, and well, don't you think if the situation was reversed Trump would be calling for recounts now, and in more than 3 states? Again, it doesn't pay to be faux honorable or gracious when so much is on the line. Hillary needs to drop the pretense of just silently accepting the loss and come out fighting like she besieged her voters to do for her in her 'Stronger Together' campaign.

At the same time, according to the same report, others have spoken publicly, including the sister of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s closest aide who pointed out. “A shift of just 55,000 Trump votes to Hillary in PA, MI & WI is all that is needed to win,” Heba Abedin said on Facebook, urging people to call the justice department to request an audit.

Again, this issue goes beyond the claims of "Russian hacking" which I doubt was responsible. It is more a matter of investigating whether the electronic votes cast via Diebold, ES & S voting machines were "true" and not switched. Also, that all the voters (especially African Americans) in key states who tried to vote - including using provisional ballots - were allowed to do so.

Update:  Ted Olson Pitches Hissy Fit Over Recount:

Yep, the same dolt and hired hack who represented Bush Jr, in Bush v. Gore, now claims (TIME. Dec. 12, p. 18) "Jill Stein's recounts are destructive to democracy".. But how can a process that validates democratic choice be destructive to it? This is total nonsense but we shouldn't be surprised by such loopy logic from a guy who insisted the FLA recounts in 2000, were against "equal treatment" for his client.  He also bitched and moaned about Stein being a "bit player" and yet demanding recounts. Sorry, Roscoe, that is what the STATE laws allow- for any candidate no matter what the % of votes! Seems like this punk just can't handle true democracy.

What I'd like to see instead is an uproar over the refusal of official to do recounts of African -American votes in Michigan, see e.g

See also:


Any functioning democracy should involve the verification of the vote. That, in this case, involves a recount process. The candidates who are on the ballot in Michigan and Wisconsin can call for the recount. In Pennsylvania, it’s voters who can. It doesn’t have to be the runner-up candidate. Third-party candidates can call for the recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin. And three voters per county in Pennsylvania can call for them. There were serious concerns leading up to the election about the vulnerability of our voting systems. There were anomalies that occurred on Election Day and all those give rise to the basis of why we make sure we verify the vote.


No comments: