Clinton Campaign to Participate in Vote Audit and Recount

Clinton Campaign finance guy Mark Elias has issued a statement saying the campaign will participate in a vote audit and recount of Wisconsin, and of Michigan and PA if Jill Stein files the requests.

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well.


We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.

I'm glad the Clinton campaign is supporting this. As Elias ends his statement:

We believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.

This is the social scientist's explanation of why the votes need to be recounted.

This is not a signal that Clinton is not accepting the vote outcome. As Elias says:

“We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount,” Elias said. “But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.”

Will this change the outcome? No. Nor does Hillary expect it to.

Lawrence Lessig is calling on the Electoral College to vote for Hillary. They are not obligated to vote any particular way by the Constitution.

Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.

Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.

He says the questions electors should ask is if there is any reason to deny the Presidency to the person who won the popular vote.

There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.

They didn’t in 1888 — when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. And they didn’t in 2000 — when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.

But the question today is which precedent should govern today — Tammany Hall and Bush v. Gore, or one person, one vote?

The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.

It would be preferable for Trump never to take office than to impeach him once in. Why? Because no one wants a President Pence.

< Trump's Thansgiving Jaunt Cost $7 Million for Security | Fidel Castro Has Died >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    New Hampshire (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Nov 26, 2016 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    New Hampshire was closer than the three chosen states.  You would think that state would be first on the list to ensure fairness to all sides.

    Speaking as a Hillary Clinton supporter, ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 27, 2016 at 03:00:00 AM EST
    ... I would much rather that recounts reaffirm for everyone Trump's victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania on November 8, than have people continually raise suspicions that the original counts were somehow hacked and tampered with by an outside source.

    Given the fact that a foreign power very likely did attempt to influence our election, it's in everyone's best interest that these public recounts take place. Should suspicions prove to have been without merit, as I think they will be, then while many of us may not necessarily like the results from those three states, the recounts would oblige us all to accept them as both definitive and final.



    It's not just about hacking (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 27, 2016 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    when we already have seen, in my state, almost 20 percent of Trump's lead disappear, from only a couple of counties, with ridiculous explanations.

    I understand that. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 27, 2016 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    What Gov. Scott Walker has been allowed to get away with in Wisconsin is unconscionable. Whereas your state was once a beacon of competent and fair governance, it has quickly become a poster child for political corruption, cronyism and incompetence on a scale hitherto unimagined by many of its more enlightened residents. Even your state supreme court has fallen under his thumb.

    About the state supreme court (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 27, 2016 at 06:46:16 PM EST
    it is important to understand, as we were a testing ground for other states -- and as this is a law blog, yet lawyers elsewhere apparently did not notice this -- is that the first to be corrupted was our state supreme court.  That is important, too, in the process of taking over the state, because the corrupted court could and did stop every case brought about corruption that then came about the legislature and the governor . . . notably the corrupted election process of the recall of the governor.

    Fascinating for me was that a grad student of mine, a lawyer, did a brilliant study more than fifteen years ago of the corruption of the process of electing our state supreme court justices, with the sudden ratcheting up of the cost of campaigns.  I suspect that Koch money came here long ago, laying that groundwork to win the court to then corruptly win the other two branches, with no resort to a fair court for us.

    I tried to get media here to take a look at the grad student/lawyer's study.  Of course, they were not interested.  It was a grad paper, not a press release.  So it was harrrd worrrrk to read it.


    Well, let Trump challenge NH, then (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 27, 2016 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    and you are ignoring the reasons -- the evidence -- for recounts in the states challenged by Stein (which she has explained).  It's not just about the margin.

    But as I am in one of those states, and if you are relying only on the usual suspects in national media, I can tell you that you not have read the reporting on the evidence of shenanigans here.

    Of course, it could just be incompetence here . . . all in favor of one candidate.  Uh huh.


    Nothing stopping anyone (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 26, 2016 at 06:37:43 PM EST
    from doing a recount there either unless the deadline has already passed to do one.

    In the interest of fairness, maybe we should have (none / 0) (#6)
    by vml68 on Sun Nov 27, 2016 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    a recount in every state or if it were up to me a revote since Trump claims millions of people who voted illegally cost him popular vote  Rigged!!!

    Well emails and Bill's girlfriends aren't (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 27, 2016 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    Going to get them any clicks.

    This is where Trump will start to lose it. And it will be four long years of Donald Trump losing it.


    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 06:28:06 AM EST
    Republicans took a stand when Trump came out with his outrageous comment.


    If Trump loses and doesn't concede, it would break from an American tradition dating back to the Civil War -- and a number of Republicans were swift to condemn him for it.

    Trump "saying that he might not accept election results is beyond the pale," Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted.

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement that he, like most Americans, has "confidence in our democracy and election system."

    "During this debate Mr. Trump is doing the party and country a great disservice by continuing to suggest the outcome of this election is out of his hands and 'rigged' against him. If he loses, it will not be because the system is 'rigged' but because he failed as a candidate." Graham said.

    New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a former attorney general, urged Trump to accept the outcome.

    "This is important. I don't believe that there's a rigged election system. If there are allegations that need to be investigated, they'll be investigated," she said.

    Even controversial Maine Gov. Paul LePage chimed in, telling WGAN radio of Portland: "Not accepting the results, I think, is just a stupid comment."

    I didn't like the outcome of the 2008 election," Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee that year, said in a statement Thursday. "But I had a duty to concede, and I did so without reluctance. A concession isn't just an exercise in graciousness. It is an act of respect for the will of the American people, a respect that is every American leader's first responsibility."

    "I don't know who's going to win the presidential election. I do know that in every previous election, the loser congratulates the winner and calls them, 'my president.' That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way," McCain added.

    http://tinyurl.com/juub7lh   Fortune magazine

    Bi partisan condemnation of Trumps not accepting election results

    That is old (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 07:01:46 AM EST
    information. Nary a one that I saw said anything about his recent statement about how he won the popular vote.

    They also have been completely silent on him putting a Nazi in as senior advisor.

    They are the most craven cowards I think I have ever seen.


    Those comments should still hold true (none / 0) (#13)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 09:03:00 AM EST
    Post election.

    I don't see (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    how that applies to anything. That was about Trump accepting that he lost and not using it to cause riots all across the country. Are you afraid that the GOP committed large scale election fraud all across the country and especially in these states? You sure are acting like it.

    Lol, No (none / 0) (#15)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    Apparently, the litmus test for the losing candidate to accept the results of the election only holds true for 1 candidate.

    But that was to be expected


    So you think that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    they are going to find enough fraud to overturn the election? That's pretty much what you are saying. First of all this is being driven by the election integrity project not Clinton. Secondly there were problems with inflating votes in Wisconsin. Thirdly are you okay with Trump being president even if he got there fraudulently? I don't seem to remember the GOP complainging when the election integrity people checked out Ohio in 2004. There was some fraud found and two people went to jail for it but nothing changed in the election.

    I would think if you find out the other side is cheating that should make agreements null and void right? However this is definitely exposing you as a Trump apologist who thinks that a mentally unstable crackpot should never be challenged. And I don't see most of those same Republicans upset about the election integrity project. Do you have a problem with election integrity?


    Lol, Once again (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 01:30:00 PM EST

    Just exposing hypocrisy


    Election integrity (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    is "hypocrisy? Thanks for admitting that the GOP sees no problem with cheating. But we already knew that. The facts are not on your side but then part of embracing totalitarianism is denying facts.

    Please stop (none / 0) (#19)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    You are killing me, lol.

    You really aren't serious , are you?

    If so, that is scary.


    You're the one that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    is scary. You're the one being an apologist for a mentally unstable president elect. Are you a member of Nazi Jews or something?

    brava, Ga6th (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    a new low, even for you, in unhinged toxic personal attacks: insinuating, in the space of a single sentence, that Trevor is both a Jew & a Nazi

    not that there's anything wrong with being a Jew, of course, except in certain quarters where <cough> "anti-Zionists" hang out - it's only fair to wonder whether you're one of those

    in any case, i'm starting to wonder whether you actually might be a bot - you smear people as racists, Nazis, fascists, &c, you're called on it, Jeralyn even tells you to stop, & yet you just keep it up

    someone should do something about your corrupted software & corroded terminals


    Well said The Addams Family (none / 0) (#23)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 05:28:45 PM EST
    Those kind of continuous and obnoxious posts are beyond acceptable on any site, let alone one that IMHO is worth reading, even if some of us are on different sides of the aisle.

    No (none / 0) (#24)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 06:39:57 PM EST
    Although my fathers family did come over from Germany, but that was prior to WW1.

    And I did have my own yarmulke, I grew up in Far Rockaway and went to several bar mitzvah's, and also was invited to celebrate Purim by my Jewish friends at their temple, (they handed out candy apples and other goodies), I still remember the rabbi looking out over the much larger than usual crows, and looking down at Brian Kane, his face the map of Ireland, and myself, and stating that there seems to be a much larger congregation than usual, lol.


    I was just joking. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 07:01:57 PM EST
    However for someone who claims all of this you don't seem the least bit concerned about this and continually make excuses for Trump.

    No, not too concerned (none / 0) (#26)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    250 a$$holes together, covered by 50 reporters, just makes me laugh.

    The Donald has nothing to do with them, despite all attempts by the disgraced media to do so.

    Repeat after me,
    The Donalds daughter, son in law,  and grandchildren are Jewish.

    He has, and wants nothing to do with them.


    "Exposing hypocrisy"? - heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 09:50:41 PM EST
    If that's what you're trying to do, you'll need to try harder.

    "Apparently", ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 09:57:36 PM EST
    ... only one of the candidates made (and continues to make) tinfoil claims about the election being "rigged" and baseless claims of voter fraud.  Only one candidate said the only way they could lose was if there was voter fraud.  Only one candidate suggested his supporters would riot if he didn't get the nomination.

    "Apparently", your imaginary "litmus test" and claims of hypocrisy are false.

    But that was to be expected.


    Hillary has done that (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 28, 2016 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    Recounts are part of the system.  Nothing wrong with that.

    "Republicans" - heh (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 09:46:33 PM EST
    No.  A few Republicans, most of whom were anti-Trumpers.  They do not represent "Republicans".