H/T Renee H

The Stein-Clinton confederation to force recounts in three states is dying. Their have been threats of assassinating electors who refuse to change their votes to Clinton, and every sort of last-minute effort to force a recount.

Clinging to the last vestiges of life, the Stein-Clinton effort is fighting what appears to be a hopeless battle. Michigan certified their election results yesterday, and Jill Stein missed the recount deadline in Pennsylania.

The American Thinker has an interesting theory on the recount effort, that the purpose of the recount is not to overturn the results of the election, but to further illegitimize Trump’s victory, to leave the results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in limbo, pending a recount come electoral college time, so that those states will not be counted in the electoral college, leaving Trump at 260 electoral votes, ten less than the required 270, which would then force Congress to decide the winner of the election. In that case, almost certainly Trump would be declared the victor, but the damage would have been done. Instead of a landslide victory, Trump’s election would always be in question. Democrats would scream forever that Trump was appointed by a Republican majority in Congress. Would the Democrats do such an unethical, immoral thing? Of course not! (tongue in cheek)

Lending evidence to this theory is the fact that Wisconsin, thought to be the easiest of the three states to be granted a recount, has refused a hand recount at the precinct level. Stein has filed a legal case to force the issue, which could tie the case in court, leaving Wisconsins’ ten electoral votes in limbo come electoral college time. Likewise, a legal case to force a recount has been filed by Stein in Pennsylvania.

Were I a sitting judge hearing these cases, I would throw them out immediately, based upon the fact that there cannot be a difference great enough to effect the outcome of the election. Stein won 1% of the vote. What manner of ridiculous exercise must be imagined to change the results of the election? Therefor, the results stand, recount denied, case dismissed.

According to the American Thinker, the recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states.  No recount ever changes thousands of votes.  I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters.  If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it?  The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote  (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.


If a state never gets to name electors, the number needed to win goes down; a majority of those named is enough. Even with 260-232, Trump should win unless there wee lots of faithless electors. Now had the Democrats or Green Party also challenged Florida with 29 Electoral College votes, then it could have been 232-231 for Clinton.

However, Florida’s vote total is final and certified (and maybe Electors already picked).

The House and Senate get involved only when no candidate wins a majority of electors selected and voting, which can happen when 3 or more candidates win electoral votes, or there is a tie among 2 because some states did not submit or had faithless electors.

If someone has a majority of electoral votes submitted, the Senate and House open the tally and merely name the winner. Clearly this process is now subject to recount mischief in the future, now that Jill Stein and Clinton campaign have in essence argued any close state that Trump won should be challenged.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html#ixzz4ROpvZJPu