I am recalling the media recount after the 2000 election.

[Jeebo]

If I've got this wrong, it's because I am relying on memories from 20 years later. But as I recall, the media people who were recounting the Florida votes were not allowed to touch the ballots themselves. They had to pay the salaries of the Florida state employees who were the only people who were allowed to touch those ballots or to be in physical possession of them. The media people were only allowed to observe while the Florida state employees handled the ballots and counted the votes.

What's going on in Arizona now is very different. A third party is in physical possession of those ballots, and that third party is not objective or impartial, and that process is not transparent.

As I recall, the Florida media recount produced an interesting result: It showed that Al Gore did indeed win Florida, although it was VERY close. They counted the votes according to several different scenarios, and one of those scenarios showed Gore winning the state by only 41 votes. As I said, it was VERY close, well within the margin of statistical insignificance, but I think it nevertheless was statistically significant in that Gore won in ALL of those scenarios. And the way they did it, nobody could claim that there was anything shady or suspicious about the result.

What if this Arizona recount shows that the orange con man "won" Arizona? Is there any possibility that it could actually reverse the outcome of the election, months after the certification of the vote and Biden's inauguration? I don't think so, but if it produces that suspicious "result", it will stink to high heaven.

-- Ron

[unblock]

1. My recollection is only slightly different

Iirc, gore got more votes in nearly all, but not 100% of the scenarios. He won if votes were counted consistently across all counties, but there were some scenarios where shrub won if certain problems were treated one way in some counties but differently in other counties.

[ShazamIam]

2. Cyber Ninjas didn't produce the documentation the Judge ordered, and insted entered

a motion to keep their process and methods secret. /chuckycheekySOBs

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. It's another grift

It's keeping the MAGATs angry for the next election. It's raising money for Republicans. It's trying to stay in Trump's good graces.

IT ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THE ELECTION AT ALL!!!!

Why does this paranoid bullshit keep getting asked????

[questionseverything]

5. It's a good question

Were is the chain of custody of the ballots?

[questionseverything]

4. Gore won in every case...I thought it wasn't close

275,000 overvotes were not counted and 2/3 were for gore

[regnaD kciN]

6. It can't "change the result"...

In fact, even if an independent, thoroughly non-partisan audit was done of ALL the swing states Biden won, and it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump won ALL of them, that still wouldn’t change the outcome. Once the electors have been certified and voted, and the result of those votes have been certified by Congress, it’s over — just as Bush would have remained President even if Gore were “proven” to have won Florida. Once the process is done, it’s done

What the Trumpers are hoping for is simply to be able to claim, on whatever tenuous grounds, that “See? Trump really DID win Arizona.” Which, by extension, will mean they can claim he won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and probably Nevada too. Which will mean he was telling the truth when he said the election was “stolen”…and that, therefore, Biden is an “illegitimate” president who only won by corrupt means. Overall, that would just mean that most Republicans can use the same rhetoric we used against Dubya and Donnie himself...but it also gives grounds for the more-militant of the MAGAts to believe that it is their “duty” to overthrow the “Democrat Occupation Government” by any means necessary. In other words, a blank check for white supremacist terrorism.