Trump forces file Bush v Gore complaint to stop Wisconsin recount
Filed late Friday December 1 in federal court, Great America PAC and the Stop Hillary PAC have sued the Wisconsin Election Commission under Bush v. Gore, claiming that the varying standards used to count votes (machine counts and hand counts) violate the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution. https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/332954119/Wisconsin-recount-complaint
Note that this is Republicans suing Republicans to stop the recount. And that it is the Republican Wisconsin Election Commission that allowed counties to choose machines or hand count against the request of both Stein and Clinton, thus setting up this challenge.
The complaint also falsely claims there is a federal mandate to finish up the recount by the safe harbor date under 3 USC 5 of December 13. However, because electors can be subject to challenge if certified after this date, it is the excuse to ask for injunctive relief, by saying Trump will be irreparably damaged in his victory if this date passes by without certification of electors.
Let us please not have any comments like "I thought Bush v. GORE wasn't a precedent?" If that were in fact true, it makes the situation worse because courts can reach an opposite decision, or the same decision, on identical facts. Not being a precedent does not mean "can't happen again."
For those who have felt reassured that they "have paper ballots" (Which are then scanned by machines) please watch how recounts actually go, how they are actually fought vigorously, saddled with onerous requirements like those in PA, and stuck with many millions of dollars in fees while other folks complain about the fundraising- You can expect repeats of all of this more or less with every presidential recount. YOUR PAPER BALLOT ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING MUCH BECAUSE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER YOU CAN'T GET TO IT except with extreme difficulty and probably not on time in the opinion of Republican friendly courts.
The only way to have a fair election is to get it right on election night. And you can never KNOW it's right with machines. You can only be a believer. The reason the system demands public confidence even in advance (!) of both a result and the reports of irregularities or not, is that any lack of confidence rips the veil off elections, and you realize you've been had, your paper ballot was false security.
And although one can in advance say the chances are against any given recount because the election law is itself filled with traps and a form of rigged game, anyone who opines that the recount won't be successful because of margin size doesn't know what they are talking about because errors with machines need not and often aren't tiny errors they can be large. Whereas with hand counts, if they are recounted the errors are typically rather small and margins of more than a fraction of a percent are difficult to overcome.
Bottom line: the machines declare who will be President, and literally nobody knows what those ballots really say, and many people including election officials fight like hell to keep anyone from ever finding out.
Still reassured you got paper ballots? You shouldn't be.
Solution: The ONLY way to guarantee our rights - especially when we need voting rights the most, which is to remove a crooked government and to "kick the bums out" is to use precinct hand counted paper ballots, making sure there are both enough people and enough random observers by using the jury summoning system. (Which is way better than doing a 10 day jury trial for most people). Instead, the alleged rush to get election night results justifies machines, then the rush to certify justifies cancelling recounts.
So, please enjoy this corrupt, collusive litigation of Republican PACS suing a Republican state administration to stop a citizen/Green/Democratic Party statewide recount because the Republican administration set it up in a way Republicans don't like!
= new reply since forum marked as read
And they make them all the more untrustworthy the more they insist, "Just trust us and our machines."
Exit polls take a lot of heat, but here we have apples and apples, both unadjusted exit polling and the same Senate races two terms later. How can they explain the doubling of red shift?
We have data for 29 states. The nine states without contested Senate seats have 2.4% red shift
Same thing happened to a lesser degree in 2004 (1.9% national mean for 50 states), more red shift in races with contested Senate seats.
Roy Blunt was trailing in MO. Johnson was trailing in WI.
you are just the sort of du'er they were hoping to shut out by hacking this site.
to election rigging.
"Must. Be. Stopped. Permanently." - GOP
