Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Land Shark

(6,348 posts)
Sun Dec 4, 2016, 01:42 PM Dec 2016

Trump forces file Bush v Gore complaint to stop Wisconsin recount [View all]

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!




30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
K&R... spanone Dec 2016 #1
While I don't expect the recounts to change anything.... LisaM Dec 2016 #2
The corruption of democracy continues apace. How can we trust elections after this one? Coyotl Dec 2016 #3
Good question Coyotl Land Shark Dec 2016 #5
This graph should not be ignored. Cracklin Charlie Dec 2016 #7
Great way to visualize some of the evidence. Land Shark Dec 2016 #13
And the states w/o Senate races have half the 2016 red shift! Coyotl Dec 2016 #14
Very pursuasive, we need beyond reasonable doubt, which may or may not be prohibited from discovery. lonestarnot Dec 2016 #18
Election officials can't prove a legal election occurred at any level of proof Land Shark Dec 2016 #30
Figures...the lying scumbags run to Bush v Gore for cover. roamer65 Dec 2016 #4
Yeah they want to keep options open to rule the opposite if shoe on other foot. Nt Land Shark Dec 2016 #9
so nice to see you posting landshark. mopinko Dec 2016 #6
Thanks mopinko! Nt Land Shark Dec 2016 #8
Really? Bush V. Gore was not supposed to set a precedent (SCOTUS own statement) McCamy Taylor Dec 2016 #10
Please read the OP, not being a precedent only makes it worse Land Shark Dec 2016 #15
Bad Memories colsohlibgal Dec 2016 #11
K&R bdamomma Dec 2016 #12
Recounts are a threat moondust Dec 2016 #16
Yammering Yam doesn't want to be put on display for his cheat. lonestarnot Dec 2016 #17
The GOP is hiding something. Tricks they've been using for the past 15 years. C Moon Dec 2016 #19
Bush v Gore itself states it does not set a precedent, and is limited to that case. LS_Editor Dec 2016 #20
Not being precedent (if true) only means that same case could be decided either way next time Land Shark Dec 2016 #24
There is another alternative. Automatic partial recounts of a random sample pnwmom Dec 2016 #21
question. barbtries Dec 2016 #22
See #24. It hardly matters what they said if cases are factually quite similar. Land Shark Dec 2016 #25
well it's moot this election barbtries Dec 2016 #28
Land Shark! I remember your great posts from the dark days of the 2004 theft MadLinguist Dec 2016 #23
Thanks much, well, we see each other when there is common cause. :) Land Shark Dec 2016 #26
K&R red dog 1 Dec 2016 #27
Larry Tribe has, however, since said no jurisdiction for Bush v Gore ( political question doctrine) Land Shark Dec 2016 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump forces file Bush v ...