On today’s BradCast: The newly insane cost for a “recount” in Wisconsin and the even more jaw-droppingly insane voting system and “recount” laws in Pennsylvania. [Audio link to today’s show is posted below.]
Barriers against citizen oversight of 2016 Presidential election results continue, even as the campaign of the Green Party’s Jill Stein works with tens of thousands of citizens to try and overcome them in three different states where she is seeking “recounts”. (For the record, if you’re wondering, The BRAD BLOG generally uses quotes around the word “recount” to denote post-election hand-counts of ballots which have never actually been counted by human beings, but rather, only tabulated by computers during the official tally. It’s impossible to know whether those computers actually tallied votes accurately unless paper ballots are examined by hand.)
The WI Election Commission informed the Stein campaign (and independent candidate Rocky De La Fuente, who has also filed for a “recount” there) yesterday that she will have to pay $3.5 million to even begin counting paper ballots in the state. I’ve confirmed with her campaign that she intends to do so, even after state election officials had originally estimated the fees to be $1 million for a statewide recount. That, even as state law has recently changed to allow counties to use computers to “recount” ballots, rather than public hand-counts. As we’ve long reported, similar barriers are often erected to block citizen oversight of elections, begging the question again: What good are hand-marked paper ballots if nobody is actually allowed to count them?
But the situation is far worse in Pennsylvania, where voters in most of the state are forced to vote on 100% unverifiable touch-screen systems and the state’s arcane “recount” statutes require tens of thousands of voters to file affidavits (3 in each precinct) asking for such counts.
Longtime election integrity champion and VotePA.us founder Marybeth Kuznik joins us with details on what is now going on in the Keystone state towards that end, and to help explain the insanity of the state’s unverifiable voting systems and the near-incomprehensibility of its “recount” laws.
“Pennsylvania election law is so convoluted,” she tells me, while explaining the requirements for three voters in each of the state’s 9,163 precincts (that’s 27,489 voters!) to file a complaint in order to have a statewide voter-initiated count. She also explains the second route towards such a count, which requires 100 voters to file in the Commonwealth Court.
In either case, since much of the state uses unverifiable touch-screens, there is often nothing at all to count, even if a count is allowed! “They’ll print out the Election Night tapes. They’ll bring out some sort of a printout from the central tabulator. Usually they just bring out results. They look at the precinct tape, they look at the precinct printout, they go ‘Hmm, that looks the same to me!’, and everything’s good. That’s the recount!,” Kuznik explains. “The thing is, of course it’s going to be ‘good’. The same software that counted on Election Night and printed out that tape is what’s counting and printing out this result paper that they compare. It’s nuts. It’s just crazy.”
As you’ll hear, it’s even worse than I’ve described it here. But, that’s how it still works (or doesn’t) in PA, after all of these years, and even in light of a forensic analysis by computer scientists of just one PA county voting system in 2011, after vote-flips were reported and candidates received zero votes in several elections in heavily-Republican Venango County. (See our exclusive special report and documents here.) That landmark study found, among other disturbing things, as we reported at the time: “unexplained, out-of-sequence activity log entries in the computer tabulation system, indications that the system was mounted several times with a ‘USB flash drive’ device, and, perhaps most troubling, evidence that the system was repeatedly accessed by an unidentified remote computer, for lengthy periods of time, on ‘multiple occasions.'”
Those same systems — and even worse ones — are still used today across the state in 2016, as the fate of the world relies on them. Yes, as we’ve been warning you for more than a decade: “It’s just crazy.”
CLICK TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD SHOW!…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/BradCast_BradFriedman_MarybethKuznikPARecount_WIRecountCost_112916.mp3]
(Snail mail support to “Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028” always welcome too!)
|
My lord!
Who would buy a monstrosity like that to vote on. Do those things run on vacuum tubes!
Just read that s judge ruled against the hand count in Wisconsin.
Pennsylvania also sounding like a clusterfuck.
That leaves Michigan. Can’t wait to see what unpleasantness awaits us there.
Sometimes I just want to say–fuck us. We’re just too goddamn stupid.
Maybe I’ll feel better in the morning.
Busted link above at: (See our exclusive special report and documents here.)
Robert @3:
Busted link now fixed. Thank you!
I think Jill could legally challenge the Pennsylvania vote count by simply having Democrats in the state say their votes were not counted, and it is up to the state to prove they did not win the majority – of this screen vote lacking records. Then force the state into court saying that Democrats won the recount, lacking proof from the state to show otherwise, or call for the state vote to be made null and void, eliminating the Penn state vote.
=====
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XII, ratified by the states in 1791:
“The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”