Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Now what? Legislators planning changes to Wisconsinís recount law
Wisconsin Watchdog ^ | 12-13-16 | M. D. Kittle

Posted on 12/13/2016 4:50:37 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic

Ten days after it began amid accusations of computer hacking and voter fraud, Wisconsin’s unprecedented presidential recall is over.

Donald Trump, by 131 more votes than he originally claimed in last month’s general election. The certified recount confirms that Trump is the first Republican presidential nominee to win Wisconsin since 1984.

The loser, her critics say, was definitely Jill Stein, the Green Party also-ran who dragged the Badger State into her computer hacking conspiracy theory.

Stein, who finished fourth in the election with 31,006 votes, paid an estimated $3.5 million for the statewide recount – a costly and arduous process that could have cost Wisconsin its 10 electoral votes.

“As predicted, this recount was a colossal waste of time and resources that could have been better expended on any of numerous charitable causes,” said state Rep. Dave Craig, R-Town of Vernon. “It is unfortunate that our statutes allowed liberals to hi-jack this process and disrupt the lives of the hundreds of Wisconsinites who had to conduct this recount.”

Craig, who early on said he would be scrutinizing the recount to ensure no taxpayer money was spent on the effort, tells Wisconsin Watchdog that several legislators are meeting to discuss potential changes to Wisconsin’s election law. In Wisconsin, anyone on the ballot can request a recount, but if the margin of victory is more than 0.25 percent, the cost must be borne by the petitioner.

Craig said the idea is to make sure that recounts are not frivolous practices and under a timeline that would never place Wisconsin’s electoral votes in jeopardy. County clerks were under the gun to count some 2.976 million ballots before Tuesday, the deadline for states to submit their vote counts to ensure their presidential candidate preference is represented when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Chairman Mark Thomsen, a Democrat, said the recount reaffirms the integrity of Wisconsin’s election system.

“Completing this recount was a challenge, but the real winners are the voters,” Thomsen said in a statement. “Based on the recount, they can have confidence that Wisconsin’s election results accurately reflect the will of the people, regardless of whether they are counted by hand or by machine.”

When the vote was certified Monday, Trump had won 22,748 more votes than his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. Wisconsin put an exclamation point on Stein’s quixotic quest. She had sought recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan but courts in those states stopped her campaigns.

Stein continued to blame the system – and Trump.

“Trump and his GOP allies failed to obstruct #RecountWI—but the state already infringes on voters’ rights,” the Green Party candidate tweeted Monday. She sees herself as a defender of democracy.

“#Recount2016 attempted to validate the vote and restore confidence in our voting system to worried Americans,” she tweeted.

In the end, Stein raised millions of dollars, grabbed the national spotlight for two weeks, and, election experts said, showed that Wisconsin’s elections systems is quite healthy – give or take some 800 ballots that escaped the scrutiny of the count due to voter error. Craig questioned why more liberals did not speak out against the recount campaign.

“It is truly shameful that liberals in Wisconsin did not condemn this recount in united voice from day one in hopes of stopping this exercise in futility before it started,” the Republican lawmaker said.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: jillstein; legislature; recount

1 posted on 12/13/2016 4:50:37 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I would suggest that if it a tight race, for any position (President, governor, etc), and one-percent difference in the votes...then the state ought to pay for it. A third-party or fourth-party that is 300,000 votes should be entirely on them, and they should post a bond as they register for the election to cover this entirely.

2 posted on 12/13/2016 4:54:05 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

It never ends.


Violent demonstrations

Hysteria and call for safe places

Papers run stories of how immigrant families will be broken up

Muslims claim oppressive regime out to get them

Hopeless recounts

Call for electors to cross over

Russia made us do it

Call for electors to be briefed on Russia’s roll in “swinging the election to Trump.

What’s next? Trump the child molester, head of the communist party, just doing a project for celebrity apprentice. Only Podesta and Hillary know for sure.

3 posted on 12/13/2016 4:55:19 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

We should not allow Russia to get away with this.

4 posted on 12/13/2016 5:02:49 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true, I have no proof, but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

“A third-party or fourth-party that is 300,000 votes should be entirely on them, and they should post a bond as they register for the election to cover this entirely.”

No, they shouldn’t even have standing unless there is VERIFIED EVIDENCE of cheating on the scale needed to overturn the results. The ONLY PERSON that should have had standing was Hillary...and only maybe. Stein should have LAUGHED OUT OF MADISON, given her 1% just as you or I would have been.

It’s not a question of paying for a recount...the amount is trivial. The question is whether anyone, even a write-in with two votes, should be allowed to hold up certification of results FOR WEEKS...just for kicks.

5 posted on 12/13/2016 5:08:15 AM PST by BobL (In Honor of the NeverTrumpers, I declare myself as FR's first 'Imitation NeverTrumper')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The ultimate law, of course - and exactly where the US is heading - will be to legislate that if any Republican ever wins an election, anywhere at all, the office will be given to a democrat, anyway.

6 posted on 12/13/2016 5:13:39 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The brighter side of the Wisconsin recount is that Soros paid for it, and a couple of thousand Wisconsinites earned some extra Christmas money. Not that Wackenstein had any standing, but at least the taxpayers of Wisconsin didn’t foot the bill.

7 posted on 12/13/2016 5:17:10 AM PST by meyer (There is no political solution to this troubling evolution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer


8 posted on 12/13/2016 5:22:02 AM PST by gr8eman (Don't waste your energy trying to understand commies. Use it to defeat them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Except stein is also an old hag.

9 posted on 12/13/2016 5:28:01 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Good morning President Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I’ve read through the article 3 times. Admittedly, it’s a bit early for my eyes, but I don’t see anything in the article about proposed changes. Just a reiteration of the existing law. And, of course, the joy of winning again - by a slightly larger vote count. :-)

10 posted on 12/13/2016 5:39:35 AM PST by knittnmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I would suggest a Federal law that no candidate who garners less than 20% of the vote will have standing to request a recount or challenge the results in ANY court.

11 posted on 12/13/2016 5:44:47 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Stein was a stalking horse for Clinton

12 posted on 12/13/2016 6:42:14 AM PST by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
I would suggest a Federal law
You are already in the wrong. If you want to change the way any state appoints
Article II Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
its Electors, take it up with that state’s legislature. Or try to amend the Constitution to get the effect you desire (while beating back an effort to switch the election of the POTUS to a popular vote).

Good luck. You’ll need an awful lot of it.

13 posted on 12/13/2016 7:13:56 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson