I would hope that the hand count would include the WI Senate race.

Anyone have the contact information for MoveOn to become involved? They can certainly activate a very strong and fast response.

This is good, sane news.

YES!

They're going to need 6 million dollars to count the ballots.

Calling George Soros!

Stein has already raised over the amount she needs to file for the Wisconsin recount on Friday!

They still need more money to make this happen.

DONATE, DONATE, DONATE!

I did!

Trump will not sit idly by while his shot at the whitehouse is further threatened. If I recall, George w bush fought it in Florida claiming a recount would cause irreparable political harm to him and his career. Yeah it would have. He would have lost. Trump legal team is watching this. A recount for Jill would also expose the results for Hillary in the name of transparency. I love the show....

Be careful on your way to work today. They got us working on Thanksgiving, and the republicans are going to be texting and driving like crazy!

So you people would rather have corrupt Hillary who rigged and stole the Democratic primary from Bernie Sanders and accepted numeous bribes from foreign countries and "made " 2 billion while in public service !!!.

"Accepting the Elections results" does not mean that a Presidential Candidate doesn't have a LEGAL RIGHT to challenge the results!... and, based on the number of computer scientists (and the wack of lawyers!) that met with Hillary Clinton's Campaign Team members last Thursday, there's a clear cause for concern! And as for the suggestion offered up by sundry that Hillary Clinton supporters have been "harassing the Electors"!... well... and again!... there's a LEGAL RIGHT to convince Electors in a given state to concede to a National Popular Vote!
.
Indeed!... the electorate have as much of a Right to claim Ballot Results Irregularity-- at least!-- as any Candidate has! In fact, as Candidates-- in a "democracy"!-- exist to represent the "will" of the people, it's my view, that the Right of the people to "Elections transparency", "trumps" that, OF ANY CANDIDATE! And so... regardless of any set timetable for Candidates to invoke some action on suspected problems with Elections transparency (and re this present Election process, by Friday, November 25, 2016!... or, thereabouts!), both Constitutional and Tort legal action, are within the Rights of the average American voter to pursue! And!... I should point out, action, on a NUMBER of valid legal grounds!... e.g., the Right to a Paper Ballot (regardless of the state in which one has voted!), and the Right to a "None of the Above Ballot option"! But!... on the matter of the "Elector Lobby Petitions" currently underway, my concerns are as follows...
.
____________________
.
.
LITIGATIONALLY VS PETITIONALLY REMOVING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

[Ed Note: Rest of this post can be found here. John, please do not copy/paste from elsewhere into comment here, as per our few rules for posting. - BF]

Christie Mayo blurted @9:

So you people would rather have corrupt Hillary who rigged and stole the Democratic primary from Bernie Sanders and accepted numeous bribes from foreign countries and "made " 2 billion while in public service !!!

Setting aside your evidence-free (and/or completely inaccurate) assertions, your point is silly on its face. I'd think you would join the other Americans here in wanting to make sure the person who received the most legal, verifiable votes is actually the one declared the winner of each state. That, no matter how much you may like or not like that candidate.

The effort by Jill Stein is to make sure that is the case, at least in the three states she has identified as those most needing to have their ballots actually counted by human beings. Not sure why you would be against that. But, based on your comment above, you don't seem to need much actually independently verifiable information to support your beliefs in general anyway.

P.S. to the P.S.: FORCIBLY LINKING a Comment Logger's Copied and Pasted Clog in response to a site's Blog, to yet another website that may contain a copy of the Clogger's material, is as R-E-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-B-L-E as F-A-I-L-I-N-G T-O A-L-L-O-W A L-I-N-K, when invoked by a Clogger!!
.
In "Comment 10", I-'-V-E M-A-D-E N-O L-I-N-K T-O T-H-E "F-O-R-C-E-C-H-A-N-G-E" W-E-B-S-I-T-E!... and, regardless of the fact that my Clog here has been posted at this other site (and yea, at numerous sites!), D-O-E-S N-O-T G-R-A-N-T T-H-I-S S-I-T-E (T-H-R-O-U-G-H H-I-D-D-E-N A-L-G-O-R-I-T-H-M-I-C E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N-S!) T-O-- F-O-R-C-I-B-L-Y!-- A-S-S-O-C-I-A-T-E M-Y C-L-O-G H-E-R-E, W-I-T-H A-N-Y O-T-H-E-R S-I-T-E T-H-A-T M-A-Y C-O-N-T-A-I-N T-H-E S-A-M-E M-A-T-E-R-I-A-L!... A-N-D U-N-L-E-S-S, A-N-D U-N-T-I-L, "I", H-A-V-E M-A-D-E/ G-R-A-N-T-E-D S-U-C-H A-N A-S-S-O-C-I-A-T-I-O-N!!
.
THIS SITE... NOR ANY ICT NETWORK GATEKEEPER!... DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS AUTHORITY TO TAG MY CLOG (NOR ANYONE ELSE'S!) TO ANY OTHER ALGORITHMIC SCRIPT!! If "I" decide to invoke a LINK, then that's the ONLY TIME a LINK should be implemented (barring... and of course!... LINKS TO H*LL!)!! And so... and in addition to the U-T-T-E-R N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E re Copying and Pasting!... the denial of one's Digital Human Right to FREELY ASSOCIATE with whomever one desires on the Net, is a matter, N-O-T U-P F-O-R D-E-B-A-T-E!! And whether this website acknowledges this F-A-C-T, I-S I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T!!
.
Please!... no emails!

The planned activities in New York on December 3, 2016, cited at, http://meetup.blackmatte...n-one-vote-march/... are-- I believe!-- VITAL to this current discussion!
.
please!... no emails!

If you thought the allegations against Trump of Sexual Assaults weren't shocking enough for you, you might want to have a look at the reporting in URLs, http://www.huffingtonpos...a_b_10619944.html... and... http://www.deathandtaxes...ild-rape-lawsuit/... and... https://www.theguardian....eged-rape-lawsuit... and... http://www.inquisitr.com...ical-aspirations/... and... http://www.independent.c...ida-a7360636.html... and... http://www.businessinsid...show/54815600.cms... and-- if confirmed!-- we could very well see the first ever arrest of a WANNA-BE "President elect", for C-H-I-L-D A-B-U-S-E!!
.
Furthermore, we may very well find that the T-R-U-E R-E-A-S-O-N this character became involved in this race at this time, was to H-I-D-E from these allegations of C-H-I-L-D R-A-P-E within the "smoke screen" of a Federal Presidential Election!... and!... I-N T-H-E G-U-I-S-E O-F S-E-R-V-I-N-G H-I-S C-O-U-N-T-R-Y! And... honestly!... I wouldn't put it past this "huxster" and "hustler" to have P-L-A-Y-E-D the RNC, America, and his alleged RAPE VICTIM (and her family!), in order to escape the "cuffs of justice"!!
.
Given the FBI's James Comey's declaration that there was, and is nothing further to be pursued re Hillary Clinton's emails (and... most notably!... involving charges!) the offerings at URL, http://yournewswire.com/...inton-child-sex-scandal/, would appear to be the ravings of a S-O-C-I-O-P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H, and deserving of I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E R-E-D-R-E-S-S by the FBI!... and!... in light of the clear violation of the following...
.
FEDERAL STALKING STATUTE (18 U.S.C. §2261A)

[ED NOTE: Once again, John Mayor, I have truncated this comment that you have posted in many many places. It can be found here. I have issued another warning/request for you to knock it off below. Please respect that, or you will quickly lose your commenting privileges at BRAD BLOG entirely. Thank you again. - BF]

... JOHN MAYOR said (I think...)

R-E-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-B-L-E

John, the all-caps shtick is unnecessarily childish and severely hampers anyone trying to make sense of your comments.

It makes your comments resemble the ravings of a Usenet loon of olden days... regardless of whatever the actual content may be.

Something very strange is going on!!!

Jill Stein has stated unequivocally that she prefers Trump to Clinton because she believes Clinton is very likely to start a nuclear war by attempting to set up a no-fly zone in Syria. She says so quite explicitly in the video below:

Jill Stein Endorses Donald Trump
Published on Oct 14, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqvhafoUBY

Is Stein or her family being threated or blackmailed? Or what?

(I have never trusted the Green Party because it has always promoted the ranked choice voting method, which has proven to actually be worse that the single-bid method we have now. It is also supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Mellon Foundation, etc. I have long campaigned for the _simple score voting_ (Google it) method , which really would easily thwart the spoiler effect that enforces the two-party regime.)

As usual, both candidates of the two-party are, well, deplorable. But avoiding nuclear war certainly "trumps" everything else.

I have been saying that voting machines cannot possibly be trusted --- for one thing --- if they make vote-counting 10 times easier, they make vote-rigging 10 times easier also. Which of those "easiers" can we truly afford? Only hand counted paper ballots are reasonably transparent.

Another oddity: If we want to recount in MI, WI, and PA, where Trump narrowly won, why don't we recount MN, CO, NV, NH, ME, and VA, where Clinton narrowly won?

Jill Stein does not endorse Trump in that clip. She's speaking only in respect to the prospect of war with Russia that Hillary scares her more than Trump.

I did not state that she endorsed him --- that was simply the title of the video, which I always give above the links, which sometimes change.

I don't really trust any of the candidates very much. If we had _simple score voting_ there would be many more candidates available, possibly some I could really trust.

... blues said...

"... why don't we recount MN, CO, NV, NH, ME, and VA, where Clinton narrowly won?"

It seems that WI, MI and PA show the most obvious signs of weirdness.

ALL states should recounted on general principle... but private/party budgets do not permit this.

It would be nice for Trump and/or the GOP to ask for and pay for a recount in those states you mention, but that's not going to happen... and for a very good reason.

Recounts tend to undo a few of the GOP's favored voter suppression tactics to a small degree... and thus recount votes tend to trend slightly towards democratic candidates.

"It seems that WI, MI and PA show the most obvious signs of weirdness." --- stated above

In fact, no one at all is saying those states are showing obvious signs of weirdness, not even Stein's crew (despite various rumors).

And Jill Stein has reportedly, within about one day, somehow raised more money for her three pro-Clinton recounts than she did for her entire candidacy. This is certainly very strange!

We need to abolish machine voting, and also abolish recounts altogether, since they are very likely to be less accurate than the original "counts" due to insurmountable "chain-of-custody" issues. Instead we need fresh new elections when there are doubts.

The only real solution is the abolition of the two-party regime.

John Mayor said @12:

THIS SITE... NOR ANY ICT NETWORK GATEKEEPER!... DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS AUTHORITY TO TAG MY CLOG (NOR ANYONE ELSE'S!) TO ANY OTHER ALGORITHMIC SCRIPT!

Actually, I have the right to allow or disallow any comments here that I like. This is private property and I work VERY hard to keep the Comments section as open as possible. But we do have a very few rules for commenting at The BRAD BLOG that are posted at the top of the Comments box, and that I ask you to respect. Among them, is not copying and pasting long text from elsewhere.

You have done so again in your comment (I guess that's what you mean by "clog"?!) above, and I am once again truncating that and adding a link to the same posting elsewhere.

Refusing to follow the rules generally earns you a polite warning or two --- like this one, and the other I offered earlier. But if you continue to ignore the rules and the friendly warning, your comments will not appear here at all.

So, consider this your second and hopefully last strike, in that regard. Thank you, John.

... blues said..

zapkitty said;
"It seems that WI, MI and PA show the most obvious signs of weirdness."

In fact, no one at all is saying those states are showing obvious signs of weirdness, not even Stein's crew (despite various rumors).

That is incorrect. From the Recount FAQ at http://www.jill2016.com/recountfaq

Q: Why isn't the campaign doing a recount in any other state besides Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?

A: Election integrity experts have independently identified Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states where "statistical anomalies" raised concerns. We would do recounts in other states, but many filing deadlines have already passed. Recounts in states where deadlines have not passed would be considered if funds are available.

blues said..

And Jill Stein has reportedly, within about one day, somehow raised more money for her three pro-Clinton recounts than she did for her entire candidacy. This is certainly very strange!

No, it's not strange at all.

Here's some math:

Just using the current Clinton popular vote count as of this comment: 64,654,445

Let's say that only 1% of those voters are interested enough to contribute to the recount effort:

64,654,445 ⋅ .01 = 646544.45

the .45 is probably a reluctant Bernie voter

And now let's divide the $6,000,000 that seems to be causing you such consternation by 1% of Hillary voters:

6000000/646544.45 = 9.2801044

... that's less than $10 apiece for each of our concerned Hillary voters.

So the scope of the recount funding numbers are not surprising at all... and they'll go higher.

Of course the netwide flood of anti-recount fake news, misinformation, selectively edited quotes and general FUD from... someones... somewheres... will cut into the final total a bit...

... but the FUD flood is proving to be woefully insufficient to stop the recounts.

I have been a mostly self-edifier and amateur theorist in (very abstract) logic and math for more years than I wish to state. I also have a reasonable understanding of computer security. Toward the end of 2004 I began blogging at "repentantnadervoter.com" even though I had voted for Gore (very likely a waste of energy). There, I began a campaign against so-called "IRV" and began studying (something like) simple score voting. And with equal intensity, I was against all types of election machines. For a while I expressed my positions at places like blackboxvoting.org, indymedia, velvetrevolution.us, etc. Often, I also protest against the machines and single-bid voting at voting stations (almost getting busted sometimes).

I am presently very worried about our (potential) future, since Hillary Clinton has continuously stated she wants to set up a no-fly zone over Syria which would obviously provoke an all-out nuclear exchange with Russia and China. And as pointed out above, Jill Stein has stated she agrees with this assessment. And now Stein wants to conduct "recounts" that could theoretically put Hillary in the White House? And supposedly "leftist" people agree with this? Well I would prefer to not glow in the dark, thank you. Plus Clinton has established herself as a world-class bloodthirsty fiend, enemy of working people, and all-around monster. Not that Trump is desirable, what with opinions that are 100% random, and often deeply disturbing.

Here are some complaints about some of my claims (made by zapkitty), with some responses:

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... blues said..

zapkitty said;
"It seems that WI, MI and PA show the most obvious signs of weirdness."

In fact, no one at all is saying those states are showing obvious signs of weirdness, not even Stein's crew (despite various rumors).

That is incorrect. From the Recount FAQ at http://www.jill2016.com/recountfaq

Q: Why isn't the campaign doing a recount in any other state besides Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?

A: Election integrity experts have independently identified Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states where "statistical anomalies" raised concerns. We would do recounts in other states, but many filing deadlines have already passed. Recounts in states where deadlines have not passed would be considered if funds are available.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(I did not mention zapkitty by name.) Jill's collaborators, in their Q&A answer here, appeal to the (alleged) authority of people who are not what I would call "election integrity experts". They are largely political operatives from Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota (CEIMN):
http://www.ceimn.org/about_us

Yes they found some "statistical anomalies"; however statistics completely devoid of anomalies are usually the most anomalous of all. IIRC, "real experts" (if they even exist) are generally not very enthusiastic about what they found. So I would say that whatever they found does not amount to weirdness, which is a subjective assessment in any case.

Here is what Bruce Schneier, arguably the most famous computer security "expert" (even though he hasn't, IIRC, renounced the use of election machines) has said:

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.schneier.com.../11/hacking_and_the.html

Was the 2016 presidential election hacked? It's hard to tell. There were no obvious hacks on Election Day, but new reports have raised the question of whether voting machines were tampered with in three states that Donald Trump won this month: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

[....]

Edited to Add: Green-party candidate Jill Stein is calling for a recount in the three states. I have no idea of a recount includes forensic analysis to ensure that the machines were not hacked, but I doubt it. It would be funny if it wasn't all so horrible.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A comment on Schneier's article:

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
keiner • November 25, 2016 10:36 AM

uuhhmm, how to recount fake/nonfake electronic votes and distinguish one from the other?
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You cannot, of course. Another comment there:

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deriuqer Eman • November 25, 2016 10:54 AM

"Anybody not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy" -Hillary Clinton

"when you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy." -Barack Obama
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes they did say that. Some more complaints about my claims:

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
blues said..

And Jill Stein has reportedly, within about one day, somehow raised more money for her three pro-Clinton recounts than she did for her entire candidacy. This is certainly very strange!

No, it's not strange at all.

Here's some math:

Just using the current Clinton popular vote count as of this comment: 64,654,445

Let's say that only 1% of those voters are interested enough to contribute to the recount effort:

64,654,445 ⋅ .01 = 646544.45

the .45 is probably a reluctant Bernie voter

And now let's divide the $6,000,000 that seems to be causing you such consternation by 1% of Hillary voters:

6000000/646544.45 = 9.2801044

... that's less than $10 apiece for each of our concerned Hillary voters.

So the scope of the recount funding numbers are not surprising at all... and they'll go higher.

Of course the netwide flood of anti-recount fake news, misinformation, selectively edited quotes and general FUD from... someones... somewheres... will cut into the final total a bit...

... but the FUD flood is proving to be woefully insufficient to stop the recounts.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would say that the "recounts", and their selective nature, is the real source of all the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).

The best guess I can come up with is that Jill Stein is using millions of Clinton related dollars to bolster her own public profile. (But she would never have to do that if we had (strategic hedge) _simple score voting_.)

Bruce Schneier is right about one thing: "It would be funny if it wasn't all so horrible".