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

2016 Postmortem

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)

2. Wrong. Maybe

Reply to Coyotl (Original post)

Sat Nov 26, 2016, 01:16 PM

Nov 2016

The counters represent both candidates, so observers are not allowed to get too close. This is to prevent Tea Party style "observers" from disrupting the process. At least that's the way it works in my state.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When is a recount a sham? [View all] Coyotl Nov 2016 OP

When electronic voting machines have no back-up that can be examined. eom guillaumeb Nov 2016 #1

Excellent article SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #4

Which is the case in PA, I believe oberliner Nov 2016 #5

True, and in other states as well. eom guillaumeb Nov 2016 #9

You are correct Glassunion Nov 2016 #11

esp when these electronic machines are old, outdated and use very old software womanofthehills Nov 2016 #28

Possibly by design? eom guillaumeb Nov 2016 #30

Wrong. Maybe HassleCat Nov 2016 #2

Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #3

who said you need 50 people? 1 from each party and maybe an independent person would work. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #16

I was just going by what the OP said SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #18

We've already gone from voting was hacked to recount is a sham. What conspiracy will be next. Hoyt Nov 2016 #6

Yep SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #7

On election night, the chances of trump winning tavernier Nov 2016 #21

I guess you didn't see Nate Silver SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #22

What is your perspective on the article? bigmonkey Nov 2016 #12

The article is like a 1000 more just like it discussing what COULD happen. Fact is we lost. Hoyt Nov 2016 #15

I don't either and Jill Stein cannot be trusted. She's a fucking tool. Does she think it's the seaglass Nov 2016 #13

I guarantee you DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #24

blind faith in computers is the true conspiracy. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #17

Have you ever worked at a polling place? There are a number of procedures Hoyt Nov 2016 #23

A lot of people just don't want to admit... vi5 Nov 2016 #26

Sanders would've lost even worse, anti-semitism is at its height, and radius777 Nov 2016 #27

I didnt say anything about Sanders vi5 Nov 2016 #29

When you send a bus load of lackies to Florida randr Nov 2016 #8

I just hope Stein isn't trying to divert attention from the Russian voter manipulation issue mtnsnake Nov 2016 #10

This article is a set of cautionary tales, indicating that recounts can be gamed. bigmonkey Nov 2016 #14

BBV is bit of a black box itself. ucrdem Nov 2016 #20

that is true; the recounts should involve eyeballs on paper, not just re-running the same bogus TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #25

The strange case of Bev Harris. ucrdem Nov 2016 #19

When stupid fucks yammer on about how it will make not difference in the outcome before it even lonestarnot Nov 2016 #31