Green Party candidate Jill Stein launched legal actions to require voter recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Although Stein only received about 1% of the popular vote and no chance of winning any state via a recount, she claimed her only motive was to insure voting integrity and that there wasn’t any voter fraud or hacking that swayed the elections. She also claimed it had nothing to do with her wanting Hillary Clinton to win over Donald Trump.
However, if voting integrity was the ONLY reason Stein had for filing for recounts, then why didn’t she select any of the states where Hillary Clinton won by a narrow margin? Trump won by narrow margins in 3 states but Clinton won by narrow margins in 4 states, so why not want recounts in those states?
Minnesota holds 10 electoral votes and according to the election results posted after the election, Hillary Clinton received 43,785 more votes than Donald Trump. This is a smaller margin of victory than what Trump won Pennsylvania by. Stein challenged the Pennsylvania vote where Trump won by 68,236 votes. So why didn’t she challenge the closer results in Minnesota if her only motive was voter integrity and election hacking.
Nevada holds 6 electoral votes and Clinton defeated Trump by only 26,434 votes. That’s even closer than the margin in Pennsylvania, yet Stein didn’t bother to challenge the Nevada count.
Stein did challenge the vote count in Michigan where Trump won by 11,612 votes and she challenged the Wisconsin vote count where Trump won by 27,257 votes. However, Stein did NOT challenge the vote count in New Hampshire where Clinton won by a mere 2,732 votes.
Due to these numbers, I still contend that Green Party candidate Jill Stein challenged the vote counts in just the three states that Trump won by narrow margins for the sole reason of hoping to get Hillary Clinton declared the winner of the White House. If she truly questioned voter integrity and vote hacking, then why didn’t she want a recount of the New Hampshire vote where the margin of victory was less than 3,000 votes?
Two days into the Michigan recount, a federal judge stopped it, claiming that Stein had no grounds to ask for a recount since she received only 1% of the popular vote. The interesting aspect of the Michigan recount was that in those short two days, there was evidence discovered of Democratic voter fraud and votes counted up to 6 times, mostly in favor of Hillary Clinton. I suggest that US District Court Judge Mark Goldsmith, who was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, may have been influenced to stop the recount to prevent any further discovery of Democratic voter fraud.
The recount in Pennsylvania was also stopped by a judge who ruled that Stein had no legal grounds to call for a recount due to her receiving so few votes.
However, the recount in Wisconsin was carried out and just complete and turns out it backfired on Stein and Clinton supports. The results of the recount are not what Stein, Clinton or Clinton supporters were hoping for. According to CBS News:
“In Wisconsin, officials announced Monday evening that the recount was complete — and that rather than find additional votes for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton or Stein, the recount actually increased President-elect Donald Trump’s margin there by 131 votes. Mr. Trump won the state by a margin of 22,748 votes, according to the newest totals from the Wisconsin Election Commission.”
So much for Stein’s desire to see Hillary Clinton win the White House.
The only recourse left to the liberal left is trying to delay or stop the vote of the Electoral College on Monday, December 19. Some Democrats, including the daughter of Rep. Nancy Pelosi are doing their best to persuade delegates of the Electoral College to go against the popular vote in their respective state and vote for Hillary Clinton instead of for Trump like they are supposed to do.