Home (Main Menu)

Election 2016 -- Runup to the Kazakh War of 2020?

  • 11-8-16: Elections Turnout

  • 11-8-16: A possible solution to the Electoral College problem

  • 11-8-16: COMMENTARY

  • 12-5-16: Hacking the 2016 Election

    Election 2016


    2016 Presidential Election

    FINAL unofficial Lorain County Election Results

    Published on Nov. 8, 2016


    Lorain County, OH

    President / Vice-President

    Number of Precincts 188

    Clinton/Kaine D 64958 47.06%

    Duncan/Johnson 712 0.52%

    Johnson/Weld 4414 3.20%

    Stein/Baraka G 1224 0.89%

    Trump/Pence R 65346 47.35%

    U.S. Senator

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Tom Connors 2967 2.21%

    Joseph R. DeMare G 2362 1.76%

    Rob Portman R 72088 53.80%

    Scott Rupert 2201 1.64%

    Ted Strickland D 54294 40.52%

    Representative to Congress 4th Dist

    Number of Precincts 72

    Precincts Reporting 72 100.0%

    Janet Garrett D 25049 56.17%

    Jim Jordan R 19546 43.83%

    Representative to Congress 7th Dist

    Number of Precincts 52

    Precincts Reporting 52 100.0%

    Bob Gibbs R 23673 60.43%

    Dan Phillip 2425 6.19%

    Roy Rich D 13077 33.38%

    Representative to Congress 9th Dist

    Number of Precincts 64

    Precincts Reporting 64 100.0%

    Marcy Kaptur D 24678 61.79%

    Donald P. Larson R 15224 38.12%

    State Rep 55th House Dist

    Number of Precincts 69

    Precincts Reporting 69 100.0%

    Kelly Kraus Mencke D 19470 39.12%

    Nathan H. Manning R 30304 60.88%

    State Rep 56th House Dist

    Number of Precincts 80

    Precincts Reporting 80 100.0%

    Dan Ramos D 30038 63.64%

    Jessie Mae Tower R 17165 36.36%

    State Rep 57th House Dist

    Number of Precincts 41

    Precincts Reporting 41 100.0%

    Tom Dunlap D 11429 39.00%

    Dick Stein R 17876 61.00%

    County Commissioner 1-2-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Connie Carr R 61746 48.79%

    Lori Kokoski D 64808 51.21%

    County Commissioner 1-3-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Ted Kalo D 81781 100.00%

    Prosecuting Attorney

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Dennis P. Will D 82918 100.00%

    Clerk of Court of Common Pleas

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Tom Orlando D 81477 100.00%


    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Phil R. Stammitti D 89133 100.00%

    County Recorder

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Judy Nedwick D 81930 100.00%

    County Treasurer

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Daniel Talarek D 85484 100.00%

    County Engineer

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Kenneth P. Carney D 81116 100.00%


    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Stephen B. Evans R 87199 100.00%

    Chief Supreme Court Justice

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Maureen O'Connor 82632 100.00%

    Supreme Court Justice 1-1-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Pat Fischer 44742 45.97%

    John P. O'Donnell 52577 54.03%

    Supreme Court Justice 1-2-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Pat DeWine 53253 51.50%

    Cynthia Rice 50142 48.50%

    Judge Court of Appeals 9th Dist 2-9-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Diana M. Stevenson 47205 49.71%

    Thomas A. Teodosio 47747 50.29%

    Judge Court of Appeals 9th Dist 2-10-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Donna J. Carr 75725 100.00%

    Judge Court of Appeals 9th Dist 2-11-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Lynne S. Callahan 71058 100.00%

    Judge Common Pleas 1-1-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Christopher Rothgery 77159 100.00%

    Judge Common Pleas 1-3-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Mark A. Betleski 76250 100.00%

    Judge Common Pleas (Unexpired Term)

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Chris Cook 65361 68.01%

    Will Spiegelberg 30741 31.99%

    Judge Common Pleas (Domestic Relations) 1-2-2017

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    Sherry Glass S. 56512 55.88%

    Krista Marinaro 44611 44.12%


    3 Avon City / Ren'l / Police

    Number of Precincts 14

    Precincts Reporting 14 100.0%

    FOR THE TAX LEVY 8133 70.53%

    AGAINST THE TAX LEV 3399 29.47%

    4 Avon City / Rep'l / Fire Protection

    Number of Precincts 14

    Precincts Reporting 14 100.0%

    FOR THE TAX LEVY 8262 71.81%

    AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 3244 28.19%


    26 Lorain County JVS / Ren'l / Current Exp

    Number of Precincts 153

    Precincts Reporting 153 100.0%

    FOR THE TAX LEVY 63459 57.11%

    AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 47661 42.89%

    32 Lorain County / Add'l Sales Tax / General Fund & Transit

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    YES 33959 25.81%

    NO 97602 74.19%

    33 Lorain County / Add'l / Crime/Drug/Corner

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    FOR THE TAX LEVY / A 57019 43.53%

    AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 73956 56.47%

    34 Lorain County / Ren'l / Tuberculosis Clinic

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    FOR THE TAX LEVY 63066 48.61%

    AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 66675 51.39%

    35 Lorain County / Add'l

    Alcohol & Drug Addiction Services Board

    Number of Precincts 188

    Precincts Reporting 188 100.0%

    FOR THE TAX LEVY 59054 45.08%

    AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 71958 54.92%

    36 Lorain County / Rep'l w/ dec/ General Health District

    Number of Precincts 98

    Precincts Reporting 98 100.0%

    FOR THE TAX LEVY 41559 56.58%

    AGAINST THE TAX LEVY 31897 43.42%


    Top -- Home


    Elections Turnout almost hits election officials' predictions

    by Brad Dicken, The Chronicle-Telegram

    Published on Nov. 9, 2016

    SHEFFIELD TWP. -- Election turnout in Lorain County on Tuesday came in just under what election officials had predicted.

    Lorain County Board of Elections Director Paul Adams said 139,563 of the county’s 206,404 registered voters cast ballots, a turnout of 67.6 percent.

    Adams had predicted turnout of 68 percent, while Deputy Director Jim Kramer had predicted 70 percent.

    Turnout was just under 68 percent in 2012 and hit 72.5 percent in 2008.

    The final turnout number likely will be higher once 3,999 provisional ballots are reviewed. Election officials also expect a few more of the 2,600 outstanding mail-in absentee ballots will still trickle in as well.

    Contact Brad Dicken at bdicken@chroniclet.com



    Voter Turnout Fell, Especially In States That Clinton Won

    By Carl Bialik

    This article is based on turnout figures as of 3 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 11 [2016] ...

    Early voting surged. Election Day voting plummeted. The net result: A smaller share of eligible voters cast ballots in 2016 than in either of the previous two presidential elections.

    The raw number of votes rose: About 1.4 million more Americans voted in this year's election than in 2012, a total which itself was down from 2008. But the electorate was growing in the meantime: About 57 percent of eligible voters cast ballots this year, down from 58.6 percent in 2012 and 61.6 percent in 2008, which was the highest mark in 40 years. Turnout still remained well above levels for most presidential election years from 1972 to 2000.

    The drop in turnout was uneven. On average, turnout was unchanged in states that voted for Trump, while it fell by an average of 2.3 percentage points in states that voted for Clinton ...



    With several million votes still to be counted, [Clinton] held a narrow lead in the nationwide popular vote. Most of the outstanding votes appeared to be in Democratic-leaning states, with the biggest chunk in California, a state Clinton overwhelmingly won. With almost 125 million votes counted, The Associated Press tally had Clinton with 47.7 percent and Trump with 47.5 percent.


    Top -- Home


    [A possible solution to the Electoral College problem:]

    ... electoral reform initiatives are underway to get states to adopt the National Popular Vote bill. On Monday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that recommits New York to the compact past its 2018 expiration date. The legislation could transform the way we elect the president of the United States.

    Under the compact for a national popular vote, states across the country have pledged to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote, not their state. If enough states sign on, it would guarantee the presidency goes to the candidate who wins the most votes across the country.

    The compact will kick in only when enough states have signed on to reach a threshold of 270 electoral votes. It would prevent scenarios like what happened on Tuesday between Clinton and Trump, and in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election to George W. Bush.

    Well, for more, we're going to Stanford, California, where we're joined by John Koza, chair of National Popular Vote, consulting professor at Stanford University in computer science and electrical engineering. Koza is the former CEO of Scientific Games.

    Welcome to Democracy Now!, John. Can you please explain what has happened? A lot of people, I think, are scratching their heads. I still don't think most people understand the Electoral College ...

    JOHN KOZA: Well, thank you, Amy. The problem comes from state laws that award all of the state?s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes inside each particular state. So the fact that Donald Trump got 1 percent more of the popular vote in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan meant that he got all of those electoral votes, and that constitutes his winning margin in the Electoral College, even though he's behind in the nationwide popular vote among the people of all 50 states.

    AMY GOODMAN: Explain how the Electoral College votes ... and who these electors are, who will not exactly personally meet, but will cast their votes in December.

    JOHN KOZA: Well, the electors are generally activists of their political party. So, Donald Trump, at the moment, is going to get at least 279 of the 538 electors. Those 279 people are active Republicans, either officeholders, former officeholders, party officials, maybe donors -- people who are very devoted to the Republican Party. And there's very little history that indicates that any more than zero or one of these 279 electors would ever deviate from their party's nominee. So, when the Electoral College meets on December 19, [2016] Donald Trump will probably get 100 percent of the 279 Republicans who are committed to vote for him.

    JUAN GONZĂLEZ: Well, isn't it possible, given the reality that the Electoral College basically prejudices the smaller states, because every state has at least two senators, and some of them just have one congressman or two congressmen, versus California, New York or the others, so they always have a disproportionate share

    Isn't it possible that we may be entering an era of more of this, because we're now facing the fact that in six out of the eight last presidential elections the Democrats won the popular vote, but they won only four of the eight actual Electoral College votes ...

    JOHN KOZA: Well, we're definitely going to have more of this, because we're in an era of relatively close presidential elections. In the last eight consecutive elections, the average nationwide margin has been 5 percent or less. So, we can expect, if that trend continues, to see the Electoral College producing a different winner than the national popular vote. And that, I think, is a fairly safe prediction.

    AMY GOODMAN: ... They don't physically meet, right, Professor Koza?

    JOHN KOZA: They do physically meet up. They go to their state capitols. So, the 20 Trump electors that were elected Tuesday in Pennsylvania will all go to Harrisburg, and they will all dutifully cast their personal electoral vote for Donald Trump. And he'll end up with 279 of the 538 electors, and therefore he'll become president.

    AMY GOODMAN: But they don't all meet together from all over the country. So explain how the Electoral College came into place, and talk about what you are advocating for, National Popular Vote.

    JOHN KOZA: Well, the Electoral College is probably outdated. It certainly is not what the founders intended. They intended an aristocratic group, a small group of noblemen, basically, who would wisely decide who the president is. That went out the window in 1796 in the nation's first competitive presidential election.

    The problem we have with the Electoral College is not the existence of the Electoral College. It's the state winner-take-all laws that give all of a state's electors to the candidate who gets a bare plurality of the vote inside that particular state.

    So the fact that Trump carried Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by a hair, even though he was losing the people's vote across the country in all 50 states, means that he gets all of the electors from those three states.

    Now, under the National Popular Vote proposal, which is now law in 11 states, those states, when we have enough states that have a majority of the electors that is, 270, those laws go into effect. And they will award all of those electors to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states. And that's what would guarantee the White House to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

    Now, this legislation is already law in 11 states, having 165 electoral votes. It needs states with 105 more electoral votes to become law in time for the 2020 election.

    JUAN GONZĂLEZ: And, John Koza, what states do you see as most likely or the most fertile area to be able to reach that 105 target now that you need?

    JOHN KOZA: Well, in the last few years, this proposal has been -- has become quite bipartisan. So, for example, the latest state legislative chamber to pass this proposal was the Arizona House, where two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats sponsored the bill.

    It also passed recently in the Oklahoma Senate and, excuse me, the Republican-controlled New York Senate. So, in the last couple of years, there's been increasing bipartisan support from both parties to change the system.

    And the real motivation for the change was not primarily this issue of whether the candidate with fewer votes ends up in the White House, although that?s very, very important, obviously, but the fact that most of the states are ignored in the presidential campaign. Virtually all of the presidential campaign that ended Tuesday was conducted in just 12 states. And that was the same in 2012.

    A hundred percent of the campaign events in 2012 after the nominating conventions were in just 12 states. Governor Walker put it very bluntly about a year ago when he said the nation, as a whole, is not going to elect the next president, 12 states are.

    So, one of the biggest single problem with the current system is that most of the country is really politically irrelevant in selecting the president. Then, on top of it, when the 12 states that matter vote, the candidate who gets fewer popular votes nationwide can end up president. So, all in all, it's an entirely bad system, but it's a system that is based solely on state law and can be changed by changing these state laws.

    AMY GOODMAN: Finally, John Koza, what are you advocating for right now?

    JOHN KOZA: We would like to see people contact their state legislators -- these are the people that the Constitution gives the power to determine the method of electing the president to get state legislators to get their state to sign on to the National Popular Vote bill.

    AMY GOODMAN: John Koza, we want to thank you very much for being with us, chair of National Popular Vote, consulting professor at Stanford University in computer science and electrical engineering. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, how are people organizing right now around the country? Stay with us.


    Top -- Home


    People get the government they deserve.

    If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

    Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

    The problem with political jokes is they get elected.

    We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office

    If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these State of the Union speeches, there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven.

    Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

    When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it.

    Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.

    Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.

    Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

    Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.

    I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.

    A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.

    Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.

    We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

    We are entering a very unpleasant phase of the Kondratiev Wave, similar to the early 1970's (Viet Nam) or the Great Depression and the violent fascism of the 1930's which culminated in World War II.

    R0MA: Radix Omnium Malorum est Avaritia

    The root of all evil is greed.

    Top -- Home

    Hacking the 2016 Election


    Monday, Dec 5, 2016, New York, NY

    Guest Jill Stein 2016 presidential nominee for the Green Party.

    Former presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is continuing her efforts to force recounts in three states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. But on Tuesday the effort faced a setback as a Wisconsin judge refused to order a statewide hand recount. Instead, the judge ruled that each of the state's 72 county clerks can decide on their own how to carry out the recount.

    Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin by less than 30,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. The result was even closer in Michigan, where Trump won by just 12,000 votes. Stein is expected to file paperwork in Michigan by today's deadline to request a recount there.

    More than 130,000 people have donated more than $6.5 million Stein's efforts that's nearly double how much Stein raised during her presidential effort.

    We speak to Jill Stein.


    AMY GOODMAN: Former presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is continuing her efforts to force recounts in three states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. But on Tuesday the effort faced a setback as a Wisconsin judge refused to order a statewide hand recount. Instead, the judge ruled that each of the state's 72 county clerks can decide on their own how to carry out the recount.

    Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin by less than 30,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. The result was even closer in Michigan, where Trump won by just 12,000 votes. Dr. Stein is expected to file paperwork in Michigan by today's deadline, requesting a recount there.

    More than 130,000 people have donated more than $6.5 million to Stein's efforts; that's nearly double how much Stein raised during her presidential effort.

    Trump has dismissed the recount efforts. ... Trump [claimed] that millions of people illegally voted in the November 8th election. In a tweet sent out on Sunday, [12-4-16] Trump wrote, "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," He offered no evidence to back up his claim. While Donald Trump did win the Electoral College, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has now reached well over 2 million and is expected to grow to two-and-a-half million.

    To talk more about the recount efforts, we're joined by former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. She's joining us from Boston.

    Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Jill. Talk about your recount efforts, why you've decided to go this route.

    DR.JILL STEIN: Right. Thank you, and good to be with you this morning, Amy. You know, coming out of this very divisive and bitter and painful election, you know, confidence of Americans in our voting system, in our election system, our political system really, across the board, confidence in American institutions is really at rock-bottom low.

    According to a New York Times poll, 80 percent of Americans more than 80 percent said they were disgusted by the election. It's really important that we be able to improve our election system and our political system as a base, a point of departure, for improving all the other things that are melting down around us -- our healthcare system, our jobs, our climate, the endless wars that are making us less secure, and so on. We need to start by verifying our votes and ensuring that this is a democracy that we can work with.

    Donald Trump himself said that it was a rigged election, in ways in ways that he probably didn't understand. But there was enormous resonance with what he said about it being a rigged election. When Bernie Sanders talked about it being a rigged economy, there was enormous resonance with that.

    This isn't something we can just walk away and sweep under the rug. And remember, in this election, most people were voting against the candidate that they liked the least or that they were most afraid of, rather than for their values or for their vision of a better future.

    So, I think there's widespread soul searching and discontent about this election we've come out of. And I think it's a really positive step that people have decided this is where we're going to start, by ensuring that we can have confidence in the vote count. This is not about attempting to help one candidate or hurt another candidate.

    This is about helping voters restore confidence that we are properly and securely recording the votes and counting them. And we know that these voting machines are subject to machine error, human error, hacking, tampering, you name it. These machines, when they're looked into, produce all kinds of problems. And you can't know unless you look.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to the Wisconsin judge, and what this means, handing it off to the local voting precincts?

    DR.JILL STEIN: What the judge said was that hand-counted would be the gold standard and that that was the best way to restore confidence in the vote. But he, I'm told this is secondhand -- what I understand is that the Wisconsin law didn't enable him to order that. So he gave it, shall we say, moral authority to do the hand counts, but felt he could not actually order the hand counts. So it will be up to the county clerks and the county election departments, and we'll be working with them and encouraging them to do the right thing.

    Now, the good news is, in the state of Michigan, where we're formally filing today, we've already had an informal heads-up that they expect to go forward with a statewide hand count.

    AMY GOODMAN: And are you going to be moving forward on Michigan today?

    DR.JILL STEIN: Yes, we are. We will be filing, paying the filing fee and moving forward. Another very difficult challenge to the campaign is that the state of Wisconsin raised the cost. It was going to be $1.1 million, and then, the night before last, we learned it's actually going to be $3.5 million, which I think just underscores that there'ssomething wrong with this picture, not only that our votes are being recorded on machines that are wide open, an invitation to tampering, to human and machine error, not only that our votes are not being properly safeguarded, but then, in addition, if we want to have reassurance, if we want to verify the vote, we, the citizens, have to raise millions of dollars in order to scrutinize the vote, in order to have assurance. And add to that that there's, you know, enormous bureaucratic hurdles to doing this.

    So, you know, part of our intent here is not only to reassure the American people that we can have confidence in this vote or to find problems if there are problems, as the system is extremely vulnerable to, but we want to move forward and build this movement for verified voting for election integrity, which was really born out of the 2004 recount.

    For example, in 2004, the city of Toledo, largely the communities of color, filed for a recount because they felt like their votes were not being properly counted and respected. And what they found in that case, when they did a hand recount, was 90,000 votes that had not been counted simply because the voting counting machines, so-called optical scanners, had been miscalibrated. So they were not quite at the proper angle that they could actually see the vote and count the vote.

    There are innumerable cases where, when we look, we find problems. So it's really important to look. But it's so really important for us to change the way that we do this and to get rid of these electronic voting machines, which are an invitation to trouble across the board.

    AMY GOODMAN: We're going to be speaking with Bruce Schneier in a moment about hacking. New York magazine said, in Wisconsin, Hillary Clinton "received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used opticali scanners and paper ballots."

    But I wanted to ask you about a petition posted on the website of Margareti Flowers, the former Maryland Green Party candidate for Senate ...

    [This recount does not address the disenfranchisement of voters; it recounts votes that were already counted rather than restoring the suffrage of voters who were prevented from voting.]

    DR.JILL STEIN: Yes. You know, the Green Party has many things to do, and many people are not enthusiastic about verified voting, about election integrity. The Green Party has a broad set of commitments, including continuing the momentum and the grassroots organizing that came out of the campaign. And I'm actually very grateful that many people are continuing to do that and that that is their priority. I, myself, had great ambivalence about moving forward with this.

    In 2006, I ran for secretary of state here in my home state, in Massachusetts, so I have a long-standing commitment to voting integrity.And it's not just counting votes and getting rid of these very problematic voting machines. It's also ensuring every American has constitutional right to vote. And Donald Trump said the opposite of what has happened. The problem is not that people were voting illegally, but rather that people were stripped from the voter rolls through through things like Interstate Crosscheck, also through the use of voter ID.

    Now, that's not addressed in this case, but this case is a launching pad for a broader agenda that includes ensuring thatwe have a democratic right to vote, a constitutional right to vote, ensuring that we have open debates so that voters can actually be informed and empowered to make wise choices.

    And another priority is to ending fear-based voting through ranked-choice voting, like the stateof Maine just passed, which means you can go into the voting booth and rank your choices, knowing that your first choice will be if itloses, your vote will be reassigned to your second choice. This is part of a critical voting agenda, as well as getting rid of the Electoral College. So there are many things that need to be done. This is a point of departure which actually allows us Greens to lead the way forward on a critical and immediate need.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Jill Stein, some of the criticism of people even within your own party, though you have the right as a presidential candidateto ask for this on your own, has been that you're only choosing states Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan where Hil lary Clinton lost, not close states where she won. And they're saying you're serving the very party that you were so fiercely critical of duringthe campaign.

    DR.JILL STEIN: And I remain fiercely critical of that party ...

    AMY GOODMAN: They are joining you in this, is that right, in supporting your call for recount?

    DR.JILL STEIN: Not in any coordinated way. We stepped up to the plate, because they had not. They did not express their support until the deadline had passed for filing in Wisconsin. Our lawyers are communicating so that they do not legally get in each other's way, but we are otherwise not coordinating. And as I say, I've been committed to this issue for many years. So, for me, this is kind of like breathing. It was something that would have been virtually impossible for me not to do.

    Throughout the campaign, when I was asked whether I would stand up and call for a recount if there was cause to be concerned about the reliability and the credibility of the vote, I always said, yes, I would, and it had nothing to do with who won. And you may recall that Michigan was not decided as a Trumpwe had already announced that we would be launching a recount in Michigan. It could have gone to Hillary Clinton.

    AMY GOODMAN: And what about ...

    DR.JILL STEIN: And we would have still challenged it.

    AMY GOODMAN: What about those who are saying you're using this as a fundraising device? You've raised almost double and I also want to ask if this has surprised you than you raised in your entire campaign for this recount. And that, ultimately, you may use these for local Green Party candidates, what some have criticized

    DR.JILL STEIN: No, no, you can't do that ... FEC rules require that a recount be funded by a dedicated recount account, and the money can only be used for that. So, it would be great to have access to that money, but we don't have access to that money. And since Wisconsin raised the price tag on us, there is no way that there will be residual money. This is all going into the recount.

    DR.JILL STEIN: And it's funded by small donors. You know, this is a grassroots movement all across America 140,000. Yes, I was absolute ly flabbergasted, because we launched this the day before Thanksgiving. Who in their right mind was going to be paying attention to, you know, the call for a recount and fundraising over the Thanksgiving weekend?

    AMY GOODMAN: Is it? ...

    DR.JILL STEIN: But that's exactly what happened, because people are starving for something positive to do to actually begin to take back this promise of democracy.

    AMY GOODMAN: Is it all small donors?

    DR.JILL STEIN: Yes, it is, because we are following campaign finance laws, like as if for our campaign. So, the average donation is $45. One-halfof 1 percent of donors contributed more than $1,000. And the absolute maximum is the maximum you can contribute to a political campaign, which is $2,700. So there is no deep account here for deep pockets.

    AMY GOODMAN: Monday night, I was at the Free Library in Philadelphia interviewing Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and I asked him about your recount effort.

    SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I think what most people expect is not much will happen, but we will see ... in other words, all that they are doing is what happens all of the time. Nothing new about that. Recounts take place. When I was elected mayor, there was a recount. Right now in North Carolina, the Republican governor, who appears to be losing, wants a recount. Not a new idea. But I'll tel l you what it touches on, why it is touching a nerve, is not because I believethat it's going to reverse the results. I don't think that's the case.

    But this is what people, especially with all of this barrage of attacks on websites and so forth, are really wondering, whether when they vote, is their vote legitimate? You know, and there's talk: Have the Russians interfered in this thing? So that's what it will deal [with], which takes us to another issue. And I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but I will say it tonight.

    I was just researching this. You know, in Canada, they still do their voting with paper ballots. And maybe it takes an extra hour or two to get the results out to the media, but they manage to survive. And I kind of think we should go back to paper ballots, lock them up. But I think what this suit is about is touching on that issue and trying to see if the results end up being significantly different than what we were announced on election night.

    AMY GOODMAN: That's Bernie Sanders on Monday night. Jill Stein, your response?

    DR.JILL STEIN: He's absolutely right. And this should be built into our election system, that we should not be voting on these very tamper-friendly, error-prone machines in the first place. We should be voting on paper ballots that can be counted by these optical scanners, but they have to be checked with automatic audits. This should be, you know, built-in reassurance that should be part of our voting system.

    And whenever races are very close, there should be an automatic recount. And when there is suggestions of foul play or irregularities, there should be a recount, like in the Democratic Party primary. Bernie Sanders should have been the beneficiary of a recount and a potential challenge because of the stripping of voter rolls in Brooklyn, the failure to count hundreds of thousands of votes in California, this is about holding the Democratic Party accountable to the same standard that we're looking at in three Republican victory states.

    The reason we're looking in those states is because you want to look at states that meet the criteria for high potential, high likelihood for having had error. And that means they're razor-thin margins, the results went the opposite of what was anticipated, and they have some kind of a built-in vulnerability. And it happened that the three most significant states were those three. We didn't know which way Michigan was going to go, but it turned out to go Republican. But if we have findings, then we have a case to go into many more states, including Democratic states ...

    Monday, Dec 5, 2016, New York, NY

    As we continue to talk about the U.S. election system, we turn now to Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who sparked debate over the issueof the Electoral College with his recent op-ed published in The Washington Post titled "The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton." Lessig is a Harvard Law professor who briefly ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2015. He also is the author of "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It."


    AMY GOODMAN: Well, as we continue to talk about the U.S. election system, we turn now to Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who sparked debate over the issue of the Electoral College with his recent op-ed published in The Washington Post headlined "The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton."

    Lessig writes, "Electors were to apply, in Hamilton's words, 'a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice' and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about 'winner take all.' It says nothing to suggest that electors' freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom about whether to overrule 'the people' or not was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel," unquote. The electors will meet on December 19th [2016].

    Those are the words of Lawrence Lessig, writing in The Washington Post. He's joining us now, Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law professor, who briefly ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2015, also the author of Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It.

    Lawrence, thanks so much for joining us from Amsterdam, where you are right now. Well, why don't you lay out what you're calling for?

    LAWRENCE LESSIG: Well, as I as you described in summarizing the op- ed, the framers meant for the electors to exercise judgment. And it's a judgment which is really asking the question: Should we overrule what the people have done? Now, there are some cases where I think they plainly should overrule what the people have done. For example, if a candidate is a crazy person or if it turns out not to be qualified or is a criminal, those would be good reasons to overrule what the people have done. But in this case, there's no reason for the electors to overrule the popular choice.

    The popular choice, by more than 2 million votes, is a completely qualified candidate for president. And the principle, that should be a fundamental principle in our democracy, the principle of "one person, one vote," says that the vote of every American should count equally. And if it does, Hillary Clinton should be the president of the United States.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, explain the Electoral College. Explain how it works, what electors will be doing on December 19th and what you feel they should do.

    LAWRENCE LESSIG: Well, the Electoral College is a group of electors, selectedin the states, who will meet in the states on December 19th and cast their ballots for who they believe should be president and who they believe should be vice president. And then those ballots get transmitted to Washington, and then they're opened in Washington in the Senate, and the results are read.

    Now, their decision, that they exercise on December 19th, is a decision of judgment. They were to be people who reflected on all the issues presented and have to make a decision. And that decision, I think, should be guided by the principles we should all take as uncontested. And that uncontested principle, that I've advanced, the idea that votes should count equally, that everybody's vote should count equally in the United States, should have an overwhelming influence on their decision.

    And what they should do, in my view, is to say state laws that tell me I have to vote for the winner, even though the, quote, "loser" might have gotten 48 percent of the vote, shouldn't constrain me so that I have to go against this fundamental idea of equality. So, I think that they should vote in a way that respects the actual winner in this election and make Hillary Clinton the next president.

    AMY GOODMAN: What does it mean for the electors not to vote the way their state did, but the way the nation did? What are the rules?

    LAWRENCE LESSIG: Well, first of all, they don't have to vote the way the nation did necessarily. They could vote the way a significant proportion of their state did. Look, in Michigan, if Donald Trump is found to be the winner by some 10,000 votes out of four-and-a-half million cast, what the Michigan electors could say is, "OK, I'm going to vote in a way that reflects Michigan."

    So, half of Michigan was essentially for Clinton, half was essentially for Trump maybe one more for Trump than for Clinton. That division goes against the laws of the state of Michigan that say they have to allocate the electors' votes to the winner, all the electors' votes to the winner. But my point is and this is now increasingly uncontested among constitutional scholars winner take all does not exist in the Constitution. It's a restriction imposed on the electors by the states. And if you think that the electors are, as Hamilton described them, people who are supposed to exercise judgment, that restriction is the flaw which ought to be resisted.

    So they should vote reflecting the votes of the peoplein their state. And if they did, I think that would be enough to make it so that the winner in January will be Hillary Clinton.

    AMY GOODMAN: I interviewed Bernie Sanders on Monday night in Philadelphia, and I asked him about the Electoral College.

    SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No, I think that's an archaic concept. I think nobody I mean, nobody voted for the electors; 99.9 percent of the people don't even know who the electors are. They voted for Hillary Clinton. They voted for Donald Trump. And their obligation is to support the candidate that the people in the state voted for.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, he says they got to vote for the way their state went.Lawrence Lessig?

    LAWRENCE LESSIG: Yeah, well, I think the archaic idea is actually winner take all, because the principle of "one person, one vote" is a principle that was introduced as a fundamental principle in American law in 1962, long after states had moved to "one person, one vote."

    And exactly 50 years ago, the state of Delaware went to the Supreme Court, and they said, "Look, winner take all seems to us to be inconsistent with your principle of 'one person, one vote,' so which should stand, and which should fall?" And the Supreme Court ducked that issue. So I think that if you believe in the fundamental principle of equality, we shouldn't be giving so much deference to an idea of winner take all that was that was born at the time slavery reigned in the United States.

    We ought to be respecting the principle of equality. And under the principle of equality, we should get as close to respecting equal votes of every citizen as we can, given our constitutional structure. And I think if we did that, then the will of the people would not be overturned.

    It's only happened twice before. This is the point that people miss . Only twice has the Electoral College voted against a candidate who had won the popular vote -- once in 1881, when Grover Cleveland had the election stolen from him by Tammany Hall in New York, and once in 2000, where most people think the election was essentially a tie, and they went with Electoral College. Those two precedents should not be enough to overwhelm the fundamental precedent of equality that ought to define how our democratic system works. And that principle says Hillary Clinton is our president.

    AMY GOODMAN: Professor Lessig, your column prompted a number of rebuttals. One was that electors are simply unvetted party loyalists who are ill-equipped to make independent judgments. Your response?

    LAWRENCE LESSIG: Well, it's true we don't know who they are. But I'm not asking them to make a judgment based on their own preferences. I'm asking them to recognize a principle that should be common to all of us. And that principle is the principle of equality.

    Now, if it turned out that the candidate was insane or the candidate was a criminal, we'd also be calling on them, these people we don't know, to make a judgment, as the framers of the Constitution expected they would, not to ratify the choice of the people for that candidate. So, the Electoral College is a project that calls on their judgment. If we don't like it, we can talk about how to eliminate it. I'm not quite convinced we should eliminate it completely.

    I think it's important to have a final check be somebody other than the Supreme Court. But given that it's there, we should take it seriously. And taking it seriously says they should exercise their judgment according to the moral values, the principles that are part of our constitutional tradition today. And those principles say equality.

    AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump tweeted, albeit in 2012, "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."


    AMY GOODMAN: He's not saying the same thing today, but do you agree?

    LAWRENCE LESSIG: Well, I think in this in the case that he was talking about, he expected that Barack Obama was going to lose the popular vote but win in the Electoral College. And he said it was a disaster for democracy if that would happen. And I agree with him. Absolutely, it's disaster for democracy. But that's just one in a long list of things that Donald Trump has said that at one point I agreed with him, and then he changed his view, and now I don't agree with him anymore.

    But I think it's a lot of fun to repeat those, and I just blogged about a bunch of these, where he was saying that we ought to have a revolution if the popular choice is not elected as president.Well, I'd rather just have 37 electors vote for Hillary Clinton than have a revolution. But either way, I think the popular choice in this case ought to be president of the United States.

    AMY GOODMAN: Lawrence Lessig, there's also the concern, since the election was held under the current electoral system, that to change it after the fact would be improper. Your response?

    LAWRENCE LESSIG: I agree it's improper, but I'm not changing anything. Right? If the Constitution says they are supposed to exercise judgment, which is, in fact, what I think the right interpretation of their power is, then I'm just saying, "What are the values that ought to inform the judgment?" The value of "one person, one vote," the value of equality, is a value that was given to us more than 50 years ago as a central part of our constitutional tradition.

    So, under that principle, we ought to be applying the same standard today that I would have said we should have applied a year ago. We made a mistake in 2000 when we allowed that decision about who should be president, Bush v. Gore, to be decided by the Supreme Court rather than raising this issue then, because, in that case, too, we should have said, "Look, this is the product of a radically unequal way of allocating counting votes."

    The votes of people in California are a fraction of the weight of the votes of people in Wyoming or in other of these states. And so, what we ought to be doing is looking at that inequality and saying, "Does it make sense?" And if we adopted the rule that I'm saying, where the Electoral College basically looks at the results and says, "Is there a reason to disqualify the winner of the popular election?" we would actually have presidential campaigns that did something more than just spend all their time in 10 states in the United States. We'd have presidential campaigns which were focused on the broad swath of Americans to convince them to support the candidate for president.

    Monday, Dec 5, 2016, New York, NY


    December 2, 2016

    Recount 2016: Elections Tallies Begin To Change, As Trump And Supporters Work Vigorously to Stop Recount 2016 In Three Swing States

    Christine Beswick

    The recount of Elections 2016 effort initiated by Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party is now fully underway in Wisconsin, and set to begin in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Already the recount for Elections 2016 is revealing numbers changing in at least one of the key swing states. Palmer Report reveals that in Pennsylvania, the city of Philadelphia has finally provided their final tallies of Election Day, making the vote gap between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton decrease by 23,000 votes in Hillary Clinton's favor.


    Heading into Recount 2016, the vote differential between the two presidential candidates was 107,000 votes across the three swing states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. It was viewed as an insurmountable hurdle if the recount process was to overturn the election. That number has decreased by 23,000 votes, and the recount process has not even begun in two of the key swing states.

    In a separate report, the Palmer Report notes that peculiar things about election tallies have been noted in Wisconsin as well, as the recount process is underway. A Wisconsin recount official has been in contact with the Palmer Report and noted that there were some issues with the ballots, where voters were unclear on how the ballot worked, and attempted to vote for a President, but their votes were not counted.

    Those, if any, discrepancies will be clarified during the Recount 2016 process in Wisconsin's hand count. Whether that will change the outcome of the Wisconsin race remains to be seen, though most experts expect no changes to the elections results.

    Meanwhile, Donald Trump and his supporters are vigorously working to stop Recount 2016 in its entirety and in its tracks. The Detroit Free Press reports that today, Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed a suit asking the Michigan Supreme Court to 'halt a presidential recount in Michigan before it begins.'

    His suit alleges that Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein is not entitled to a recount, and that there is not enough time to conduct one if she is granted a recount. AG Bill Schuette tweeted an announcement of the suit today.

    Today I am filing suit to stop Dr. Jill Stein's frivolous, expensive recount request.

    A.G. Bill Schuette (@SchuetteOnDuty) December 2, 2016

    It was an announcement that has been met with disappointment by some voters in Michigan, who still have concerns about elections 2016 transparency. Some view the recount as an issue of election integrity, as does Jill Stein, and are expressing concern that Donald Trump and his supporters would work to stop an integrity matter.

    Trump claims millions of Mexicans voted illegally for Hillary, but his legal team is rushing to block all recounts


    The Detroit Free Press reports that Attorney General Schuette said in his suit today that, "If allowed to proceed, the statewide hand recount could cost Michigan taxpayers millions of dollars, and would put Michigan voters at risk of being disenfranchised in the electoral college."

    Schuette is a Republican who is anticipated to run for Governor of the state in 2018, and former campaign chair for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. When Jeb Bush's presidential bid ended this year, Schuette became a supporter of Donald Trump.

    An attorney for the Stein campaign noted today that Schuette's actions were, 'unprecedented interference by a partisan attorney general on a matter that should be handled routinely by the Board of Canvassers' reports the Detroit Free Press.

    The Detroit Free Press also notes that an attorney for Donald Trump was unaware of the suit. But, the New York Times reports that 'lawyers for Mr. Trump argued that Ms. Stein did not qualify to demand a recount and that it would not be finished in time for the Electoral College, which meets on Dec. 19.'

    But Michigan isn't the only state where Republicans and Trump supporters are working to stop Recount 2016 from happening. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have seen suits as well. Dr. Jill Stein had some harsh words for Donald Trump's attempts to stop the requests for integrity on Elections 2016.



    Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJill Stein) December 2, 2016

    The Michigan recount would proceed next week if approved. In Wisconsin, the recount process is already underway. The New York Times has detailed the extent of the process, and the level of transparency that elections officials are required to undergo in order to keep Recount 2016 a fair and transparent process.

    No blue or black pens are allowed, reports the times, in the Elkhorn, Wisconsin, recount center, as they could 'mar paper ballots' reports the New York Times. Coats are left in the hallways, and purses, water bottles, and even keys, are left on the floor so that the tables are 'smooth and uncluttered.' New York Times reports that the recount process is expected to take 12 days, and cover three million ballots in Wisconsin?s 72 precincts.

    Hillary Clinton is down 22,177 votes in Wisconsin, 10,704 votes in Michigan. She was originally down 70 thousand votes in Pennsylvania, but new vote tallies have changed that ...

    With this update:

    WI: Hillary down 22,177

    MI: Hillary down 10,704

    PA: Hillary down 46,435

    Total: 79,316


    Trump files to block PA recount


    Politico reports that Jill Stein has rejected Trump's efforts to stop Recount 2016 as 'outrageous.' She said,

    "The recount in Michigan, which has been driven by an outpouring of grassroots support in the state will go forward. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers and Director of Elections has been a model of professionalism in moving this recount forward in an efficient, transparent manner. Yet the Trump campaign's cynical efforts to delay the recount and create unnecessary costs for tax payers are shameful and outrageous."

    DEADLOCKED AGAIN: Board of State Canvassers voted 2-2 along party lines on this motion.

    The full recount will move forward


    Chad Livengood (@ChadLivengood) December 2, 2016

    As of this afternoon, the Michigan State Canvassers was deadlocked on party lines in a 2-2 vote on whether or not the block the recount. Chad Livengood of the Detroit News tweeted on the live hearing of the Republican's attempts to block the recount. They were unsuccessful, and the full recount will reportedly go forward.

    Change, As Trump And Supporters Work Vigorously to Stop Recount 2016 In Three Swing States

    Christine Beswick:

    Popular Vote Gap Surges Past 2.2 Million For Hillary Clinton

    Growth News -- Top -- Home -- What's New