Posted on 12/01/2016 7:23:31 AM PST by Freedom of Speech Wins
3:30 p.m.
Nevada election officials will recount ballots in five counties after independent presidential candidate Roque De La Fuente requested and paid about $14,000 for the effort.
De La Fuente finished last in the state but this week requested a recount in Nevada, a state Democrat Hillary Clinton won. De La Fuente says he wants to counterbalance a recount Green Party candidate Jill Stein requested in Wisconsin, which President-elect Donald Trump won. Stein also has requested recounts in Trump-won states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Nevada Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Wayne Thorley said Wednesday that state law requires the five counties Carson City, Douglas, Mineral, Nye and Clark to begin the recount within five days and to complete it within five additional days.
Thorley says if recount results show a discrepancy of at least 1 percent for De La Fuente or Clinton, a full state recount will be launched.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
They ask for ID every time in Clark.
Now isn’t that weird. They almost NEVER ask in Washoe. If your name doesn’t come up right or address isn’t right they may ask, otherwise, no.
They looked at my ID, front and back, and scanned my voter registration card to boot. In Washington, where I moved from 11 years ago, they NEVER asked for ID.
We need Electoral Votes awarded by Congressional District.
(Percentages):
NV-01 Clinton 61.6, Trump 32.6
NV-02 Clinton 39.7, Trump 52.0
NV-03 Clinton 46.5, Trump 47.5
NV-04 Clinton 49.5, Trump 44.6
Note in the map below how Vegas rules Nevada because of its population. Under the above scenario, Vegas would have only delivered two of it's four EVs, breaking the Metro steamroller effect and giving the voters in the rest of the state a voice. Small perhaps, but nationwide it might add up. As it is now, those voters in CDs 2 and 4 might as well have stayed home. Under the above plan, any Metro area could come in with 100% for one candidate, but it would still only contribute one vote. Pols could gerrymander like mad, but again, that district would still only give one vote. A Helluva lot fairer, IMO.
>>... but it would be much more difficult for them to get registered and vote here than in California.<<
Interesting information. Thanks. That said, if Clark County is so solidly Democrat, how hard would it be to pad a few ballot boxes and just outright create votes? While it might be hard for an illegal to get registered and vote, it might be really easy to wave him through the process and let him vote if that was your intention.
I guess it depends on whether all the precinct polling places had GOP observers present, as there should be.
In any case, Trump was leading narrowly in the RCP polling average going into election day, and I believe it’s the only tossup state in which he underperformed. In the rest he outperformed his polling average going in by significant amounts, several percentage points. (That’s my impression anyway, I haven’t checked all the numbers.)
Nevada votes on machine with a paper copy. Might hack the machine but creating ballots would have to be absentee. Voter fraud is mostly done by illegals and out of state.
I chalk up Trump underperforming (I’m on record all summer as saying Trump would narrowly win here) to the Reed/Union factor. They turned out the vote in a major way on the last weekend of early voting. Must have spent a tremendous amount of money doing that. That’s how Reed operates. He did it for himself six years ago and he did it for Hillary and Masto this time. He’s got a huge machine here.
I do. Read my post above yours. The unions run CA and have taken over Clark County. They work together.
If I’m understanding this, if there is a change in either Roque or Clinton’s votes by 1%, then they recount the entire state? Is that Correct?
Important from NV Statute: “The ballots will be recounted in the same manner in which the ballots were originally tabulated. If a discrepancy equal to or greater than 1 percent or five votes, whichever is greater, is found, a recount of all ballots (not just the 5%) must be conducted. See NRS 293.404(4) & (5).”
So if 5 votes are found, then recount entire state.
1 percent if greater by the rule you cite.
Believe Nevada voters now have a valid legal standing to sue for a Nevada statewide Recount: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3501037/posts
I’m curious if you’ve seen this report and what you think of it. Watch the first few minutes of the video at the end of it.
http://www.newsmaxtv.vegas/huuuge-nevada-voter-fraud-uncovered-worse-than-acorn/
Yea I saw that. There is a lot of truth in it but also some hyperbole. Voter roles need to be flushed and people should be asked to re-register with proof of citizenship in the entire country. Not going to happen.
>>Voter rolls need to be flushed and people should be asked to re-register with proof of citizenship in the entire country. Not going to happen.<<
Why not? Candidate Vaughn came up with an obvious way to verify names and addresses. Just mail a personal (certified would be better) letter to every registered voter in the country. If it comes back as undeliverable, remove the name from the voting roll.
Once it was verified that a person actually lived at a particular address, cross check the list with social security numbers. Social Security maintains updated addresses of every citizen in the country, as well as their ages. If a person isn’t on the SS list as a U.S. citizen living at that address, remove them from the voting roll.
Anyone removed by mistake can cast a provisional ballot, or check to see they’re actually registered prior to the vote. If they vote early, they’ll be told they have to register first, and prove they live in the district, and that their address will be verified by checking with Social Security. If they just moved, they can again cast a provisional ballot and told to immediately update SS, which they should do anyway.
All of this could be made federal law, at least for federal elections.
1. Mandate the personal, certified, mailing to everyone registered.
2. Purge the rolls of the names that are undeliverable.
3. Verify that those on the rolls after the initial purge are in the SS database as living at that address, are citizens, and are of age to vote.
4. Purge the rolls of those who are ferreted out by step 3.
5. Permit provisional ballots for all who’ve been purged who still claim to be citizens residing at a permanent address in the district.
Problem solved, with a federal law for federal elections, but it would pretty much solve the problem at the state level too, since states would be using the same registration rolls.
One more thought: The post office already maintains the list of names and addresses. It’s all computerized now. They wouldn’t even have to mail the letters, which would be both cheaper and quicker. So first compare voter registration rolls with PO addresses, purge rolls, then compare the updated rolls with SS addresses, citizenship, age, and purge the rolls again—problem solved. And CA would probably lose about 20% of their voters...
Excellent plan!
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.