I was wondering how far this would go. I think a recount should only be done if the count is very close, or if a candidate has (a reasonable) reason to believe the results would be changed by a recount.
The third-party candidates have 'no standing', per se, in this matter, because there is no chance in the world that a recount would make either one of them the winner.
States and/or counties don't have the time or the money to do full-scale recounts just for the hell of it, just to make a few wackjob, distraught, depressed, neurotic, tinfoily, grassy-knollster nutcases FEEL better.
Even the Kerry camp isn't stupid enough to ask for a recount.
I meant to say, "Even the Kerry camp isn't stupid enough to ask for a recount....DIRECTLY." They want a recount to shut their own nutcases up once and for all, but they're not going to spend their own money or 'political capital' they have with their disciples to do it.