Posted on 11/26/2016 9:07:47 PM PST by WilliamIII
A recount of the presidential election in Ohio that was finished on Tuesday showed that President Bush won the election here by about 300 fewer votes than initially recorded.
The recount of Ohio's 88 counties showed that Senator John Kerry gained 734 votes, with Mr. Bush picking up 449 after elections officials allowed more than 1,100 previously disqualified ballots to be counted in the second tally.
Ohio proved to be the key state for Mr. Bush, who needed its 20 electoral votes to capture the election. Mr. Kerry conceded when Ohio fell into the Republican column but later said he supported the recount.
The state has become an emblem of continuing ailments in the nation's electoral process, because of Election Day events like seven-hour lines that drove voters away from the polls, malfunctioning machines, poorly trained poll workers who directed people to the wrong polling places and uneven policies about the use of provisional ballots, which were given to voters whose registration was contested. The Green and Libertarian Parties asked for the recount and raised $113,600 to help pay for it as required under state law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It changed the margin by only 300 votes. Not that that will register on the Nervous Nellies here.
Same chit as in 2004.
Bush still won OH when it was all over.
has there ever been recounts national or state level where the republican gained votes and the Democrat lost votes? I’ve yet to hear of it.
That was particularly comical because the Democrat (Kloppenburg) was leading by a very narrow margin on the night of the election, and even addressed her supporters to claim that she won.
The Republican candidate (Prosser) eventually won after all the ballots were counted and recounted.
I think a lot of people have no idea how large a margin of 10,000+ votes is in a recount process.
As an FYI ... candidates rarely lose votes in a recount process. Most recounts involve a close examination of provisional ballots and disqualified ballots, so the final vote counts are usually higher than the initial ones.
I wonder what the timeline was. Did they wait until almost 3 weeks after the election to file for a recount?
All they have to do is find faulty code in the tabulations and multiply that by the number of counties....they have been cooking this up since election day
Not necessarily if you aim to show that the machines may have been hacked,,,,
the article - dated Dec 29 - says the recount took three weeks. so apparently it started even later than this year’s Wisconsin one is due to start.
It’s a huge margin. Nonetheless, the Democrat Thugs introduce fraudulent votes on each recount.
faulty code in the tabulations and multiply that by the number of counties
but I’ve read the machines aren’t on a single unified network, so a fault in one county’s machines would only have a localized impact. you couldn’t extrapolate
They need to present more than just speculation that the machines "may have been hacked." A challenger would have to show verifiable evidence that it was done.
So there was a change of 1,000 votes of how many millions cast?
And what’s in this for Green Jilly anyway?
If you have paper ballots, I would expect that you have a number of ballots distributed to the polling place. The total number of ballots turned in plus the number voided because of the voter screwing up and getting a new one plus the unused ballots at the end of the day better match the number given to the poll workers in the morning. And the count better match with the number of registered voters who arrive. Also, there should be on going spot checks of each polling place to see the number of votes cast so if you go 50 at 10am, 120 at 2pm, 230 at 5pm and 8000 at the end you can see a potential problem of post-closing time votes.
On electronic voting the count better be the same every time they hit the "count" button with continual updates on number of registered voters arriving.
It's a hell of a lot easier to rig an election before the fact than after the ballots have been cast.
If it was as simple as you make it out to be, then surely Scott Walker would have lost ONE of his THREE elections in Wisconsin over the years -- right?
All they need is a couple of in the tank computer guys to make such a claim.
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.
