|Hanging chads Florida 2000|
First, there are a number of top computer scientists that feel recounts are justified in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, because they “believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked.”
Second, Jill Stein, Green Party nominee, calls for recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, due to the possibility of hacks in key counties in those states.
Three, enough of the American public wants it justified by the fact that Jill Stein has already raised $4 million; the cost is only $1.1 million.
Actually, I could stop right there but there is more. The Guardian says:
“…the recount process is intensive, expensive and unlikely to change the outcome of the election unless widespread voter fraud is proven. Experts have been skeptical that is the case.”
CNET says we should breathe since there is the chance the election was hacked. When’s the last time a computer hacking was a positive thing? The answer is before Donald Trump was elected President. Nate Cohn, reporter for polling and demographics for the NY Times along with Nate Silver, who runs the polling statistics website FiveThirtyEight, both say “the differences between the polls and the results don’t point to any irregularities.”
The Atlantic thinks that many voters who cast their votes elsewhere want to be convinced the election was rigged, thus, calling for a recount. With Clinton leading the popular vote by 2 million+, it’s hard not to accept a hypothetical representation of what should have been. So the controversy goes on and on. The process for recounting is long, tedious and very expensive, but the latter is covered so all that is left is the extended effort. Question is, should we do it?