BREAKING: Wisconsin to recount presidential votes

[Alcon]

See my comment/question about those provisional ballots, which have screwed Republicans time and time again.  Even taken in OH, Trump lost more than 20K to his lead because of them.

In what sense are provisional ballots "very subjective"?  Provisional ballot laws vary state-by-state, but they usually have fairly clear-cut rules about when they're counted.  I'm no expert, but the loosest provisional ballot laws I know involve looking up to see if a voter in the poll book is registered (i.e., at another precinct).  There's some subjectivity there, but not a ton.  Wisconsin's seems to be even more cut-and-dry, requiring the voters provide ID to poll workers or in-person by the Friday after the election.

[Alcon]

maybe if republicans stopped purging legitimate voters from the rolls, we wouldn't need provisional ballots ㄟ(ツ)ㄏ

that's not how provisional ballots work in Wisconsin, but glad to know you didn't read the thread (shocker)

[Alcon]

was referring to sg's comment about ohio. phone doesn't like quotes

fair, sorry, this delusional recount bullsh**t is just making me testy.

[Alcon]

Purging voters is hard to get right. Some states may be too tight, but it's also easy to be too loose.

In IL it is very hard to remove a voter from the rolls. For instance, when I voted at 10 am on election day I was surprised to see both of my children in the voter book. My daughter changed her registration to MA for the primaries, but she was still in the book since MA doesn't share those changes with IL. It used to be that local voter registrars could take an affidavit and report those changes such as families that moved and people who died out of their home county The voter rolls were fairly accurate from that process, but that law was removed about a dozen years ago. Now the election authority has to send out a post card to someone they think isn't living at an address, but that can only take place after a voter misses three cycles. So my daughter will probably be on the voter rolls for up to a decade in IL even as she is registered in MA.

Does that really present a problem, beyond inaccurate voter turnout statistics?  I think the best solution here is to have states allow for disclosure of prior registrations when people newly register, and then inform the previous jurisdiction.  But what's the problem with being "too loose" with purges?

[Alcon]

While your main point that the whole "VOTER FRAUD!!1!1!" thing is really annoying, Alton, I think that this recount is not bad. For the voter's sake, at least, considering Republican voter suppression efforts were very active in Wisconsin. I highly doubt this will change anything, but if it does, it will at least re-affirm the voter's rights. Wisconsin is an indicator - if there's no problem here, there's nothing to worry about. If there is, start looking elsewhere.

What does any of this have to do with voter suppression, though?  I assume by "voter suppression" you're referring to Crosscheck and ID laws...but that doesn't really relate to the recount at all.  I agree there's nothing wrong with the recount itself.  But you seem to be suggesting you think there's a compelling reason to believe there might be something suspect going on, based on your belief that Wisconsin would be a leading indicator.  That's the thing I have a problem with.  I don't see a compelling case for that belief.

[Alcon]

While your main point that the whole "VOTER FRAUD!!1!1!" thing is really annoying, Alton, I think that this recount is not bad. For the voter's sake, at least, considering Republican voter suppression efforts were very active in Wisconsin. I highly doubt this will change anything, but if it does, it will at least re-affirm the voter's rights. Wisconsin is an indicator - if there's no problem here, there's nothing to worry about. If there is, start looking elsewhere.

What does any of this have to do with voter suppression, though?  I assume by "voter suppression" you're referring to Crosscheck and ID laws...but that doesn't really relate to the recount at all.  I agree there's nothing wrong with the recount itself.  But you seem to be suggesting you think there's a compelling reason to believe there might be something suspect going on, based on your belief that Wisconsin would be a leading indicator.  That's the thing I have a problem with.  I don't see a compelling case for that belief.

Then shouldn't you be applauding the recount, because when it comes back that Trump really did win and at most Hillary eats into his margins by a few hundred votes, that puts all this "controversy" to rest?

Tolerating, sure, but applauding?  The recount is a byproduct of irrationality.  It would be like applauding someone for obsessively-compulsively checking to make sure the oven wasn't on three times before they left their house.  Is that a good thing because they would get irrationally hung-up if it wasn't done?  Not really.  It's symptomatic, not therapeutic.

[Alcon]

Right wingers before the election: "This election is rigged! If my candidate loses narrowly, I'm demanding a challenge and will not accept it!!!"

Right wingers after the election: "The left wingers are lunatics! You lost fair and square!!! Trump wins! MEIN FUHRER!!!!"

Pathetic. And for those to say it "wasn't close." Really?

You're going to end up getting over 3 million fewer votes than the Democratic candidate, so maybe you're the lunatics for insinuating that the will of the people be ignored!

Why is it not comparably hypocritical that many Democrats were loudly concerned about delegitimizing the electoral process, and are now forwarding this recount stuff?  Why is one drawing your ire but the other not?