If she were truly committed to free and fair elections, and to the cause of electing a (nominally) progressive individual to the presidency, why didn't Stein protest the voting "irregularities" (OK, fraud) that occured during the Democratic primaries? She (and Sanders, for that matter) had to have known what was obvious to many of us-- that if Clinton would have been disqualified, we would be toasting a President-elect Sanders right now.
So, why then, has she not said a word about this, but has concentrated on getting Clinton (the neoliberal corporatist and militarist) installed instead? (And, for that matter, why did Sanders capitulate to her as well?)
Jill Stein was the Green party candidate and would have had no standing to contest the Democratic Party caucuses or primary elections. She was not on the Democratic Party ballot. Bernie Sanders, however, could have done so and did not.
Jill Stein was on the ballot in the general election and therefore should have standing to investigate irregularities in that election. And that is what she is doing. (Or was doing until the Republican Machine stopped her.)
She's not a Democrat and wasn't running in their primary, perhaps? And, you're ascribing ( attaching ) Hillary and Jill's motivation to the recounts; which aren't the same necessarily. Logic 101 would tell you that may be an incidental result ( Hillary winning ) but it is not why Jill is challenging the accuracy or vote totals of the state's involved. The anomalies were very unusual and outside the norms from exit polls, et al. The Green Party, for any number of fairly obvious reasons, has a deep stake in fair, open and accurate elections. I could list several but....hey; a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse..
Agree, some strange thinking here by Stein --
Actually, after the last 50 years of voting on hack-able computers which only continue to
report very odd and unbelievable results, it's a surprise that anyone is still voting at all in US.
After this Spring and Summer and primaries which showed us how blatantly votes can be
stolen, I doubt that I'll even be voting again. Once had some hope for the Green Party.
We can move forward however in other ways with overturning corruption of government by
both national parties.
The only standing that she needed-- if she was truly in favor a fair election process-- was an interest in fair elections. It is true that she would have had no official standing (to demand a recount, for example) but her focus on the issue would have brought it to public consciousness, which is where all true movements begin.
A rising tide lifts all ships.
So again I ask: Why now? And why for Clinton?
This is a valiant effort and I am grateful to Jill Stein. She and we win no matter what the outcome. If they recount - we may get a chance to learn the true vote and understand the integrity of the voting systems. If they fail to recount - the people of this country will hopefully see more clearly the nature of the demons. The republicans definitely do not want a representative democracy and neither do many of the democrats. Who represents the people in this? Seems like Jill Stein.
If voting was so sacred, the code for these voting machines would have been carefully developed by the government and the code kept as valuable proprietary intellectual property of the people. What really happened was the whatever huckster with a voting system and probably some greased palms - could get the contract to provide voting technologies for one of our supposedly most sacred rights. To republicrats that is just a joke - they are interested in raw power and money whatever way they can get it - democracy and the "little" people be damned.
If it were only that simple. The first thing that is brought up is standing in any such legal proceedings and lack of standing often prevents the issue to be addressed on its merits.
Now is the only time she has standing. And Trump's henchmen are disputing that, even though Trump himself said that the election was not accurate.
This does not help Clinton.
There is Zero Chance that the recount will change the result. That is one reason why the Clinton camp did not even support a recount for a long time.
What the recount does is draw attention to the dismal state of the legitimacy of all of our elections when black box voting is in place. If the only result of this recount would be to force paper backups of all elections, it would be a huge win for our country.
Since Clinton is 2.7M votes ahead in the popular vote, and 3 states vote tallies are so close with blatant problems in handling ballots and machine problems, one wonders why didn't the Clinton campaign didn't file for recounts. They could explore joining in with the Greens for the court hearings and add standing to the arguments. Why would the winner of an election walk away before the process is finished? Perhaps Clinton's hatred of the Progressive Stein, trumps her desire to be President. Stopping Trump was the prime directive, hence Sanders campaign to elect Clinton. Cooperation for the greater good is the hallmark of the liberal, not quitting when times get tough.
You have got to be kidding? There is a voting travesty in Michigan (and elsewhere) and this is what you choose to comment on - something that makes no sense.
And the wealthiest .001% have triumphed once again. The Kochs, Goldsmiths, Snyder and T-dumps are having one helluva a celebration. Justice, sanctity of the vote, listening to the voice of the people...not allowed or even entertained...welcome to the putrid miasma that is Michigan (and this only one of many).
Where are the AG Lynch and DOJ?
It is official, our democracy (such as it is) has been sold to the highest bidders.
I'm pretty sure i recall reading some of her criticisms of the Primary results. But (to my understanding of the law) as a Green Party candidate she wasn't in a position to make a legal challenge or complaint. Why didn't Bernie put up a fight, i think would be the better question.
Just out of curiosity, when there were voting travesties in, maybe, fifteen or twenty states during the Democratic primaries, did you choose to comment on that, then? Doesn't that seem to you to be fifteen or twenty times the travesties? Why Michigan? Why now?
At stake is the question of whether the Green Party increased their support, particularly if they got 5% or better of the votes in this election. Should a fair recount show that the Green Party vote count was significantly higher than was counted, and reached the 5% percent level, then the Green Party could have an actual financial injury to be addressed if this occurred in other states too because potentially they have been defrauded of Federal funding for the next election. If they significantly increased their support this election to say 3% or 4% they would be better placed to claim to be a viable alternative in the next election, which would improve their ability to raise funding.
It does not matter that the Green Party does not have near enough support to win this election because if their vote count has been suppressed then that will have caused an injury to their creditably and cost them funding for the next elections. If the Green Party has cause to believe that their vote counts have been tampered with then they are aggrieved and the fact "that Stein did not have a chance at winning the presidency does not change this.
Given that far more people were talking of supporting Jill Stein in this election than were doing so in the previous election I was very surprised at the low vote counts that she received. I for one want the Michigan recount to go ahead so that the number of votes that the Green Party received can be checked. If a significant error is found in the Michigan counts then it is unlikely that this will only have occurred in Michigan.
Strange thinking? To want to highlight the voting shenanigans that have, as you say, been going on for ages, but never been dealt with by either of the D/R parties? Strange to whom? Only to those who don't care ...
It wasn't "for Clinton" - the fact that it may have resulted in changing the election results is NOT why she did it - who knows how it would have turned out with regard to results, she did it to investigate obvious anomalies - any good doc practicing "political medicine" would not ignore, or fail to investigate, symptoms ... what about that do you not get?
I suspect Clinton and her cronies have already made piece with the result - I am sure deals were made and Clinton will do just fine - who knows, she may show up at another Trump wedding ..
And then there is the distinct possibility that a recount would involve turning over some rocks that Clinton would prefer to leave in place ...
Bingo! Sanders had standing to pursue it in court and Stein did not. Stein has made several comments about how "unfair" the DP primary was to Sanders. ..... why aren't folks directing their ire at Sanders?
It wasn't just Michigan, but why now - because there is only a rather tight window around an election when you can investigate the process - and, frankly, that seems to be about the only time, unfortunately, when the public gives a damn and would pay attention ....
Very good points!
But, considering that, apparently, Michigan election law, unlike NH law, does not explicitly state a threshold a candidate must meet to have standing for purposes of contestation, the decision seems to have been pulled out of the judges' nether parts ... for obvious reasons ...
Watch for these sorts of laws to be changed - just as the CPD % for inclusion in debates is deliberately set to exclude 3rd parties, i suspect the threshold for contesting will be set to insure such as well - fully knowing that neither D/R candidate will ever contest anything ,,,