Showing posts with label Recount. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Recount. Show all posts

Monday, November 28, 2016

Counting....and Waiting....and Music Monday

 Hat-tip to Kevin Henkes
People in the USA remain in a kind of limbo as to certainty of the name of their next president. There will be re-counts in, perhaps, three "swing" states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Jill Stein of The Green Party has been rather successfully "fund raising" (see here) to pay for such re-counts; that in Wisconsin has already been formally requested. The deadline for a formal request for re-count in Pennsylvania is today, Monday 28 November, and Michigan's deadline is Wednesday 30th December. I understand that a re-count in Pennsylvania would be especially complex, requiring petitions submitted district by district - just for starters! For more detail/opinion on the wisdom of these re-counts see The Trouble With Recounts in the Name of Hacking, by Dan Lohrmann. Of the points made, this one struck me as being particularly pertinent:
3) Are politics the real motivation? If this recount were truly about the election’s integrity and improving public confidence in the process, why not include recounts in New Hampshire and Nevada — which were states that Clinton won with very narrow margins? In New Hampshire, Clinton won by 2,700 votes — which is the smallest margin of victory in any state. In Nevada, the Hillary Clinton margin of victory was 26,000 votes — far less than the Trump margin of victory in Pennsylvania.
As well as the uncertainty caused by re-counting votes, there will also be a question mark hanging over the Electoral College vote on 19 December. It appears there's a possibility that some Electoral Voters might decide, or be persuaded, to vote against the candidate who was declared winner in their state, in an attempt to ensure that Donald Trump would not become president. How likely it is that such votes would swing the presidency from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton - or even be the cause of neither of those candidates reaching the necessary 270 votes to be declared president - isn't clear. Back in England we'd describe such mucky, messy muddles by declaring: "What a flippin' dog's breakfast this is!"

Results of re-counts will not be known for a few weeks. There's a deadline for those results: 13 December. As mentioned, the Electoral College will vote on 19 December; a further wait, until 6 January 2017, follows then.....

See HERE
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote...........


Apt songs aren't easy to come by, but Music Monday it is, so I shall try these for size:






Monday, May 26, 2008

Chad, chad, retrograde & "Recount"

When I first heard the word 'chad' being used in the USA, it conjured up a long-ago vision from my UK childhood.

Graffiti (as shown left) used to pop up in all kinds of locations with little messages, always referring to shortages civilians faced during, and for a while after, World War 2.... "Wot no bananas?" "Wot no sugar?" The little graffiti character was called, for some reason not clear to me, "Chad".

Ahem....that memory dates me terribly.

In the USA I struggled to get to grips with how on earth "a hanging chad" could be a serious political problem. Recently, due to publicity about HBO's new film "Recount", I have been enlightened.

It's appropriate that "Recount" is first being shown just as Mercury is about to begin a period of retrograde motion. Astrologers tell us that during Mercury retrograde periods some of the safest pastimes, not prone to problems and hitches, are reviewing, re-visiting and reflecting on past endeavours and decisions. "Recount", the TV movie, will be doing all of those things.

I'm drafting this post before having seen the film, I'm looking forward to doing so. It will shine a light on American history of the recent past, of which I have only sketchy knowledge. I remember watching TV reports, in the UK, of the goings on in Florida in 2000. I had scarcely any knowledge of US politics then, I had difficulty remembering which party, Democrat or Republican, equated to British Conservatives and which to the British Labour Party. I'm a bit better informed these days, learning fast.

When the current Mercury retrograde phase ends, will the USA be any nearer to a clear decision on who is the Democratic nominee ? It's doubtful. Let's hope that by November, though, things will have clarified sufficiently that chad will not be a factor in the coming General Election. If this doesn't happen, I might feel tempted to go grafitti-writing with my own version of Chad, and the legend "Wot, no president yet?"

PS: We watched "Recount" yesterday evening. Wow! That was some confusion! In a country often called "Leader of the Free World", how come those who set rules and organise elections couldn't (as we say in England) "organise a piss-up in a brewery"? After watching "Recount" we didn't switch channels but watched the movie shown next - "Evan Almighty". You know, the plot of that movie was almost more believable than the true tale of "Recount".