- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Wisconsin recount update: day 8: same old same old with 82% recounted
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:12 pm
Overall, over the past eight days:
Including the December 7 results, Trump/Pence are up 495 votes, Clinton/Kaine are up 556 votes, Castle/Bradley are up 20 votes, Johnson/Weld are up 63 votes, Stein/Baraka are up 64 votes, Moorehead/Lilly are up 8 votes, and De la Fuente/Steinberg are up 15 votes.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission reported Thursday, December 8th that more than 82 percent of the vote had been counted by the close of business on Wednesday, and that Democrat Hillary Clinton had gained just 61 votes on Republican Donald Trump.
Source: wi election site
Two things this confirms
1)toddy is a gullible person, as he was the one hyping this up
2) UM must take administrative action against professor halderman
Including the December 7 results, Trump/Pence are up 495 votes, Clinton/Kaine are up 556 votes, Castle/Bradley are up 20 votes, Johnson/Weld are up 63 votes, Stein/Baraka are up 64 votes, Moorehead/Lilly are up 8 votes, and De la Fuente/Steinberg are up 15 votes.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission reported Thursday, December 8th that more than 82 percent of the vote had been counted by the close of business on Wednesday, and that Democrat Hillary Clinton had gained just 61 votes on Republican Donald Trump.
Source: wi election site
Two things this confirms
1)toddy is a gullible person, as he was the one hyping this up
2) UM must take administrative action against professor halderman
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 5:16 pm
5
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:19 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
We need to remain vigilant. At this rate, the recount will erase Trump's lead in just a little over 8 years.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:this has been evident for a long time
toddy is a gullible person
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I wonder if the money Jill got from Soros is paying the States for the recount? Or is this just another opportunity to place large amounts of money in a rainy day fund for libs?
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:34 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
While unnecessary, I think this is a net good. With all the talk about the integrity of the election, it's good to see an example of accuracy upon extensive reexamination.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:39 pm to buckeye_vol
I will say this: while the net change is small, candidates getting 500/600 more votes than when first counted is unacceptable. How hard is it to count this stuff correctly the first time?
Maybe we shouldn't have geezers being the ones counting them. It's always geezers in the pics I see.
Maybe we shouldn't have geezers being the ones counting them. It's always geezers in the pics I see.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Is it hand counted? If so, it is near impossible to get the exact recount totals regardless of how many times you do it.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:45 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The Wisconsin Elections Commission reported Thursday, December 8th that more than 82 percent of the vote had been counted by the close of business on Wednesday, and that Democrat Hillary Clinton had gained just 61 votes on Republican Donald Trump.
Whoever is in charge of Russian cyber warfare is going to have some answering to do... to Putin.
Only 61 votes?
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:49 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I will say this: while the net change is small, candidates getting 500/600 more votes than when first counted is unacceptable. How hard is it to count this stuff correctly the first time?
Varies by state, but I would assume they don't bother with "undervotes" unless a recount is necessary, the assumption being that undervotes will be proportional to the counted votes and will wash out.
The ratio is consistent here, so that seems to make sense.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 5:52 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I would prefer it to be 100% accurate. But at least the errors are in the same direction for all candidates, so the impact on the margins (the important figure) are even less than the overall error.
I will say this: while the net change is small, candidates getting 500/600 more votes than when first counted is unacceptable. How hard is it to count this stuff correctly the first time?
In addition, there is measurment in almost all instruments. So if they are off by a total of say 1600 votes (less for the margins) then that is 99.95% accurate.
Perfection is the ideal, but that is very accurate.
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 12/8/16 at 7:57 pm to buckeye_vol
True, this election has restored my faith in the election process.
As long as the votes count, then you can win with ideas. It's possible to change minds, but overcoming a truly rigged system is much tougher.
As long as the votes count, then you can win with ideas. It's possible to change minds, but overcoming a truly rigged system is much tougher.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 8:01 pm to deltaland
quote:
True, this election has restored my faith in the election process
I'll regain my faith when you have to show an ID card stating you are a US citizen on it to vote.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News