Editorial: Count on green part of Green recounts
Election 2016 is not going away. Yet, we need to look at a few things that are troubling.
First, the recount efforts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan on the part of Jill Stein and the Green Party.
It makes little sense.
The Wisconsin recount request was first out of the chute because Wisconsin’s deadline for a recount was Nov. 25. Wisconsin’s electoral votes are not enough to take the presidential election from Donald Trump alone. To prevail, Hillary Clinton would need Michigan and Pennsylvania’s returns to fall too.
A steep, practically impossible feat. Let’s look at some numbers:
Trump won Wisconsin by 22,177 votes; Stein received 31,006.
His lead in Michigan stands at 10,704 votes; there she garnered 51,463.
And, in Pennsylvania, Trump won by 70,638; she got 49,170 votes there.
What do those totals matter, especially Stein’s numbers? Consider that, first, Trump and Clinton received about 2.9 million and 2.8 million votes, respectively, in Pennsylvania. In a state where Libertarian Gary Johnson received more than 144,000 votes, Stein’s recount – if allowed – will change nothing.
And, yes, my second point is inferring the votes won by these other two – Stein and Johnson – may have been enough for Clinton to win. Stein alone received 1.4 million votes in the election overall; Clinton’s popular vote is just under 2 million?
So much for every vote counting; oh, they counted, for those candidates, but they elected one major party candidate over another – by taking votes, not positive affirmation.
Problem? Nah, that’s the way the system works.
Yet, I still don’t see the point of Stein’s recount efforts. Sure, if those three states fell from Trump to Clinton, yes, she would win; however, that is highly unlikely, particularly in Pennsylvania.
That’s not the point though. Stein is mounting the push, not Clinton. All this does is distract and delay – and raise more money.
Now, along a slightly different vein, let’s look at Iraq – divided into 18 provinces. Three are officially a Kurdish autonomous region; each province outside the Kurdish region is administered by an appointed governor. Most Iraqis identify strongly with a tribe; 30 of the 150 or so identifiable tribes are the most influential. Tribes are grouped into federations.
I see a parallel here with the United States. Their tribes and provinces, our political parties and states.
When someone – in either place – is unhappy with the results of an election, there is little trust and the “winner” is often not recognized as “my president” or leader.
Is this what Globalism has brought us? Do we not consider ourselves Americans anymore?
This American says that’s sad. Very sad.
- Tim Wiederaenders, city editor