In Clinton’s concession speech, she told her voters to accept the outcome and said “Donald Trump is going to be our president.” She went on “we owe him an open mind and the chance to lead,” adding: “Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.”
During the second debate, when Trump hinted at the possibility of not accepting the election results, Clinton said that
refusing to “respect the results of this election” was a “direct threat to our democracy.” So does Clinton’s recount of votes poise a “direct threat to our democracy”?
The states in question are three battleground states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In order for Clinton to win by electoral votes, she would have to win all three states. As for the electoral tallies, Mr. Trump is ahead by 290 votes to Mrs. Clinton’s 232; Mrs. Clinton is behind by 1.2 percent or less.
What sparked a recount? Michelle Zuckerman-Parker, an engineer in Pittsburgh wrote in the New York magazine “Based on the information of the intelligence community that Russia was actively trying to screw around with our election, I thought why not take the time and question this.”
Stein acknowledged that there is no evidence of election fraud and officials do not expect the recount to change the outcome of the election. She claims it's about ensuring the integrity of the election. If it's really about integrity of the election, then why choose states that Trump won? Why note a mix of states in which both Trump and Clinton won?
This lit up social media.
The problem with the recount is that Michigan, Wisconsin, and parts of Pennsylvania use paper ballots and the vote-counting computers are not online, so they can’t be hacked from the internet. But what it really comes down to is the Russians did it.
How did the democrats, Halderman and other computer security experts come to this conclusion? It is claimed by some US intelligence agencies that an agent in the Russian government tried to change the outcome of the Ukraine election by hacking into their voting system. So, because a Russian hacker allegedly hacked into the voting systems during the Ukraine elections, this means that a Russian hacker hacked into the American voting systems.
But if the U.S. election was really hacked, why would the hackers have Trump win narrowly? Mr. Trump’s lead in Michigan is nearly a 11 thousand vote difference, or 0.2 percent, his lead in Wisconsin is just over 22.5 thousand votes, or 0.8 percent, and in Pennsylvania, his lead is just at 70 thousand votes, or 1.2 percent. Why not big a greater margin? A narrow win would spark speculation that the election was really hacked.
But this recount wasn’t sparked by Clinton, it was the brainchild of Jill Stein. Why is Jill Stein so interested in a recount when she only got about 1 percent of the vote in each of these three states?
Probably to raise Stein’s profile among frustrated liberals when she suggested that Hillary was a war monger and gave an under handed support to Trump.
In an interview on C-SPAN, Stein suggested that the former secretary of state is leading the U.S. to a nuclear war with Russia, something that failed to materialize with the former Soviet Union even at the height of the arms race during the Cold War.
Stein continues, "But on the issue of war and nuclear weapons, and the potential for nuclear war, it's actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump, who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow."
So the recount basically boils down to Jill Stein saving face with her image.