WHO OBJECTS TO RECOUNTS—AND WHY?

Posted on Updated on

Ah! The irony (or hypocrisy) of the whole thing!

Trump told us repeatedly that the election was being rigged and now he and his lot object to having votes recounted in States with very narrow margins. Why? Did he really know something all along that few others were privy to?

This election is what it is: a done deal and—if we are not vigilant—a disaster for America that threatens to undo decades of social progress. Social Security, Medicare, and Voting Rights—among other things—are coming under attack. (This is aside from the Affordable Care Act which always gets Republican knickers in a twist—how many times have they voted against it now? And still without a viable alternative.)

But why the big brouhaha over recounting votes?

We are told that (a) yes, indeed, there were instances of voter fraud; (b) some voting machines were so old and obsolete that they did not record votes accurately; and (c) in some cases the machines were hacked into by forces, foreign or domestic, seeking to sabotage this most sacred of democratic processes.

Why on earth would anyone object to finding out if these allegations are true and then try to find ways to preclude their ever happening again?

We already know that we have a systemic problem in voting for the highest office in the land. Several times (five, I think) the distribution of Electoral College votes has turned out to be inconsistent with the popular vote—twice in this young century! That really does need to be remedied, though I would argue for refining the EC, not eliminating it outright. However, that issue is only tangential to the issue of recounting votes.

Recounting all votes for every election would be prohibitively expensive, but it does seem prudent to do when the win/loss margin is only two or three points. The EC issue would require a Constitutional amendment, but voting recounts could be handled legislatively.

However, I won’t hold my breath for the next Congress to address this issue.

Advertisements