12-02-2016: We all saw this one coming: Lawsuit filed against Wisconsin recount contending it violates equal protection. As some of us recall, the Florida Bush v. Gore recount was blocked because they were not treating all counties equally, recounting some but not others. The Wisconsin recount is allowing counties to decide whether they want to hand count or not — with wide variations in how the ballots are being counted. So the Trump supporters have filed a federal lawsuit contending, among other things, that Wisconsin recounts violate equal protection laws. They filed against Michigan recounts as well. http://www.startribune.com/michigan-board-to-hear-trump-s-challenge-to-recount-effort/404188576/

12-01-2016: Increasing Wisconsin recount red flags: Outagamie County Wisconsin (biggest city Appleton) had a significant reporting anomaly on election night. They reported 1,500 more votes f-r Trump than existed. Those got knocked off after canvassing, but added to the impetus to make an early call for Trump in Wisconsin. Now Outagamie County is refusing to let human eyes recount their paper ballots. They are refusing to hand count. According to WhoWhatWhy.org two more large counties are also refusing to hand count their paper ballots: Brown (Green Bay) and Rock County (Janesville). They have some facts and figures here: http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/12/01/wisconsin-counties-sided-machine-re

12-01-2016: Have been trying to confirm this. I am seeing scattered reports that the certified Pennsylvania results dropped about 23,000 off of the spread between Trump and Clinton. The Pennsylvania state site only lists the unofficial results. I have these figures but need a hard source for the certified total.

Original unofficial:
Clinton: 2,885,383
Trump: 2,952,799
Reportedly the certified totals are:
Clinton 2,916,909
Trump 2,963,857
This drops about one-third of the Trump margin of victory. These totals are before any recounts. The trail of bread crumbs starts here, but I haven’t yet found an official source for the certified numbers

12-01-2016: All ballots can be hand counted in Wisconsin by any person after the recount period has ended. The count is only legally binding, and can only change the election result, if it is a formal recount but Wisconsin’s Public Records law grants the right to inspect and hand count the ballots:

From Ted Soares : Wisconsin’s Public Records Law grants the right to visually inspect and hand count ballots.  In Wisconsin the ballots are accessible only after the period for a recount. This exception, however, may only be a position not based on law and could be challenged in court. In any case, It could be made abundantly clear that the Open Records Law is being asserted by Dr. Stein and that the hand count will take place regardless, during or after the recount, and therefore in the interest of conservation of effort should take place during the recount. Wisconsin’s Public Records Law stipulates in 19.35(1)(a) “Except as otherwise provided by law, any requester has a right to inspect any record.”    The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) in 2007 conducted an NASS-Election Surveys & Reports on Cast Ballots as Open Records.  Someone must be present when the ballots are inspected.  The custodian must make a record in the chain of custody and the custodian must take steps to protect against any possibility of tying a voter to a ballot…”

2016-11-30: Accessible recounts are a hallmark of free and fair election systems, as is clearly stated in international election standards. Rocky De La Fuente gets it right when he addresses it as a way to verify the voting machine count:

NEVADA: Rocque “Rocky” De La Fuente files for recount of U.S. presidential election in Nevada. De La Fuente was the first to file for a recount in Wisconsin but withdrew his petition when Jill Stein duplicated his effort and the estimated cost of the recount soared to more than $3.5 million. He has posted payment for the recount in Nevada. He distinguished his effort from Steins, explaining that he picked Nevada, a state Clinton won, to balance out the recount politically, and force the media to focus on the need for substantive reform to maintain the integrity of the Nation’s elections. De La Fuente said he may file for recounts in one or more additional states but emphasized that he will only do so on a non-partisan basis. Here’s the link:  De La Fuente Files for Recount in Nevada; rocky2016.com, 11/30/2016, https://www.rocky2016.com/presidential-campaign/de-la-fuente-files-recount-nevada


2016-11-30: Montgomery County officials get it wrong. Most election tampering is an inside job. It does occur, with some regularity actually, but is performed by local fixers and contract jobbers and also sometimes by persons who work for the county (sometimes on a temporary basis). Thus, the idea of confirming the authenticity of a voting machine count is very important, but really can’t be done without paper ballots and therearen’t any in Montgomery County. The idea that the system has to be connected to the Internet is a total red herring. Anyone who gains access with permission can alter results, with the easiest target being the central tabulator (the single computer that aggregates all the different voting machine results); a surprising number of persons are granted inside access, including remote desktop access:

PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Montgomery County Court judge Bernard A. Moore rejected a petition by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s campaign to recanvass votes in 72 precincts, providing no reason for his decision. Senior Assistant County Solicitor Nicole Forzato called the recanvassing request “a fishing expedition” and claimed the voting machines can’t be hacked because they are not connected to the internet. Here’s the story: Montco judge rejects presidential-vote recount request, by Laura McCrystal. Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/30/2016, http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20161201_Montco_judge_rejects_presidential-vote_recount_request.html