Talk:2016 United States presidential election recounts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proper Navbox for this page

Someone keeps adding a Jill Stein navbox on this page, instead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election navbox. This article covers a general election recount in three key states that may or may not change the outcome of the presidential election. It should have the 2016 U.S. presidential election navbox, regardless of who requested and paid for the recount. 173.73.154.199 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This isn't primarily an article about Jill Stein, even though she has been driving the recount efforts. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

An opinion

Could a competent editor list in the article this opinion published here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.222.211.235 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's probably not a reliable source - see WP:BLOGS. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

Jill Stein doesn't really have the standing to bring this action, any more than the other minor cadidate who also called for this recount. If this effort goes nowhere, could we kindly merge this story with another more comprehensive article about the 2016 elections? Thank you. 40.133.226.82 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Security experts

Shouldn't it be mentioned that it's not a universally shared idea?

Here's some input by skeptical analysts, namely Nate Silver: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/22/claims_of_vote_manipulation_in_swing_states_could_prompt_recount_or_be_totally.html Some backtracking: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/election-results-hacked-new-york-magazine-231796 A relatively very fair and up-to-date piece: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1126/Clinton-joins-Stein-s-recount-effort-in-Wisconsin-Michigan-and-Pennsylvania?cmpid=FB Matt714 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Not universally shared" is understating just how far from reality this material is. One academic was pushing this idea and it exploded, and now the article is filled with a partisan screed. I've reverted it enough times, and been reverted enough times, that I will not now edit war about this material, but it has no business at all in a neutral article, and should be removed. N.B., even Stein thinks that this recount will have no effect; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-0zhw7t6Ykt=0m35s 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Map is inaccurate

The map being shown is inaccurate. This article is about the presidential recounts. North Carolina is recounting its gubernatorial elections, not presidential. Can someone please change it? Pinging creator @Proud User:. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Extremely Unnecessary

If the recount effort in 2000 didn't merit its own page, this sure as heck shouldn't. Michigan has already certified Trump's win, the recount isn't happening in Pennsylvania since Stein missed the deadline, and Wisconsin - the only state that MAY actually go through with a recount - isn't likely to flip or produce an otherwise noteworthy result. This article needs to be deleted and perhaps merged either with the 2016 election page or Jill Stein's page. 169.231.152.100 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Florida election recount WatchFan⁰⁷ 04:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

LMAO! Good catch. This is covered in multiple RS, is extremely notable, and therefore warrants its own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Stein is going to court over PA and MI is going ahead with the recount. It has sufficient coverage in mainstream media to merit its own article. It is interesting too. Did millions of Democrats vote illegally for Clinton? Did Putin rig the electronic voting machines for Trump? TFD (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Extremely Unnecessary LMAO! it's a joke, when you stop laughing it will be all over. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

LawNewz

The Pennsylvania recount is nearing mandatory status, perhaps motivating dropping the petition: see Dan Abrams site:

• David Brixenspan's article. Not shut yet. Rgdboer (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another source noting the same fact PhillyVoice. Rgdboer (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing key fact from lead

The fact that Trump has repeatedly questioned the vote validity himself, even claiming that "millions" of people voted illegally, should also be in the lead. His opposition to the recount efforts is hypocritical and being pursued just because the results of the recounts are unlikely to be favorable to him and will disprove his voter fraud claims.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR--128.112.16.122 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2016 United States presidential election recount and audit → 2016 United States presidential election recount – It doesn't appear that there will be any audit of the vote, and apart from some scaremongering the article doesn't discuss one. The notable subject of this article is the recount efforts, which actually exist. The article title should reflect that scope. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded. I have heard nothing about an audit of the results in the news, just the recounts. The word "audit" also only appears once in the article apart from its title, and not in relation to what an "audit" of the results would mean or if one is being carried out. Either someone needs to cough up a source confirming that an audit is taking place or is planned, or the title needs to be snipped. Joshbunk (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Thirded, no need to wait long either, this is a no brainer. 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindaharihari (talk • contribs)
• Fourthed (if that is even a word). smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 15:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per nomination and Joshbunk's rationale. Wikishovel (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, easy Support. little to no mention of an audit. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'm going to move it since there appears to be no objections. Anyone can help in fixing the redirects. ^Falling_Gravity 07:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. Also, it would make the title less wordy. Parsley Man (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Plural?

Comment: I was just about to move it and then I realized the article might work better as 2016 United States presidential election recounts (plural), because one could argue that it's not one big recount, but multiple recounts in different states. Any thoughts? (Joshbunk—Govindaharihari—Smileguy91—Wikishovel) ^Falling_Gravity 07:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that does make sense, especially as the precedent article Florida election recount addresses it by state, and not by national election. What do other editors think? Wikishovel (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggested the singular above because it's just a truncation of the current title and therefore (I hoped) a less controversial change. With the article as it stands, I actually think that the plural would be better. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok with plural also. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'm for it. Joshbunk (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is a singular recount and audit, it should have been done for all states, starting with the biggest ones. It looks like they are politically motivated recounts. --193.108.195.249 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.