Long post ahead, but I was asked, so I’m answering…
To those struggling with what Trump’s America looks like, I’m not shouting “Get over it!” — How long did it take some folks to “get over” Obama’s election? About nine years, it seems. — but I am getting tired of all the memes and posts from the left about changing the electoral college, or about how “easy” it would be to keep Trump out of office if only Congress got together and did this one little thing — I mean, when’s the last time Congress got together to do … anything? — so at best I’m ambivalent about Jill Stein and the Green Party’s efforts to fund recounts of the general election.
That’s at best, and it’s a long road to that ambivalence from where I am now.
Where I am now is: Something doesn’t smell right about it.
Here’s my thinking on the whole schmilblick. (<– Go ahead. Look it up. Have fun.)
Why would Stein and the Greens decide to do this? It’s not like they’re going to change the outcome of the general election. It’s not like they’re going to find that their party actually did get the 5% of the popular vote required for them to achieve “officially recognized political party” status and get a piece of the federal election fund. So, it’s not like they’re going to benefit from this, right?
Wrong.
The Green’s Problem
Stein and the Greens have an image problem. They’re seen as a fringe party, a “niche” party. Just as the GOP have traditionally been perceived as the conservative elite, and the Dems as the liberal elite, the Greens are seen as the “eco” elite: the middle class GreenPeace/ PETA/ Sierra Club set as a moneyed base, along with young idealists driven by concerns of climate change, pollution, overpopulation, and other planet-sized issues. This image is wrapped up in their name: the Green Party. Even though their main philosophy addresses issues of social justice, their name ties them too closely with ecological issues, and the ecology simply doesn’t score high on the priority list of most Americans. For them, it’s the economy, jobs, national security, and social issues like LGBT rights, religion, and guns.
As a result, the Greens never poll above single digits — in fact, they never even poll above 5% — on a national scale. This is exacerbated by the fact that the Greens don’t have a broad and visible presence in elected office. Nationwide, they only have about 100 members in elected office, most at the municipal and county level, have held only three seats in state legislatures, and never run a governorship. They’ve been an American political party since 1985, but have only participated in presidential elections since 1996.
Here’s the thing: you can’t just jump from County Constable to POTUS in one go. You have to build up to it, generating popular support and recognition along the way. Yet, this top-down approach has been the Green strategy, and it’s a failing strategy. (Did you know that Stein ran in 2012? I didn’t.)
Because they don’t pull in enough votes, they never reach the generally accepted 15% party-viability threshold — Hell, they don’t even reach the minimum 5% threshold that would get them the “officially recognized political party” label that would gain them access to federal election funds — and thus, like the Libertarians, never gain access to debates and media coverage (unless they do something zany or outrageous).
If the Greens changed their name to something more broad and encompassing, like the Green Progressive Party or just the Progressive Party, they’d immediately generate more interest, but they won’t do that. They are left, therefore, with zany and outrageous.
Meet Zany and Outrageous
Faced with consistently low polling and vote percentages that struggled to reach 2% — or 1%, in most cases — Stein and the Greens have mounted an effort to recount the votes in the closely contested states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Why those states? The Greens say it’s because those three states were close contests and “most likely to show hacking.” Really?
Of the three states, only Pennsylvania had reports of voting problems that might be uncovered in a recount (there were reports of “vote flipping” from the automated machines). Pennsylvania, along with Wisconsin, had reports of issues with the new laws requiring state IDs, but that won’t show up in a recount; that simply kept folks from voting in the first place. Michigan had no large issues reported.
So why those three? It’s not the thin victory, either. Trump won by razor-thin margins in those three states (1.2% in PA, 1% in WI, and 0.3% in MI), but margins were also thin in Minnesota (1.5%), Florida (1.3%), and New Hampshire (0.4%). Why not those states? Well, MN and NH went for Clinton, and no sane person would ask for a recount in Florida, well, because Florida. It’s clear, though, that the states the Greens chose were not selected solely on the “close margin” theory.
Neither were they selected because of any evidence of hacking. Stein and the Greens admit they have no evidence to suggest hacking, but they incomprehensibly point to the recent hack of DNC emails as evidence that hacking has occurred during the election. OK, yes, the DNC email servers were hacked and the emails leaked, but this is apples and oranges. The DNC hack was of a large database in a single source — an email server — that was perpetrated by a small group of people. Hacking a hundred thousand voting machines is a totally different situation requiring coordination of hundreds of people across three (or more) states as they modified actual, physical voting machines, one at a time. (Either that, or it would require coordinated hacking of the software (with subsequent uploads) or of the separate, internal databases of precincts, counties, and states.)
And then there’s the money. What started as a call for one million dollars quickly became a call for $2M, then $3M, then $6M, and (last I heard) $7M to cover costs. Assuming the best case (again), this is sheer incompetence. Either the goals kept shifting or they had no idea how much it would cost or they weren’t sure if they could raise enough for all three states. Taking a more gimlet-eyed view, I have to wonder how much is going to Green Party lawyers and operational expenses. While this could be my general curmudgeonly attitude, “Follow the money” is usually sound investigative advice.
Finally, there’s the fact that the chance that a recount will affect the outcome of the general election is vanishingly small — I’d say impossibly small — like all those other “solutions” floating around in meme form. Even if one of the three states were to flip from Trump to Clinton as a result of the recount, it wouldn’t change the overall result. It would take a flip of all three states to effect any change. Admittedly, this is not the stated goal of Stein and the Greens, but you can be damned sure it is a fiery ember in the hearts of those who are plunking down hard-won dollars to fund the effort.
Putting it Together
So, the real reason for this recount initiative must be different from the one offered up by Stein and the Greens. What is it, then?
Take a step back. Look at the big picture.
A political party, struggling to gain a foothold in the electorate, has initiated an effort:
- designed to drag ever-increasing amounts of money out of progressives
- targeting states that have the most emotional (not mathematical) impact
- to investigate a fraud for which there is no evidence, complaint, or precedent
- to recount votes even though such activity will have no effect on the final outcome
Cui bono? Who benefits?
For the electorate, the best possible outcome is either confirming that our voting process is sound, or finding errors that must be addressed. That’s the absolute best possible outcome for you, me, and the Trump supporter down the street.
For the Greens, though, it’s a different story. For Stein and the Greens, this is a publicity factory. It’s manna from media heaven. They’ve constructed an initiative that, worst case, looks quixotic, and best case, sets them up as champions of the populist left, either one of which will increase their stature and broaden their brand.
In my view, this is a cold, calculated play to capture the far-left wing without actually earning it. It’s free publicity and, even better, free money from a disaffected voter bloc. And it’s working. Money flows in. The media sit up straight and pay attention. Cameras swivel from His Orangeness to the Silver Stein and begin to whir.
Usually, if I feel like I’m being manipulated, I’m being manipulated. And I feel like I’m being manipulated.
As an acquaintance put it: Something reeks.
k
P.S. For the record, I voted Bernie in the primaries and Clinton in the general. I wouldn’t have voted for Stein in the general even if I thought she had a better platform because I felt too much was at stake. As for the Greens, I have a hard time supporting a party that won’t do the work and earn a place at the national table. You can’t win a national election without broad-base support, and you aren’t entitled to it simply because you are earnest and well-meaning. I don’t owe Greens (or Libertarians) anything if their positions do not align closely with mine, or even if they do align exactly with my philosophy. My stance is that my vote is a tool to be used for the best possible outcome. Voting for a candidate who cannot capture the interest of even 2% of the population is not, in my opinion, a good use of my vote. Your mileage may vary. — k
I do wish we had more choices in elections–more parties and platforms. While I’m not crazy about the recount effort, I wish I had known more about Stein early on. And our other options.
LikeLike
I agree, more viable choices would be better, but the problem is always framed by the third parties as a failure of the system, and not a failing of their own. They seem to think they should be given a seat at the table just by virtue of their existence, and without having to do the hard work of building that viability. They need to work from the ground up, and grow their base. This is perhaps the best time for the to do so. The populace is ready.
LikeLike
I agree. They should strike while the iron is hot.
LikeLike
It’s been difficult for me to grasp what happened in this election, and your analysis is appreciated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One thing the Green party gains from the activity is a list of possible future donors.
Beats cold-calling. It’s more economical to scrape the “new” existing list of recent donors. I’d expect it to be more profitable too – on a man-hour-fund-raising basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True. Another undisclosed agenda item.
Some folks don’t seem bothered by this manipulative subterfuge, but I’ve had a bellyful, especially since Stein’s supporters seem to set her on a pedestal for straight dealing.
LikeLike
Yeah, well.
I’ve pretty much had my blinders on since the election.
LikeLike
You probably should have started BEFORE the election. Just to preserve sanity.
LikeLike
Interesting analysis. Thank you. I’ve not invested much interest in the recount strategy as I didn’t believe it would have any impact on the election, but I had not bothered to wonder why it was happening. Of course, there are other perspectives, but I appreciate your argument. Always thought-provoking, You.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. I know I’ll get blowback from some quarters — It’s impossible to avoid these days — but I seem to have reached saturation point for manipulative BS.
LikeLike