In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, Green Party candidate Jill Stein is paying for a recount in Wisconsin, with recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania likely to join. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has agreed to participate in the recount effort. Recounts typically do not reverse election results, but that notion hasn’t stopped President-elect Donald Trump from tweeting, without evidence, that there was “serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California.” “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” the president-elect wrote in another unsubstantiated tweet. Trump won the election by less than 100,000 votes across four swing states.
Poorvi Vora, a professor of computer science at George Washington University, says the re-count isn’t as much about changing the outcome as it is about assuring voter integrity and confidence.
“We don’t want to send a message to the world that technology decides our elections — our voters decide our elections, and that’s a very strong message we want to send,” she says. “It’s not about changing the outcome, it’s [saying] that we take our elections seriously.”
Full Article: So, what does it mean for there to be an election recount? | Public Radio International.