0

Recent example.

It seems to me that perhaps the government can simply bypass these lawsuits by allowing anyone who wants to perform recounts to do them, subject to two conditions:

  1. The recounters may not damage the ballots (impose heavy fines for damaging the ballots, and insure the ballots against damage too).
  2. The recounters pay for the recount.

In this scenario, either the recounts find fraud, or with an appropriately high price for #2, the government profits - which sounds like win-win.

Does this work? If so, why hasn't it been implemented? If not, why not?

1

Re: Non-automatic recounts paid for by the party making the request

This is already the case in some US states. See "Who pays for recounts..." [BallotPedia ], click on "show" button within to expand the per-state table.

Presidential elections in the US are lavishly funded, and the amount of money it takes to execute a recount won't be much of a barrier to whichever side happens to be losing.

2
  • In this case, why are there lawsuits that apparently aim to force the government to recount?
    – Allure
    May 28 at 3:08
  • Don't know. Ballotpedia has a lot of good detail on this, so take a look for yourself.
    – Pete W
    May 28 at 3:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .