and posted them here with a link. This is what I said would happen, because that is what the state law allows for: just a county-by-county retabulation of the votes, by the same people who did it the first time. This should be no surprise, and it's why I didn't contribute.

It's not surprising they pulled this.

Stein knew what the rules were there (or should have—it's easy as heck to google). It was a scam from the beginning, and she had no standing to demand anything more than what the rules provide, given her own meager vote count.

If was going to be a partizan decision, it would have gone our way

...which is an absurd assumption, given the situation. If an election official is suspected of cheating or negligence, they are just being asked to look and their own numbers and method and fess up or not - no independent eyes involved. If businesses were run that way we'd be Zimbabwe.

An independent election audit would be the sane solution in any serious democracy.

A hand recount would take far longer and might not even be completed before the EC votes. We've had two of those here in Minnesota. It took months before Al Franken was seated in the Senate after everyone else was.

As near as I can tell, this is in line with Wisconsin election laws for recounts. I believe Wisconsin conducts hand recounts for random precincts after every election as a check on the process. Minnesota does the same. But those take place after the official canvass is completed. They're more a way to verify the process than anything else and aren't part of the official results.

Hand recounts are rare and generally involve the courts. The ones in Minnesota did, which is why they took so long. There were multiple challenges that had to pass through our state Supreme Court. In the end, Al Franken was seated, but long after the congressional term had started. MN was without one of its Senators until then.

Sadly, we often don't understand how these things are actually done. When we find out, we're often surprised.

In PA, for example, most precincts used machine voting with no paper trail. A recount there will produce the same results as the original count, because a hand recount is impossible in most places.

I don't know what Michigan does with voting, frankly. But, a recount there will probably be a redo of the original count, as in WI. I'd have to look at the laws about election recounts there.

Again, putting our hopes on these recounts is going to result in disappointment.