Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein is raising money for a recount in several key states following New York magazine’s report that several top computer scientists alerted Hillary Clinton’s campaign they had found possible voter manipulation in several states.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Stein press director Meleiza Figueroa announced that Stein would be filing a recount, though Figueroa said she “can’t let you know the details yet.”

“The green party has always been at the forefront of fights to stand up for our democracy,” Figueroa said.

Stein also announced a fundraising campaign to raising money to “demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,” where the campaign claimed there are “significant discrepancies in vote totals.”

As of midday Wednesday, Stein had raised less than $10,000, nowhere near her goal of raising $2.5 million by Friday, around $500,000 less than she raised the entire election cycle.

It’s unclear why Stein is raising money to spur a recount that would in theory throw the election to Hillary Clinton, whom Stein called the “queen of corruption.”

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that activists approached Stein, who declined to pursue a recount, citing lack of funds.

The green party candidate appears slightly in debt. According to a Federal Election Commission filing from mid-October, Stein had just under $30,000 less on hand than she owed in campaign debts.

Despite the FBI’s contention that Russia appeared involved in several hacks aimed at sewing discord within in the Democratic party, many experts argued that the claims of actual vote interference appear thin.

While experts in New York magazine’s report argue that there may be electronic voting machine manipulation, Pennsylvania primarily relies on electronic voting machines, but experts contend that they’re virtually un-hackable because they are so outdated, and do not have internet connection capabilities. Further, Michigan only uses paper ballots.

Vox noted that New York magazine’s report only presented one clear example of voting discrepancies: According the New York, Clinton performed less well on average in counties that used electronic voting machines. Yet this does not mean that Trump simply performed better in those counties.

Princeton polling expert Sam Wang argued that polling error appeared far more likely.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.