Nor does it “screw the USA.”
There’s a good chance the “recount” is there to take the pressure off the electors & for their safety.
If the recount goes for Hillary & therefore reflects the popular vote, then it’s not their fault anymore, i.e. no one has any right to be mad at them.
The premise of this OP is that we have established that the election was fraudulent, and you think that recounting the votes to ensure that such a false election is stopped is what screws up the transition of power?
Hillary wouldn’t need to do a transition thing. She could just ask all the Obama appointees to stay on and replace them one at a time. (In the unlikely event, etc etc.)
The premise in the OP is not going to happen, but if it did, I imagine there’d be lots of violence, assassinations, and blood in the streets.
Even Hillary’s lawyers think this is bs. They’ve already searched for any sign of fraud and found none.
There’s no reason to expect a recount to shift the state wide results very significantly.
Anyhow, if they want to waste 5 million for a recount in Wisconsin then go for it.
For the Republicans, this election was manna from Hell. They’ve got lawyers guns and money and they aren’t going to give this up.
If the results of three states (or even 1) were shown to be fraudulent - well, it wouldn’t be good. Not just on the Trump side, but I know I would be have my confidence deeply shaken in our process and national security.
I feel much better after reading Marc Elias’ post. The Clinton campaign’s chief counsel. They been checking the election results very closely. His post is the most rational voice I’ve heard.
It’s reassuring to know there shouldn’t be any huge surprises waiting in a recount.
The nasty, commie Russians didn’t steal the election for Trump. 
Who cares? I just want to know if the election was hacked in any way, shape or form. Whether or not this substantially shifted the election is irrelevant.
*[“The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states," wrote J. Alex Halderman, a computer science professor at the University of Michigan, in a post on Medium.com. The deadline for asking for recounts was Friday in Wisconsin, Monday next week in Pennsylvania, and Wednesday in Michigan, he noted.
“Whether voting machines are connected to the Internet is irrelevant,” Halderman wrote in a submission in support of Stein. As demonstrated by him in the laboratory in just a few seconds, anyone can install vote-stealing malware on a voting machine that silently alters the electronic record of every vote, he added.](Wisconsin to recount US presidential election vote after hack concerns | PCWorld)*
If interference occurred, we need to know.
Given the nature of many Trump supporters, and the heightened-tension nature of this election, and the public distrust of “the system”…Oh boy, there’d be violence.
But then this gets us into the potential 2000 quagmire: Who’s recounts are the ones to count? Whenever a recount goes Hillary’s way, the Trump camp could say, “We demand another one.” And then if that one goes Trump’s way, the Hillary camp could say, “Nuh-uh. We demand another one.” At what point does it end? Whose results are valid?
Read your link. It’s to PC World by your quoted link. If that’s true, then the voting machines are less protected than your average smart phone. I suppose that’s possible. But I really, really doubt it.
Do NFL coaches whine when a pass reception is taken away by replay? No. If the second look is conclusive then it stands. They don’t say “WAAAAAAHHHHHHH! We get to keep the first call!” So if the recount goes Hillary’s way, that’s what counts. We don’t say, “Sure, count them again but if it gives a different answer, fuck it!”
Yes, it’s to PC World, and it quotes the professor of computer science at University of Michigan who has explicitly said that even if it is not connected to the Internet, it can still be compromised.
ETA: Here is another article with the same professor, where he says it probably was NOT hacked, but that it needs to be checked, because it can be done. So the voting machines are not some tower of security.
And here is his post where he discusses the very real vulnerability of the voting machines. It has links to papers and studies discussing some of the potential threat to the system and devices.
It’s quite interesting - the voting machines are loaded with the ballot design from regular old computers prior to Voting Day, and unless the source machines are very, VERY secure, it introduces a vector for tampering.
Except that recounts can produce a different outcome each time, if the margin is truly razor-thin. IIRC, after 2000, a hand recount had Gore winning Florida by 300+ but other recounts preserved a Bush win.
Sheeit. Clinton could, in one week, manage a smoother transition than Trump is going to manage given nearly three months. Don’t forget that whatever else you think about them, Clinton was the competent one in this race.
Why not just stick to paper ballots then. No posible hacking there.
Outside the US, the EU, Cuba, and Iran are going to be happy. Russia will be infuriated though, and there will be no chance for peace between the both of us. Inside the US, the alt-right’s going to flip out. I can’t picture how, I’d imagine some small protests compared to the larger protests after the election, but mostly a fizzle.
If any of the recounting states confirms Trump won, we can stop worrying about this election, can’t we?