EDITORIAL: Stein's recount effort is a sham

In the presidential election of 2016, Jill Stein is a mere asterisk — with the emphasis on the first syllable.

Stein was the standard bearer for the Green Party, and as such she garnered about 1 percent of the vote nationwide. Even the laughable Libertarian, Gary Johnson, got three times more votes than she did, and neither one of them had a realistic chance to ever become president.

Yet Stein has grasped for a permanent place in history by filing for a recount in the presidential vote in three states that were crucial to the Electoral College victory of Donald Trump — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

If you ask her why she filed for the recount, she will tell you that she just wants to make sure that every vote is counted, but even in the closest of the three states, Trump’s margin of victory over Hillary Clinton was more than 10,000 votes. That may not seem like much, but everyone agrees that no recount in history has ever switched such a large number of votes.

In other words, the recount is pointless.

Or is it? It appears that Stein (or those financing her multimillion dollar challenge) may have an ulterior motive. You see, by first requesting the recount, and then suing because of her dissatisfaction with how the three states are conducting the recounts, Stein appears to be intent on running out the clock.

The Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19 to record votes for the presidential nominees, and determine who if anyone has the majority of electoral votes required to become president. But even before that, all states are supposed to have calculated the electoral votes that they will cast for the presidential nominees by Dec. 13.

Therefore, if Stein can stretch out her lawsuits and the recounts until after Dec. 13, the three states involved may not be allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote. Without the votes of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, Donald Trump cannot win a majority and the election would be cast into the House of Representatives on Jan. 6 to decide among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. 

Of course, since the House will remain majority Republican, there is no doubt that Trump would still be the winner — but with Jill Stein’s “asterisk” marring the start of his presidency. She and her leftist allies will claim that Trump didn’t win the election fair and square, but only because the Republican members of the House of Representatives “selected” him.

This ruse to de-legitimize the presidency of Trump stinks to high heaven, and should it ever come to pass, it would only lend discredit on those who place party and politics above country and Constitution.

We would say “Shame on Jill Stein,” but she very clearly doesn’t have any shame at all.