Jill Stein is joining the call for recounts, and why you don't have to worry about Hillary actually winning

Jill Stein has now joined the "computer scientists" and a slew of deeply disappointed Hillary supporters on Facebook looking for any shred of hope in calling for a recount in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. She is attempting to raise $4.5 million for the recount effort. The basis of the claim is that Hillary performed worse in areas where electronic voting machines were used. The computer scientists did not release their analysis or any proof of hacking. In only one state, Wisconsin, a few computer scientists claim that in counties where electronic balloting machines were used, Hillary's vote was 7% lower than in states where paper ballots were used. There is no evidence of an irregularity, just a suspicion. J. Alex Halderman, one of the computer scientists behind this call for an investigation, openly states that he does not believe that hacking caused the discrepancy. He suspects that the reason for the difference in pre-election polling and the results is likely bad poling. More significantly, it doesn't appear that Pennsylvania's machines can be hacked because they were built in the 1980s and have no ability to connect to the Internet. If Pennsylvania is not in the mix then Hillary cannot win mathematically. As for Michigan, the entire state uses paper ballots, so there is no chance that computer hacking unfairly influenced the election. If computer hacking could not have been a factor in Pennsylvania or Michigan, why did the computer scientists call for recounts in those states? One might reasonably conclude that the difference in the exit polls, which showed Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, and the actual vote, which Trump won, is the real reason behind the investigation request. The close margins of victory for Trump plus exit polls showing a Clinton win represent the only possible reasons for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan. The problem with this analysis is that the exit polls were badly flawed. For example, CNN exit polls showed Hillary performing better in just about every state than she actually performed. In Ohio the exit polls showed a tie but Trump won by 8.5%. In Iowa the exit polls showed Trump winning by 3.9 but he actually won by 9.6. In Georgia, the exit polls Follow me on Twitter