How could I forget a gore picture

Wisconsin is re-counting votes from US elections - can that change anything now?

Just imagine: In three decisive states, the votes in the US election are counted again, errors are found - and suddenly Hillary Clinton becomes the new president.Instead of the radical businessman Donald Trump, the politically experienced Democrat would move into the White House and the world could breathe a sigh of relief.

For this scenario there is now a tiny, tiny, tiny chance, because: The Green politician Jill Stein has applied for a recount in Wisconsin.

► Trump reacted indignantly, Clinton appears resigned, many Republicans are angry, the Democrats are gripped by a breath of hope.

BILD answers the most important questions about the latest developments in the US election crime thriller:

Why is it counting again?

Prominent computer experts and electoral lawyers have campaigned for a recount in three states.

The results of Clinton in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania deviated conspicuously, reports the "New York Magazine", citing the activist group. It is particularly about votes that have been evaluated by voting computers.

There is a pattern of persuasive evidence that these results may have been tampered with and that the machines may have been hacked. That makes an independent examination necessary. But there is still no evidence.

► In Wisconsin (ten electors), according to the group, Clinton received seven percent fewer votes in counties using electronic voting than in counties using other voting methods. That adds up to 30,000 votes. Clinton lost the state by 27,000 votes.

► The state of Michigan (16 electors) is still not counted to the end, Trump is 0.3 percentage points ahead.

► In Pennsylvania (20 electors) Trump won me just one percentage point ahead.

Where do recounts take place?

So far only in Wisconsin. There, the Green Party of the US presidential candidate Jill Stein, together with another organization, applied for the recount.

The election commission confirmed on Friday that a corresponding application had been received. The recount of votes is now being prepared.

Stein said the move is aimed at verifying the integrity of the electoral system. The aim is not to question the victory of Republican Donald Trump.

The US Greens had raised more than five million dollars since Wednesday to have the vote reviewed in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This is because Wisconsin only bears the costs of a recount if the difference in the election results between the winner and the applicant is less than 0.25 percent. Jill Stein had received one percent of the vote in the US election.

If the Greens want to have recounts in the other two countries too, they don't have much time left.

► In Pennsylvania they would have to submit the application by November 28th (Monday) and in Michigan by November 30th (Wednesday).

What does Donald Trump say about it?

He is upset and - as usual - first pokes around. He accuses Jill Stein of malevolence, and in an official press release he described her request for a recount as a “fraud”.

Stein only uses it to fill their own pockets, Trump announced on Saturday. Most of the donations (5.8 million dollars) will never be spent on this "ridiculous recount."

The results of the election should be respected, said Trump. "The people have spoken and the election is over," wrote the President-elect. Clinton herself said to him on her congratulatory phone call on election night that the result would have to be accepted.

If a recount request is made in Michigan as well, the billionaire could appeal it.

... and what does Clinton say?

Hillary Clinton's campaign team wants to participate in the recount, according to one of their advisors - but deliberately did not apply themselves.

Although our own research did not reveal any evidence of hacker attacks, Clinton advisor Marc Elias announced on Saturday on the website of "Medium". That is why their own camp did not seek a recount. Since this has now been applied for in Wisconsin, the team wants to ensure a fair process.

The Clinton team doesn't seem particularly hopeful.

Could the voting computers really have been hacked?

It would be possible - at least in theory. This issue is particularly sensitive in the USA, where the e-mails of high-ranking Democrats were hacked during the election campaign.

The Kremlin was behind the attack, according to a joint statement by the Ministry of Homeland Security and the director of the National Intelligence Service. The US secret services are "convinced that the Russian government has controlled the recent attacks on emails from US persons and institutions".

Donald Trump had joked about the attack and in a public comment asked Russia to hack further emails from Clinton.

However, it has not been proven whether certain voting computers have actually been reprogrammed. This is contradicted by the fact that different systems and models are used throughout the country, but also within the individual states.

Why did Clinton lose when more people voted for her?

Because in the USA the head of state is not elected directly by the citizens, but through the "electoral system".

There are a total of 538 voters. Depending on the size and seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, each state has a certain number, which - except in Maine and Nebraska - go completely to the winner.

To become a US president, you need at least 270 electors. Trump has 290, Clinton has 232.

Overall, however, two million more voters voted for the Democrat than the Republican!

Clinton has 64 so far223958 of all votes, Trump 62206395.

The Democrat is the fifth presidential candidate to lose the election due to the electoral system: More US citizens also voted for Andrew Jackson (US election 1824) and the Democrats Samuel Tilden (1876), Grover Cleveland (1888) and Al Gore (2000) , yet they didn't win.

Can the electors simply vote against Trump and for Clinton?

Theoretically yes. The American Constitution does not comment on this; in most states, electors who vote against the will of their state voters would face a relatively low fine.

But this only happens very, very rarely, and such “protest voters” have never led to a candidate who has had most of the electors behind him not being elected president after all.

Can the election result really still change?

Rather not. After recounts, Clinton would have to be the winner in all three states: She would get 46 electors and come to 278 electors, Trump to 214.

This means: Evidence of election rigging or miscounting must be found in all three states and the recount would have to be in Clinton's favor.