The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (9 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    2,387
    Reaction score
    2,153
    Age
    62
    Location
    Alabama
    Offline
    There is a lot of push-back from Trump on voting by mail, but most states allow it, and 1/3 allow it without any excuse. His rationale is that it will lead to vast fraud, but of course that isn't his real reason. His real reason is that he thinks it will be worse for conservatives, but studies have shown that states that have instituted much broader voting by mail haven't had any statistical changes in party voting.



    Although, normally voting by mail doesn't affect party votes, I bet it might this year if we have another resurgence of Covid, because I think the right is much more apt to discount the virus than the left. I know that is why Trump is against it.

    Whether you're left or right wing, expanding mail in votes is the right thing to do to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus, to expand voter participation, and to make it easier for those that do show up to stay distant. It will also allow any people with susceptibilities to remain safer. I think voting by mail could be made extremely secure by having people vote using traditional postal mail, coupled with requiring a confirmation either by phone, email or text. If done by phone, then voters can provide confirmation that can include confirming their form number. If done by email or text, it can include a picture of their form, and then confirmation that that was their form. Rather than staffers individually calling people, this can be automated by having voters call the number, text the number, or email the address provided to them on their form. A website can even be created with a database of those that have voted, and perhaps a link to allow people to confirm their vote was correctly registered. For people without computers, a site can include a means to access the database over the phone with some confirmation information. These types of systems are used extensively by banks and other sites that need security, so I think they are mature enough to use. We could even use such a site for people to confirm their vote on the day of the election.
     
    It doesn't bother me that Trump is contesting the election. It is his right to contest it, just as it was Al Gore's right to contest it back in 2000. I'm not sure what is going to come of it or what evidence he thinks he may have to support his cause. I assume he knows things we don't know but I do think its a big uphill battle to overturn multiple state results. He would need 56 EC votes to go from 214 to 270, that is a tough tough hill to climb at the moment.

    Until this goes 38+ days, it is not something unprecedented since Gore contested 2000 for 37 days. Makes no difference to me as an independent that voted 3rd party, but I do love a nice good ol' fashion shirtshow. 2022 is where the real battle begins, regardless of whether or not its a Biden or Trump victory.
    Absolutely ridiculous take
     
    Because 2000 is the most relevant election to this one, I agree with you that it's a potentially valuable example - but any examination of it should conclude how different they are rather than alike. So let's take a look at what happened in 2000.

    First, Al Gore did not 'contest' the 2000 election in any way. Based on Florida statute, the state was mandated to conduct a recount because the margin of victory was within half of a percent (.05%). After the machine recount, Bush held a lead of 327 votes in total across the state. Based on Florida's recount law, a candidate can request manual recount on a county-by-county basis should he/she choose. Gore availed himself of this statutory provision and requested a manual recount in four counties.

    Florida law (like nearly every state) has a "safe harbor" provision that required that all recounting be done within seven days of the election - and the counties responded that they could not meet that deadline. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the counties could report their result but then revise it after the count was completed (effectively removing the statutory deadline). On this and concerns that the manual recount was happening without standards or consistency across those counties, Bush appealed directly to the US Supreme Court to intervene on the basis of equal protection and the electors clause of the US Constitution. In a now famous and controversial decision, the Court ruled that the manual recount process sanctioned by the Florida Supreme Court violated equal protection and was contrary to state election law. So the manual recount was suspended and the machine recount ruled final by Florida officials. Bush won by just several hundred votes and became president.

    Trump's "litigation strategy" is very different. Rather than using state election law recount devices or even challenging the procedures used under a single-state's laws for counting votes in the event of a slim margin of victory, Trump is broadly asserting that every vote cast in six states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia) is inherently suspect and must be shown to be legal instead of illegal. His margin of defeat in those states is 148K, 45K, 36K, 20K, 17K, and 10K, respectively . . . but the total votes cast there are in the 10s of millions. And despite the fact that every vote was conducted within the processes provided by state legislatures and managed by election officials of both parties in accordance with law and systems in place for elections that happen routinely in America, Trump (and now other Republicans) assert that every vote is suspect until confirmed to be "legal."

    But it doesn't work that way. Those votes are presumed to be legal, not illegal, because they were cast, received, and counted in accordance with those procedures. Where states have applicable recounting laws, they can be used for recounts where applicable. But the statement that a losing candidate can broadly demand an audit of the entire vote simply because "it's his right" is not accurate under American law. Where an election result comes through those state election procedures and no recount is available under state law, the candidate's only recourse should be through a lawsuit shown to have merit on a specific protection under applicable law.

    I don't have a problem with Trump or his campaign filing lawsuits on allegations that state a legitimate prima facie case that includes some basis in reality. But filing lawsuits with the ambition of simply opening up the state's entire ballot count as a fishing expedition to challenge the election result is a very dangerous precedent and I only hope that the judges in these cases recognize that.
    I may just steal this.
     
    They're stalling and when the investigations are still "ongoing" when the clock runs out the GOP governors are just going to appoint GOP electors and it is all going to be good and legal.. That has been their backup plan all along and why they were talking Election fraud months before the actual election to "prepare the ground"

    (I truely hope that I'm wrong but that is what my suspicious mind tells me)
    PA, WI and MI all have dem governors so that can’t happen. GA and AZ are GOP but that wouldn’t be enough.
     
    Let's allow the process to run it's course before going there. I suspect the courts are pretty much across the board going to throw these suits out as being frivolous and when the states certify the election results, we'll be good to go.




    Hope is not a strategy.

    Some people here seem to still be living in 1985, where ‘norms’ and ’precedents’ are adhered to... I’m not saying that all of these baseless challenges wont be rejected, as they should be... BUT, if any of this gains traction, and Donald Trump uses the levers of government that he has at his disposal- then each person on this board, and in this nation, needs to make a plan for what they’ll do, or if they just plan to stand by and let it happen.
     
    Hope is not a strategy.

    Some people here seem to still be living in 1985, where ‘norms’ and ’precedents’ are adhered to... I’m not saying that all of these baseless challenges wont be rejected, as they should be... BUT, if any of this gains traction, and Donald Trump uses the levers of government that he has at his disposal- then each person on this board, and in this nation, needs to make a plan for what they’ll do, or if they just plan to stand by and let it happen.

    I'm confident that no one, at least in the courts and in most government departments are just standing by and letting this happen. I don't think it's misplaced hope or confidence. At least not yet. The odds are really, really slim that this goes as far as you seem to be alluding to. Trump ultimately is going to have to accept the election results. The votes will be certified and once they are and legal challenges are exhausted, Trump won't have a leg to stand on. That's really all there is to it.
     
    I am not ready to say that Trump is going to pull this off. He is losing too much in too many places. Most of The R’s that are backing him are doing it by saying to let him investigate. Hell even in Barr’s order to investigate he added the caveat “if there is evidence”

    That said, I truly believe that if Trump were to successfully usurp the government and turn asunder the election results, secession talk would grow exponentially on the west coast. And there would be a war.

    I would be all for it at that point.
     
    I am not ready to say that Trump is going to pull this off. He is losing too much in too many places. Most of The R’s that are backing him are doing it by saying to let him investigate. Hell even in Barr’s order to investigate he added the caveat “if there is evidence”

    That said, I truly believe that if Trump were to successfully usurp the government and turn asunder the election results, secession talk would grow exponentially on the west coast. And there would be a war.

    I would be all for it at that point.
    Beyond agreeing with the reasoning of people like SuperChuck on why Trump's attempts will not be successful here... there just has to be an understanding from judges and whoever else that are having to seriously deal with this shirt that the societal ramifications of any complicity in attempts to steal or overturn this election are so blatantly grave.

    It's scary to have so many elected Republicans going along.. for sure.

    But I also think it's pretty clear that most of this is Trump acting as the straight up con man that he is, milking his die-hard supporters for every penny while his ship continues to sink.

     
    Last edited:
    Only the best





    .





    66FD5D95-0826-46A0-A55D-B9C9F81ECB4C.png
     
    Absolutely ridiculous take


    This is something an ideologue says and you will not goad me into playing low-hanging fruit, left vs right politics. Just because he's contesting the results of an election, it does not mean something will turn up that causes the outcome to flip into his favor. For all we know, everything eventually gets thrown out of the courts and everything proceeds as the election decided. What if something does turn up? It's not out of the realm of possibility that errors could have happened. Some of the states did infact participate in mass unprecedented mail-in voting that they may or may not have been prepared for. If I ask you to do something that you've never done before, the chance of you making a mistake is rather high, its a human element.

    He has a right to challenge the outcome, whether you like it or not. I would say the same if this election went the other way and the Biden team filed multiple suits to challenge the outcome. Do I think Trump will be successful? I would say more no than yes, he would have to prove alleged fraud/glitches/mistakes in at least 3 other states to flip where Biden has leads. This also isn't the first time an election has been contested through the legal system, so I don't see what the freak out is about.

    This is literally me saying in a long way without breaking for either side, "Wait and see." I do however love a good ol shirtshow though, because the USA has been one gigantic shirtshow the entire year.
     
    It's not out of the realm of possibility that errors could have happened.

    Yes, it is, full stop. It is out of the realm of possibility that "something occurred" that changed 10's of thousands of votes over 4 states.

    Not every idea has merit. Some are just silly. The idea that there is enough voter fraud or some kind of counting anomaly to flip the number of votes needed to turn this election is silly.

    He has the right to challenge it, and reasonable people have the right to not take seriously him and anyone that buys into this ridiculous, illogical notion that this is remotely possible.
     
    This is something an ideologue says and you will not goad me into playing low-hanging fruit, left vs right politics. Just because he's contesting the results of an election, it does not mean something will turn up that causes the outcome to flip into his favor. For all we know, everything eventually gets thrown out of the courts and everything proceeds as the election decided. What if something does turn up? It's not out of the realm of possibility that errors could have happened. Some of the states did infact participate in mass unprecedented mail-in voting that they may or may not have been prepared for. If I ask you to do something that you've never done before, the chance of you making a mistake is rather high, its a human element.

    He has a right to challenge the outcome, whether you like it or not. I would say the same if this election went the other way and the Biden team filed multiple suits to challenge the outcome. Do I think Trump will be successful? I would say more no than yes, he would have to prove alleged fraud/glitches/mistakes in at least 3 other states to flip where Biden has leads. This also isn't the first time an election has been contested through the legal system, so I don't see what the freak out is about.

    This is literally me saying in a long way without breaking for either side, "Wait and see." I do however love a good ol shirtshow though, because the USA has been one gigantic shirtshow the entire year.

    He doesn't have a right to claim fraud and cause people to question the validity of an election without any evidence of systemic/systematic and intentional attempts to steal an election. He's on record as stating that in his recent shirtshow (you like those right?) of a presser.

    He can challenge a result if he wants. That's fine. But accusing election theft and fraud without evidence is way over the line. And he knows it. He's doing nothing more than tossing red meat to his base. It's unbecoming of a President.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom