The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (7 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.
     
    Can one of our legal minds explain what Trump's "Unconstitutional Consent Decree" Tweets are about? I'm sure it's nonsense, but I always like to understand the nonsense.


    Can't answer that part, but I can answer the rest..


    Asked about President Trump’s baseless claims of fraud in the state, Royston said, “I have not seen anything that would concern me,” and that she “trusts the system.”

    As for the Trump tweet calling the recount “fake” because elections officials are “not allowing signatures to be looked at and verified,” Royston explained that doing so would be impossible in any audit or recount because there is no way to tie an absentee ballot back to the envelope it arrived in – and that is by design.

    “Signature verification is completed before that ballot is ever opened and scanned the first time,” she said. “That ballot does not go back with the envelope because then you would lose voter secrecy.”
     
    What's cracking me up today is that #WhiteHouseKaren is trending...
    125212944_1508159722713604_5825772614184931767_o.jpg
     
    Wait, here we go @Saint by the Bay


    ATLANTA (AP) — President Donald Trump has wrongly claimed that Georgia election officials are unable to verify signatures on absentee ballot envelopes because of a legal settlement known as a consent decree.

    Here’s a look at Trump’s claims, in a tweet on Saturday:

    TRUMP: “The Consent Decree signed by the Georgia Secretary of State, with the approval of Governor @BrianKempGA, at the urging of @staceyabrams, makes it impossible to check & match signatures on ballots and envelopes, etc. They knew they were going to cheat. Must expose real signatures!”

    THE FACTS: There is nothing in the consent decree that prevents Georgia election clerks from scrutinizing signatures. The legal settlement signed in March addresses accusations about a lack of statewide standards for judging signatures on absentee ballot envelopes.


    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said that not only is it entirely possible to match signatures, but that the state requires it.


    When a voter requests an absentee ballot on a paper application, he or she must sign it. Election officials compare that signature to the signature in voter registration files before a ballot is sent to the voter, Raffensperger said.

    When those ballots are returned, the required signature on the outer envelope is compared to signatures in the voter registration system.

    This process was spelled out in detail in the consent decree, a legal settlement that was signed March 6.
     
    That AP fact check also mentions this...

    The signature issue resurfaced after lawyer L. Lin Wood Jr. filed a federal lawsuit Friday questioning whether the secretary of state had the authority to require the process of signature verification outlined in the agreement.

    So.. if Lin Wood Jr's lawsuit wins, what does that mean? That the SoS can't set up a process for signature verification? or can't standardize it? or just they they can't let people cure it?

    How does that help Trump? By saying you can't verify signatures, how do you allow a state to say signatures were verified and good?
     
    That AP fact check also mentions this...



    So.. if Lin Wood Jr's lawsuit wins, what does that mean? That the SoS can't set up a process for signature verification? or can't standardize it? or just they they can't let people cure it?

    How does that help Trump? By saying you can't verify signatures, how do you allow a state to say signatures were verified and good?

    I assume the intent is to argue that if the signatures can't be verified, none of the 1.3 million+ mail in votes in Georgia should be counted.

    Of course, absolutely no court in America is going to throw out 1.3 million votes cast by voters who reasonably believed that the process they used to vote was valid because the state elections officials told them it was valid. But that doesn't matter.

    The real end game here is just to say "look at how many lawsuits we filed, there is no way any of this could have been legitimate if we had to file so many lawsuits." Whether the lawsuits have any legal merit or even survive initial motions to dismiss (nearly all so far have not) doesn't matter. As Steve Bannon said, the best way to counter reality and facts is to "flood the zone with shirt."
     
    If conservatives stopped telling bald faced lies maybe their content would stop getting censored
    ============================================
    (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc.’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter Inc.’s Jack Dorsey will face accusations from Republican senators that the companies censor conservative content, after several of President Donald Trump’s social-media posts claiming voter fraud were labeled as false or misleading in the wake of the election.

    The chief executive officers of the social networks are scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday in their second congressional appearance in a month to defend themselves against charges of silencing conservatives.

    The session is likely to focus on Twitter and Facebook’s handling of Trump’s statements about the election process and outcome, many of which have been labeled as false or misleading, as well as their treatment of an October story in the New York Post that was seen as potentially damaging to Democrat Joe Biden.

    During a tense hearing that month, Zuckerberg and Dorsey heard complaints that they were trying to tip the scales for Biden in the election ahead. Now they’re facing a GOP that for the most part hasn’t recognized Biden as the president-elect................

     
    If you see someone saying that Zuckerberg is censoring the right, then you can just stop listening to that person, they are lying to you.

    Here is a quote from Matthew Sheffield, who basically started right wing media:

    AC507C59-C229-4CA2-9264-0C69EA2FDC7F.jpeg
     

    Graham asked that in a private conversation, not in a public interview. That indicates to me that there is a sincere effort by some Republicans to find some way to keep Trump in office in defiance of how voters voted.

    There's legitimate reason to be concerned that the push to deny the election outcome is more than just a campaign stunt to help Republican senatorial candidates when their runoffs in Georgia.
     
    Graham asked that in a private conversation, not in a public interview. That indicates to me that there is a sincere effort by some Republicans to find some way to keep Trump in office in defiance of how voters voted.

    There's legitimate reason to be concerned that the push to deny the election outcome is more than just a campaign stunt to help Republican senatorial candidates when their runoffs in Georgia.

    If I had to guess, Graham was more driven by wanting to prevent a runoff in the Purdue race. If Purdue wins Graham is still chairman of the Judicial Committee and the other runoff doesn’t matter. Controlling the Senate is more important to them than the White House and throwing out a bunch of mail in votes may push Purdue back over 50%.

    That’s just a guess. Graham is entirely self serving.
     

    Not at all surprising coming from the GOP as a whole, this is who they are, stupid and power hungry cheats. Graham is not the worse of them, he's an average Republican. I'm genuinely shocked that GASoS Raffensperger has shown some integrity, only time will tell if he's able to maintain being an honest person or will he become a typical Republican.
     
    Graham asked that in a private conversation, not in a public interview. That indicates to me that there is a sincere effort by some Republicans to find some way to keep Trump in office in defiance of how voters voted.

    There's legitimate reason to be concerned that the push to deny the election outcome is more than just a campaign stunt to help Republican senatorial candidates when their runoffs in Georgia.

    Believing that your opponent is engaged in a vast cheating conspiracy can push one to believe that cheating is appropriate . . . no matter if your opponent isn’t actually doing it.

    It’s part of the danger of this general belief of widespread fraud despite the lack of evidence.
     

    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