The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    1,748
    Reaction score
    1,522
    Age
    61
    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.
     
    PA is anticipating the SC ruling overturning the 3 day window for mail ballots to be received. They are separating out those ballots postmarked for Nov 3 that arrive after 8pm Nov 3. If the SC re-hears this case and ACB breaks the tie, then PA could be looking at disenfranchising thousands of voters.

     
    PA is anticipating the SC ruling overturning the 3 day window for mail ballots to be received. They are separating out those ballots postmarked for Nov 3 that arrive after 8pm Nov 3. If the SC re-hears this case and ACB breaks the tie, then PA could be looking at disenfranchising thousands of voters.

    I have zero doubt that she will do exactly that. PA will be the 2020 version of 2000 FL. Hopefully it won't be a deciding factor in the election like 2000 FL was.
     
    I have zero doubt that she will do exactly that. PA will be the 2020 version of 2000 FL. Hopefully it won't be a deciding factor in the election like 2000 FL was.
    PA has almost 1.1M outstanding mail-in requested ballots with almost 600k of those being for registered Ds.
    SCOTUS just refused to hear the PA case. ACB recused herself from it.
    Found it. Thanks!
     
    How long before Trump trashes her for revising herself?

    I don’t think even Trump would trash his own pick 1 day into the job.

    It looks like Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are open to revisiting the case post Nov 3rd.

     
    First, I meant recusing herself in prior post, not revising. Spellcheck. I can see Trump sneaking a snide comment about her recusing herself. His bar is not high, and his tolerance for “disloyalty” is even lower.

    And it does look like it may be something that the court could take up after the fact.
     
    Last edited:
    So it’s not as clean as the initial news reports made it sound.

    Also, she didn't exactly recuse herself, just that she hasn't had time to read any of it.

    The court's public information officer said that Barrett did not participate because of the need for a "prompt resolution" and because she had not had the time to fully review the filings

    Looks like they don't want to get in the way, but they may review this later. So, PA is smart to keep things separated, as they discussed, in case they need to go back and exclude votes later. Assuming it gets that close.
     
    So it’s not as clean as the initial news reports made it sound.
    I can't imagine any legal reasoning they would wait until after the election to hear the case. There's no way it wouldn't look like them trying to change the outcome of the election to whoever has the lead when they take it up.
     
    SCOTUS just refused to hear the PA case. ACB recused herself from it.

    From what I read, she didn't recuse herself for anything related to the case, she just didn't take part because there wasn't enough time for her to read all the material before they were wanting to vote.
     



    A believer like myself would say that the idea that the Supreme Court would do whatever it could to get Trump the win was always a misplaced overreaction. A cynic should properly respond that the Court is just keeping its powder dry.

    You know who joined Roberts and the liberal justices on this? Kavanaugh.

    You just never quite know with these things.
     

    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.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom