The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    2,350
    Reaction score
    2,123
    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.
     
    Doesn't seem likely. I don't think it was implied that he was trying to bribe or blackmail him into doing that. I think this falls under inappropriate but not illegal.
    Thanks. All the more reason to pour every resource the Dems have into the GA runoffs. A longshot, but I'm sure the Biden Campaign/DNC have a lot of money left over from the presidential. Getting these corrupt republicans like McConnell, Graham, et al out of these committee chairs is imperative moving forward.
     
    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.
    This is exactly what I was thinking as I read it. Purdue was really close to getting that 50%. If it puts them over 50%, then they can let Loeffler twist in the wind and not spend a nickel more than they need to in the runoff.
    I can't find anything that says Georgia is recounting the votes in the Purdue race. The only information on recounts in Georgia that I can find is for the presidential race, so I don't think Graham's comments were about he Purdue race.
     
    I can't find anything that says Georgia is recounting the votes in the Purdue race. The only information on recounts in Georgia that I can find is for the presidential race, so I don't think Graham's comments were about he Purdue race.

    I thought a recount was the whole ballot. Maybe I don't understand how the recounts work.
     
    I can't find anything that says Georgia is recounting the votes in the Purdue race. The only information on recounts in Georgia that I can find is for the presidential race, so I don't think Graham's comments were about he Purdue race.
    This is exactly what I was thinking as I read it. Purdue was really close to getting that 50%. If it puts them over 50%, then they can let Loeffler twist in the wind and not spend a nickel more than they need to in the runoff.
    Here's the answer, it's not a recount, It's an audit.

    State election officials have said this is not a recount, but rather a post-election audit.

    The main difference between the two: A recount is typically tied to a close margin in an election, whereas post-election audits are routine and used by states to ensure that equipment and procedures counting the vote all worked properly.

    In Georgia, for instance, a recount is conducted using the same scanners that read and tallied the unofficial results already released. And recounts in Georgia generally take place after election results are certified by the state. That hasn’t happened yet. Once an election is certified, a trailing candidate can request a recount if the margin is less than 0.5 percentage points. Biden currently leads by 0.28 percentage points, so Trump could still request a recount later...

    ...The post-election audit is being held under a new state law that required one to be conducted for the first time this year on a race of the secretary of state’s choosing. Raffensperger said he selected the presidential contest given the “national significance of this race and the closeness of this race.”

    The specific type of audit that Georgia has chosen is known as “risk-limiting.” It involves checking paper ballots against machine tallies to ensure the accuracy of those machines. This year was the first time Georgia used a fleet of ballot-marking, voting machines that produce a paper record of every ballot cast in person.
     
    If I'm reading that right any ballot tossed out in the audit (which isn't really the goal of the audit) would mean the votes in all races o that ballot would be thrown out.

    But they aren't even trying to validate ballots, just make sure they were counted properly.
     
    If I'm reading that right any ballot tossed out in the audit (which isn't really the goal of the audit) would mean the votes in all races o that ballot would be thrown out.

    But they aren't even trying to validate ballots, just make sure they were counted properly.
    From my understanding, the original vote counts are within the range for the losing candidate to request a recount, but they would have to wait until the election was certified. And that's the problem, trump doesn't want States to certify their election results unless he was leading and the GA GOP were happy to oblige him by performing this audit instead.
     
    Here's the answer, it's not a recount, It's an audit.
    That source says " Raffensperger said he selected the presidential contest given the “national significance of this race and the closeness of this race.” It still seems race specific. The article says at the end that vote tallies could change, but it doesn't directly state if it's just for the presidential races are all races. Since the article refers to the audit as being for the presidential race, then the article should be referring to presidential vote tally. Since there's currently so much bad writing in journalism, who knows what the case is.
     
    Last edited:
    ...The article says at the end that vote tallies could change, but it directly state if it's just for the presidential races are all races. Since the article refers to the audit as being for the presidential race, then the article should be referring to presidential vote tally. Since there's currently so much bad writing in journalism, who knows what the case is.
    Yeah, I don't really see where you got that understanding from in the AP article.


    COULD VOTE TALLIES CHANGE?

    Yes. Both election experts and the Georgia secretary of state’s office have said the final vote tallies will almost certainly be different than the unofficial results reported previously. “The outcome will change slightly at the end, more than likely,” says Gabriel Sterling with the secretary’s office.


    But I did find this part funny:

    The state is asking for counties to complete the hand tally by Wednesday at 11:59 p.m. It’s a tight turnaround time. Representatives from each party will be allowed to watch the process, although they will not be permitted to challenge any ballots.
     

    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