Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Florida recount (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=865415)

nelliebly 11-11-2018 10:11 PM

Florida recount
 
According to CNN, Palm Beach County officials are now saying there's no way they can finish the recount by Thursday's deadline, which will, according to Palm Beach county GOP chair Michael Barnett, put the GOP in very good position because their candidates are ahead. Not completing the recount means the Florida secretary of state would determine whether to certify the results as they are,. The Florida Sec. of State, Ken Detzner, is GOP.

It's deja vu all over again.

Why would a state have a recount deadline that can't be met?

Jonathan Chance 11-11-2018 10:48 PM

There'll be a law suit. You can time that one with a stop watch. Might even end up back and the Supreme Court.

Beckdawrek 11-11-2018 10:55 PM

Jesus H. Christ, this 2018 why can't they have a system that works? There's seriously something wrong in Florida politics. This is really over the line. The Fed needs to send people down there to monitor elections.

voltaire 11-11-2018 10:59 PM

The key now is whether or not they're forced to stop recounting, even if it's after the deadline and won't be accepted without some future ruling otherwise.

voltaire 11-11-2018 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beckdawrek (Post 21317749)
Jesus H. Christ, this 2018 why can't they have a system that works? There's seriously something wrong in Florida politics. This is really over the line. The Fed needs to send people down there to monitor elections.

There are such piddly problems everywhere, but there are not many counties in the US as crucial in a swing state as the contiguous counties of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach, which have a larger (very Dem heavy) population than the rest of the state combined. Problem is, the state capitol is up north and has been historically dominated by Republicans.

Let's just say the instinct to disenfranchise the "center of resistance" that is South Florida was on full display with the predictable venomous reactions from Scott and Desantis.

scr4 11-11-2018 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beckdawrek (Post 21317749)
Jesus H. Christ, this 2018 why can't they have a system that works?

Because there are people who benefit from disenfranchising a subset of voters?

UltraVires 11-11-2018 11:52 PM

This is a machine recount? They did this in a matter of hours on election night. Why does it matter that they are counting three races instead of one?

I thought after the 2000 debacle, Florida went to electronic voting.

Kolak of Twilo 11-11-2018 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scr4 (Post 21317789)
Because there are people who benefit from disenfranchising a subset of voters?

Agreed. Because there are people (the GOP) who benefit from disenfranchising a subset of voters (minorities and those who will vote for Democrats).

Of course, as the usual contingent of (supposed) lawyers will tell us, this is perfectly okay because it is legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beckdawrek (Post 21317749)
Jesus H. Christ, this 2018 why can't they have a system that works?

Mostly for no other reason than because it is Florida. Any other state that has gone through the bullshit Florida has with counting votes over the last 18 years would have taken action.

Florida is a synonym for dysfunction.

voltaire 11-12-2018 12:07 AM

They have taken action, they have gone electronic or Scantron, there are no chads.

galen ubal 11-12-2018 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21317812)
This is a machine recount? They did this in a matter of hours on election night. Why does it matter that they are counting three races instead of one?

I thought after the 2000 debacle, Florida went to electronic voting.

No, they have paper ballots - fill in the oval type. Scantron, I think it's called.

As for why it's taking so long, that CNN article linked to above says that volunteers in Pam Beach County are using eight machines. Another CNN article here shows the by county vote count in Florida for Senate in Palm Beach county - a combined total of 588,562 votes. So over four days, each machine will have to count almost 18,400 votes, or 766/hour.

Someone can check my math here, please.

boytyperanma 11-12-2018 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beckdawrek (Post 21317749)
Jesus H. Christ, this 2018 why can't they have a system that works? There's seriously something wrong in Florida politics. This is really over the line. The Fed needs to send people down there to monitor elections.

The people who remain in control, benefit from a broken system, so it is working as intended. If it started to benefit Democrats, they'd want to change it.

UltraVires 11-12-2018 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galen ubal (Post 21317835)
No, they have paper ballots - fill in the oval type. Scantron, I think it's called.

As for why it's taking so long, that CNN article linked to above says that volunteers in Pam Beach County are using eight machines. Another CNN article here shows the by county vote count in Florida for Senate in Palm Beach county - a combined total of 588,562 votes. So over four days, each machine will have to count almost 18,400 votes, or 766/hour.

Someone can check my math here, please.

My point was that they were able to run all of these ballots through the machine on election night in a matter of hours. Why can they not just do the same process again in the next four days?

voltaire 11-12-2018 12:38 AM

Surprise, it takes longer for the most populated counties to gather and count (and even longer to recount) all their votes than it does for the low population counties to do so. For obvious reasons, there will be more problems and any problems will involve larger numbers and will be even more amplified during any close, important elections. That the most populous counties are Democratic leaning just makes it both natural and convenient for the desperate attempts to disenfranchise them to the greatest extent they can get away with.

Again, Florida state politics is and has been absolutely dominated by Republicans, yet there are many more Democrats living in Florida than there are Republicans, which would have no chance at all if all the Democrats actually voted and had those votes counted. Florida has a lot of electoral votes and they're up for grabs. That's all the plot you really need to know to guess the whole story.

voltaire 11-12-2018 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21317857)
My point was that they were able to run all of these ballots through the machine on election night in a matter of hours. Why can they not just do the same process again in the next four days?

Because for both undervotes and overvotes, they have to check each ballot by hand to determine the problem that caused the aberration.

galen ubal 11-12-2018 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltaire (Post 21317866)
Because for both undervotes and overvotes, they have to check each ballot by hand to determine the problem that caused the aberration.

Not sure about that - I think that belongs with the manual recount that would be triggered if the machine recount is within X%*

In the video linked to in the first post, the anchor asks the same question UltraVires does. The reply is that each election must be segregated from the others, a much more "laborious process". Go to about 1:40 for the reporter's explanation. (So I don't have to retype it.... :D)
Basically, it boils down to having to do three independent recounts - one each for Senate, Governor, and Agriculture Commissioner.

*.2%?

voltaire 11-12-2018 12:53 AM

That's both true and different than what I'm talking about. Close elections have automatic recounts, but particular ballots with particular aberrations (undervotes, overvotes, signature mismatch, etc.) have to be inspected manually.

galen ubal 11-12-2018 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltaire (Post 21317882)
That's both true and different than what I'm talking about. Close elections have automatic recounts, but particular ballots with particular aberrations (undervotes, overvotes, signature mismatch, etc.) have to be inspected manually.

Indeed they do, but only in a manual recount.
Quote:

Optical scan ballots and hybrid voting system paper outputs: The canvassing board must run each ballot with the affected race(s) through tabulator. All overvotes (optical scan ballots only) and undervotes (optical scan/hybrid voting system paper outputs) are outstacked to be used in the manual recount if one becomes necessary
Quote:

MANUAL RECOUNT (S. 102.166, F.S.)  A manual recount must be ordered if the 2nd set of unofficial returns indicates that a candidate was eliminated or defeated by ¼ of 1% or less of the votes cast for the office or an issue was approved or rejected by ¼ of 1% or less.  Exceptions to a manual recount: o If the candidate or candidates defeated or eliminated from contention for the office by ¼ of 1% or less request in writing that it not be conducted; or o If the number of overvotes and undervotes is fewer than the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election.  The manual recount is only a recount of overvotes and undervotes as outstacked from the machine recount.
From the State of Florida recount procedure summary (pdf)

nelliebly 11-12-2018 03:07 AM

How hard would it be, exactly, to roll in another 10 or 12 machines from another county?

BeepKillBeep 11-12-2018 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21317973)
How hard would it be, exactly, to roll in another 10 or 12 machines from another county?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, we wouldn't want to do something sensible that might effect Republicans winning.

adaher 11-12-2018 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21317704)
According to CNN, Palm Beach County officials are now saying there's no way they can finish the recount by Thursday's deadline, which will, according to Palm Beach county GOP chair Michael Barnett, put the GOP in very good position because their candidates are ahead. Not completing the recount means the Florida secretary of state would determine whether to certify the results as they are,. The Florida Sec. of State, Ken Detzner, is GOP.

It's deja vu all over again.

Why would a state have a recount deadline that can't be met?

First, all the other counties can meet the deadline. And most years, Palm Beach handles vote counting just fine. For some reason they had some foulups this year, as did Broward.

Second, recounts are BS. Running ballots through the machine once gives one result, running them through a second time gives a different result. There is no evidence that result #2 is more accurate than result #1. It's all kabuki to make voters think that their one vote can make a difference, when the reality is that elections have a margin of error. Invalid ballots get included in totals, valid ballots get lost, mistakes occur during counting. When an election is close enough, there is literally no way to determine the intent of the voters. It's a tie, and recounts are just a sophisticated way to do a coin flip.

That being said, Rick Scott is ahead by 12,000 votes, and no recount has ever flipped that many votes, or even come close. It's over.

ohiomstr2 11-12-2018 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beckdawrek (Post 21317749)
Jesus H. Christ, this 2018 why can't they have a system that works? There's seriously something wrong in Florida politics. This is really over the line. The Fed needs to send people down there to monitor elections.

Or an international monitoring team, headed by President Carter.

I often wonder what the US government would say if we were looking at a similar situation in a s******* country...

nelliebly 11-12-2018 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21318065)
First, all the other counties can meet the deadline. And most years, Palm Beach handles vote counting just fine. For some reason they had some foulups this year, as did Broward.

Second, recounts are BS. Running ballots through the machine once gives one result, running them through a second time gives a different result. There is no evidence that result #2 is more accurate than result #1. It's all kabuki to make voters think that their one vote can make a difference, when the reality is that elections have a margin of error. Invalid ballots get included in totals, valid ballots get lost, mistakes occur during counting. When an election is close enough, there is literally no way to determine the intent of the voters. It's a tie, and recounts are just a sophisticated way to do a coin flip.

That being said, Rick Scott is ahead by 12,000 votes, and no recount has ever flipped that many votes, or even come close. It's over.

Soooo...you think this "margin of error" is consistent across counties and through time? You think there are NEVER any errors, deliberate or otherwise by biased election officials in the original ballot counts? And you think as long as the results are within the "margin of error," we should shrug off the actual results and any possible malfeasance and declare a winner?

And you're arguing that because something has never happened in the past, it can't happen in the present?

Interesting.

adaher 11-12-2018 05:07 PM

I'm arguing that the purpose of an election is to determine the will of the voters. If an election is this close, that cannot be done. Things happen, like 20,000 voters failing to find the Senate race on their ballots, or weather keeping people from the polls, or lack of machines. None of this is enough to flip a race that's decisive, but in close races it makes the result suspect. Let's end these suspect results and just declare a tie, and then have tiebreaker rules, which could mean runoffs, incumbent party always loses, each candidate serves half the term, or even a coin flip. But stop doing these damn recounts because they always end in hard feelings and mistrust. Either the first result is the result, or declare ties in close races.

There is zero evidence that the recount will produce a more accurate result than the first count did. It certainly can't make up for the other errors in the system, such as 20K voters not voting in the Senate race in Broward.

It is safe to say, at least in the Senate race, that it is impossible to determine the will of the people. CAn we all agree on that? And if so, what's the best way to handle that problem?

UltraVires 11-12-2018 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltaire (Post 21317862)
Surprise, it takes longer for the most populated counties to gather and count (and even longer to recount) all their votes than it does for the low population counties to do so.

Shouldn't there be a corresponding increase in workers and machines? That would be like saying we only have 10 teachers per school whether the school has 100 kids or 2,500 kids.

adaher 11-12-2018 06:47 PM

Broward hasn't even started their recount, BTW. At least Palm Beach has given us information. Broward doesn't say anything at all without a court order.

Chisquirrel 11-12-2018 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21319123)
Shouldn't there be a corresponding increase in workers and machines? That would be like saying we only have 10 teachers per school whether the school has 100 kids or 2,500 kids.

Who's in charge of this stuff again?

Velocity 11-12-2018 07:11 PM

Is it just me or are Republicans almost always in the lead in recount elections? When's the last time the roles were flipped and a Democrat led by 0.1% or something?

UltraVires 11-12-2018 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 21319310)
Who's in charge of this stuff again?

AFAIK, it is the counties. I really don't know. This wasn't a gotcha question.

Twoflower 11-12-2018 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21318065)
That being said, Rick Scott is ahead by 12,000 votes, and no recount has ever flipped that many votes, or even come close. It's over.

Then why not just count all the damn votes already?

ElvisL1ves 11-12-2018 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21319105)
There is zero evidence that the recount will produce a more accurate result than the first count did.

And zero that it won't. That's why you do it.

Quote:

It is safe to say, at least in the Senate race, that it is impossible to determine the will of the people. CAn we all agree on that?
Of course not. That's what counting all the ballots is for.

Maybe you've been asleep, but this isn't 2000 and your partisan arguments against the most basic process of democracy were already dissected then when made by others.

JRDelirious 11-12-2018 07:52 PM

Florida did away with the chads, and after some fits and starts with touchscreens and others eventually settled on scan ballots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21319123)
Shouldn't there be a corresponding increase in workers and machines? That would be like saying we only have 10 teachers per school whether the school has 100 kids or 2,500 kids.

Well, yeah -- but for the benefit of those unfamiliar: what you have is on election night, there's one or more scanners at each polling place (depending on population) and at the end of the day you write down the readout of the scanner, then the largely volunteer poll workers make a crosscheck of how many ballots are in the basket vs. how many the scanner counted and make a note of it on the report then zap it to the Elections Board. Any discrepancies are looked at in the general canvass. When it comes down to recount now the process is more closely monitored so it gets done in one central location, with one fixed number of machines and a smaller number of people so you can control it all more tightly.

Now, if a particular county does not have this part of the operation be large enough to do a general recount in the time required, someone lacked foresight. But the question becomes, who's responsible for PB or Broward being sufficiently equipped and staffed in case of recount? The counties themselves, or the State? That is one expensive contingency, and again, most poll workers were volunteers it's not like you can summon them all again.


As to the ballot-design issue, that seems to be a major problem that keeps biting Florida in the fundament, but I've seen other states' ballots that are equally unimpressive. The one complaint about one of the races being tucked under a Wall Of Text in the lower left could be fixed by a hard and fast rule that NOTHING goes in the instructions column other than instructions (hell, make it a different font/shaded background), and all actual votes are in columns B thru D with separating "gutters" so that it is obvious where are the elections.

nelliebly 11-12-2018 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRDelirious (Post 21319403)

When it comes down to recount now the process is more closely monitored so it gets done in one central location, with one fixed number of machines and a smaller number of people so you can control it all more tightly.

Why would a fixed number of machines help control the recount more tightly? Double the number of machines currently doing the recount in Palm Beach County, and you still only have sixteen machines, still few enough to maintain control of the recount, especially with the number of attorneys and party leaders keeping a keen eye on the proceedings.

JRDelirious 11-12-2018 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21319485)
Why would a fixed number of machines help control the recount more tightly? Double the number of machines currently doing the recount in Palm Beach County, and you still only have sixteen machines, still few enough to maintain control of the recount, especially with the number of attorneys and party leaders keeping a keen eye on the proceedings.

Tell it to the elections commissioners who fixed it at 8, and ask whose call was it -- county or state.

nelliebly 11-13-2018 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRDelirious (Post 21319588)
Tell it to the elections commissioners who fixed it at 8, and ask whose call was it -- county or state.

It's the county. This NYT article says the Miami-Dade elections office rented 4 additional machines, bringing its total to 10. This also means the number of machines isn't fixed but fluid.

Another puzzler is that

Quote:

41,000 Floridians requested mail-in ballots from overseas, so elections supervisors were simply inundated with ballots to count after Election Day.
Mail-in ballots must be requested no later than 6 days before the election, so officials certainly had time to prepare. And ballots from overseas are still coming in. The deadline for arrival is this Friday.

galen ubal 11-13-2018 12:25 AM

Huh. I just had a look at my ballot info (I live overseas, and vote out of Marion County, FL), and it tells me my ballot was tabulated. They received it on October 5 - wonder when they counted it?

RTFirefly 11-13-2018 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21317857)
My point was that they were able to run all of these ballots through the machine on election night in a matter of hours. Why can they not just do the same process again in the next four days?

Can you confirm for us that they were able to do the initial machine count in a matter of hours?
Quote:

Originally Posted by voltaire (Post 21317866)
Because for both undervotes and overvotes, they have to check each ballot by hand to determine the problem that caused the aberration.

No, this is the machine recount. If, after the machine recount is completed, the margin in a race is < 0.25%, then there's a hand recount.
Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21317973)
How hard would it be, exactly, to roll in another 10 or 12 machines from another county?

Each county's ballot is different. You'd have to reprogram the additional machines, and test to make sure the reprogramming was done correctly. By the time they finished that, they'd be past the deadline anyway.

RTFirefly 11-13-2018 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 21317740)
There'll be a law suit. You can time that one with a stop watch. Might even end up back and the Supreme Court.

The notion that it's more important to finish the recount by a particular date, than it is to complete the recount and do it correctly, is of course absurd. It also flies in the face of the right of the voters to have their votes counted, and counted correctly. I suspect that the Dem legal team will be making that latter point in court.

Buck Godot 11-13-2018 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21317704)
It's deja vu all over again.

Complete with Butterfly ballot 2.0

emcee2k 11-13-2018 01:26 PM

Recounts are ridiculous. If you take the same pile of ballots and count them twice, you should get exactly the same numbers. If you don't something is broken somewhere in the system. It's so bizarre to me that a recount can cause triple-digit change in vote totals, and everyone just shrugs off the fact that apparently hundreds of people disenfranchised on the first go. Or the second go.

BigT 11-13-2018 01:35 PM

It's not really disenfranchisement if they have a mechanism to force a recount if there's any chance that it's actually close. It's just a lower precision measure, followed by increased precision measures that take longer if the situation is close.

That said, I do agree that they should be able to do a better job than this with the first count. Especially in a place that has repeatedly had problems. Give them them the latest and greatest tech.

BigT 11-13-2018 01:42 PM

Arkansas has electronic voting (and mechanical before that). But we also do have ballots, especially for absentee. The ballot does not seem difficult to read at all. The only problem I have is that I think we need a plain language statute for the ballot issues.

Here is Missouri's absentee ballots, which look similar, except that ours doesn't have the gray background to emphasize the titles: they're just set off with bold and lines, IIRC.

BigT 11-13-2018 01:54 PM

One more thing: it just occurred to me that it sounds like I'm saying recount deadline isn't disenfranchisement. That very much is.

And, no, to adaher. It is not impossible to determine the will of the people--at least the people who voted. That's ridiculous. There are still countries that count votes by hand. There's plenty of time before they take office.

Having multiple samplings increases accuracy, BTW. So, while you can't necessarily say that the first or second count is more accurate, you can figure out the bounds, and if they both agree, you get a more precise measurement than either alone.

That said, if the recount is handled differently than the original count, then it could add precision to the process. Assuming they don't include an arbitrary deadline.

The only time I would say we can't tell is if we are at January 2 and still don't have everything counted.

emcee2k 11-13-2018 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21320589)
It's not really disenfranchisement if they have a mechanism to force a recount if there's any chance that it's actually close.

Of course it is. If you go to the polls and vote a specific candidate or proposal and that vote wasn't properly recorded, then you didn't actually vote. Obviously it'd be worse if it swung an election one way or another but it's still unambiguously disenfranchisement.

UltraVires 11-13-2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emcee2k (Post 21320696)
Of course it is. If you go to the polls and vote a specific candidate or proposal and that vote wasn't properly recorded, then you didn't actually vote. Obviously it'd be worse if it swung an election one way or another but it's still unambiguously disenfranchisement.

It is amazing that millions of Floridians were able to navigate the complexities of properly marking their ballots. I think that a rejection of a vote is self-selecting. If you are too stupid to follow the instructions on how to vote so that the machine did not count it, then that was a vote that did not need to be counted.

It further amazes me how Democrats want to portray Republican voters as backwoods idiot rednecks yet they support counting moron votes because they know that is where they get the most votes.

DigitalC 11-13-2018 03:02 PM

I guess we can forget about Florida being a battleground state at this point. Battleground states shouldn't have been even close this election.

Chronos 11-13-2018 03:17 PM

If the ballots are designed such that idiots on both sides can't figure it out, well, I'd still argue that that's less than ideal, but at least it's fair. But if the ballots are designed so that it's easier to figure out how to vote for one side than for the other, so that one side's idiots get to vote and the other side's idiots don't, well, that's a problem. And that was the case both with the butterfly ballots, and with these ballots.

nelliebly 11-13-2018 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21319942)
Can you confirm for us that they were able to do the initial machine count in a matter of hours?
No, this is the machine recount. If, after the machine recount is completed, the margin in a race is < 0.25%, then there's a hand recount.
Each county's ballot is different. You'd have to reprogram the additional machines, and test to make sure the reprogramming was done correctly. By the time they finished that, they'd be past the deadline anyway.

Miami-Dade brought in 4 additional machines and didn't have this issue. By the way, the machines, which came from Nebraska, would undoubtedly have to be programmed but not reprogrammed, as they weren't set up in Florida to begin with. I don't know how long it take to program the machines, but it seems likely it wouldn't long enough to delay the recount significantly. Doesn't it?

galen ubal 11-13-2018 04:43 PM

A Leon County circuit judge ruled Tuesday that the recount of midterm votes in Palm Beach County, Fla., will be extended to Nov. 20, five days after the initial deadline.

RTFirefly 11-13-2018 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21320846)
Miami-Dade brought in 4 additional machines and didn't have this issue.

When? Two weeks before the election? Two days after?

Chisquirrel 11-13-2018 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21320798)
It is amazing that millions of Floridians were able to navigate the complexities of properly marking their ballots. I think that a rejection of a vote is self-selecting. If you are too stupid to follow the instructions on how to vote so that the machine did not count it, then that was a vote that did not need to be counted.

It further amazes me how Democrats want to portray Republican voters as backwoods idiot rednecks yet they support counting moron votes because they know that is where they get the most votes.

Seems like a common refrain from conservatives:

"If you can't return a postcard, you don't deserve to vote."

"If you don't have an address because we refuse to deliver mail to your door, you don't deserve to vote."

"If you misread something or skip a vote you don't care about, you don't deserve to vote."


So much for defending democracy.

RTFirefly 11-13-2018 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21320842)
If the ballots are designed such that idiots on both sides can't figure it out, well, I'd still argue that that's less than ideal, but at least it's fair.

Not necessarily. Remember that, in Florida, each county designs its own ballot. That's why in 2000, Palm Beach County had the infamous 'butterfly ballot' but nobody else did. It's why in 2000, Duval County had ballot instructions reminding people to vote on every page, even though the list of Presidential candidates took up two pages, and a bunch of ballots were disqualified as overvotes because people voted on both pages - but this didn't happen elsewhere.

So let's assume that there's some ballot problem that causes 10% of ballots to be screwed up for whatever reason, but Dems and Pubbies and independents are equally susceptible to whatever's causing the ballot to be filled in incorrectly.

Now let's assume that this ballot design is being used in a county where 100,000 people vote, and it's 70-30 Republican. The ballot problem is going to disqualify 7000 Republican voters and 3000 Dem voters.

That would be fair for any county-level races, but its effect on a statewide race would be lopsided, and unfairly disadvantageous to the Republican statewide candidates.

UltraVires 11-13-2018 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21320842)
If the ballots are designed such that idiots on both sides can't figure it out, well, I'd still argue that that's less than ideal, but at least it's fair. But if the ballots are designed so that it's easier to figure out how to vote for one side than for the other, so that one side's idiots get to vote and the other side's idiots don't, well, that's a problem. And that was the case both with the butterfly ballots, and with these ballots.

1) How is this election like the butterfly ballot?

2) If you cannot follow an arrow, you are too stupid to vote.

Budget Player Cadet 11-13-2018 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321188)
1) How is this election like the butterfly ballot?

2) If you cannot follow an arrow, you are too stupid to vote.

I'm honestly curious about this theory of political philosophy. If I fail to return a postcard, does this mean I have somehow consented to taxation without representation? If I fail to follow a set of instructions (or follow a set of instructions that were misleading or false), does this somehow justify governance without the consent of the governed? If I decide that I cannot afford to take time off work to hunt down a birth certificate to take more time off work to hoof it to the DMV to get a photo ID I don't need for anything other than voting, does this mean democracy should be abridged for me?

I greatly look forward to your myriad advances in the field of political philosophy, in this new branch I shall call the "Got mine, fuck yours" school of pseudodemocracy. :)

adaher 11-13-2018 07:48 PM

Voting is not supposed to be hard, but it's not supposed to be idiot proof either. It is well established that if you're mentally incompetent, you don't vote. I have no problem believing that 3% of the voters in Broward County are mentally incompetent and probably shouldn't be voting. And on the Senate race, they didn't. Because they forgot there was a Senate race. Look, if you don't know there's a Senate race when you go to vote, it's best that you don't.

adaher 11-13-2018 07:50 PM

On what grounds? The law is clear.

galen ubal 11-13-2018 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21321345)
Voting is not supposed to be hard, but it's not supposed to be idiot proof either. It is well established that if you're mentally incompetent, you don't vote. I have no problem believing that 3% of the voters in Broward County are mentally incompetent and probably shouldn't be voting. And on the Senate race, they didn't. Because they forgot there was a Senate race. Look, if you don't know there's a Senate race when you go to vote, it's best that you don't.

Cute - but when it's only in Broward County, things start to look a little funny. In every other county, the undervotes for Senate were all less than 1%. While Broward county may have four times as many idiots, in that one particular way, it seems unlikely.

I suspect some sort of calibration issue in Broward county, myself - their machines, for whatever reason, weren't set up properly. Until someone looks at the ballots, we won't know.

RTFirefly 11-13-2018 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21321346)
On what grounds? The law is clear.

Maybe the right of the voters to have their votes counted, and counted correctly, overrides artificial statutory deadlines?

Just a hunch - I haven't read the decision.

nelliebly 11-13-2018 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21321143)
When? Two weeks before the election? Two days after?

They ordered them last Thursday and received them yesterday, I believe. According to the Miami Herald, on Thursday the Miami-Dade elections supervisor also got permission from the canvassing board to have employees start separating the first page (which has the three key races on it) from the rest of the ballot.

adaher 11-13-2018 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21321459)
Maybe the right of the voters to have their votes counted, and counted correctly, overrides artificial statutory deadlines?

Just a hunch - I haven't read the decision.

Where in the Constitution is that clause? And if it's there, why have any election laws at all? Means legally I can vote for President in 2020 right now.

adaher 11-13-2018 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galen ubal (Post 21321355)
Cute - but when it's only in Broward County, things start to look a little funny. In every other county, the undervotes for Senate were all less than 1%. While Broward county may have four times as many idiots, in that one particular way, it seems unlikely.

I suspect some sort of calibration issue in Broward county, myself - their machines, for whatever reason, weren't set up properly. Until someone looks at the ballots, we won't know.

I live in Broward County and had that ballot. It never would have occurred to me that there would be a problem. The Senate race was the first race listed and it was at the bottom left. Only way to miss it is if you don't know there's a Senate race. And even if you did miss it and know there's a Senate race, you'll look for it and find it very easily.

Bill Nelson thinks it's a calibration issue as well, and he may end up being right. The hand recount will find a lot of new votes if that's the case, perhaps enough to give Nelson the race.

DSeid 11-13-2018 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galen ubal (Post 21321355)
Cute - but when it's only in Broward County, things start to look a little funny. In every other county, the undervotes for Senate were all less than 1%. While Broward county may have four times as many idiots, in that one particular way, it seems unlikely.

I suspect some sort of calibration issue in Broward county, myself - their machines, for whatever reason, weren't set up properly. Until someone looks at the ballots, we won't know.

Or Broward's ballot design -
Quote:

One possible reason for the discrepancy is poor ballot design. Broward County ballots listed the U.S. Senate race first, right after the ballot instructions. But that pushed the U.S. Senate race to the far bottom left of the ballot, where voters may have skimmed over it, while the governor’s race appears at the top of the ballot’s center column, immediately to the right of the instructions.


Sun Sentinel reporters talked with a ballot expert, who said that some voters may not have noticed the Senate race (perhaps thinking it was just part of the ballot instructions) and started filling out their ballot with the governor race instead. That theory is supported by a data consultant who’s worked for several political campaigns in Florida, who found that the parts of Broward County that fall in the 24th Congressional District did see higher levels of undervoting than other parts of the county. That might be because the 24th District was uncontested, which according to Florida law means that the congressional race did not appear on the ballot at all. As you can see in the sample ballot above, the congressional race would also appear in the lower-left corner on many ballots, along with the Senate race. In districts where there was no congressional race on the ballot, however, that corner would have looked even emptier, perhaps making it easier for voters to inadvertently skip over the Senate race. ...
If that then ... oh well. No fixing it now.

elucidator 11-13-2018 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321188)
...If you cannot follow an arrow, you are too stupid to vote.


Perhaps we should consider the advantages of not enabling and coddling our duller citizens. If some standards and practices can be hammered out, and pesky legal problems waved off, there are some cromulent possibilities! Perhaps not erase that political power but shift it into more deserving and worthy crania!

For instance, a message board devoted to fighting ignorance is a self-selecting demographic of smart voters. (I suspect there are far more Mensa members among us than any other random grouping, because we are a bunch of smart and elitist snots.)

Perhaps enhancing the political power of smart people would be the first step toward Cecilian world domination. Who better to shrewdly apply political power? We could do like the Republicans do, use political power to vote ourselves more political power! Gradually, the reins of power will be within our grasp, and the world would be under our benign and humane guidance.

Groovy!

adaher 11-13-2018 09:49 PM

I actually don't think educated voters are necessarily better voters than uneducated voters. But I do feel pretty safe in saying that voters who can cast a vote successfully are more qualified to pick our representatives than a voter who finds simple things baffling. This, and the butterfly ballot in 2000, are cases where no one could have predicted there would be a problem until it happened, because... damn. It's just not that hard. And every time they try to make it simpler, but there are always some who just can't do it.

Chronos 11-13-2018 10:31 PM

Except that there are well-known standard principles of ballot design which would have eliminated the butterfly ballot problem, even if nobody realized in advance that the butterfly design would have been confusing. And except that we're talking about several percent-- How hard would it be to test a ballot design with a focus group of a hundred people?

galen ubal 11-13-2018 11:15 PM

*sigh* Looks like I have to admit, I appear to have had the wrong end of the stick, when it comes to Broward county.
I'd been unconsciously assuming that the general layout of the ballots, in all counties, was about the same. Different races, but everything in the same general position. That would make the undervote very odd indeed, in comparison to other counties.
It's now looking to me that this is not the case; that Broward is the only county to stick a race down there on the lower left. That'd make the relative undervote much more understandable.
Can anyone confirm for me that I am indeed missing something? Is the Broward county in-person ballot different in that way from all the others?
(Mine is, but it's an absentee ballot, and I'd been assuming that it was formatted differently, for letter size paper.)

UltraVires 11-13-2018 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galen ubal (Post 21321624)
*sigh* Looks like I have to admit, I appear to have had the wrong end of the stick, when it comes to Broward county.
I'd been unconsciously assuming that the general layout of the ballots, in all counties, was about the same. Different races, but everything in the same general position. That would make the undervote very odd indeed, in comparison to other counties.
It's now looking to me that this is not the case; that Broward is the only county to stick a race down there on the lower left. That'd make the relative undervote much more understandable.
Can anyone confirm for me that I am indeed missing something? Is the Broward county in-person ballot different in that way from all the others?
(Mine is, but it's an absentee ballot, and I'd been assuming that it was formatted differently, for letter size paper.)

So, do morons, or people who cannot look down and left have a right to have their illegal votes counted?

galen ubal 11-13-2018 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321646)
So, do morons, or people who cannot look down and left have a right to have their illegal votes counted?

If they put their mark in the oval, yes. If there's no mark in a particular oval, how would we know what their vote was? It all comes back to was it simple dumbness, or was there a calibration or similar issue with the machines.

Chisquirrel 11-14-2018 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321646)
So, do morons, or people who cannot look down and left have a right to have their illegal votes counted?

You jumped the shark - how are their votes illegal?

More defense of democracy...

Chisquirrel 11-14-2018 02:23 AM

In other news, an election official allowed people to vote by email, which is totally legal and in no way able to be circumvented to allow illegal votes or voters.


I'll let you guess the party affiliation, but it MIGHT just be the party crying about voter fraud and how Democrats are trying to steal elections by, ya know, actually counting the votes.

Monty 11-14-2018 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 21321778)
In other news, an election official allowed people to vote by email, which is totally legal and in no way able to be circumvented to allow illegal votes or voters.


I'll let you guess the party affiliation, but it MIGHT just be the party crying about voter fraud and how Democrats are trying to steal elections by, ya know, actually counting the votes.


Your link says

Quote:

Election officials in a Florida county battered by Hurricane Michael last month allowed about 150 displaced voters to cast ballots by email, even though it's not allowed under state law.
So, I think you meant "totally illegal".

Chisquirrel 11-14-2018 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty (Post 21321797)
So, I think you meant "totally illegal".

Are you insinuating that I would DARE impugn the morality and righteousness of Republicans, implying that they did something illegal during a very close election, via sarcastic incrimination?

Because I absolutely did. The party crying about voter fraud is actively committing voter fraud. I'm sorry the sarcasm didn't carry.

nelliebly 11-14-2018 04:29 AM

Yeah, yeah, we humans are a stupid bunch, as anyone who's worked a help desk will tell you. But we're also inattentive. We tend to find instructions dull and idiotic (" I know how to vote.")and plunge in without reading them.

Or the instructions say to use a pen with dark ink, and we use a dark fine-line Sharpie, which bleeds through just enough to screw up the scanner.

Or we mark the oval next to Candidate A AND fill the name in on the write-in blank just to make sure it's clear we want A, dammit, A, not that idiot B, and we don't realize the optical scanner counts that as an over-vote.

Or we don't even realize we made a microscopic stray mark with the pen.

Or, having just been instructed to pick any TWO for each of the last three races, we don't even notice the instruction to vote for just ONE on the fourth.

Even otherwise intelligent people screw up.

septimus 11-14-2018 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty (Post 21321797)
Your link says

... So, I think you meant "totally illegal".

:confused: Wasnt it the great Richard M. Nixon who said (paraphrased) 'When a Republican President or one who serves him does it, then it is not illegal' ?

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21321480)
Where in the Constitution is that clause? And if it's there, why have any election laws at all? Means legally I can vote for President in 2020 right now.

Let's say there's a state statute that says: in between the voting and the counting, the election officials are to choose one ballot in each race which they should choose as they see fit, and throw the rest in the incinerator.

What you're saying is that this statute would be perfectly legit because nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a right of citizens to have their votes counted.

That's an interesting stance, to put it mildly.

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21321466)
They ordered them last Thursday and received them yesterday, I believe. According to the Miami Herald, on Thursday the Miami-Dade elections supervisor also got permission from the canvassing board to have employees start separating the first page (which has the three key races on it) from the rest of the ballot.

And when will they start being used to count the Miami-Dade ballots?

The ballot scanning machines are just dumb machines. They don't know what any of those markings on the page mean. Someone has to adjust each machine so it knows what marks, on what part of the page, are to be counted, and what name each location on the page is to be associated with. Someone else has to test it and make sure it's doing it reliably. This isn't an instantaneous process, or at least it shouldn't be.

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21321483)
I live in Broward County and had that ballot. It never would have occurred to me that there would be a problem. The Senate race was the first race listed and it was at the bottom left. Only way to miss it is if you don't know there's a Senate race. And even if you did miss it and know there's a Senate race, you'll look for it and find it very easily.

Well, quite honestly that's a big steaming crock of bullshit.

If I was making out a checklist in advance for how I'm going to vote, it would have stuff like governor, Senator, Representative, etc. at the top of the list.

But who carries a checklist like that into the voting booth? I don't go into the voting booth saying to myself, "don't forget to vote for governor/Senator/whatever." You kinda figure your ballot will be your checklist: that if you go through it systematically, you'll vote for governor, Senator, Representative, and so forth.

So if one race is tucked in in the lower left under the instructions, away from the other races, and you don't see it because you mentally register the instructions as taking up the whole column, you just start with that second column and keep on going. It would be extremely easy to fail to notice that you'd never voted for Senator.

As DSeid said, "If that then ... oh well. No fixing it now." Because that's how our crazy system works. We don't test stuff like this ahead of time (or at least, there's no requirement to do so), and if something doesn't go quite right as a result, oh well.

We really need a nationwide uniform ballot for voting for Federal offices: President/VP, Senator, Representative. The states would determine what names are on it, same as now, but the structure of the ballot would be the same everywhere, and would be tested within an inch of its life. None of this nonsense where each state, and in some states each county, can have a totally untested ballot design that nobody else has, at least not for Federal offices.

UltraVires 11-14-2018 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21321821)
Yeah, yeah, we humans are a stupid bunch, as anyone who's worked a help desk will tell you. But we're also inattentive. We tend to find instructions dull and idiotic (" I know how to vote.")and plunge in without reading them.

Or the instructions say to use a pen with dark ink, and we use a dark fine-line Sharpie, which bleeds through just enough to screw up the scanner.

Or we mark the oval next to Candidate A AND fill the name in on the write-in blank just to make sure it's clear we want A, dammit, A, not that idiot B, and we don't realize the optical scanner counts that as an over-vote.

Or we don't even realize we made a microscopic stray mark with the pen.

Or, having just been instructed to pick any TWO for each of the last three races, we don't even notice the instruction to vote for just ONE on the fourth.

Even otherwise intelligent people screw up.

And yet millions of people were able to navigate the fires of hell known as a ballot and successfully had their votes counted.

In any human endeavor there are rules. If a football player catches a 40 yard TD pass but his second foot ever so slightly touches the end line, then it is not a catch. Why? Isn't that close enough? The catch was spectacular. It is not a catch because the agreed upon rules prior to the game say that it is not a catch.

Likewise, if the instructions say vote for one candidate and to fill in the bubble completely, it is not enough to circle the candidate, or put an X next to the candidate, or vote for the candidate and also write in his name.

In any other context, it would be clear and undisputed that if you did not follow simple instructions, then your vote is not counted. But in this context, Democrats demand that these "votes" are counted because this is their base: people on the government dole who cannot function in society and cannot follow rules. They need these votes so that they can be in power and take from the productive members of society and give their money to these people who cannot fill out a ballot.

And they typically get their way. They will find liberal judges who will rule that a November 16 deadline in the law really means November 21. They will want to rule that an X next to a candidate is a vote for that candidate because they glean the "intent of the voter" from that mark, even though it could just as easily mean "definitely not that guy." We could argue back and forth about what that mark means, but if the voter wanted to vote for him, then fill in the damn bubble next to his name like the instructions say and how every scantron tabulates anything.

Why should the taxpayers have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to count the votes of a handful of people who cannot navigate a ballot? To elect Democrats?

UltraVires 11-14-2018 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galen ubal (Post 21321648)
If they put their mark in the oval, yes. If there's no mark in a particular oval, how would we know what their vote was? It all comes back to was it simple dumbness, or was there a calibration or similar issue with the machines.

That's my point. If the problem was that there was a 3% undervote in Broward, but only 1% elsewhere, and we assume that 2% of people did not vote for the Senate race because they were blinded by a lower left ballot placement, then what do we do?

If they missed it, then we can recount for years and there will still be no vote recorded for that race. Do we just give the Dems a 2% bump in Broward?

In any event, 98% of the voters were able to look down and to the left and finally find a way to vote for their preferred Senate candidate. How much money and time should society invest in making these ballots idiot-proof so that the Dems can get as many votes as possible?

Left Hand of Dorkness 11-14-2018 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321897)
In any other context, it would be clear and undisputed that if you did not follow simple instructions, then your vote is not counted. But in this context, Democrats demand that these "votes" are counted because this is their base: people on the government dole who cannot function in society and cannot follow rules. They need these votes so that they can be in power and take from the productive members of society and give their money to these people who cannot fill out a ballot.

If you mean that Democrats don't want to shit on people who are struggling, you're right. One would hope that'd be a universal value in our nation.

BeepKillBeep 11-14-2018 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321897)
In any other context, it would be clear and undisputed that if you did not follow simple instructions, then your vote is not counted. But in this context, Democrats demand that these "votes" are counted because this is their base: people on the government dole who cannot function in society and cannot follow rules.

Personally, I would rather have the poor who are struggling to make due (in a world where wealth is increasingly filtered towards the already super wealthy), and need some assistance from their fellow citizens, in my base than authoritarians and white nationalists. But to each their own I guess. For some reason, having white nationalists (and most other peddlers in hate) in the Republican base doesn't seem to bother Republicans that much.

UltraVires 11-14-2018 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21321907)
If you mean that Democrats don't want to shit on people who are struggling, you're right. One would hope that'd be a universal value in our nation.

Saying that we will not forcibly take money from person A and give that money to person B does not mean that we are shitting on person B, nor does that outright theft amount to some universal value that we should adhere to.

Charity and caring for the less fortunate are universal values, but implicit in charity is the voluntary nature of it, not some enforceable right to the property of another. The Dems have created that enforceable right and want the votes for the beneficiaries to go along with it.

CaptMurdock 11-14-2018 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21321480)
Where in the Constitution is that clause? And if it's there, why have any election laws at all? Means legally I can vote for President in 2020 right now.

Who's stopping ya, cupcake? Knock yourself out. Might want to scratch "Pence" in there, as I think Orange Julius Caesar is showing signs of losing whatever fudge he has left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321897)
In any human endeavor there are rules.

Be sure to forward that little bon mot to the Republican who's apparently allowing some of these people to vote by email in bold violation of state law.

If I can further break into your pontificating, Your Eminence, I'd like to ask: If indeed this recount goes forward and further cements DeSantiis' and Scott's leads in their respective contests, certifying them as the winners beyond question, will you offer up a full and unabashed apology? Seems to me the least you can do. After all, this recount may have given those whose votes for DeSantiis and Scott weren't counted the first time the opportunity to be heard, as any voter should be heard in a democratic society.

So, will you?

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322341)
Saying that we will not forcibly take money from person A and give that money to person B does not mean that we are shitting on person B, nor does that outright theft amount to some universal value that we should adhere to.

IOW, "taxation is theft." :rolleyes:

elucidator 11-14-2018 11:35 AM

Gasp! If only I had some pearls to clutch!

UltraVires 11-14-2018 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock (Post 21322352)
Be sure to forward that little bon mot to the Republican who's apparently allowing some of these people to vote by email in bold violation of state law.

If I can further break into your pontificating, Your Eminence, I'd like to ask: If indeed this recount goes forward and further cements DeSantiis' and Scott's leads in their respective contests, certifying them as the winners beyond question, will you offer up a full and unabashed apology? Seems to me the least you can do. After all, this recount may have given those whose votes for DeSantiis and Scott weren't counted the first time the opportunity to be heard, as any voter should be heard in a democratic society.

So, will you?

I think the official who allowed email votes should be prosecuted.

You may interrupt my pontificating. :)

What would I be apologizing for exactly? If they did not fill in the bubble, but instead circled Scott or DeSantis, then their vote should not count. They did not cast their vote properly. Those were the rules: fill in the bubble. Just like the football receiver who does not get two feet down, he does not score a touchdown, the voter who does not follow the rules does not get his vote counted.

CaptMurdock 11-14-2018 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322389)
I think the official who allowed email votes should be prosecuted.

:)
Quote:

You may interrupt my pontificating. :)
Take a sainthood out of petty cash. ;)
Quote:

What would I be apologizing for exactly? If they did not fill in the bubble, but instead circled Scott or DeSantis, then their vote should not count. They did not cast their vote properly. Those were the rules: fill in the bubble. Just like the football receiver who does not get two feet down, he does not score a touchdown, the voter who does not follow the rules does not get his vote counted.
Why do you assume every vote previously uncounted was due to voter error? Some may be like these:

Miami-Dade just got 266 ballots from the Opa-locka post office. They won’t be counted

As I recall, this particular post office was locked down at one point due to a pipe-bomb scare. Is it fair that these voters should be denied their voice because of one nutjob?

This quote from the article sums it up:

Quote:

Protester Sue Brogan, 71, a Gillum supporter, said she just wanted election results she could trust, regardless of whether her candidate ended up winning.

“Whoever wins needs the credibility behind them,” she said. “I’ll accept defeat if it’s fairly counted, fairly processed and everybody’s vote was counted.”

UltraVires 11-14-2018 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock (Post 21322422)
:)

Why do you assume every vote previously uncounted was due to voter error? Some may be like these:

Miami-Dade just got 266 ballots from the Opa-locka post office. They won’t be counted

As I recall, this particular post office was locked down at one point due to a pipe-bomb scare. Is it fair that these voters should be denied their voice because of one nutjob?

This quote from the article sums it up:

From the article, the law says that the ballots must arrive by 7 p.m. on election day. That is the rule. It doesn't say "except if the post office did not deliver them on time due to a bomb scare." Now maybe the law should be changed. Maybe next year the NFL should change to a "one foot down" rule for catches.

What you do not do is change the rule in the middle of the process, or in the middle of a game, because you think that the rule is unfair.

Imagine if next week during an NFL game an official decided that kicking wasn't emphasized enough in the sport and declared that all field goals would be worth five points. Everyone would be outraged at such a decision because those weren't the rules in place prior to the game.

And that's just for a football game which in the grand scheme of things means very little. Why should we change the rules in the middle of a election? Is that somehow better?

Budget Player Cadet 11-14-2018 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21321905)
In any event, 98% of the voters were able to look down and to the left and finally find a way to vote for their preferred Senate candidate. How much money and time should society invest in making these ballots idiot-proof so that the Dems can get as many votes as possible?

First off, this question seems rather secondary, as you don't think ensuring that everyone's voice is heard in society is a priority. Again, I am eager to hear about the political philosophy behind this; apparently taxation without representation is perfectly okay if you get confused by a poorly-designed ballot. (Or your ballot gets held up due to a bomb threat, or you didn't realize you got knocked off the voter rolls, or if you weren't 100% clear which ID you needed, or if getting photo ID was prohibitively expensive, or if you misplaced your ID on election day... Look, the length of this list of things republicans seem to think are perfectly fine reasons to deny someone their vote should be a good sign that something is wrong here.)

But to answer the question: it's not really about money. The country is full of election locales where this shit works. Where they don't have problems with butterfly ballots or bad instructions. Designing a functional ballot seems like one of those problems any number of democracies have figured out by now; why is it so hard here?

UltraVires 11-14-2018 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21322512)
First off, this question seems rather secondary, as you don't think ensuring that everyone's voice is heard in society is a priority. Again, I am eager to hear about the political philosophy behind this; apparently taxation without representation is perfectly okay if you get confused by a poorly-designed ballot. (Or your ballot gets held up due to a bomb threat, or you didn't realize you got knocked off the voter rolls, or if you weren't 100% clear which ID you needed, or if getting photo ID was prohibitively expensive, or if you misplaced your ID on election day... Look, the length of this list of things republicans seem to think are perfectly fine reasons to deny someone their vote should be a good sign that something is wrong here.)

But to answer the question: it's not really about money. The country is full of election locales where this shit works. Where they don't have problems with butterfly ballots or bad instructions. Designing a functional ballot seems like one of those problems any number of democracies have figured out by now; why is it so hard here?

Of course everyone's voice should be heard. They can walk into the polling place, read the instructions (or have them read to them) and fill in a bubble on the scantron sheet. Now, if you are unable to do that, or cannot look down and to the left, then what extra steps do we need to take? How easy must we make it?

AFAIK, the ballot designs are approved by the election officials of which at least one member of each party is a member and they approve the ballot design. If a person was wanting to vote for Bill Nelson for Senate and somehow missed the race because it was in the instruction column, didn't that person complete his or her ballot and say, "Well, hell, where was the Senate race? I wanted to vote for Nelson?"

If the voter asked a poll worker where the Senate race was, the poll worker would point that out to them.

I don't think that "because we want more Dem votes" is a sufficient reason to dumb down the already trivially easy process of voting. Read the instructions, fill in the bubble. Millions were able to do it.

As far as voter ID, we have done that to death in other threads. If in 2018, you do not have an ID, I don't know how you function in society.

Budget Player Cadet 11-14-2018 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322509)
From the article, the law says that the ballots must arrive by 7 p.m. on election day. That is the rule. It doesn't say "except if the post office did not deliver them on time due to a bomb scare." Now maybe the law should be changed. Maybe next year the NFL should change to a "one foot down" rule for catches.

What you do not do is change the rule in the middle of the process, or in the middle of a game, because you think that the rule is unfair.

Imagine if next week during an NFL game an official decided that kicking wasn't emphasized enough in the sport and declared that all field goals would be worth five points. Everyone would be outraged at such a decision because those weren't the rules in place prior to the game.

And that's just for a football game which in the grand scheme of things means very little. Why should we change the rules in the middle of a election? Is that somehow better?

Football is a game. The purpose there is... to play a game. It's a sport. There's not really a purpose beyond that. You don't change the rules because the rules are what define the sport. Yeah, it'd be a dick move to change the rules mid-game, because then you're not playing the same game any more.

Elections aren't a fucking game. They have an actual purpose - to elect representatives that represent the will of the people. If the rules currently in place do a poor job of fulfilling that goal, then you're goddamn right we should change the rules mid-game! In this case, there's simply no reason not to count those votes. Sure, technically against the rules, but not counting them merely because they were held up due to a bomb threat is fundamentally against the spirit of the election, and the spirit is what matters. Imagine if those held-up votes would shift the outcome of the election - does it make any sense not to count them, just because of a bomb threat?

(This is also what's wrong with attempts to disenfranchise voters, and to act as though those unwilling to jump through increasingly ridiculous and completely unnecessary hoops are "too lazy" or "too stupid" to be worth considering. Someone who gets robbed on election day and loses their photo ID deserves to have a voice in our government just as much as you do.)

elucidator 11-14-2018 12:57 PM

Remember when GeeDubya gave that speech after the Florida Debacle of 2000? About how he recognized that the election result was not a mandate, nor really even a victory? How the Republican Party would seek policies of mutual accommodation and compromise?

Don't remember that? Can't blame you.

UltraVires 11-14-2018 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21322541)
Football is a game. The purpose there is... to play a game. It's a sport. There's not really a purpose beyond that. You don't change the rules because the rules are what define the sport. Yeah, it'd be a dick move to change the rules mid-game, because then you're not playing the same game any more.

Elections aren't a fucking game. They have an actual purpose - to elect representatives that represent the will of the people. If the rules currently in place do a poor job of fulfilling that goal, then you're goddamn right we should change the rules mid-game! In this case, there's simply no reason not to count those votes. Sure, technically against the rules, but not counting them merely because they were held up due to a bomb threat is fundamentally against the spirit of the election, and the spirit is what matters. Imagine if those held-up votes would shift the outcome of the election - does it make any sense not to count them, just because of a bomb threat?

(This is also what's wrong with attempts to disenfranchise voters, and to act as though those unwilling to jump through increasingly ridiculous and completely unnecessary hoops are "too lazy" or "too stupid" to be worth considering. Someone who gets robbed on election day and loses their photo ID deserves to have a voice in our government just as much as you do.)

The fact that elections are not merely a game is all the more reason to follow the pre-established rules. Either party can point to a law mid-counting and say that it is wrong or unfair for X, Y, or Z reasons. And what seems "unfair" bears a striking similarity to what gets more votes for the party claiming the unfairness.

If the Steelers are awarded a touchdown because of some arcane rule, then I tend to approve that rule. If their opponents are awarded a touchdown because of the same rule, then I tend to think that it is a stupid fucking rule that should be changed. Such is the nature of human beings.

To change the rules during the counting process would invite chaos.

Richard Parker 11-14-2018 02:10 PM

There are many rules for elections. Some of them are unconstitutional. If you tried to litigate them before they mattered, you would be thrown out of court. So the only option is to ignore them when they matter or force parties to litigate them when they matter. What you're seeing is a mix of both, depending on who controls the decision.

All of that is required by fidelity to the Constitution. There is no analogous situation in professional sports.

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322389)
I think the official who allowed email votes should be prosecuted.

You may interrupt my pontificating. :)

What would I be apologizing for exactly? If they did not fill in the bubble, but instead circled Scott or DeSantis, then their vote should not count. They did not cast their vote properly. Those were the rules: fill in the bubble. Just like the football receiver who does not get two feet down, he does not score a touchdown, the voter who does not follow the rules does not get his vote counted.

Yeah, I remember how pissed you were a year ago when a similar case wound up being the tying vote in a VA House of Delegates election, and without that vote, the HoD would have been split 50-50 instead of a 51-49 GOP majority.

Oh wait, I don't remember that at all.

ETA: Here's the vote for David Yancey, the Republican.

UltraVires 11-14-2018 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 21322685)
There are many rules for elections. Some of them are unconstitutional. If you tried to litigate them before they mattered, you would be thrown out of court. So the only option is to ignore them when they matter or force parties to litigate them when they matter. What you're seeing is a mix of both, depending on who controls the decision.

All of that is required by fidelity to the Constitution. There is no analogous situation in professional sports.

Of course. I agree with that. If a law is unconstitutional, it should be challenged, even during the counting process. But so far, all I am seeing are rules about when ballots need to be returned and deadlines for recounts. I fail to see any possible constitutional issue with those.

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322697)
Of course. I agree with that. If a law is unconstitutional, it should be challenged, even during the counting process. But so far, all I am seeing are rules about when ballots need to be returned and deadlines for recounts. I fail to see any possible constitutional issue with those.

Depends. Is the right to vote implied by the Constitution? All it says is that various groups can't be denied the vote on grounds such as race, gender, being between 18 and 21.

But does that mean that as long as everyone was denied the franchise, a state would still be vacuously complying with the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, and would not be doing anything unconstitutional?

If not, then citizens have a right to vote. And presumably that right, and their right for their votes to be counted, can't be canceled simply by administrative failures of one sort or another that the voters themselves didn't have anything to do with.

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322623)
The fact that elections are not merely a game is all the more reason to follow the pre-established rules.

The fact that elections are not merely a game is all the more reason to follow the pre-established rules not give a higher standing to arbitrary and capricious rules that stand in the way of voting and having votes counted, than to the right of citizens to cast their votes and have them counted.

FTFY.

UltraVires 11-14-2018 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21322726)
Depends. Is the right to vote implied by the Constitution? All it says is that various groups can't be denied the vote on grounds such as race, gender, being between 18 and 21.

But does that mean that as long as everyone was denied the franchise, a state would still be vacuously complying with the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, and would not be doing anything unconstitutional?

If not, then citizens have a right to vote. And presumably that right, and their right for their votes to be counted, can't be canceled simply by administrative failures of one sort or another that the voters themselves didn't have anything to do with.

I think that a cobbling together of many Supreme Court decisions show that there is clearly a right to vote by adult citizens. But like with any human enterprise, including football games, there have to be administrative regulations that set certain boundaries.

I mean, I had a right to vote in the 2012 election, but nobody would seriously argue that I can cast my ballot NOW for that election. Reasonable rules set reasonable deadlines for my vote to count. That's the absurd case.

Why couldn't it be argued that by mailing in a ballot, one takes the risk that the ballot will be lost in the mail or delayed due to unforeseen consequences? Now, maybe there should be a law that says that in exceptional circumstances like a bomb threat at the post office, late arriving ballots shall be counted. Maybe not. Does the Constitution really require such a law? That seems specious at best.

Likewise with recount deadlines. You know on election night that there may be a recount, so it is up to the officials to gather staff and machines to make sure that the counting is done by the deadline. If they fail to do that, is that a Constitutional violation? That starts down the slippery slope because the deadlines are there exactly so the government officials complete their tasks in an efficient manner. If you hold that the deadlines violate a Constitutional right to vote, then you encourage or allow sloppy behavior by election officials.

I simply cannot see how these regulatory and facially neutral laws like deadlines are a violation of the right to vote. You have a right to vote, you just must do so in a timely fashion.

UltraVires 11-14-2018 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21322738)
The fact that elections are not merely a game is all the more reason to follow the pre-established rules not give a higher standing to arbitrary and capricious rules that stand in the way of voting and having votes counted, than to the right of citizens to cast their votes and have them counted.

FTFY.

Most rules are arbitrary. I can drive 70 on the interstate, but not 71. Is there any measurable degree of increased harm to other motorists because of one measly mile per hour? No. But you could argue that all the way up incrementally by 1mph to 200mph.

There has to be a deadline for votes to come in and one time is just as good as another.

Richard Parker 11-14-2018 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322697)
I simply cannot see how these regulatory and facially neutral laws like deadlines are a violation of the right to vote. You have a right to vote, you just must do so in a timely fashion.

As you might imagine, the constitutional jurisprudence on elections is more complicated than that. Often these laws about timing are found to be unconstitutional. There are many reasons why this happens. Common ones are: (1) the law treats similarly situated voters differently; (2) the law was designed to disenfranchise certain voters; and (3) the law lacks sufficient justification given the impact it has on the franchise.

For example, I expect the ACLU of PA to win this lawsuit about timing: http://www.wesa.fm/post/aclu-sues-ov...lines#stream/0

Obviously, you are right that some subset of laws about timing are perfectly constitutional. But that's why we have the courts: to decide which are which.

UltraVires 11-14-2018 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 21322805)
As you might imagine, the constitutional jurisprudence on elections is more complicated than that. Often these laws about timing are found to be unconstitutional. There are many reasons why this happens. Common ones are: (1) the law treats similarly situated voters differently; (2) the law was designed to disenfranchise certain voters; and (3) the law lacks sufficient justification given the impact it has on the franchise.

For example, I expect the ACLU of PA to win this lawsuit about timing: http://www.wesa.fm/post/aclu-sues-ov...lines#stream/0

Obviously, you are right that some subset of laws about timing are perfectly constitutional. But that's why we have the courts: to decide which are which.

I understand that, but those cases themselves are based upon racism.

It would be like saying that a 70mph speed limit violates equal protection because white people are responsible drivers but only those wild blacks like to drive their sports cars really fast, therefore, the speed limit has a disparate impact on black people. It's absurd and feeds into the ideas that the KKK would be proud to promote.

RTFirefly 11-14-2018 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322787)
I think that a cobbling together of many Supreme Court decisions show that there is clearly a right to vote by adult citizens. But like with any human enterprise, including football games, there have to be administrative regulations that set certain boundaries.

I mean, I had a right to vote in the 2012 election, but nobody would seriously argue that I can cast my ballot NOW for that election. Reasonable rules set reasonable deadlines for my vote to count. That's the absurd case.

Agreed.
Quote:

Why couldn't it be argued that by mailing in a ballot, one takes the risk that the ballot will be lost in the mail or delayed due to unforeseen consequences?
There is that risk. And if the ballots had shown up after all the counting and recounting had been completed and the results certified, I'd agree that even if those votes would have tipped the outcome my way, it's too late and life just sucks sometimes.

But we're talking about an election where the counting is in progress. There's no reason, other than an excessive devotion to arbitrary rules, to not count those ballots.
Quote:

Now, maybe there should be a law that says that in exceptional circumstances like a bomb threat at the post office, late arriving ballots shall be counted. Maybe not. Does the Constitution really require such a law? That seems specious at best.
Who needs a law to say that? It should be just the standard default: if counting isn't done, and legitimate ballots are still turning up, you count them. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

Stuff like this is going to happen, as long as we have the jerry-rigged voting system we have, dependent on 3000 different counties' ways of doing things, and an army of volunteer and/or trivially-paid temporary election workers. Every election, for instance, boxes of ballots turn up in the trunk of an election worker's car.
Quote:

Likewise with recount deadlines. You know on election night that there may be a recount, so it is up to the officials to gather staff and machines to make sure that the counting is done by the deadline. If they fail to do that, is that a Constitutional violation? That starts down the slippery slope because the deadlines are there exactly so the government officials complete their tasks in an efficient manner. If you hold that the deadlines violate a Constitutional right to vote, then you encourage or allow sloppy behavior by election officials.
Well, of course an insistence on not allowing election officials any slack in their schedule should take precedence over voters' rights to have their votes counted properly. Gotta have our priorities properly aligned!
Quote:

I simply cannot see how these regulatory and facially neutral laws like deadlines are a violation of the right to vote. You have a right to vote, you just must do so in a timely fashion.
Sure, one must vote, or at least be in line to vote, by the time the polls close on election day. I've got no problem with that.

But what does that have to do with administrative deadlines, where compliance is completely outside the control of the voter? Why should the fate of my vote be caught up in squabbles between the state and the county? What does that have to do with the legitimacy of my vote? Once I vote, their job is to make sure it's counted properly, no matter which 'they' we're talking about.

manson1972 11-14-2018 04:26 PM

That PA lawsuit doesn't seem to be based on racism. But on the effect the law has the voting process itself.

Fiddle Peghead 11-14-2018 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21322797)
Most rules are arbitrary. I can drive 70 on the interstate, but not 71. Is there any measurable degree of increased harm to other motorists because of one measly mile per hour? No. But you could argue that all the way up incrementally by 1mph to 200mph.

There has to be a deadline for votes to come in and one time is just as good as another.

Has the deadline ever been an issue in Broward? That is, has the date as currently set ever been tested as to whether it is appropriate and fair? In any case, given that the winners in the elections at hand won't be sworn into office until next year, then why not extend the deadline to ensure that all votes are counted accurately?

nelliebly 11-14-2018 06:23 PM

How I love these authoritarian, "If you make a mistake, you're out" pontifications. Have you ever watched an optical scanner in operation? I have--not on votes, but on standardized tests. Those suckers are sensitive, and sometimes they screw up. Should all ballots that are rejected by a machine the first time through not be counted, even if it turns out to be machine error?

Furthermore, if some poor schmuck doesn't get his pen mark completely within the oval on one race, do you really think his votes on all the other races shouldn't count?

A cop who taught at the state police academy told me that all drivers break the law many times per day. Think about your driving today. Did you turn on your blinker precisely 100 feet before the turn? Did you make a right-hand turn into the left lane? Did you stop 4 inches into the crosswalk? Tut-tut. If you can't follow all the rules perfectly, you shouldn't get to drive.

adaher 11-14-2018 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21321837)
Let's say there's a state statute that says: in between the voting and the counting, the election officials are to choose one ballot in each race which they should choose as they see fit, and throw the rest in the incinerator.

What you're saying is that this statute would be perfectly legit because nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a right of citizens to have their votes counted.

That's an interesting stance, to put it mildly.

Dates and deadlines do not present constitutional issues though. States can have early voting or they can mandate voting on the first Tuesday of November. They have to certify results in time or else they lose representation when the next Congress opens, so they need a deadline for that.

adaher 11-14-2018 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21321856)

We really need a nationwide uniform ballot for voting for Federal offices: President/VP, Senator, Representative. The states would determine what names are on it, same as now, but the structure of the ballot would be the same everywhere, and would be tested within an inch of its life. None of this nonsense where each state, and in some states each county, can have a totally untested ballot design that nobody else has, at least not for Federal offices.

That's a terrible idea because if the design is poor you've screwed up all of the elections in the country. And there's no way to know for sure that a design won't confuse a small percentage of people.

Fiddle Peghead 11-14-2018 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21323256)
That's a terrible idea because if the design is poor you've screwed up all of the elections in the country. And there's no way to know for sure that a design won't confuse a small percentage of people.

Hence, "tested".

Chisquirrel 11-14-2018 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21323252)
Dates and deadlines do not present constitutional issues though. States can have early voting or they can mandate voting on the first Tuesday of November. They have to certify results in time or else they lose representation when the next Congress opens, so they need a deadline for that.

"The Constitution says you can vote, but it doesn't say your vote has to be counted correctly."

adaher 11-14-2018 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21323284)
Hence, "tested".

Given the small percentages involved, you'd need to test it on thousands of people to get an answer on whether the ballot is good or not. Or, you could just use a little common sense and assume that voters have common sense.

adaher 11-14-2018 11:14 PM

BTW, Palm Beach County asked for an extension of the deadline, but it doesn't look like there's much effort.

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/po...t/67-614703354

So at what point should there be a deadline enforced?

Chisquirrel 11-14-2018 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21323665)
BTW, Palm Beach County asked for an extension of the deadline, but it doesn't look like there's much effort.

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/po...t/67-614703354

So at what point should there be a deadline enforced?

Relevant piece suspiciously ignored:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cite
"when its machines overheated"


UltraVires 11-15-2018 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21323014)
Agreed. There is that risk. And if the ballots had shown up after all the counting and recounting had been completed and the results certified, I'd agree that even if those votes would have tipped the outcome my way, it's too late and life just sucks sometimes.

But we're talking about an election where the counting is in progress. There's no reason, other than an excessive devotion to arbitrary rules, to not count those ballots. Who needs a law to say that? It should be just the standard default: if counting isn't done, and legitimate ballots are still turning up, you count them. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

Stuff like this is going to happen, as long as we have the jerry-rigged voting system we have, dependent on 3000 different counties' ways of doing things, and an army of volunteer and/or trivially-paid temporary election workers. Every election, for instance, boxes of ballots turn up in the trunk of an election worker's car. Well, of course an insistence on not allowing election officials any slack in their schedule should take precedence over voters' rights to have their votes counted properly. Gotta have our priorities properly aligned! Sure, one must vote, or at least be in line to vote, by the time the polls close on election day. I've got no problem with that.

But what does that have to do with administrative deadlines, where compliance is completely outside the control of the voter? Why should the fate of my vote be caught up in squabbles between the state and the county? What does that have to do with the legitimacy of my vote? Once I vote, their job is to make sure it's counted properly, no matter which 'they' we're talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21323034)
Has the deadline ever been an issue in Broward? That is, has the date as currently set ever been tested as to whether it is appropriate and fair? In any case, given that the winners in the elections at hand won't be sworn into office until next year, then why not extend the deadline to ensure that all votes are counted accurately?

You both make excellent arguments as to why the law should be different. But the fact remains that the law is not what you prefer, or what I prefer. I think it is only fair to count these ballots in Opa Locka. There is no indication of fraud and these voters did nothing dilatory or wrongful by mailing them.

But the law says they must arrive at the county election center by 7 p.m. on election day. They did not so arrive. Therefore, they should not be counted. The Legislature should amend that law. That doesn't change the fact that the law is what it is. It is facially neutral and does not have disparate impact on Republicans, Democrats, whites, blacks, or gay people. I do not see how it could be considered unconstitutional.

Since we are still in the counting process, can a Florida voter who did not vote stumble out onto A1A and yell, I vote for Rick Scott for Senate! and have his voted counted? I mean, the intent of a legal voter, right? Isn't it fair that we count his vote?

Monty 11-15-2018 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 21321811)
Are you insinuating that I would DARE impugn the morality and righteousness of Republicans, implying that they did something illegal during a very close election, via sarcastic incrimination?

Because I absolutely did. The party crying about voter fraud is actively committing voter fraud. I'm sorry the sarcasm didn't carry.


:D

Excellent!

RTFirefly 11-15-2018 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21323730)
You both make excellent arguments as to why the law should be different. But the fact remains that the law is not what you prefer, or what I prefer. I think it is only fair to count these ballots in Opa Locka. There is no indication of fraud and these voters did nothing dilatory or wrongful by mailing them.

But the law says they must arrive at the county election center by 7 p.m. on election day. They did not so arrive. Therefore, they should not be counted.

This is why we regard the right to vote as a fundamental right that can't be overruled by laws. Because the laws would prevent voters' votes from being counted, even though they voted legally, because some minor civil servant screwed up.

To apply the law as written would deprive people of their franchise after they'd done what they needed to do to exercise it. And that's why the courts are telling the law to back off and give a bit more room to get the counting done.
Quote:

The Legislature should amend that law. That doesn't change the fact that the law is what it is. It is facially neutral and does not have disparate impact on Republicans, Democrats, whites, blacks, or gay people. I do not see how it could be considered unconstitutional.
While processes that had disparate impacts on one protected group or another would also be subject to challenge, those are not the only grounds, are they?
Quote:

Since we are still in the counting process, can a Florida voter who did not vote stumble out onto A1A and yell, I vote for Rick Scott for Senate! and have his voted counted? I mean, the intent of a legal voter, right? Isn't it fair that we count his vote?
You keep bringing this up. Could you explain what it has to do with my argument? I've been clear that voters must vote, or at a minimum be in line to vote, by the time the polls are supposed to close. But once they've voted, every effort must be made to count their votes, and count them correctly.

Bijou Drains 11-15-2018 07:52 AM

and I guess it's OK for the GOP to stop vote counting with a lawsuit?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ections-991278

RTFirefly 11-15-2018 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21323985)
and I guess it's OK for the GOP to stop vote counting with a lawsuit?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ections-991278

But only in the county where her opponent has most of his support.

Gyrate 11-15-2018 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galen ubal (Post 21319726)
Huh. I just had a look at my ballot info (I live overseas, and vote out of Marion County, FL), and it tells me my ballot was tabulated. They received it on October 5 - wonder when they counted it?

Wondering the same thing - Pasco County notified me of receipt long before election day, but I have no idea when (or indeed whether) it was actually counted.

RTFirefly 11-15-2018 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21324057)
Wondering the same thing - Pasco County notified me of receipt long before election day, but I have no idea when (or indeed whether) it was actually counted.

Found this blurb on the Sun-Sentinel website:
Quote:

Mail-in Ballots

First, head over to the Division of Elections website to look up your voter information at Registration.elections.myflorida.com/CheckVoterStatus. There, you’ll enter your full name and date of birth. After clicking on “submit,” you’ll be taken to a new page that lists all of your voter registration information — your address, voter ID number, political party and the date you first registered at this address.

Scroll down a bit and you’ll see a link for “Ballot and precinct information.” Click that, and it will take you right to your county supervisor of elections website, with all your information already filled in, and a listing of when the ballot was sent to you, when it was received by the elections office and whether it’s been tabulated.
If it isn't showing as tabulated, you have until 5pm Saturday to fix that. Don't have the info on that handy; I'll try to dig that out later.

ETA: Please share this widely - make sure any Floridians you know who might have voted by mail has this info!

Fiddle Peghead 11-15-2018 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21323660)
Given the small percentages involved, you'd need to test it on thousands of people to get an answer on whether the ballot is good or not.

Yes, exactly. More testing is better than less. Sounds easy enough.

DSYoungEsq 11-15-2018 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21323730)
But the law says they must arrive at the county election center by 7 p.m. on election day. They did not so arrive. Therefore, they should not be counted. The Legislature should amend that law. That doesn't change the fact that the law is what it is. It is facially neutral and does not have disparate impact on Republicans, Democrats, whites, blacks, or gay people. I do not see how it could be considered unconstitutional.

You are grounded enough in the basis of English common law systems to know that the limit of what courts can/should do is not the specific letter of a given statute. If that were the case, many legal disputes in the US would be much, much easier to deal with.

Not saying whether or not I believe what is being done is right, just that you cannot go: "The statute says X, so tough titties!" and have that be the final say on court authority.

Fiddle Peghead 11-15-2018 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21323730)
You both make excellent arguments as to why the law should be different. But the fact remains that the law is not what you prefer, or what I prefer. I think it is only fair to count these ballots in Opa Locka. There is no indication of fraud and these voters did nothing dilatory or wrongful by mailing them.

But the law says they must arrive at the county election center by 7 p.m. on election day. They did not so arrive. Therefore, they should not be counted. The Legislature should amend that law. That doesn't change the fact that the law is what it is. It is facially neutral and does not have disparate impact on Republicans, Democrats, whites, blacks, or gay people. I do not see how it could be considered unconstitutional.

Since we are still in the counting process, can a Florida voter who did not vote stumble out onto A1A and yell, I vote for Rick Scott for Senate! and have his voted counted? I mean, the intent of a legal voter, right? Isn't it fair that we count his vote?

Thanks for responding. I've got nothing more to add, really, to what others have said. DSYoungEsq's "tough titties" argument pretty much sums it up for me.

Gyrate 11-15-2018 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21324156)
Found this blurb on the Sun-Sentinel website:
If it isn't showing as tabulated, you have until 5pm Saturday to fix that. Don't have the info on that handy; I'll try to dig that out later.

ETA: Please share this widely - make sure any Floridians you know who might have voted by mail has this info!

Excellent, thank you! I've used the site to check my registration but the ballot-specific link doesn't exactly jump out at you.

Ballot was recorded received October 22 and was tabulated. Can't ask for more than that.

adaher 11-15-2018 02:57 PM

Apparently, the deadline extension will be the only one:

https://www.wsls.com/news/politics/p...count-deadline

I'd note that this is not disenfranchising anyone. It's a recount, which is no more accurate than the first count, it's just a different count. There is no constitutional right to a recount. All recounts are done within time limits and if they fail the first count is the final count.

RTFirefly 11-15-2018 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21324389)
Excellent, thank you! I've used the site to check my registration but the ballot-specific link doesn't exactly jump out at you.

Ballot was recorded received October 22 and was tabulated. Can't ask for more than that.

Yay!!

UltraVires 11-15-2018 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21323890)
This is why we regard the right to vote as a fundamental right that can't be overruled by laws. Because the laws would prevent voters' votes from being counted, even though they voted legally, because some minor civil servant screwed up.

To apply the law as written would deprive people of their franchise after they'd done what they needed to do to exercise it. And that's why the courts are telling the law to back off and give a bit more room to get the counting done.
While processes that had disparate impacts on one protected group or another would also be subject to challenge, those are not the only grounds, are they? You keep bringing this up. Could you explain what it has to do with my argument? I've been clear that voters must vote, or at a minimum be in line to vote, by the time the polls are supposed to close. But once they've voted, every effort must be made to count their votes, and count them correctly.

Then all you have is a court setting another arbitrary deadline. The law says that the ballots must arrive by 7 p.m. Tuesday. My ballot arrived on Wednesday. I present your argument and the court agrees that this is close enough. The next guy whose ballot arrived on Thursday makes the same argument and he wins.

At some point the court will have to say no to these requests (lest the deadline stretch until eternity) and say that Sunday is the latest day for ballots to be received. Gavel bangs. Well, Sunday is not objectively better than Tuesday. Such a thing is not based upon any meaningful legal principle such as the right to vote. All you have now is a court using its imperial power to displace the rules made by the people's representatives in the Legislature.

To your second point, what exactly does it mean to "vote"? If I stand in line at the polls and mark an x on my ballot when I should have filled in the bubble, then did I actually vote? I would say no because the machines will not count my vote. I think you would say yes because even though I did not correctly follow the procedure, my intent can be gleaned by the X next to a candidate's name.

But if we allow that, why not allow a voter to verbally declare in the streets his vote? It is against the rules, but so is making an X. Why shouldn't these emailed in ballots count in the Panhandle? Is your point that the voter can screw up the voting process a little bit, but not a lot? Who determines that? A judge again?

How about we just follow the rules? Yes, they can be unfair at times, but so is any human endeavor. But what it guarantees is at least an agreed upon process and not one where people can actually claim unfairness because the rules changed in the middle of the game.

Yes, there seems to be a Constitutional right to vote, but how is that stifled by saying that you must vote by 7pm on Election Day? Things get lost or delayed in the mail. The federal government cannot guarantee that every single piece of mail always arrives at its destination on time or even at all, and a voter who places his ballot in the mail is aware of this possibility.

How is it a denial of you right to vote by requiring that the ballot be filled out correctly? To me, that would be like saying that you were denied your freedom of religion because you made a wrong turn and were late in arriving at church.

I would agree with your points if the government intentionally made the ballots confusing or intentionally refused to deliver the mail, but there is no evidence of that here.

nelliebly 11-15-2018 04:21 PM

The remarks of Mark Walker, the US District judge who refused to extend the deadline for Palm Beach county are particularly relevant to this discussion. All bolding is mine.

Quote:

Earlier in the day, Walker slammed Florida for repeatedly failing to anticipate election problems, and said the state law on recounts appears to violate the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that decided the presidency in 2000.

"We have we have been the laughing stock of the world, election after election, and we chose not to fix this," Walker said in court.

Walker vented his anger at state lawmakers but also Palm Beach County officials, saying they should have made sure they had enough equipment in place to handle this kind of a recount.

The overarching problem was created by the Florida Legislature, which Walker said passed a recount law that appears to run afoul of the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, by locking in procedures that don't allow for potential problems.
There's no excuse for any of this. Can the lawsuits be resolved, corrective legislation enacted, and systems changed before the 2020 election?

Chronos 11-15-2018 04:38 PM

Yes, adaher, a nationwide ballot design would require thousands of testers. Which makes it much easier than the current system. There are over 3,000 counties in the US. Thousands of testers for one design is much easier than thousands of designs.

nelliebly 11-15-2018 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21325084)
Then all you have is a court setting another arbitrary deadline. The law says that the ballots must arrive by 7 p.m. Tuesday. My ballot arrived on Wednesday. I present your argument and the court agrees that this is close enough. The next guy whose ballot arrived on Thursday makes the same argument and he wins.

At some point the court will have to say no to these requests (lest the deadline stretch until eternity) and say that Sunday is the latest day for ballots to be received. Gavel bangs. Well, Sunday is not objectively better than Tuesday. Such a thing is not based upon any meaningful legal principle such as the right to vote. All you have now is a court using its imperial power to displace the rules made by the people's representatives in the Legislature.

To your second point, what exactly does it mean to "vote"? If I stand in line at the polls and mark an x on my ballot when I should have filled in the bubble, then did I actually vote? I would say no because the machines will not count my vote. I think you would say yes because even though I did not correctly follow the procedure, my intent can be gleaned by the X next to a candidate's name.

But if we allow that, why not allow a voter to verbally declare in the streets his vote? It is against the rules, but so is making an X. Why shouldn't these emailed in ballots count in the Panhandle? Is your point that the voter can screw up the voting process a little bit, but not a lot? Who determines that? A judge again?

How about we just follow the rules? Yes, they can be unfair at times, but so is any human endeavor. But what it guarantees is at least an agreed upon process and not one where people can actually claim unfairness because the rules changed in the middle of the game.

Yes, there seems to be a Constitutional right to vote, but how is that stifled by saying that you must vote by 7pm on Election Day? Things get lost or delayed in the mail. The federal government cannot guarantee that every single piece of mail always arrives at its destination on time or even at all, and a voter who places his ballot in the mail is aware of this possibility.

How is it a denial of you right to vote by requiring that the ballot be filled out correctly? To me, that would be like saying that you were denied your freedom of religion because you made a wrong turn and were late in arriving at church.

I would agree with your points if the government intentionally made the ballots confusing or intentionally refused to deliver the mail, but there is no evidence of that here.

You keep referring to RULES when they're actually INSTRUCTIONS. There's no law that says voters must fill in the oval completely; they're simply advised to do so to reduce the possibility of a machine misread. (When ballots were still hand-counted, the X in the oval would not have been rejected.) So yes, if you put an X in the oval, you have marked your ballot and have in fact voted. And that vote should count. The machine is the servant, not the master.

As for your take-it-to-extremes hypothetical, shouting in the street wouldn't count because a vote by definition is a formal or official indication of a choice between candidates (initiatives, referendums, propositions, etc.). Unless you live in some strange and mythical land where officials sit at a table on the street and voters approach them and yell out their votes, which are then recorded, in which case, yeah, I guess, because that's formal and official. Get it?

UltraVires 11-15-2018 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21325114)
The remarks of Mark Walker, the US District judge who refused to extend the deadline for Palm Beach county are particularly relevant to this discussion. All bolding is mine.



There's no excuse for any of this. Can the lawsuits be resolved, corrective legislation enacted, and systems changed before the 2020 election?

I agree with adaher, above. I do not believe that this is any sort of failure at all. When you have millions of votes and the election is so close as to fall within 1/4 of 1%, you are simply asking for too much precision of human beings to see who actually won.

As he noted, why do we have more confidence in the results of a recount than we do the initial count?

I would guess that things like this happen in every election in every state every single time. It is just that Florida has been unlucky enough to have two such extremely close elections where looking for handfuls of votes here and there could possibly make a difference.

I'm sure that in West Virginia, for example, we could find that votes were mishandled or improperly counted or not counted, but the margin was wide enough to not make a difference so there is no outrage.

RTFirefly 11-15-2018 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21325084)
Then all you have is a court setting another arbitrary deadline.

Then all you have is a courtsetting another arbitrary deadline., who is an actual person, taking into account the particular circumstances of this situation in applying the Constitution and the laws.

FTFY again.

Quote:

To your second point, what exactly does it mean to "vote"? If I stand in line at the polls and mark an x on my ballot when I should have filled in the bubble, then did I actually vote? I would say no because the machines will not count my vote.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That's not what you would say.

I leave it to you to figure out why - but you've said over and over again that that isn't what you'd say. Damned if I know why you're now saying that IS what you'd say. But it flies in the face of practically everything you've said in this entire thread. Go figure.

Fiveyearlurker 11-15-2018 08:14 PM

Broward county missed the deadline by two minutes, so the recount will not count. Apparently the election in Florida is run by magical fairies.

Chisquirrel 11-15-2018 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21325189)
I agree with adaher, above. I do not believe that this is any sort of failure at all. When you have millions of votes and the election is so close as to fall within 1/4 of 1%, you are simply asking for too much precision of human beings to see who actually won.

As he noted, why do we have more confidence in the results of a recount than we do the initial count?

I would guess that things like this happen in every election in every state every single time. It is just that Florida has been unlucky enough to have two such extremely close elections where looking for handfuls of votes here and there could possibly make a difference.

I'm sure that in West Virginia, for example, we could find that votes were mishandled or improperly counted or not counted, but the margin was wide enough to not make a difference so there is no outrage.

Sweet, you'll be ok with us just putting Gillum in the Governor's mansion, then? After all, no need for actual results, let's just do whatever the fuck we want!

kaylasdad99 11-15-2018 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21319105)
I'm arguing that the purpose of an election is to determine the will of the voters. If an election is this close, that cannot be done. Things happen, like 20,000 voters failing to find the Senate race on their ballots, or weather keeping people from the polls, or lack of machines. None of this is enough to flip a race that's decisive, but in close races it makes the result suspect. Let's end these suspect results and just declare a tie, and then have tiebreaker rules, which could mean runoffs, incumbent party always loses, each candidate serves half the term, or even a coin flip. But stop doing these damn recounts because they always end in hard feelings and mistrust. Either the first result is the result, or declare ties in close races.

There is zero evidence that the recount will produce a more accurate result than the first count did. It certainly can't make up for the other errors in the system, such as 20K voters not voting in the Senate race in Broward.

It is safe to say, at least in the Senate race, that it is impossible to determine the will of the people. CAn we all agree on that? And if so, what's the best way to handle that problem?

For the sake of argument, sure. And the best way to handle the problem? That's an easy one:

Given the fact that holding elective office as a Republican is indistinguishable from a crime against humanity*, the BEST way to handle the problem is to give it to the Democrat.

Or A Democrat. Any Democrat will do. The one who appeared on the ballot would probably present the fewest difficulties, though.


*And this IS a given, BTW. Don't think that, being unable to argue against my logic, there is any recourse to be gained by denying my starting premises.

UltraVires 11-15-2018 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker (Post 21325455)
Broward county missed the deadline by two minutes, so the recount will not count. Apparently the election in Florida is run by magical fairies.

And the receiver was only out of bounds by two inches. Two minutes late is not on time.

Fiveyearlurker 11-15-2018 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21325660)
And the receiver was only out of bounds by two inches. Two minutes late is not on time.



This isn’t a game. This is finding out who the people wanted to represent them.

UltraVires 11-15-2018 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21325431)
Then all you have is a courtsetting another arbitrary deadline., who is an actual person, taking into account the particular circumstances of this situation in applying the Constitution and the laws.

FTFY again.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That's not what you would say.

I leave it to you to figure out why - but you've said over and over again that that isn't what you'd say. Damned if I know why you're now saying that IS what you'd say. But it flies in the face of practically everything you've said in this entire thread. Go figure.

The Constitution requires Saturday instead of last Tuesday? Only a radical activist judge could hold that way and that judge should be impeached for his ridiculous reading of the Constitution.

nelliebly 11-16-2018 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21325189)
I agree with adaher, above. I do not believe that this is any sort of failure at all. When you have millions of votes and the election is so close as to fall within 1/4 of 1%, you are simply asking for too much precision of human beings to see who actually won.

As he noted, why do we have more confidence in the results of a recount than we do the initial count?

I would guess that things like this happen in every election in every state every single time. It is just that Florida has been unlucky enough to have two such extremely close elections where looking for handfuls of votes here and there could possibly make a difference.

I'm sure that in West Virginia, for example, we could find that votes were mishandled or improperly counted or not counted, but the margin was wide enough to not make a difference so there is no outrage.

We're asking too much of humans to find out who actually won? Wow. If finding out who actually won is impossible, let's just estimate and skip counting. If a Democrat leads by a razor-thin margin in any future election, you'd better stick to your guns on the futility of determining who actually won.

Why do we have more confidence in the recount? Because it's actually an audit. It's carefully watched by observers from both sides, and it's conducted with much less haste and more deliberation.You might logically argue that the original count should be done this way, and I'd agree with you. So we wouldn't know election results within hours. So what? It's not like terms expire and officials have to be sworn in within days.

RTFirefly 11-16-2018 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21325680)
The Constitution requires Saturday instead of last Tuesday? Only a radical activist judge could hold that way and that judge should be impeached for his ridiculous reading of the Constitution.

It would help if you made it clear which of my remarks you're responding to.

RTFirefly 11-16-2018 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21325660)
And the receiver was only out of bounds by two inches. Two minutes late is not on time.

Because it's just a big old game, right?

Anyway, Rick Scott:
Quote:

Last week, Florida voters elected me as their next U.S. Senator and now the ballots have been counted twice. I am incredibly proud and humbled by the opportunity to serve Florida in Washington. Our state needs to move forward.
and now some of the ballots have been counted twice.

FTFY, Rick. :)

adaher 11-16-2018 05:23 AM

Actually, the recount in Broward added votes for Scott, so going back to the original count was not only better for Nelson, but I believe quite intentional.

adaher 11-16-2018 05:25 AM

The recount was less accurate than the original count:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...221709445.html

Scott gained 700 votes because they screwed up with 2500 ballots or so. See how awesome recounts are?

Chisquirrel 11-16-2018 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21325919)
Actually, the recount in Broward added votes for Scott, so going back to the original count was not only better for Nelson, but I believe quite intentional.

Any reasoning behind that, or just feel it in your gut?

Gyrate 11-16-2018 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21325920)
The recount was less accurate than the original count:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...221709445.html

Scott gained 700 votes because they screwed up with 2500 ballots or so. See how awesome recounts are?

Yes, why count votes at all? Some mistakes were made, therefore let's burn down the entire democratic process.

Also, we all enjoyed your little unsupported insinuation of malfeasance.

DSeid 11-16-2018 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21325900)
Because it's just a big old game, right? ...

I personally think that precisely because it is not a game it is even more important to have the rules be clear ahead of time and to have them enforced consistently, not at someone's discretion.

Broward county's lack of ability to do this stuff right has hurt "my team" consistently. I think the rules should be inclusive of not having such local incompetence (such as crap ballot designs) be able to impact results as much as it does. Should be changed for the future. But the rules are clear and the fact that they fall against my desired result does not change that.

EarlGrayHot 11-16-2018 08:25 AM

I agree. The need for a recount should have a time limit! It is important that everyone's vote is counted. Anything that interferes with that (such as having an artificial deadline) should be ignored.

ElvisL1ves 11-16-2018 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21325920)
See how awesome recounts are?

Do you have a reason for trying to undermine public confidence in democracy? Other than the obvious one, that is.

RTFirefly 11-16-2018 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21325919)
Actually, the recount in Broward added votes for Scott, so going back to the original count was not only better for Nelson, but I believe quite intentional.

On whose part? Who decided to be a stickler about those 2 extra minutes? Guess it was deliberate self-sabotage by the Republicans controlling the state government.

RTFirefly 11-16-2018 10:24 AM

Not that it matters: it looks like Broward's turning up a shit-ton of 'no vote' ballots in the Senate race. So it's almost certainly over.

RTFirefly 11-16-2018 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21326026)
I personally think that precisely because it is not a game it is even more important to have the rules be clear ahead of time and to have them enforced consistently, not at someone's discretion.

Broward county's lack of ability to do this stuff right has hurt "my team" consistently. I think the rules should be inclusive of not having such local incompetence (such as crap ballot designs) be able to impact results as much as it does. Should be changed for the future. But the rules are clear and the fact that they fall against my desired result does not change that.

I think there should be clear rules about when and how to vote. But after that, IMHO it's the duty of the state to count the votes.

The counties are legally creations of the state, so what we really have here is part of the state enforcing arbitrary rules on other parts of the state, with the voters being bystanders to the whole thing. Squabbles amongst those entities, and deadlines that one entity imposes on another, shouldn't be detrimental to the voters or the candidates they voted for.

Gyrate 11-16-2018 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21326299)
Not that it matters: it looks like Broward's turning up a shit-ton of 'no vote' ballots in the Senate race. So it's almost certainly over.

It does matter. If the problem is poor ballot design and voters missed out, that's unfortunate and reason to do better next time but not disenfranchisement (unless it's really bad and/or deliberate misdesign). If there are votes submitted but not counted (or not counted correctly), that's effectively negating or altering those votes which is much worse.

If the votes are counted and it turns out that a lot of people simply didn't mark a vote for Senate, them's the breaks.

Bookkeeper 11-16-2018 03:57 PM

Perhaps it is time for the US Congress to take over the Federal election process, under the authority of Article 1, Section 4 "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." It works in other countries, even ones which don't have 2 years of prep time before each election.

Bijou Drains 11-16-2018 04:58 PM

we need 1 state to be a laughingstock and FL is glad to play that role. For a lot of stuff, not just elections. Even Mississippi laughs at FL.

RTFirefly 11-16-2018 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper (Post 21327114)
Perhaps it is time for the US Congress to take over the Federal election process, under the authority of Article 1, Section 4 "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." It works in other countries, even ones which don't have 2 years of prep time before each election.

I think it's overdue; I've had enough of this sort of horseshit.

Not only could Congress mandate a uniform national ballot format for Federal offices, but it could outlaw the application of state voter ID laws and the like to Federal elections, require that states allow same-day registration, and mandate that any U.S. citizen not incarcerated 24/7 could vote.

If states and counties want to screw up voting for state and county offices, there's nothing Congress can do about that, short of a Constitutional amendment. But as you point out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate Federal elections as they see fit.

octopus 11-16-2018 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 21325651)
For the sake of argument, sure. And the best way to handle the problem? That's an easy one:

Given the fact that holding elective office as a Republican is indistinguishable from a crime against humanity*, the BEST way to handle the problem is to give it to the Democrat.

Or A Democrat. Any Democrat will do. The one who appeared on the ballot would probably present the fewest difficulties, though.


*And this IS a given, BTW. Don't think that, being unable to argue against my logic, there is any recourse to be gained by denying my starting premises.

Your given might possibly by an inaccurate representation of reality. Why you’d post such apparent hyperbole is enigmatic.

With regards to Florida, how hard is it to fill in a bubble and then tally the results? Why don’t we have national standards for ballots?

adaher 11-16-2018 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21326163)
Do you have a reason for trying to undermine public confidence in democracy? Other than the obvious one, that is.

There is nothing intrinsically democratic about a recount. It's just a method of counting votes, and an unscientifically supported one at that. If recounts were meant to actually be scientific, they'd be best 2 of 3, rather than the 2nd one counting. Given that all vote counts have a margin of error, if you have one winner on your first count and a different winner on your second count, a third count is called for.

adaher 11-16-2018 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper (Post 21327114)
Perhaps it is time for the US Congress to take over the Federal election process, under the authority of Article 1, Section 4 "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." It works in other countries, even ones which don't have 2 years of prep time before each election.

THat's fine, just don't think it will solve anything. It'll just mean most elections will go well, and then you'll get one that's FUBARd nationwide and a constitutional crisis. There's a reason decentralization is a virtue.

ElvisL1ves 11-17-2018 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21327663)
There is nothing intrinsically democratic about a recount. It's just a method of counting votes, and an unscientifically supported one at that.

You really don't think counting all the votes, and as accurately as possible, is democratic?

Tell us more about "scientifically" too, please.

Quote:

If recounts were meant to actually be scientific, they'd be best 2 of 3, rather than the 2nd one counting.
1. They're not random events, and 2. A recount means completing the count, one time, as accurately as possible. Why does that even require explanation?

Again, why are you disparaging the concept of getting it right, unless you'd prefer the wrong answer? Please remember that there are still lots of people, perhaps not in your sphere, who do still believe that democracy is important.

Johanna 11-17-2018 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21327363)
I think it's overdue; I've had enough of this sort of horseshit.

Not only could Congress mandate a uniform national ballot format for Federal offices, but it could outlaw the application of state voter ID laws and the like to Federal elections, require that states allow same-day registration, and mandate that any U.S. citizen not incarcerated 24/7 could vote.

If states and counties want to screw up voting for state and county offices, there's nothing Congress can do about that, short of a Constitutional amendment. But as you point out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate Federal elections as they see fit.

Hear, hear

What RTF said.

Fiddle Peghead 11-18-2018 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21327664)
THat's fine, just don't think it will solve anything. It'll just mean most elections will go well, and then you'll get one that's FUBARd nationwide and a constitutional crisis. There's a reason decentralization is a virtue.

In a previous post, I suggested to you that more testing of a voting system is better than less, and this is exactly what we should do. Thus, create a uniform system for federal voting, and test it heavily before release to ensure that it is as fair and accurate as possible. Further, the system would be monitored after each election to continually improve how it works. Imagine a sample size of literally tens of millions of votes that would be used for this purpose. What is wrong with that?

adaher 11-18-2018 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21328397)
You really don't think counting all the votes, and as accurately as possible, is democratic?

Recounts don't mean a more accurate total.


Quote:

1. They're not random events, and 2. A recount means completing the count, one time, as accurately as possible. Why does that even require explanation?
Oh, so the first count was half assed?

Quote:

Again, why are you disparaging the concept of getting it right, unless you'd prefer the wrong answer? Please remember that there are still lots of people, perhaps not in your sphere, who do still believe that democracy is important.
If you actually want to get it right, you do more than two counts, unless both counts show the same basic rersult. If you count the same ballots twice and get two different results, choosing the second result is as arbitrary as choosing the first. Count a third time, or declare a tie.

adaher 11-18-2018 03:52 PM

Oh, and BTW, I DARE Democrats in Congress to go on record voting against voter ID. That would be awesome.

Fiddle Peghead 11-18-2018 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21330070)
Recounts don't mean a more accurate total.




Oh, so the first count was half assed?



If you actually want to get it right, you do more than two counts, unless both counts show the same basic rersult. If you count the same ballots twice and get two different results, choosing the second result is as arbitrary as choosing the first. Count a third time, or declare a tie.

If you count the votes the second time in exactly the same way as the first, I'd agree. My understanding is that in the second count in Florida, the second time the votes are scrutinized more.

But I'm most interested in your answer to my question regarding a single system of voting at the federal level, if you want the votes to be counted as accurately as possible.

ElvisL1ves 11-18-2018 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21330070)
Recounts don't mean a more accurate total.

What the hell makes you think so?

Quote:

Oh, so the first count was half assed?
No, incomplete.

Quote:

If you actually want to get it right, you do more than two counts, unless both counts show the same basic rersult. If you count the same ballots twice and get two different results, choosing the second result is as arbitrary as choosing the first. Count a third time, or declare a tie.
No, vote totals are not random events, and neither are counts of them.

You show the same corrosive attitude toward democracy that the Supreme Court showed in 2000 - the fact, or risk, of your preferred candidate losing does not mean the process was flawed. It can simply indicate that good faith was not present on all sides.

Now, please tell us in your own words, why do you have a problem with democracy? And if you still claim you don't, what do you propose to make its basic process better? Is simple sniping and delegitimization attempts all you and your party really have?

adaher 11-19-2018 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21330237)
If you count the votes the second time in exactly the same way as the first, I'd agree. My understanding is that in the second count in Florida, the second time the votes are scrutinized more.

The machine recount is the same, the hand recounts do scrutinize undervotes and overvotes, but unless the hand recount SOLELY accounts for the difference between the two counts, you need to count a third time. If the second machine recount shows a different result, the second count could have been less accurate than the first. Which is exactly what happened in Broward.


Quote:

But I'm most interested in your answer to my question regarding a single system of voting at the federal level, if you want the votes to be counted as accurately as possible.
Is the federal government going to manufacture all the machines, install them, and operate them? What's plan B if the machines have problems?

adaher 11-19-2018 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21330265)
No, incomplete.

No, the first count is not incomplete. All ballots are counted in the first count, and all ballots are counted again in the recount.


Quote:

No, vote totals are not random events, and neither are counts of them.
This is only true if you believe there is no margin of error in a process involving hundreds of people and dozens of machines counting possibly millions of ballots. If you think that 10 counts wouldn't produce 10 different results, you've never counted a jar of marbles before.

Quote:

You show the same corrosive attitude toward democracy that the Supreme Court showed in 2000 - the fact, or risk, of your preferred candidate losing does not mean the process was flawed. It can simply indicate that good faith was not present on all sides.

Now, please tell us in your own words, why do you have a problem with democracy? And if you still claim you don't, what do you propose to make its basic process better? Is simple sniping and delegitimization attempts all you and your party really have?
Recounts have nothing to do with democracy, anymore than Congressional resolutions do. If Congress could only pass laws and not meaningless resolutions, we would be not one iota less democratic than we are now, and the same would be true if the first count was the only one that counted.

Gyrate 11-19-2018 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21330072)
Oh, and BTW, I DARE Democrats in Congress to go on record voting against voter ID. That would be awesome.

It'd only be fair - Republicans have gone on record about deliberate voter suppression.

ElvisL1ves 11-19-2018 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21330766)
No, the first count is not incomplete. All ballots are counted in the first count, and all ballots are counted again in the recount.

Except for the ones that haven't come in yet, or got misplaced somehow. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

Quote:

This is only true if you believe there is no margin of error in a process involving hundreds of people and dozens of machines counting possibly millions of ballots. If you think that 10 counts wouldn't produce 10 different results, you've never counted a jar of marbles before.
There is only one right number. It can be determined if you want to, it just takes good faith. Is that present in your party?

Quote:

Recounts have nothing to do with democracy
Accurate counting of the ballots does. Having the winner be the choice of the people is democracy. Why does that need explanation?

adaher 11-19-2018 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21330920)
It'd only be fair - Republicans have gone on record about deliberate voter suppression.

Republicans have introduced and voted on exactly zero bills that didn't have wide popular support. You may not like "voter suppression", but the bills Republicans introduce are some of the most popular bills Republicans ever introduce on any subject. Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently refused to repeal even existing ID laws in states they control, because they know it would be toxic. Better to have activists they can keep at arms length going to court for them.

adaher 11-19-2018 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21330996)
Except for the ones that haven't come in yet, or got misplaced somehow. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

Ballots that haven't come in have nothing to do with a recount. The first count is not finished until all ballots are in. That's why some races remain undecided.

Misplaced ballots in most states are not counted. All ballots have to be secured with a clear, documented, chain of custody. Once that chain of custody is broken, ballots are no longer valid, as it cannot be verified that they were not altered.


Quote:

There is only one right number. It can be determined if you want to, it just takes good faith. Is that present in your party?
There is objectively a correct number. Which can only be ascertained if machines are perfect and no human makes an error. Since that cannot happen in any race with more than a few hundred ballots, there will always be a margin of error.


Quote:

Accurate counting of the ballots does. Having the winner be the choice of the people is democracy. Why does that need explanation?
If the goal of an election is to determine the people's choice, the voting ITSELF breaks down if an election is close enough. Witness the 20K voters who failed to vote in the Senate race in Broward. When an election is this close there is no way to definiitively know what the will of the voters is. Better to just declare a tie and have agreed upon ways to settle a tie. Just running the ballots, which we already know are off by 20K due to voter error, tells us nothing more about the will of the voters than a coin flip would.

Fiddle Peghead 11-19-2018 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21330763)
Is the federal government going to manufacture all the machines, install them, and operate them? What's plan B if the machines have problems?

That's not really an answer.

Fiddle Peghead 11-19-2018 09:07 AM

And adaher, while I'm asking, if you don't mind, forget I said "federal". Make that voting in general. One method for all.

Gyrate 11-19-2018 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21330997)
Republicans have introduced and voted on exactly zero bills that didn't have wide popular support. You may not like "voter suppression", but the bills Republicans introduce are some of the most popular bills Republicans ever introduce on any subject. Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently refused to repeal even existing ID laws in states they control, because they know it would be toxic. Better to have activists they can keep at arms length going to court for them.

That's not a repudiation of voter suppression by Republicans, I note, although I see you've added some "scare quotes" and some additional sneering.

elucidator 11-19-2018 12:04 PM

Gosh, Addy, nobody told you? In all relevant threads, we of the SaneSide have stated clearly that "voter ID" ain't it, its using "voter ID" as a tool to give an advantage to one party over the other. Yes, it is very popular, mostly because it appears as a simple, common sense thing. Which it can be if applied correctly. But it isn't. The very fact that it is supported by bogus fear tactics about "voter fraud" ought to have tipped you off.

You didn't hear about this? However did you manage that? Are the Republicans innocent lambs who simply have no idea about this? None of them are using this for such a political theft? None?

adaher 11-19-2018 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21331170)
And adaher, while I'm asking, if you don't mind, forget I said "federal". Make that voting in general. One method for all.

Standards are fine, with funding help to make sure there are enough locations and machines. You know, one thing I wonder about with Democrats is why they don't advocate to pay big money to run elections right. we use volunteer poll workers, but like the census, we should have well trained employees who know the system inside and out. And minimum standards, which we have through the Help America Vote Act of 2001, but there are other things we can do.

I have no problem with minimum standards and better funded elections, I just don't want the federal government to dictate everything, like ballot design, what kind of machines to use, etc. And you don't really want that either, because if I was in charge party names would not be on the ballots. You'd have to figure that out for yourself.

adaher 11-19-2018 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21331494)
That's not a repudiation of voter suppression by Republicans, I note, although I see you've added some "scare quotes" and some additional sneering.

Voter suppression is active measures to deny certain groups the right to vote, not popular measures to insure the integrity of the system. Now I'll grant that in the debate over voter ID, Democrats have it right: in person voting fraud on behalf of someone else is a non existent problem. But there are other areas that do experience fraud, like registration, absentee balloting, same day registration, and possible double voting or non citzen voting. Democrats want to basically break down all the walls that prevent fraud, without having to actually pass bills to do so. Instead, they do things like challenge rejection of non-citizen ballots when they think no one will notice.

ElvisL1ves 11-19-2018 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21331003)
Ballots that haven't come in have nothing to do with a recount.

Define the terms any way you like that gets you the answer you want. Shrug. You're still trying to undermine the legitimacy of democracy itself.

Quote:

If the goal of an election is to determine the people's choice, the voting ITSELF breaks down if an election is close enough. Witness the 20K voters who failed to vote in the Senate race in Broward. When an election is this close there is no way to definiitively know what the will of the voters is.
Of course there is. By counting. That's a skill you learn in kindergarten. It isn't that complicated in reality, but there are indeed multiple ways one can make it seem complicated, or random, or somehow illegitimate. If, that is, one puts party before country.

Quote:

Better to just declare a tie and have agreed upon ways to settle a tie. Just running the ballots, which we already know are off by 20K due to voter error, tells us nothing more about the will of the voters than a coin flip would.
Or just declare the Republican the winner. There's a Supreme Court precedent for it. But you don't know if it's a tie until you fucking count the votes, as accurately and fairly as good faith on all sides permits, do you?

adaher 11-19-2018 07:04 PM

What if you count twice with the same ballots by the same method and get two different results? What would be the logical thing to do in that case, and what actually happens? I'm not seeking to undermine democracy. I'm seeking to AVOID such hard feelings because close elections always end with the losing side convinced they were robbed. Or perhaps you missed what's happening in the state north of Florida, where lies are being told about Brian Kemp?

Fiddle Peghead 11-19-2018 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21332369)
You know, one thing I wonder about with Democrats is why they don't advocate to pay big money to run elections right.

I'm all for spending money to make sure elections run right. I'm not sure why you single out only Democrats for not advocating for this.

Quote:

I have no problem with minimum standards and better funded elections, I just don't want the federal government to dictate everything, like ballot design, what kind of machines to use, etc. And you don't really want that either, because if I was in charge party names would not be on the ballots. You'd have to figure that out for yourself.
I want more than minimum standards. Maximum standards, as it were. Why just minimum standards? And as I suggested, yes, I do want someone/some group to scientifically research and determine a fair, accurate, well-tested system of voting to be used everywhere. If it meets those criteria in Alaska, it meets them in Florida. Move to a new state? Terrific. The one thing to be sure of is that you don't have to learn a new way of voting. As for what you or anyone else wants, that goes back to my bolded requirements I just mentioned.

ElvisL1ves 11-19-2018 07:30 PM

Or, what if you just fucking count all the votes? :dubious: And, since you bring up Georgia, quit trying to suppress voting? Is it really so fucking hard to understand what a commitment to democracy means?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21332417)
I'm all for spending money to make sure elections run right. I'm not sure why you single out only Democrats for not advocating for this.

Because he knows his Republicans sure as shit aren't, and we all know why, too.

adaher 11-19-2018 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21332417)
I'm all for spending money to make sure elections run right. I'm not sure why you single out only Democrats for not advocating for this.

I'm sure if you asked any Democrat they'd support it, I'm just surprised it's not a part of the agenda to make elections better. it seems like an obvious thing. Maybe it just would cost too much?


Quote:

I want more than minimum standards. Maximum standards, as it were. Why just minimum standards? And as I suggested, yes, I do want someone/some group to scientifically research and determine a fair, accurate, well-tested system of voting to be used everywhere. If it meets those criteria in Alaska, it meets them in Florida. Move to a new state? Terrific. The one thing to be sure of is that you don't have to learn a new way of voting. As for what you or anyone else wants, that goes back to my bolded requirements I just mentioned.
But none of it is hard! All the methods are easy and there is no method that someone won't make a mistake with. there's nothing to learn. You get your punch card, you punch. You get bubbles, you fill out bubbles. You check a box, you check a box. Easy stuff. If you're trying to find something unscrewupable, you won't find it in a nation of 150 million voters. A certain percentage will make a mistake on their ballots. Which again, is why extremely close elections should be called ties and resolved through other means, rather than sticking with this fantasy that we can calculate the will of the people down to a single vote.

adaher 11-19-2018 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21332421)
Or, what if you just fucking count all the votes? :dubious: And, since you bring up Georgia, quit trying to suppress voting? Is it really so fucking hard to understand what a commitment to democracy means?

Because he knows his Republicans sure as shit aren't, and we all know why, too.

Who was trying to suppress the Georgia vote? Was there any part of Georgia's laws that was illegal? Or are you simply against all methods to prevent fraud?

OldGuy 11-19-2018 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21332457)
Which again, is why extremely close elections should be called ties and resolved through other means, rather than sticking with this fantasy that we can calculate the will of the people down to a single vote.

Oh great. So we call all votes in the say 49% to 51% range ties. Now we have two targets that need recounts. Did the vote come in at 48.9% it's a loss or 49.1% it's a do over. Or did it come in at 50.9%, it's a do over or at 51.1%, it's a win. You've doubled the problem.

adaher 11-19-2018 08:54 PM

Not at all. If the first count is 51%, then we know there's pretty much zero chance that the candidate getting 51% didn't win at least a majority. And I'm not even talking about a margin of error that large. I'm talking more in the .1% range, like if it's 49.8 to 49.7%. Of course, the best way to handle that is a runoff and some states do that, and that usually does settle the issue. But tiebreaker rules can't hurt either. Some offices can have the term split. Or you could award the office to the first count winner but they have to face the voters again in two years(fine for everything but House races). Or you could do something as simple as "challenging party wins" since incumbent parties have a lot of unfair advantages. Or even a coin flip. The virtue of tiebreaker rules is that voters can be mad because they feel they got unlucky, but not mad because they got screwed. Suspicion that there's cheating going on is much worse for democracy than coin flips or splitting up terms where that is feasible. Senators serve six years. Nothing wrong with Nelson serving the next three and Scott getting the three after that.

OldGuy 11-19-2018 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21332512)
And I'm not even talking about a margin of error that large. I'm talking more in the .1% range, like if it's 49.8 to 49.7%.

The exact numbers don't matter. Whatever you set the rule at, if you're near the rule you have to determine whether the rule applies or just misses applying.

ElvisL1ves 11-20-2018 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21332459)
Who was trying to suppress the Georgia vote?

That confirms it. You really haven't been paying attention.

But let's proceed: If you're truly interested in objectively finding out who is the people's choice in an election, in good faith, how would you do it? Would you start by scorning anyone else's interest in so doing, even denying that it's even possible?

MEBuckner 11-20-2018 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21332459)
Who was trying to suppress the Georgia vote?

Brian Kemp, the newly elected Governor of my state, was previously the Georgia Secretary of State. (He stepped down as Secretary of State on November 8, two days after the gubernatorial election.) Among other things, the Secretary of State is in charge of supervising elections (like, for example, the election of a new Governor).

Budget Player Cadet 11-20-2018 01:27 PM

When it comes to "there should be a law" you'd think that'd be a good place to start. "The person running the election may not also be running in the election."

adaher 11-20-2018 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy (Post 21332570)
The exact numbers don't matter. Whatever you set the rule at, if you're near the rule you have to determine whether the rule applies or just misses applying.

The rule is easy: if the first count is within .1%, then it's declared a tie. Currently, Florida has two rules: a machine recount at .5%, a hand recount at .25%. You do not do a recount to determine if you need to do a recount. The first count is the sole decider of whether a recount takes place.

adaher 11-20-2018 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21332993)
That confirms it. You really haven't been paying attention.

But let's proceed: If you're truly interested in objectively finding out who is the people's choice in an election, in good faith, how would you do it? Would you start by scorning anyone else's interest in so doing, even denying that it's even possible?

In order to determine voter intent, you cannot allow nonvoters into the mix. Every illegal voter disenfranchises a legal voter.

And I have been paying attention. Brian Kemp disenfranchised no one, unless you believe the law itself is disenfranchising. In which case your issue is with Georgia law, not Brian Kemp.

adaher 11-20-2018 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21333634)
When it comes to "there should be a law" you'd think that'd be a good place to start. "The person running the election may not also be running in the election."

That's a good law. But not as necessary as you'd think, since Kemp doesn't run enough of the process to decide it in his own favor unless he actually does illegal things. Lack of voting machines wasn't on him. The voter purges were conducted legally and no one has alleged they were done illegally, only that "we no likey voter purges!" Rejecting ballots over mismatched signatures is also in compliance with the law, and he'd be in violation of the law if he didn't reject them.

elucidator 11-21-2018 01:38 AM

By any chance, do you know the precise legal standard for variation in the signature? Are they scanned by state of the art computer graphology?

So, say, is ninety percent similar, but not necessarily identical, for legal purposes? Shirley the definitions by law are impartial and objective? Leaving it to the subjective interpretation of an election official simply won't do! Especially since Mr Kemp has placed himself in legal jeopardy if he fails to meet the exacting legal standards for signature resemblance!

Why, when you look at it that way, his story is a Profile in Courage!

Chisquirrel 11-21-2018 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21334121)
In order to determine voter intent, you cannot allow nonvoters into the mix. Every illegal voter disenfranchises a legal voter.

You're the second person to allege a non-nominal amount of illegal votes, with at least a slight insinuation that those votes are going for Democrats. Do you have any proof for this, or is it more of your "recounts are un-democratic"?

adaher 11-21-2018 03:22 AM

Illegal votes are those in which either ineligible people registered and voted, or where someone may have voted absentee for someone else. Unlike in person voter fraud, absentee ballot fraud is a thing:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...t-stop-it.html

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...111207622.html

Chisquirrel 11-21-2018 03:54 AM

I'm seeing a whole lotta Republicans on that list, including everything since 1994...maybe we should worry more about those guys? And Republicans are the ones complaining about voter fraud and needing IDs and all that jazz, yet they haven't done anything to stop absentee ballot fraud?


If someone is complaining about a non-issue, happily ignoring an actual issue, while GETTING CAUGHT regularly breaking the law to take advantage of that issue, maybe they're being less than faithful regarding the problem and proposed solution.

adaher 11-21-2018 04:43 AM

Perhaps. But for whatever reason, Democrats decided to focus on absentee ballots being rejected in Georgia and Florida, using methods that have been in use for a very long time, signature matching. And they've been on about voter purges for some time, even though maintenance of voter lists is required by federal law.

Chisquirrel 11-21-2018 05:33 AM

Couldn't possibly be because Republicans are using those very tactics to gain an advantage, could it? Not like they haven't been repeatedly caught actively cheating or anything...

Gyrate 11-21-2018 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 21334121)
In order to determine voter intent, you cannot allow nonvoters into the mix. Every illegal voter disenfranchises a legal voter.

And I have been paying attention. Brian Kemp disenfranchised no one, unless you believe the law itself is disenfranchising. In which case your issue is with Georgia law, not Brian Kemp.

You know, Bricker was a lot better at posing this argument than you are, and he went down in flames with it.

If you've been paying attention, then you know that there are a lot of ways voter suppression can occur that are completely legal, and Kemp engaged in most of them.
But keep pretending that "legality" is the issue here rather than the deliberate abuse of legally-obtained power to heavily skew election results in an election run by someone who had a strongly-vested personal interest in the outcome. And then remember that Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal too, at the time.

Chronos 11-21-2018 09:49 AM

How is a law that says that people who move out of state must be taken off the rolls relevant to people who have not moved out of the state?

elucidator 11-21-2018 11:51 AM

As almost everyone knows, America is basically a conservative country, center-right. Voter fraud is one of the very few tools we have to create our socialist America! Even as we speak, Trump is opening up vast western lands to mining, drilling, pipelines, and other forms of prudent and responsible devastation, land we need for future re-education camps.

OF course we would prefer a more acceptable approach by traditional means, like taking all the guns. But Trump outsmarted us (again!), and those patriots at the NRA are stubborn. And the expense, the logistics! Renting thousands of buses, recruiting Fraudulent Americans to fill them. We are damned lucky we have Soros' billions of dollars in Bitcoin sales, or we would be totally boned! Just try it, try to get out five million fake votes, and then have Trump win anyway! Didn't have Bernie. we'd have no hope at all!

Sure, its unfair cheating to suppress brown voters, but the Dems are already cheating, and the real Americans have no choice!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.