Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:28 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
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.
  #152  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:57 PM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,823
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.
  #153  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:58 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
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.
  #154  
Old 11-16-2018, 06:09 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper View Post
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.
  #155  
Old 11-16-2018, 06:21 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
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?
  #156  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:24 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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.
  #157  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:25 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper View Post
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.
  #158  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:40 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #159  
Old 11-17-2018, 08:33 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
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.
  #160  
Old 11-18-2018, 10:10 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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?
  #161  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:51 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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.
  #162  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:52 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Oh, and BTW, I DARE Democrats in Congress to go on record voting against voter ID. That would be awesome.
  #163  
Old 11-18-2018, 05:43 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #164  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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?
  #165  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:17 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
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?
  #166  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:21 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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.
  #167  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:13 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #168  
Old 11-19-2018, 06:59 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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?
  #169  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:02 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
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.
  #170  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:08 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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.
  #171  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:59 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #172  
Old 11-19-2018, 09:07 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,456
And adaher, while I'm asking, if you don't mind, forget I said "federal". Make that voting in general. One method for all.
  #173  
Old 11-19-2018, 11:25 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #174  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:04 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
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?
  #175  
Old 11-19-2018, 06:56 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
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.
  #176  
Old 11-19-2018, 06:59 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
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.
  #177  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:02 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 11-19-2018 at 07:03 PM.
  #178  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:04 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
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?
  #179  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:29 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 11-19-2018 at 07:31 PM.
  #180  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:30 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Or, what if you just fucking count all the votes? 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 View Post
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.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 11-19-2018 at 07:31 PM.
  #181  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:16 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
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.
  #182  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:21 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Or, what if you just fucking count all the votes? 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?
  #183  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:48 PM
OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #184  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:54 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
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.
  #185  
Old 11-19-2018, 09:34 PM
OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #186  
Old 11-20-2018, 07:32 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 11-20-2018 at 07:33 AM.
  #187  
Old 11-20-2018, 07:45 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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).
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #188  
Old 11-20-2018, 01:27 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
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."
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 11-20-2018 at 01:27 PM.
  #189  
Old 11-20-2018, 05:22 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
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.
  #190  
Old 11-20-2018, 05:23 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
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.
  #191  
Old 11-20-2018, 05:25 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
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.
  #192  
Old 11-21-2018, 01:38 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
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!

Last edited by elucidator; 11-21-2018 at 01:39 AM. Reason: d'oh! A dear, a female dear....
  #193  
Old 11-21-2018, 01:49 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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"?
  #194  
Old 11-21-2018, 03:22 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
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
  #195  
Old 11-21-2018, 03:54 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,657
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.
  #196  
Old 11-21-2018, 04:43 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
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.
  #197  
Old 11-21-2018, 05:33 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,657
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...
  #198  
Old 11-21-2018, 07:27 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
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.
  #199  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:49 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,452
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?
  #200  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:51 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,103
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!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017