That last bit is not true.
Thanks for explaining that. 
Two dates:
Dec 5 - CA counties must have finished counting. Basically by law they are given 30 days.
Dec 13 - Secretary of State formally certifies results.
California’s votes simply don’t matter much outside itself, so there’s no urgency to do anything about it. We know we aren’t really allowed a voice in the national government; the system is built to give vote in red states more weight, and California isn’t one. National elections just don’t have the same urgency here, I’ve never seen anything close to the political advertising or gotten the kinds of political calls I hear people talk/complain about. The consequences matter to us, but they are decided by other people.
OK so I misremembered the final result, however, CNN did report: “The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.”
Substantial vote-counting delays not only have the propensity to leave important races/ballot propositions undecided for long periods, they also fuel suspicion and conspiracy theories about altered outcomes - despite being unjustified, such fears tend to undermine faith in the process.
If a state is going to to standardize mail-in voting as its go-to method*, it needs to set deadlines for receipt of mail-in votes to allow for counting to be completed within a reasonable period of time - if not on election night, than by the next day.
*I have nothing against mail-in voting, did it that way here in KY this time out.
That’s a great first step. But if 1 or 2 days is the desired goal (not one I favor but let’s run with it.)
They also need to provide the people and equipment necessary to count all of them within that short interval. And some means to deal with messed up ballots. Just as they now have means to deal with in-person provisional ballots.
IMO aiming for 2-day turnaround is unrealistically fast. We should aim for quality of count first, and timeliness second. Spending what it takes to get both.
Nobody said anything about two days, but two weeks to a month is just too much. I’d be fine with a week deadline.
Yes, somebody did say that:
I disagree delays cause the suspicion. It comes from the politicians and is echoed by the media. Fast counts are just as suspicious if presented to the people that way. Why the hurry to count except to get the wrong total on record?
Sounds reasonable, if the public is willing to pay for the staffing to do it.
Part of the reason to accept ballots postmarked on the day of the election, rather than demanding they arrive at the election office by the day of the election is so that people doing vote by mail can incorporate all available knowledge in their vote. Rather than needing to commit to a decision a week or two before the election, when that next 7-14 days in the future contains unknowable new facts.
The primaries are of course different but a few years ago I voted by mail in the primary and between then and my state’s primary election day my chosen candidate dropped out. My vote was wasted. Had I been able to wait until the day of the election or maybe the day before to drop my ballot in the mail, I could have avoided that failure.
But doing that means the ballot counting process must make an allowance for worst-case, or near worst-case, USPS delivery times. Of a huge mountain of paper. Some of which is coming from across the country, not only from post offices in the same county as the election agency.
etc.