Presidential Election Challenges

[Hegemony]

I think it's reasonable for each side to do due diligence in making sure the count is well-run, comprehensive, and conducted according to the law. There comes a point when challenging the count tips over into spite, desperation, or unwillingness to accept the truth. Al Gore could have kept the challenges going longer, but conceded — probably sooner than he could have, in terms of ensuring fair counting, but definitely at the point when the challenges were beginning to lose the approval of the public. For a while there, "hanging chads" were in many people's nightmares.  And in a situation where the vote would need tens or hundreds of thousands of changes to change the outcome, pursuing the challenges for small amounts of votes just looks like pettiness.

It's been reported that at one of the Pennsylvania ballot-counting stations, Trump ballot-watchers were calling "Challenge! Challenge!" or something of that nature after every single ballot, to try to slow and stymie the process. Clearly that's gone over the line in terms of trying to ensure a fair voting process. Sorry I don't have a reference to that right now. But we can agree that if something like that were to happen, from either side, that would be beyond the beyond.

So as to whether every kind of challenge is warranted — or whether it's "owed" to anyone — that's a kind of question that requires too much nuance to be answered in Yes/No kind of way. Both sides should have an interest in the election process being transparently fair. Both sides should have an interest in not drawing the challenges out to a ridiculous degree.

[financeguy]

Sorry to the left on this one but you have it coming. Trump was even ranting about Phili specifically during the debate. He's been arguing about mail in ballots long before this outcome. It just goes to the general point that if you can't get both sides to agree on a process before an outcome, you can't be surprised when there is disagreement about....the exact same issue that was led to disagreement beforehand.

After Lyndon Johnson cheated in his '48 TX Senate Run (200 extra ballots in alphabetical order...) and Kennedy stole Illinois from Nixon in '60, you can't sit around and say that voter fraud is a non-existent fantasy of the right. Hell, wasn't an official just CONVICTED of voter fraud earlier in the year in PA? Not to mention that the libs are the ones that resist being required to (gasp) show an actual ID to vote. The very premise the Supreme Court used in letting Johnson off the hook was that they shouldn't get involved in state election.

[Caracal]

That is, of course, where the problem comes in. Without omniscience, there is no objective way to determine what the "correct" tally is. There can only be laws about what characteristics a ballot must have in order to be deemed "correct".

What else could correct mean except the real tally of validly cast ballots? I don't find that confusing at all.

This is the point. By definition, a fraudulent ballot would not be "validly cast". Without evidence of fraud, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of ballots were indeed validly cast. But there is no way to ensure that every single ballot is legitimate. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is likely that if there are any invalid ballots they are few enough as to not affect the result.

In a similar vein, any time there is a recount the result usually changes slightly, indicating that some discretion or error in counting ballots is always a factor. However, in most cases, the difference in vote count is less than what would be required to change the result. In such a case, the "correct tally" is debatable, but the result is not.

Any recount should lead to new information that might be useful. Although a judge may scold you for bringing a case without evidence.

A recount is what it sounds like-they just do the count again. When there are actual paper ballots, they feed them through the machines. If we are about computerized machines they just do the process of tabulating them again. There usually are very small changes in vote totals as a result of all of this. My impression is that these things are just the results of the kind of small mistakes you can have. Oh the small side it is "oops, these four ballots got put in the wrong pile and we didn't scan them. On the larger side, it can be "oh crap, we thought we plugged that machine in when we tabulated but somehow we didn't and missed those 80 votes in the final tally."

You don't really see bigger errors. Someone at the board of elections is going to notice if you just forgot to include all the votes from Reading.
If you're talking a few hundred votes, this stuff around the margins can matter, but if its even 10k, it almost certainly won't. Still, in a relatively close race, states do it even though it almost never changes the result just to make there wasn't some massive screwup and someone forgot to add in half of Kenosha.

[nebo113]

I voted no to the oddly worded question.

I think everyone involved should expend the necessary effort to ensure that the correct vote tally, regardless of the outcome, is obtained.

Anything else is anti-democracy.

Mitch told him who to put on the Courts.  If Mitch had told him to nominate a stump, he would have.

That is, of course, where the problem comes in. Without omniscience, there is no objective way to determine what the "correct" tally is. There can only be laws about what characteristics a ballot must have in order to be deemed "correct".

I'd like to know how many people saying Trump should just grow up and accept defeat were the same people saying Clinton was robbed four years ago. And how many people saying "the people have spoken" four years ago are now ranting about "voter fraud".

There is a view that there is no such thing as being unfair to Trump. He may have done plenty to ask for it, of course. But they don't find it odd that a person who's obviously misogynistic thinks the Supreme Court should have women on it. Which really donesn't make them sound very neutral.

[mahagonny]

I voted no to the oddly worded question.

I think everyone involved should expend the necessary effort to ensure that the correct vote tally, regardless of the outcome, is obtained.

Anything else is anti-democracy.

Mitch told him who to put on the Courts.  If Mitch had told him to nominate a stump, he would have.

That is, of course, where the problem comes in. Without omniscience, there is no objective way to determine what the "correct" tally is. There can only be laws about what characteristics a ballot must have in order to be deemed "correct".

I'd like to know how many people saying Trump should just grow up and accept defeat were the same people saying Clinton was robbed four years ago. And how many people saying "the people have spoken" four years ago are now ranting about "voter fraud".

There is a view that there is no such thing as being unfair to Trump. He may have done plenty to ask for it, of course. But they don't find it odd that a person who's obviously misogynistic thinks the Supreme Court should have women on it. Which really donesn't make them sound very neutral.

Mitch wouldn't tell you to nominate a stump for the Supreme Court. That's the reason to get his advice.

on edit: He still went through with it. He didn't say 'forget it Mitch. I'm not putting a broad on the Supreme Court.'