Presidential Election Challenges

[Economizer]

Thoughts?

[Caracal]

Thoughts?

It isn't actually going to be particularly close where it matters for the outcome. When all of the votes are tallied, Biden is probably going to end up winning PA by 50k-100k votes.

[mahagonny]

Thoughts?

None, that aren't already thought of, but probably some riots coming, or at least, some very tense demonstrations.

[FishProf]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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".

[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.

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.

[writingprof]

Here's a serious question.  When Trump files a legal challenge in Pennsylvania, what do his briefs actually say?  "I was robbed"?  "Nuh uh"?  Presumably there's some legal argument attached to his lawsuits, but I'm not hearing that argument on TV.  (Admittedly, I'm mostly watching football and Jeopardy re-runs, but still.)

[dismalist]

Here's a serious question.  When Trump files a legal challenge in Pennsylvania, what do his briefs actually say?  "I was robbed"?  "Nuh uh"?  Presumably there's some legal argument attached to his lawsuits, but I'm not hearing that argument on TV.  (Admittedly, I'm mostly watching football and Jeopardy re-runs, but still.)

I believe it's about when the ballots arrived. Pennsylvania State law says they gotta be in by Day X [election day?] but the State Supreme Court extended the deadline. The belief is that the State Court is not allowed to do this,  as the US Constitution prescribes State legislatures to do this.

Don't know about any other States.

[jimbogumbo]

Here's a serious question.  When Trump files a legal challenge in Pennsylvania, what do his briefs actually say?  "I was robbed"?  "Nuh uh"?  Presumably there's some legal argument attached to his lawsuits, but I'm not hearing that argument on TV.  (Admittedly, I'm mostly watching football and Jeopardy re-runs, but still.)

I believe it's about when the ballots arrived. Pennsylvania State law says they gotta be in by Day X [election day?] but the State Supreme Court extended the deadline. The belief is that the State Court is not allowed to do this,  as the US Constitution prescribes State legislatures to do this.

Don't know about any other States.

The State Supreme Court didn't extend it per se. It has ruled (twice) that the extension is legal, and the US Supreme Court has declined to intervene. The "late" ballots have been segregated (actually shrink wrapped) and have not been counted as of the time the networks called the race.

[mahagonny]

Several pieces to the lawsuit in PA        https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/

[eigen]

Several pieces to the lawsuit in PA        https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/

Pretty much all of those suggest that something might be hinky but provide no real evidence. They hinge on things like "they *may* not be following the rules".

[FishProf]

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".
[/quote]

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

[marshwiggle]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

The president committed vote fraud when he cast his ballot in Florida. In fact, he's done it twice, now. (Although maybe they did something to fix it this time around; I don't know.)

There was also that ICE guy who voted for Trump in 2016 then later discovered that he wasn't actually a US citizen.