Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:I don’t think that’s what the Kav meant, even though it is what he wrote.

If you think he is that bad at expressing his own legal opinions, you should be a lot more alarmed than that.

Public expectation is the winner is known by daybreak, certification of results be damned

Not only are actual results not ordinarily verified until days later, but 23 states took 4 or more days just to verify their primary results this year.

This is about the cutoff, though right? I can actually see the point in saying "the government should not count ballots received after the general election results are known to the public." Certified mail aside, how would we make people feel confident that the ballots weren't cast after the election by people trying to change the results?

...Postmark? The thing the post office applies to all mail?

I mean how does "the public" know that any results are legitimate, but these processes are observed by the campaigns. It's not difficult to simply use postmark to determine validity.

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:I don’t think that’s what the Kav meant, even though it is what he wrote.

If you think he is that bad at expressing his own legal opinions, you should be a lot more alarmed than that.

Public expectation is the winner is known by daybreak, certification of results be damned

Not only are actual results not ordinarily verified until days later, but 23 states took 4 or more days just to verify their primary results this year.

This is about the cutoff, though right? I can actually see the point in saying "the government should not count ballots received after the general election results are known to the public." Certified mail aside, how would we make people feel confident that the ballots weren't cast after the election by people trying to change the results?

...Postmark? The thing the post office applies to all mail?

Shit posting aside... the concern about the public perception of a sudden rush of "found" boxes of votes in a tight race, whether mailed or dropped off (i.e. lacking the magical postmark), is legit. I dont think the threat itsrlf is real, but the threat to perception of fairness certainly is.

I just don't see how that's any different from the threat posed by the perception of dead voters on the rolls or illegal immigrants voting. We know that voter fraud is incredibly, incredibly rare, and there's a much higher risk of disenfranchising voters in attempting to prevent it than there is of accidentally counting illegitimate votes. The people who will use this to contest the election were always going to contest the election--the perception of illegitimacy runs deeper than the issue of mail vs. in-person ballots. Which, to return to the original point, makes Kavvy's wording suspect insofar as "flip" echoes and amplifies those claims of illegitimacy. The man is reportedly one of the, what, nine brightest legal minds in the country? At least top 18? He knows what it means to say "flip" here.

Or, to put it differently, the declining perception of electoral legitimacy is a real and pressing issue in our country, and it won't be solved by simply throwing away mail ballots if they're postmarked by election day and demanding the Wednesday morning vote totals stand.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:I don’t think that’s what the Kav meant, even though it is what he wrote.

If you think he is that bad at expressing his own legal opinions, you should be a lot more alarmed than that.

Public expectation is the winner is known by daybreak, certification of results be damned

Not only are actual results not ordinarily verified until days later, but 23 states took 4 or more days just to verify their primary results this year.

This is about the cutoff, though right? I can actually see the point in saying "the government should not count ballots received after the general election results are known to the public." Certified mail aside, how would we make people feel confident that the ballots weren't cast after the election by people trying to change the results?

I too wish this discussion was purely about ballots received after the election results are known.

So basically I need to put Doug's civil war post election prediction in green. Got it. I need a whiskey gif.

4/5 wrote:So basically I need to put Doug's civil war post election prediction in green. Got it. I need a whiskey gif.

None of this makes sense. It takes states days if not weeks to certify election results. The stuff on TV and the Internet on election night are unofficial counts based upon precincts reporting. They are not certified official counts.

Not only should Trump know this, but a member of the Supreme Court opining on the subject should definitely know this.

And what will Trump have to say if he is way down in election night? Will he then call for all the votes to be counted?

can't wait for a Biden victory on 11/3 and the GOP reversing course to try and get late mail-in ballots counted in a hail mary attempt to not lose

Several questions:
Does anybody have a list of the states that wait until after the election to count mail-in ballots?
Are there any states that wait until after the election to count early voting ballots? (Can't see why anybody would do that, but you never know.)
Do we have data on the breakdown of early voting vs mail-in voting on the votes already cast this year?

4/5 wrote:Several questions:
Does anybody have a list of the states that wait until after the election to count mail-in ballots?
Are there any states that wait until after the election to count early voting ballots? (Can't see why anybody would do that, but you never know.)
Do we have data on the breakdown of early voting vs mail-in voting on the votes already cast this year?

From what I understand, sometimes these decisions are made as low as the county level. See this tweet about a possible "red mirage" in some PA counties, and you'll see why Trump wants to stop counting ballots on 11/3:

4/5 wrote:Several questions:
Does anybody have a list of the states that wait until after the election to count mail-in ballots?

This is a broad state-level overview, and shouldnt be seen as negating ST’s point.

Do we have data on the breakdown of early voting vs mail-in voting on the votes already cast this year?

I have this

Thanks. I was hopeful that there was more parity between early voting and mail-in. I suppose that people dropping off mail-in ballots is still considered mail-in voting.

That first graphic you shared is mostly positive I think. Only WI and PA are relevant states that don't start before election day which is a good thing. But ST is right, I forgot about each county often being in charge of their own election, which complicates things tremendously. Especially if there's a significant difference within a state between red and blue counties regarding when they count those votes.

Hmph.

Per a NYT report, PA won't have anything resembling official results until November 6th so, lock in.

this thing's pretty neat

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... ction-map/

nothing could possibly go wrong