It Doesn't Add Up
Comments
-
@reformed posted:
Bill ballot dumps in the middle of the night,
??? Do you mean ballots arrived at ballot counting centers at night? Is there something illegal about that? I remember years when the post office collected mail from designated mail boxes just before midnight on April 15 so that people could get their tax returns postmarked by the deadline. That was unusual, but certainly not illegal. That ballots would arrive in obedience to a deadline (for example, a Federal judge ordered the USPS to sweep for and deliver any ballots in its possession, and got testy with the USPS when it didn't comply with his order) doesn't seem odd to me at all,
Joe magically getting enough votes after the election to just edge out.
So I assume you found it "suspicious" that Donald Trump got "just enough" votes to win Michigan in 2016? (by 0.3%)
OF COURSE it's not suspicious when one candidate wins a close election. We're a closely divided country, politically. Some states are decidedly GOP. Some are decidedly Democratic. Some are really close (Georgia, Arizona). Some are trending GOP (Florida). Some are trending Democratic (Georgia). That's electoral reality in the United States. Close election results, in and of themselves, do not prove or even raise voter fraud concerns.
Observers not being allowed to observe you don't think that is suspicious?
Observers observing from ten or twelve feet rather than from six feet until ordered by a judge to be allowed to observe from six feet rather then ten or twelve feet. No, I don't find that suspicious.
Democrats crying about legal challenges when it is Trump's right just as it was Gore's in 2000, you don't find that odd?
For all kinds of reasons, the 2000 election was nothing like this current election:
- In the 2000 election, the difference was 537 votes (in Florida), not tens of thousands of votes.
- In the 2000 election, without Florida - the ONLY state Gore contested, by the way - neither candidate had 270 electoral votes, so the state and its 537 votes were, in essence, the election. In the current election, Biden has multiple paths to 270.
- In the 2000 election, the issue was uncertainty over voters' intentions due to ballot imperfections (who can forget the infamous "hanging chads"?) NOT voter fraud.
BOTTOM LINE: As you would say, try again.
-
@Bill_Coley regarding the closeness, it is suspicious when it happens days later after counting stops etc.
six and 12 feet is not the law. They are allowed to inspect ballots and counting machines and even test counting machings during ballot counts by PA law.
-
@reformed posted:
@Bill_Coley regarding the closeness, it is suspicious when it happens days later after counting stops etc.
six and 12 feet is not the law. They are allowed to inspect ballots and counting machines and even test counting machings during ballot counts by PA law.
And the whack-a-mole continues.
It is NOT suspicious that DURING A PANDEMIC a state would err on the side of caution and increase the distance between election observers and ballot counters. Nor is it suspicious that observers from the two parties were treated THE SAME WAY by PA officials.
According to the National Council of State Legislatures, PA law provides the following for election observers:
Pre-election day processes
Partisan observers may be present during the preparation of voting equipment (25 P.S. § 3031.10, § 3011).
In-person voting
Access for nonpartisan observers is not specified.
Partisan observers may observe at polling locations and may stay until the time that the counting of votes is complete (25 P.S. § 2687).
Absentee ballot processing and counting
Partisan observers are permitted to be present when absentee and mail-in ballot envelopes are opened, and when the ballots are counted and recorded (25 P.S. § 3146.8).
Post-election processes
Partisan observers may be present at the tabulation or canvassing of unofficial and official returns, and any recount or recanvass (25 P.S. § 2650).
Special accommodations or restrictions for observers due to pandemic
County boards of elections should consider conducting public meetings remotely using electronic services (Pennsylvania Department of State, Election Operations During COVID-19, p.3).
No reference to inspecting ballots or counting machines.
I then reviewed applicable PA law, and found this, from Section 417 (b), about what the statute calls "watchers":
Watchers allowed in the polling place under the provisions of this act, shall be permitted to keep a list of voters and shall be entitled to challenge any person making application to vote and to require proof of his qualifications, as provided by this act. During those intervals when voters are not present in the polling place either voting or waiting to vote, the judge of elections shall permit watchers, upon request, to inspect the voting check list and either of the two numbered lists of voters maintained by the county board: Provided, That the watcher shall not mark upon or alter these official election records. The judge of elections shall supervise or delegate the inspection of any requested documents.
No reference to inspecting ballots or counting machines.
Section 1209 (b) permits watchers to inspect "counters" BEFORE POLLS OPEN - basically, make sure they're set to zero before the first vote is cast - but I see nothing in the statute about testing ballot counting machines during ballot counts. But I may well be wrong. Please cite and quote from the statute.
And what about all the spaghetti you threw against the wall in your last post, the claims I directly engaged and debunked? Why do you not defend your claims ballot dumps and close election results and alleged similarity to Gore's 2000 objections to the Florida vote count? We both know why: You can't defend them, because they're baseless. And so your only hope is to throw more spaghetti against the wall, hoping in vain that SOMETHING will stick.... Electoral whack-a-mole.
-
Bill the pandemic has zero bearing on what the law says.
And here is your lucky day, I'm going to provide a link and the actual text of PA election law.
(2) Each political party or political body represented on the official ballot may have one technically qualified person, authorized by the county chairman and deputized by the county board of elections, present during the testing of the central automatic tabulating equipment and the actual counting of the ballot or district totals cards. Such persons shall be allowed to make independent tests of the equipment prior to, during, and following the vote count: Provided, however, That such testing shall in no way interfere with the official tabulation of the ballots and district totals cards. In addition, each political party or political body shall be entitled to have observers at the central tabulation center, in a number, as determined by the county board of elections, sufficient to permit accurate observation of the receipt, handling, duplication, and processing of all ballots and district totals cards.
There is NOTHING in PA election law about provisions for a pandemic. The board doesn't get to change the rules, the legislature does. That is in the Constitution of the United States.
Ballot dumps in the middle of the night are not normal. This was not on election day, this was in the wee hours AFTER the election was past. This was not legitimate. The reason for Gore's challenge in 2000 is irrelevant. The point is he had a right to challenge, and lose, and Trump has a right to challenge and we have yet to see if he will win or lose. Why are you so afraid of the challenges?
-
@reformed post:
Bill the pandemic has zero bearing on what the law says.
In my previous post, I made no comment about the legality of the extra 4'-6' of separation that Pennsylvania enforced until a court order changed their policy. I commented ONLY as to whether the state's moving observers back those 4'-6' was, as you suggested, "suspicious." I also commented that neither did I find it "suspicious" that observers from the two parties were treated THE SAME WAY by PA officials.
And here is your lucky day, I'm going to provide a link and the actual text of PA election law.
Excellent. Thanks. Well done. I clearly missed that in my review of the statute.
Were observers in PA not allowed to inspect/test machines as mandated?
There is NOTHING in PA election law about provisions for a pandemic. The board doesn't get to change the rules, the legislature does. That is in the Constitution of the United States.
According to the PA Supreme Court, the rule changes were constitutional. More legal challenges await, of course, but as of now, PA's highest court has sanctioned the practice. You surely disagree, but courts don't much care what we think (just ask us progressives about Citizens United!!)
Ballot dumps in the middle of the night are not normal. This was not on election day, this was in the wee hours AFTER the election was past. This was not legitimate.
"Not normal" doesn't necessarily mean "suspicious" or "illegal."
Were ballots delivered after election day? Yes, because the standard the state operated under was delivery within three days of election day, so those deliveries were compliant with the law as it then stood. Plus, a federal judge had ordered the USPS to sweep for and deliver ballots.... So unusual? Yes. Atypical? Yes. Suspicious? No.
The reason for Gore's challenge in 2000 is irrelevant. The point is he had a right to challenge, and lose, and Trump has a right to challenge and we have yet to see if he will win or lose. Why are you so afraid of the challenges?
Of course the reason for and context of Gore's challenge matter. Everyone acknowledged that there were issues with ballots in Florida in the 2000 election. Hanging chads WERE a thing, and they mattered because the difference was 537 votes! In 2020, widespread election fraud is NOT a thing. It doesn't exist in PA or any other state in the country. And the vote differential between the candidates in PA at this moment stands at 50,500 and growing.
In order for voter fraud to flip that many votes, 0.7% of all votes cast would have to be found fraudulent and then discarded. That rate is almost 30 times higher than actual voter fraud rates. PLUS, ALL 0.7% of the fraudulent votes would have to have been cast for Joe Biden, which we both know is a statistical impossibility.
There are voting irregularities in EVERY general election; they're few, far between, and NEVER decisive in any election. But by your reasoning, vote counts will regularly last for weeks and months on end because candidates have a right to pursue challenges to votes even if there is NO reason to believe those challenges will change the result. Good night, America.
And am I afraid of the challenges? Not at all. It's just that at this critical moment in our nation's history and our need for a smooth and informed transfer of power, and given the clear, obvious reality of Biden's victory - there is NO evidence to suggest Trump can win these challenges; NONE - I think the challenges are a profound and dangerous waste of time. And given the president's refusal to allow ANY cooperation with the Biden team as it prepares to assume power, wastes of time are anathema right now.
-
First, it is not a clear and obvious reality of his victory which is why there are challenges.
As far as did they get to inspect, they may have gotten to test them before the counting, but definitely not during the counting.
-
@reformed posted:
First, it is not a clear and obvious reality of his victory which is why there are challenges.
Joe Biden's election victory is clear and obvious to every objective evaluator of the available vote counts, and to every person who knows the facts - not the partisan spin - about the incidence of widespread voter fraud in American elections.
-
That is your partisan subjective opinion ;)
-
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)