Voting mechanisms

[wmLambert]

...No verification of voter address prior to sending the ballot, no recent voter signature requirement on file(to cross-reference on getting the ballot back), and the list goes on.

I just rewatched the James Collier interview showing some of the early vote-scam investigations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oA4nDuuBOg

Early on, he mentions the voting machines in Dade County and how the machines had been modified to stop the poll watchers from physically sseing the vote totals when the back of the mchine is unlocked and opened. They took all the keys away so no one could see, and had a wheel that rolled across the raised numbers which were then printed on a roll of paper. One machine malfunctioned and it was opened only to find the paper had been crumpled, but all the numbers were already emplaced. In that instance, 4,000 poll watchers walked off to protest the vote scamming. That it was done was proven.

Like I said, the Democrat vote scamming has been a major reason for their victories. It has been institutionalized. The early investigations back in the seventies have been ongoing, but try to find the info. Like the real vote totals, the scamming has been scrubbed. there have been many court cases that ruled scamming - but trying to find them is almost impossible - because the next important strategy for them next to scamming the votes, is hiding the fact that they have done so.

[TheDrake]

Did you post that yourself? Unconfirmed garbage not worth watching, which I didn't for a nine year old largely unwatched community TV link at best. Your credibility is beyond reproach, jackass.

[wmLambert]

Did you post that yourself? Unconfirmed garbage not worth watching, which I didn't for a nine year old largely unwatched community TV link at best. Your credibility is beyond reproach, jackass.

No rebuttal, at all? I guess the "unconfirmed garbage not worth watching" is too solid and difficult for you to try to refute. Vote scamming has been here for a long time, and I have followed it from all sources. Actual court cases have found Democrat operatives guilty at a much larger rate than any other party.

As of today, the MSM is reporting that should the election extend past January 20, when the new President is Constitutionally required to be sworn in, Madame Pelosi will accept the interim Presidency and wield all power until the courts have decided who won, if ever. Like similar cases, they will probably order a new election to be held. If that occurs, the donkey will have already replaced the eagle on the Presidential seal.

But, you think you know best.

[TheDrake]

To a 30 year old VHS tape, with no provenance, about a punch card voting system that no longer exists? There's nothing difficult at all about it, except tolerating a conspiracy theorist that would have joined QAnon if he had lived long enough. Check out his moon landing hoax expose too, I'm sure you'll find it compelling.

[DonaldD]

This should be fun: Democrats are roughly twice as likely as Republicans to vote by mail

WASHINGTON — More than one-third of Americans intend to vote by mail in the November presidential election, but Democratic voters are much more bullish about the option than Republicans, according to a new survey.

Thirty-seven percent of registered voters said they are likely to vote by mail in the November election, by receiving a mailed ballot and either mailing it back or returning it in person, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape project.

Among them, 48% of voters who plan to vote for Democratic presumptive nominee Joe Biden said they are likely to vote by mail, according to the survey. That's more than twice the 23% of voters backing President Donald Trump who said they are likely to vote by mail.

Almost half (!) of Biden supporters who intend to vote have stated a desire to vote by mail, as compared to less than one quarter of Trump supporters.  Ignoring any other shenanigans, this is going to lead to a very predictable situation on election night - Trump will almost certainly have a large election night lead in the electoral college based only on those votes processed on the day in question.

Why? Well, in addition to the 'regular' overtime count of late reporting precincts, provisional ballots and unprocessed mail in votes on the night of the election (which has trended more and more Democrat over the past 20 years) the votes not processed by the end of election day will be hugely bolstered by the millions of additional mail in ballots that will not have been counted by the end of the day, and some of which will not even have been received by the end of voting day.

Because many states don't allow mail in votes to be counted before election day, it is almost guaranteed that there will be millions, if not tens of millions, of un-tallied mail in votes received before election day, yet not counted until days later.  And those overtime count votes will strongly favour Biden - by about two to one, in the case of a tight election and if the above survey is roughly accurate.

But on election night?  Trump should, if he is at all in the running, have a huge lead, maybe on the order of 30% more votes than Biden.

In the ensuing days, and possibly weeks, Trump's lead over Biden will shrink. The good thing is that everybody is aware of this dynamic, and I have seen signs from both camps that they expect the count to take an unusually long time and have asked all parties to be patient in waiting for the final results...

Thoughts?

[yossarian22c]

In the ensuing days, and possibly weeks, Trump's lead over Biden will shrink. The good thing is that everybody is aware of this dynamic, and I have seen signs from both camps that they expect the count to take an unusually long time and have asked all parties to be patient in waiting for the final results...

Thoughts?

Wait you've seen signs from the Trump camp they expect and accept this fact?

[DonaldD]

Oh absolutely.  Trump and his team are well known for their sense of fair play, honesty and ethics.

Just ask... well, you know.

[DonaldD]

Projections:
1. Trump will have an electoral college lead on election night
2. Trump will claim immediate victory. Biden will call for the vote counting to be completed. Trump will demand that vote counting be terminated, and for Biden to concede.
3. Trump will  decry vote fraud associated to mail-in votes, and that they are trying to steal the election.
4. In the ensuing days, Trump's lead will be reduced; several state counts will flip in Biden's direction.
5. Trump will call on his supporters to protect democracy; he will also call for all mail-in ballots to be discarded and to go with the election night results.
6. Lawsuits contesting results will fall quicker than confetti at a wedding. Vote counting will be interrupted, stopped, restarted, re-stopped...
7. There will be protests.  There will be violence.
8. There will be open discussion of state legislators choosing electors directly, and discarding the tabulated votes; Trump will likely argue that the voting fraud is so rampant that they must do so.

[TheDeamon]

This should be fun: Democrats are roughly twice as likely as Republicans to vote by mail

WASHINGTON — More than one-third of Americans intend to vote by mail in the November presidential election, but Democratic voters are much more bullish about the option than Republicans, according to a new survey.

Thirty-seven percent of registered voters said they are likely to vote by mail in the November election, by receiving a mailed ballot and either mailing it back or returning it in person, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape project.

Among them, 48% of voters who plan to vote for Democratic presumptive nominee Joe Biden said they are likely to vote by mail, according to the survey. That's more than twice the 23% of voters backing President Donald Trump who said they are likely to vote by mail.

Almost half (!) of Biden supporters who intend to vote have stated a desire to vote by mail, as compared to less than one quarter of Trump supporters.  Ignoring any other shenanigans, this is going to lead to a very predictable situation on election night - Trump will almost certainly have a large election night lead in the electoral college based only on those votes processed on the day in question.

Why? Well, in addition to the 'regular' overtime count of late reporting precincts, provisional ballots and unprocessed mail in votes on the night of the election (which has trended more and more Democrat over the past 20 years) the votes not processed by the end of election day will be hugely bolstered by the millions of additional mail in ballots that will not have been counted by the end of the day, and some of which will not even have been received by the end of voting day.

Because many states don't allow mail in votes to be counted before election day, it is almost guaranteed that there will be millions, if not tens of millions, of un-tallied mail in votes received before election day, yet not counted until days later.  And those overtime count votes will strongly favour Biden - by about two to one, in the case of a tight election and if the above survey is roughly accurate.

But on election night?  Trump should, if he is at all in the running, have a huge lead, maybe on the order of 30% more votes than Biden.

In the ensuing days, and possibly weeks, Trump's lead over Biden will shrink. The good thing is that everybody is aware of this dynamic, and I have seen signs from both camps that they expect the count to take an unusually long time and have asked all parties to be patient in waiting for the final results...

Thoughts?

Major outlets have been calling it "The Red Mirage" scenario for several weeks now.

Although there is some more nuance to that story than what you're talking about.

[TheDeamon]

Projections:
1. Trump will have an electoral college lead on election night
2. Trump will claim immediate victory. Biden will call for the vote counting to be completed. Trump will demand that vote counting be terminated, and for Biden to concede.
3. Trump will  decry vote fraud associated to mail-in votes, and that they are trying to steal the election.
4. In the ensuing days, Trump's lead will be reduced; several state counts will flip in Biden's direction.
5. Trump will call on his supporters to protect democracy; he will also call for all mail-in ballots to be discarded and to go with the election night results.
6. Lawsuits contesting results will fall quicker than confetti at a wedding. Vote counting will be interrupted, stopped, restarted, re-stopped...
7. There will be protests.  There will be violence.
8. There will be open discussion of state legislators choosing electors directly, and discarding the tabulated votes; Trump will likely argue that the voting fraud is so rampant that they must do so.

3.a) Trump is going to decry the ballot verification process in many parts of the country as things go into overtime. (Poor or no Signature verification process, accepting late arrival ballots without postmarks, etc)
3.b) Some areas are likely to start bearing witness to "unusually high turnout" in some cases, possibly even having nearly every registered voter vote. Which in California could include more people voting than actually live in the community(there are a few counties in California where that is known that their voter rolls are larger than their population)
5.a)Trump will call for stronger verification of mail-in ballots, which include trying to contact the voter to verify the person actually exists.

[yossarian22c]

3.a) Trump is going to decry the ballot verification process in many parts of the country as things go into overtime. (Poor or no Signature verification process, accepting late arrival ballots without postmarks, etc)

Because everyone's signature is consistent over time and elections officials have the training and expertise to spot a fraud vs typical signature drift.

Lots of ballots aren't going to have postmarks because many (if not all) jurisdictions have ways to drop off mail in ballots at a drop box.

3.b) Some areas are likely to start bearing witness to "unusually high turnout" in some cases, possibly even having nearly every registered voter vote. Which in California could include more people voting than actually live in the community(there are a few counties in California where that is known that their voter rolls are larger than their population)

And yet Trump's voter fraud commission was disbanded without finding a single fraudulent vote cast. If it is so well known it seems like they could have found something. Also California isn't exactly in play.

I'm more concerned about the head of elections in Ohio deliberately trying to make it hard to return mail in ballots in person.

5.a)Trump will call for stronger verification of mail-in ballots, which include trying to contact the voter to verify the person actually exists.

Sure, "stronger verification," he'll call for throwing all the ballots out or not waiting for them to be counted. If he's ahead on election night he's going to try to have the counting of all mail in ballots stopped.

[rightleft22]

I don't see how the election isn't going to be contested and I don't see the Democrats winning if it is.

Unless the Democrats win by a huge margin on election day they are going to lose, and even then I'm not going to bet on it. 

[DonaldD]

What else has Trump done this week:
1. He refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (the question was "win, lose or draw..."). Yes, some people are unable to actually process those words whatsoever, but the majority of Republicans can undoubtedly understand what Trump has said on this topic, and I expect they are also privately horrified.  The question is whether they will do anything about it, or ignore  this complete betrayal of the country's foundational principles.
2. His campaign is now encouraging an "army" of people to intimidate voters at polling centres.  ("We need every able-bodied man and woman to join Army for Trump’s election security operation").  Thousands of untrained, passionate Trump acolytes, 'patrolling' polling stations (I can only guess which ones), and doing what, exactly?  The intimidation is not the goal, I expect.  The real goal will be the resulting violent conflagrations and the closing of polling stations.

That Republican's are not decrying this as loudly as everybody else is not at all surprising, but it is very, very sad.  The USA is effectively in its death throes, and the world is looking on with a mixture of pity and horror.

[LetterRip]

Because everyone's signature is consistent over time and elections officials have the training and expertise to spot a fraud vs typical signature drift.

There is actually bank software that can detect fraudulent signatures that isn't dependent on visual, but rather the placement of pressure (there are dimples where the pressure has increased and you will consistently increase pressure at certain points in your signature, basically impossible for all but the most skilled forgers to replicate).

[rightleft22]

What else has Trump done this week:
1. He refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (the question was "win, lose or draw..."). Yes, some people are unable to actually process those words whatsoever, but the majority of Republicans can undoubtedly understand what Trump has said on this topic, and I expect they are also privately horrified.  The question is whether they will do anything about it, or ignore  this complete betrayal of the country's foundational principles.
2. His campaign is now encouraging an "army" of people to intimidate voters at polling centres.  ("We need every able-bodied man and woman to join Army for Trump’s election security operation").  Thousands of untrained, passionate Trump acolytes, 'patrolling' polling stations (I can only guess which ones), and doing what, exactly?  The intimidation is not the goal, I expect.  The real goal will be the resulting violent conflagrations and the closing of polling stations.

That Republican's are not decrying this as loudly as everybody else is not at all surprising, but it is very, very sad.  The USA is effectively in its death throes, and the world is looking on with a mixture of pity and horror.

I think it begs the question. How are the Republicans defining democracy and rule of law? Is democracy something the membership wants anymore?

[yossarian22c]

I think it begs the question. How are the Republicans defining democracy and rule of law? Is democracy something the membership wants anymore?

Scary question. And looking back at how the Republican party has systematically tried to make voting harder (voter id, reduced early voting hours, bigger precincts in urban areas to cause long lines, ...). They did this in the name of voting security while at the same time being in charge of the states with the worst voting machines from a security perspective. Georgia is particularly egregious in the use of touch screen voting with no paper back up. Ohio isn't far behind. Hacking these machines is a much easier and harder to detect problem than in person voter fraud.

Republicans are also the current champs at extreme gerrymandering. Trump has been screwing with the census timeline, the senate is refusing to take up legislation to fix that. It's almost like they want a severe undercount as long as it seems likely to benefit them politically.

[yossarian22c]

I think it begs the question. How are the Republicans defining democracy and rule of law? Is democracy something the membership wants anymore?

At least a few R leaders are pushing back. At least for now anyway.

Shortly after his remarks, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, tweeted his vehement disapproval: "Fundamental to democracy is the peaceful transition of power; without that, there is Belarus. Any suggestion that a president might not respect this Constitutional guarantee is both unthinkable and unacceptable."

Other top Republicans followed suit Thursday morning. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote: "there will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792."

Based on Mitch's current record of holding to his previous statements, I'll believe he'll take action to oppose Trump abusing power when I see it.

[DonaldD]

Both of those statements are pretty meaningless without action.

Decrying potential violence (as did Romney) or ignoring the risk of violence being used to derail the voting process (as did McConnell) does little, if anything, to prevent it.

The risk, of course, is not that on January 20 there will be a refusal to accept reality; it is that bad actors will pervert the mechanisms by which the electorate makes known its decision.  Things exactly like voter intimidation at polling places, using propaganda to install doubt and distrust into the voting process itself, using the courts to delay counting votes until after the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, fomenting unrest and violence to further debilitate the ability to count votes, and pressuring state legislators to ignore cast votes, and to use the aforementioned chaos and distrust to rationalize that decision.

Milquetoast statements of optimism simply won't safeguard the electoral process.

[DonaldD]

Senator Rick Scott attempts to ... pleasure Donald Trump with his proposed VOTER act to promote voter suppression.  The last line is especially pernicious:

• Requires all eligible ballots to be counted and reported within 24 hours after polls close on Election Day to promote certainty in the outcome of a federal election

[wmLambert]

...The risk, of course, is not that on January 20 there will be a refusal to accept reality; it is that bad actors will pervert the mechanisms by which the electorate makes known its decision.  Things exactly like voter intimidation at polling places, using propaganda to install doubt and distrust into the voting process itself, using the courts to delay counting votes until after the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, fomenting unrest and violence to further debilitate the ability to count votes, and pressuring state legislators to ignore cast votes, and to use the aforementioned chaos and distrust to rationalize that decision.

Absolutely correct. The bad actors historically have always been the Democrats. They also historically blame the other side for making it hard to vote, when the other side insists we should make it easy to ensure fair elections. Who fights against voter ID to ensure fair voting? Who wants voters who are illegal to vote to become legal? Who has theatened to get rid of the Electoral College? Who has threatened to make DC and Puerto Rico States, for the sole goal of creating four new Democrat Senators? Who has threatened to stack the Courts? Who has said Biden should never concede the election under any circumstances? Since it is the Democrats who are voting using mail-in ballots, and GOP who will vote traditionally, the early totals will favor the GOP, and late vote by mail may come in weeks after election day. Therefore it will be the Democrat lawyers, who are already in place all over the country, who will file law suits to delay it.

Personally, after seeing so many man on the street interviews with alleged voters who can't name their Vice President, nor know who fought in the Civil War, I wish these dolts didn't have the vote. But they do. We shouldn't expand the idiot class to include scam votes.

[TheDeamon]

The risk, of course, is not that on January 20 there will be a refusal to accept reality; it is that bad actors will pervert the mechanisms by which the electorate makes known its decision.  Things exactly like voter intimidation at polling places, using propaganda to install doubt and distrust into the voting process itself, using the courts to delay counting votes until after the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, fomenting unrest and violence to further debilitate the ability to count votes, and pressuring state legislators to ignore cast votes, and to use the aforementioned chaos and distrust to rationalize that decision.

I think your bigger chaos option will be that that there will be vote tallies still being disputed on Januart 20th, 2021; and that the Speaker of the House will refuse to carry out their legally mandated taskings they were supposed to perform on January 4th in the hope that the popular vote result in certain states will change, and justify their either invalidating electoral votes from certain states, or selecting "an alternative" set of electors a'la 1876.

[DonaldD]

The electors will have long since been chosen - in mid-December latest. And since the majority of swing States are held by Republican legislatures it's highly unlikely that there would still be any counting being done anyway, not that it would make any difference.

The couple of exceptions would be where there's a Democratic governor, so possibly those States would send two distinct sets of electors. The challenge will then be which set of electors are eventually certified. But that will have nothing to do with the ongoing count at that point.

[TheDeamon]

The electors will have long since been chosen - in mid-December latest. And since the majority of swing States are held by Republican legislatures it's highly unlikely that there would still be any counting being done anyway, not that it would make any difference.

The couple of exceptions would be where there's a Democratic governor, so possibly those States would send two distinct sets of electors. The challenge will then be which set of electors are eventually certified. But that will have nothing to do with the ongoing count at that point.

It would have everything to do with the ongoing count at that point from the position of the Democrats.

If there are ballots still in dispute on the 20th of January and Trump is still winning(in the relevant state), the Democrats could very easily say that "because the will of the people in (insert decisive state(s) here) is unknown" they cannot act on either set of electors, and as such are going to delay the congressional portion of the process until said legal processes complete.

Then they can scream about the Republicans being undemocratic when they push for ratifying the results as they are.

And you end up with the Speaker of the House as Acting PotUS with its own set on constitutional issues, unless they slip through some surprise changes to the presidential succession process between now and January, which is unlikely.

At this point, I really do think the Presidential Succession Act does need to be revised to skip over the Speaker of the House, and possibly the President pro Tempore of the Senate as well in the event that a presidential electoral dispute is still ongoing in Congress at noon on January 20th.

Because "Acting President and Speaker" is all kinds of constitutional nightmare, as it presumes a rogue "House of Representatives," which nobody should want to establish precedent for, the 25th Amendment becomes N/A as there is both no sitting Vice President to initiate anything, and the sitting President at that point also holds the title of Speaker of the House, who is one of the people who is supposed to certify the Presidential incapacity....

And as that Acting PotUS is Speaker, they have majority support in the House, which means impeachment is also out as a constitutional/legal option. The only solution at that point is for someone(SecDef, the Senate?) to declare what the House of Representatives is doing to be an insurrection and then go about arresting/killing a significant portion of the newly elected members of the House of Representatives...

[oldbrian]

Does anyone know offhand when exactly (or even roughly) we decided that all votes must be counted on election day?  Way back in the 1700's and at least early 1800's we didn't care if it took a few days to count and announce.  Did that officially change at some point, or are we just so used to instant communication that we cannot now conceive of waiting?

[TheDeamon]

Does anyone know offhand when exactly (or even roughly) we decided that all votes must be counted on election day?  Way back in the 1700's and at least early 1800's we didn't care if it took a few days to count and announce.  Did that officially change at some point, or are we just so used to instant communication that we cannot now conceive of waiting?

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.

20th Amendment section 1:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 3:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Which is where the succession act of 1947 would make the Speaker of the House "Acting President"

[TheDeamon]

The previous is just the congressional side of things.

The Electors are supposed to have voted and transmitted their vote to Congress by the middle of the December, as previously mentioned in this thread. But at 1876 demonstrated, states can, and have, sent results from multiple sets of electors in the past, and this year may be no different. In which case Congress decides which set they honor.

And that will be the "backdoor" means for the Democrats to switch the results if they desire as that is the one situation where they can get things through on a simple majority vote. If they simply invalidate the electoral votes and send the vote to Congress itself, the laws in their present form require them to vote "by state caucus" which the Republicans control a majority of, despite being the minority in the House, which would likely result in a Trump win, so the Democrats will do everything they can to avoid that specific process.

Of course, this all becomes moot if the Republicans somehow get a majority in the House and keep their Senate majority. At that point, its possible that they could nullify the electoral votes they dispute which went for Biden and elect Trump instead, but I find that outcome highly unlikely.

But Democrats running the clock down to January 20th? I could see that happening if there are legal disputes still ongoing.

Taking it past noon on the 20th of January is questionable, but it is in the realm of possible.

[oldbrian]

Did...did that actually answer my question?  Is there a statute or law or amendment somewhere that explicitly states that the ballots must be counted al on the same day?

Or is the deadline Jan 20th, and that is why they get sworn in on that day?

[TheDeamon]

Did...did that actually answer my question?  Is there a statute or law or amendment somewhere that explicitly states that the ballots must be counted al on the same day?

Or is the deadline Jan 20th, and that is why they get sworn in on that day?

Deadline would seem to be January 3rd in all practical ways, as that is when the new Congress is to be sworn in unless otherwise stipulated by law(and if the votes for the House are done, it follows the Presidential votes should be too). The Electoral votes by proceedure/law is to be counted on the following day that Congress is in session, during a Joint Session of Congress.

As the 3rd falls on a Sunday this year, that likely means the 4th/5th of January this year.

That said, there are statutory laws saying the Electoral votes are to be cast in December, so the deadline for electoral votes is that date.

As a matter of strict constitutional law, the deadline is noon on January 20th, but as it actively provisions for an acting president in an unresolved succession scenario as per the 20th Amendment, it could be argued that there is no practical deadline on that front. Although the only other situation that would compare at that point is the 1876 Presidential election.

[TheDeamon]

The challenge here is we're dealing with multiple layers of things going on.

1) We have the popular vote(broken down to a per state event), conducted in accordance with statutory law.
2) We have the selection of the electors who then cast their vote for PotUS and the VP "on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December." Which is basically the hard deadline for counting the popular vote as per statutory law. At this point, the matter leaves the courts, and becomes entirely political and rests in the hands of Congress.
3) We have a Joint Session of Congress accepting and ratifying the Electoral Votes received. By statute this is to happen during the second day they are in session. But that isn't a constitutional requirement. And while the courts could try to insert themselves into the matter of Congress ignoring their statutory obligations, that's unlikely to happen. So if Congress wants to ignore that law, they can ignore that law, nobody is going to be able to (legally) penalize them for it.
4) We have the 20th amendment mandating that the current President and Vice President's term of office ends at noon on the 20th of January of the relevant year. If there is no president of vice president selected at that time, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 comes into play, and the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President.

So the only "hard deadlines" are December 14th for the electors submitting their electoral ballots to Congress, the electors themselves, the courts, and even Congress at this point cannot do anything to effectively change that.
Then the January 4th/5th date rolls around where Congress is supposed to do their thing, but there are no penalties for them if they fail to comply.
The on January 20th there is a very hard and firm deadline after which the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 determines who gets to be "the Acting President" while Congress decides what it is going to do.

Edit:

Off in the weeds we have the "January 3rd or other date as selected by Congress" deadline for the swearing in of the next Congress. There is no provision there for disputed Congressional seats and takes off into another different rabbit hole on what provisions, if any, there are for such an event.

Edit 2: If looks like, at least as it pertains to the Senate, that in the event of a disputed seat, the seat remains vacant until the winners credentials are accepted. This happened to two senators in 2010. Al Franken did not assume his seat until June 30th of that year. So it is possible that the next Congress could convene with a lot of empty Congressional seats depending on how extensively results are being disputed beyond the Presidential race itself.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/25/916626848/florida-republicans-take-aim-at-efforts-to-pay-felons-fines-so-they-can-vote

Florida's attorney general is asking law enforcement agencies to open an investigation of a contribution made by billionaire and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to help pay the fines and court fees of felons.
...
Florida's law requiring felons to pay fines before they can vote was recently upheld by a federal appeals court. Julie Ebenstein, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, said that in court part of the state's defense was that if felons don't have the funds, others could always pay for them.

Republicans again showing they want to make voting more difficult.

[TheDeamon]

Edit 2: If looks like, at least as it pertains to the Senate, that in the event of a disputed seat, the seat remains vacant until the winners credentials are accepted. This happened to two senators in 2010. Al Franken did not assume his seat until June 30th of that year. So it is possible that the next Congress could convene with a lot of empty Congressional seats depending on how extensively results are being disputed beyond the Presidential race itself.

Correction: 2009, and while the legal dispute ended on the 30th, his credentials were not accepted until the 7th of July.

Also of note: The delay in his case hinged on the counting of a few hundred disputed absentee ballots.

[oldbrian]

Thank you, Deamon!  I did not want to do all of that work myself, and did not intend that you should do it on my behalf.  I would have accepted a shrug and a 'dunno'.  You went above and beyond.  Thank you.

[DonaldD]

Electors must be chosen by early December, and the electors will cast their votes December 14.

After that, the vote tallies will be academic; there will still undoubtedly be power plays to be made, but any updates to the counts themselves will not figure into those actions. Could increases in margins of 'victory' put political pressure on state legislatures (or their parties) that have already chosen to ignore the vote counts?  Theoretically, but given they would be invested in characterizing the vote counts themselves as illegitimate, increases to the illegitimate vote counts could not be allowed to be seen to sway them from that position.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/25/916626848/florida-republicans-take-aim-at-efforts-to-pay-felons-fines-so-they-can-vote

Florida's attorney general is asking law enforcement agencies to open an investigation of a contribution made by billionaire and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to help pay the fines and court fees of felons.
...
Florida's law requiring felons to pay fines before they can vote was recently upheld by a federal appeals court. Julie Ebenstein, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, said that in court part of the state's defense was that if felons don't have the funds, others could always pay for them.

Republicans again showing they want to make voting more difficult.

Further to that: in its defence of the law requiring that fines be paid prior to voting, the state also argued that those fees were not themselves related to voting, so could not be considered poll taxes (otherwise, using those unpaid fees to exclude residents from voting would be a priori unconstitutional.)  But now, the state is arguing that paying those fees could be a contravention of election law - implicitly admitting that those fees are related to the election and must therefore be poll taxes and illegal.

[DonaldD]

FBI Director Christopher Wray:

we have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise... However, [there has been voter fraud at the local level] from time to time.

...

Certainly to change a federal election outcome by mounting that kind of fraud at scale would be a major challenge for an adversary, but people should make no mistake, we're vigilant as to the threat and watching it carefully because we're in an uncharted new territory.

Just more evidence that repeated attacks on the legitimacy of the vote by Trump and his acolytes have no merit.  I fear, however, that just as with the utter hypocrisy of the Republican party concerning SCOTUS confirmations, the vote fraud fig leaf is not really meant to garner majority support, just to cloud the waters sufficiently so can successfully ignore the voting results for long enough.

[TheDeamon]

Electors must be chosen by early December, and the electors will cast their votes December 14.

After that, the vote tallies will be academic; there will still undoubtedly be power plays to be made, but any updates to the counts themselves will not figure into those actions. Could increases in margins of 'victory' put political pressure on state legislatures (or their parties) that have already chosen to ignore the vote counts?  Theoretically, but given they would be invested in characterizing the vote counts themselves as illegitimate, increases to the illegitimate vote counts could not be allowed to be seen to sway them from that position.

Except we all know the electors for each respective party have already been chosen. What remains to be seen is which set of electors get the "State Sanctioned" approval, which goes back to 1876, where several states sent results from two different sets of electors on to congress, and Congress decided which electors they would honor.

"vote tallies will be academic" ignores what the Democrats are likely to consider doing between December 14th and January 5th, or even the 20th.

That "academic" vote tally could be the difference between a state being majority/plurality in favor of Trump, or majority/plurality in favor of Biden. They're going to want the Biden option, and they'll be inclined to use any means needed to achieve that goal. So expect that where they're capable of doing so, the Democrats will likely have their Democrat Electors(under the aegis of either their Governor or State Legislature respectively) send in "their official electoral college votes" even though at the time they voted on the 14th of December, Trump was ahead in the polling. That way, if by January 4th it looks like Biden is ahead in the polling for that particular state at that time, they can disqualify the Republican electors from that state, and accept the Democratic Electors for that state instead.

If on the 4th of January a state where they have two sets of electoral ballots to choose from is still hotly contested and has "enough contested ballots" to possibly swing the outcome, they'll push to delay any decision until those contested ballots are addressed... Because "We're protecting the integrity of the Democratic Process, and no decision has to be made right now, as the President cannot assume office until the 20th.." (Read: We're trying to overturn Trump's win) and as such, they'll delay the Joint Session of Congress so that they don't have to fight over which panel of electors to select from those states. Which is how we possibly are looking at a Joint Session of Congress on the night of the 19th of January, or very early morning of the 20th to make a decision before the noon deadline. 

Unless there somehow still are enough contested ballots the Democrats are trying to get counted to change the electoral outcome. In which case we walk right into the Speaker of the House becoming Acting President on January 20th and remaining such until the ballot fights are done with. "Because we want the people's choice to be respected" and in this context, the national popular vote would likely have favored Biden, even if the Electoral College isn't so clear, but again, that's more fuel to motivate them to obstruct the Electoral College from doing its Constitutionally designed task.

[DonaldD]

What the Democrats or Republicans choose to do at that point will be purely a political power play.  The results of the vote tallies will simply not matter anymore.

[wmLambert]

The NY Times is panicking and put out a column enumerating their five worst fears of Trump soundly winning the election. Number one is the huge enthusiasm factor which is even greater than it appeared in 2016. Their numbers say the surge was unseen back then until it happened, but is even greater now. Second is the huge Latino vote growing for Trump. Third is the stupid Democrat buy-in of mail-in ballots, which historically are largely and easily thrown out due to mistakes and incompetency. They say it is a 60-40% difference between GOP vs, Democrats using sustainable voting practices, while Dems go for the easy but ephemeral mail-in balloting. The fourth is the solid down-ballot leaning to the GOP, and the last is Trump's personality being so much greater than Biden's, that Joe cannot compete.

[TheDeamon]

What the Democrats or Republicans choose to do at that point will be purely a political power play.  The results of the vote tallies will simply not matter anymore.

Do you remember 2016? I do.

They were all over the whole "But the popular vote!" thing.

If they can show the popular vote went for Biden, they'll use that as cover to drag things out to see if they can get some close races to flip, even if they have to make political power plays in January to try to make it happen. Because their activist base will support them, and that's all that will matter for them.

Would you be cool with the Democrats drawing out the validation of the Electoral Vote results should it come to that?

You seem to be preparing yourself for them doing exactly that re: Trump's going to try to invalidate mail in votes.

[DonaldD]

Clinton conceded the night of the election. Fighting over electors in January after the legislators have already sent in their slates and possibly the governors have sent in dissenting slates, will have absolutely nothing to do with the vote count.

As well, in 2016 it didn't matter what the national popular vote count was because the electoral college clearly went to trump. The only arguments about the popular vote at the time were showing that once again the electoral college did not follow the popular vote. That's it.

Absolutely nobody was staring that Pennsylvanian or Floridian electors should have been redistributed because she won the nationwide popular vote.

[TheDeamon]

As well, in 2016 it didn't matter what the national popular vote count was because the electoral college clearly went to trump. The only arguments about the popular vote at the time were showing that once again the electoral college did not follow the popular vote. That's it.

Absolutely nobody was stating that Pennsylvanian or Floridian electors should have been redistributed because she won the nationwide popular vote.

Not what I'm talking about. In 2016, Pennsylvania and Florida didn't have tens of thousands of mail-in ballots being contested in a race which may have a razor thin margin, one where their polling suggests the skew would be in their favor.

They'd have every reason to fight tooth and nail to get those ballots counted if they have reason to believe it could change the final vote tally in their favor.

Of course, ironically enough, the validation process for some of those contested ballots may at last provide the proof Trump and the Republicans have been looking for about voter fraud.

[DonaldD]

Of course they'll fight tooth and nail. And it's almost a given that the Republicans are going to put up legal barriers to actually counting those votes. But once the electors have been selected, and that would only be based on the legislators overruling the in progress counts if they were not complete, then the counts themselves will become irrelevant. The legislators will have made the decision to ignore the counts. And the only reason to ignore the counts that they will give is that the vote had been compromised.

'Fraudulent' votes counted after the electors have been selected by the legislature will be completely irrelevant. The people who believe in the fraud will support the process and the people who don't believe in the fraud will believe their votes have been stolen, and it wont matter about the margin at that point.

[DonaldD]

Here's an interesting read in The Atlantic: (The Election That Could Break America.  It's long, and I'm not going to quote anything, but it describes one not even remotely impossible scenario that could lead to a constitutional crisis.

Some will discount the characterizations of Trump, and may also dispute some of the assumptions, but a review of some of the possible legal and political steps following the election and up to January 20 may be of interest.

As well, if anybody doubts the risk of violence during and following the election this article neatly encapsulates what happens when you have a country with more guns than people, a religion fetishizing gun ownership and use, the polarization of the electorate, and the escalation among radicals who are threatened by each perceived escalation of the "other side": Duelling 'Militias'. This particular article focusses on "armed, far-right white" groups and radical, armed black groups, but there are other political tinder boxes out there as well:

A number of armed, far-right White groups emboldened by Trump's "law and order" message are confronting anti-racist protesters across the nation. And there is a growing Second Amendment movement among Black Americans who are forming their own armed groups.

With Trump calling on his supporters to join his "army" to defend the vote (especially in Democrat leaning areas) it is highly unlikely that a large number of armed Trump supporters will not be active during the voting and then trying to "monitor" the counting.  It is also highly likely that Trump opponents will rise to the perceived challenge, arm themselves as well, and "defend" the country from Trump's supporters.  In this environment, I find it highly unlikely that not a single untrained, hot-headed "patriot" of one flavour or another will make a "mistake" and set off at least a limited armed skirmish somewhere in the country.  It would be almost a miracle if that didn't happen.

[DonaldD]

and so it begins... Wisconsin State GOP leaders attempt to abuse the courts in order to suppress voting in Madison.

The state’s two most powerful Republican lawmakers sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Madison City Clerk’s Office on Friday ahead of a ballot collection event to be held in city parks Saturday, calling the effort “illegal” and warning the ballots would be challenged in court and potentially invalidated.

<snip>

[City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl] noted the program involves city poll workers, who are deputized to receive ballots. Ballot harvesting involves the illegal collection of ballots by non-poll workers to be delivered to election officials or ballot boxes. The event also does not amount to early voting because ballots will not be provided to voters who come out. The poll workers will be receiving ballots from those who requested and received absentee ballots.

Conservative lawyer Rick Esenberg, whose law firm has taken up several GOP-supported causes, said in an interview Friday he didn’t plan on challenging the event in court unless it involved non-poll workers or involved distributing ballots.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“and so it begins... Wisconsin State GOP leaders attempt to abuse the courts in order to suppress voting in Madison.”

If your references are accurate, that regularly issued live ballots were brought by designated recipients to the “... ballot collection event”, and were then received by deputized ballot collection poll workers, I have to ask; what was the point of the party?

Other than creating a spectacle, no other utilitarian end seems apparent. All of those allegedly “suppressed” voters could have simply left the party, and dropped their ballots in the mailbox. I know there is an angle hidden in your story somewhere. What is it?

[noel c.]

... Never mind, I just figured it out. These gatherings are to instruct voters on the correct ballot selections, undoubtedly Democratically “correct”.

What won’t you people do to avoid safeguards associated with the traditional secret ballot?

[TheDeamon]

Of course they'll fight tooth and nail. And it's almost a given that the Republicans are going to put up legal barriers to actually counting those votes. But once the electors have been selected, and that would only be based on the legislators overruling the in progress counts if they were not complete, then the counts themselves will become irrelevant. The legislators will have made the decision to ignore the counts. And the only reason to ignore the counts that they will give is that the vote had been compromised.

'Fraudulent' votes counted after the electors have been selected by the legislature will be completely irrelevant. The people who believe in the fraud will support the process and the people who don't believe in the fraud will believe their votes have been stolen, and it wont matter about the margin at that point.

Here is the crux of things: As per the New York Times in 2012 the Absentee ballot disqualification rate was more than double what the normal balloting process created.

Assuming that rate holds true for 2020, are you going to say anything about it when the Democrats declare that Trump was wanting to hold things to an unreasonable standard?

Of course, that's a big assumption, it'll likely be greatly exceeded, 2020 has already seen elections where the disqualification rate was over 20% which isn't to mention other issues--like one election being ordered by the courts to be redone completely,  but there will be plenty of chances for Democrats to put the mail-in-voting system under a microscope in the hopes of squeezing out a few thousand more Biden votes in key districts where their own people would likely have been inclined to disqualify those ballots in any other election year.

This is going to be a very messy election process, hopefully it only involves a couple of states in detail, but the process itself is going to be nightmarish, hanging chads will likely be preferable to what is coming.

[DonaldD]

Which has nothing to do with the relevancy of the vote counts once the electors have been selected.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“Which has nothing to do with the relevancy of the vote counts once the electors have been selected.”

Just for clarification; are you suggesting a strategy of selecting electors prior to court reviewed vote count certification?

[DonaldD]

No - Electors are not necessarily chosen by vote counts.  Legislators in each of the states could take back that power, choose to set aside the vote counts and select their own electors directly.

This was affirmed in Bush v Gore: "When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated''')"

[noel c.]

Donald,

“ No - Electors are not necessarily chosen by vote counts.  Legislators in each of the states could take back that power, choose to set aside the vote counts and select their own electors directly.”

What is the underlying scam? Nullification of vote counts through induced process chaos, and substitution of state appointed electors?