Election Results

[rightleft22]

"Trump's Base" loves Trump. They have no problem with how he says and does things.

Republicans and Conservatives on the other hand? They might love a number of things he did, but they hate or even loathe many of the things he has said, and take issue with how he has done them. But in this era of "take no prisoners politics" nuance is lost, and especially with Trump, speaking out against him on anything means losing the ability to work with him on anything. So it's easier to simply not avoid saying anything.

In my opinion its what Trump says and method that makes him dangerous. I understand Republicans/Conservatives preferring his policies but staying silent on his method and the things he says Is acceptance of his method of governance and 'leading'.   

I do agree that the cable news focus on trump tweets and not context to policy for ratings has exasperated things. When every tweet becomes the next "big" news story its no wonder nothing stuck.

[TheDrake]

Trump will be roaming the countryside having "Stolen Election" rallies for the rest of his life. He never even gave up birtherism until the late stages of his Presidency. The standard norms of former Presidents will not even begin to occur to him. We'll still be subject to his tweets and general mayhem, the only thing that will change is that he can no longer sign executive orders.

[LetterRip]

Trump will be roaming the countryside having "Stolen Election" rallies for the rest of his life. He never even gave up birtherism until the late stages of his Presidency. The standard norms of former Presidents will not even begin to occur to him. We'll still be subject to his tweets and general mayhem, the only thing that will change is that he can no longer sign executive orders.

Unless he dies shortly after leaving office, I think he will be spending most of his time in courts and jail.  The number of state and federal lawsuits that will proceed once he leaves office are numerous.

[yossarian22c]

The media has gotten really reluctant to finish calling the race. I feel like they're hoping Trump will concede and in absence of that they are going to wait for one of the key states to put a 100% of the vote counted before they make a call to put Biden over the top. Probably a good public relations decision even if the writing is on the wall in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada.

Also I think they would be fairly safe calling NC and Alaska for Trump.

Georgia is close enough I would wait for the 100% call. It would be highly unlikely for Trump to win whatever votes remain by more than the difference but with a margin of 1,500 votes I would hold off on calling that one as well.

[DonaldD]

Republicans were wrong in 2000.

Well, yes - that why I said that wasn't really my point.  It was that once it becomes clear that one has no path to victory, that the opponent is guaranteed a victory, traditionally, the defeated candidate acknowledges defeat for the good of the country.

There was no doubt, as of EOD Wednesday, that Trump no longer could win - but admittedly, it would be nearly impossible to concede at that point given that he still had leads in the counted ballots  in Pennsylvania and Georgia.  That's why I only made the concession point once Biden had overtaken him in those states.  And yes, I don't think anybody expected Trump to concede, anyway; he's been pretty clear about not caring about the good of the country.

[NobleHunter]

It is curious that they called Arizona so quickly but not Nevada. I doubt we'll see enough of their math to know if there's a statistical reason they're still holding off declaring another state for Biden (and therefore the whole election) or if they are being overly cautious as you suggest.

[msquared]

Rush is sure that all of the other Networks are waiting to make Fox announce it and call Biden the winner first, so they can embarrass them.  That if Fox does it first, they will not be responsible for how Trump's followers react.

[yossarian22c]

It is curious that they called Arizona so quickly but not Nevada. I doubt we'll see enough of their math to know if there's a statistical reason they're still holding off declaring another state for Biden (and therefore the whole election) or if they are being overly cautious as you suggest.

I think with a president other than Trump and the way he has attacked the media they would call Pennsylvania for Biden at this point. Likewise I think that Biden going from an 8k to a 20k lead in Nevada would have gotten the a call as well if that wouldn't put Biden at 270. I really think this is the media showing restraint on a story to stop the president from turning the election into an assault on the media.

[DonaldD]

Part of the bind that the media are in is that they have been championing the idea that all votes should be counted.

That shouldn't preclude them from making the call when the numbers are obvious, and in past elections, states might have been called with far less of the vote in.  However, getting the populace, especially Trump supporters, to accept that because mail-in ballot trends are what they are, Trump has no chance is going to be an uphill battle.   I think having especially the media organizations that the right wing of the country view as being in the pocket of the Dems call the election for the Dems before Trump is mathematically eliminated is a recipe for confusion and possibly... very heated reactions.  The media is just being responsible by not making the call at this point.

[Grant]

Are we there yet? 

[DonaldD]

Don't make me stop the car.

[TheDeamon]

Portland started rioting on Tuesday... or would that simply be they've continued rioting?

[rightleft22]

Is it to much to hope that the Main Stream Media will take a moment to reflect on how they report news?
When 80%+ of the 24 coverage is editorial, opinion and speculation, much of which has little informing value the need to take a hard look.

The CNN format of presenting a editorial and then picking pundents for and against to fight it out is absurd especially as the moderator isn't natural.  and almost everyone of their political programs follows that format.
 

[Grant]

A fascinating map showing the delineation between the Swamp wing of the GOP, and the Holy Orange Fire of National Loyalty and Purity Against The Evil Libs and Globalists wing.  Orange shows where Trump overperformed the GOP Senate candidate (I didn't make this map).  Blue shows where the GOP senate candidate overperformed Trump. 

https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1324769025533116417/photo/1

My plan is for Maine to strike south and take NH, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.  Georgia and Tennessee will strike into the Carolinas.  Texas and Louisiana will band together to march into Oklahoma and Kansas.  Everyone else just hold your ground.  And we nuke Mississippi and Alabama from orbit.  Just to be sure.  I will be putting this plan forth in the next Chase Manhattan board meeting. 

[noel c.]

Kidv,

“It's a rhetorical observation of the lack of awareness of the cognitive dissonance by the speaker in a speech, not a directly logical argument.”

I read it as being a clear, and fallacious, argument.

“But it does allude to Occam's razor, whether it's more likely to have A) a vast fraudulent action to undermine Mr. Trump but fail to defeat any of other Republican candidates, or B) a vast network of people who support Republicans but specifically reject Mr. Trump.“

Tapper does reduce his argument to a binary choice, which is fine provided that there are, in fact, only two possible conclusions.

“To dismiss a thought on a logical fallacy, it would probably be helpful to explain the lack of any evidence for the initial evidence of the claim in the speech.  Where does that fit on the relative value of burden of proof and strength of argument?”

Taper makes a wholly unjustified assumption that all Republicans vote for Trump in equal proportion to down-ballot Republican candidates, and that both Independents, and blue-collar Democrats, are not a deciding factor in Trump’s success. The Trump vote is separable from a Republican party-line vote, and this would be reflected in fraudulent ballots. Trump’s strength within the Republican Party came from outside the Party. Identity politics, adopted by both Hillary, and Joe, have very effectively alienated the traditional Democratic base. Hillary’s “deplorables” were formally her parties core voting block.

Regarding Utah ballot duplication, the form is easy to recreate, but not bar codes. I did not see them. Hopefully computerized cross-referencing does immediately flag double cast ballots, but that brings new problems. If both votes are deleted on election night, then someone has been effectively disenfranchised. If both are counted, someone has been disenfranchised. If the phone number written on the ballot is used to track down the voter on election night, that may be a solution, but it still leaves the fraudulent voter free of accountability, and therefore risk. As you pointed out, if I failed to vote in person, the fraudulent voter’s choices would stand.

It is better to require voters to reregister every election cycle, appear in-person with identification at their polling station, and cast a secret ballot. That process avoids the “undue pressure“ factor of even safe-guarded absentee ballot systems, which would need to be perpetuated out of necessity, not convenience.

Y-22,

”Yep, the democrats not taking back the senate is going to harm the economy severely. The minute Biden takes office McConnel is going to go into deficit reduction mode during a recession and make it worse.”

I fully expect McConnell to be as scrupulously cooperative with Biden as the House has been with Trump over the last four years. Call it Karma. That is, however, an entirely different issue than what I am alluding to. No president, with any economic policy, is going to be able to prevent a very painful deleveraging that has been building in severity since 2008. Given the irrationality of the electorate, reference COVID, I am happy to have Biden in office when this bubble bursts. That he has decided to assist the collapse through public policy simply fixes his fingerprints on the outcome.

[Seriati]

More fascinating than any other story to me is how the voting totals break down state by state.  I'll get into a little of that below. 

In the meantime, I don't see any reasonable reason that Fox and every other network hasn't called this for Biden, at least as an initial matter and subject to any recounts or late surprises.  Their probability analysis has had to be over 95% since yesterday and it's their duty to report reality, not what anyone might wish reality was.  If I were the one in charge, I'd've called it for Biden a while ago.

I would prefer to see more Republicans come out like Hogan and Romney with something stronger than an eyeroll to throw a wet blanket on Trump's conspiracy theories about the vote being stolen.

That's how I felt during the Gore "recount" in Florida.  It's absurd to demand of the opposition what we wouldn't demand from our own team.

It's also absurd to label voter fraud as a conspiracy theory.  Voter fraud is detected in every election, notwithstanding that our "system" as modified through last minute court orders makes it virtually impossible to detect it for any of the most likely vectors for which it occurs.  It's almost certainly, a tip of the iceberg situation when we catch any at all.

Don't mistake the preference of the Elites on both sides to pretend there's no vote fraud, and therefore that their own power is totally legitimate, with reality.

Romney is likely trying to set himself up for a possible 2024 Presidential run, although that could be a big maybe, given he'll be 77 by then.

Romney is done as a national candidate.  The media may try to prop him up as a candidate (the way they did for both John McCain and then Donald Trump in 2016) because they know he's never getting turn out from the Republican base ever again.  In fact, a big take away from this result - for me - is that never Trumpers have been repudiated.

In my opinion its what Trump says and method that makes him dangerous. I understand Republicans/Conservatives preferring his policies but staying silent on his method and the things he says Is acceptance of his method of governance and 'leading'.

And what is staying silent on the blatant media manipulation of how what he says is presented?  I've watched many press conferences beginning to end, and found that the media reported version misrepresented what was said in the worst possible ways.  I mean, again, the debunked claim on what Trump said in Charlottsville was literally brought in the first debate, has been repeated thousands of times, and was debunked and untrue on the first day it was written by the press. 

Claiming, as Wayward frequently does, that he's using Trump's own words is sophistry when he may say something correctly 11 times in a press conference, leave no confusion or ambiguity and then the media pulls the 12th occasion where there was ambiguity out to use out of context to create a false impression.  Even when it's a direct tweet the context is often stripped, explanation is always stripped and interpretations are often added that deliberately misconstrue it.  I mean it's trivially easy to pull Biden's words out to show anything you want, he mispeaks in every public interaction, but you don't see the mainstream press EVER straining to highlight it - in fact they bury it.

If you want "Republicans" to speak out about what Trump says, you need to get the media to report accurately first so that there can be a real debate.   

I think the main difference between this year and 16 is that the voters in 20 had had four years of Trump in action to consider.

Clinton in 16 was an underwhelming candidate, neck deep in the swamp. So is Biden. Except this year enough people had seen Trump's true colors and went the other way.

And this back to what i opened with.  I think you came to a very interesting conclusion here.  What you see if you look at the state by state results is not a story that voters changed their minds, in fact, Trump pretty much increased his voter support across the Board in every state and with key demographics that were "impossible" groups that "hate him."  He got more female voters, more black voters, more hispanic voters across the board.  The difference here is a massive change in turn out.

Let's set a rough baseline, and take a look at VA for example, 2016 roughly, 2m to 1.8m or so in favor of Hillary, and in 2020 2.3m to 1.9 Biden.  Roughly a 10-15% voter increase.  Or say Kansas, 670k to 430k in favor of Trump, to 750k to 550k in favor of Trump, 15-20% voter increase.  NY, 4.55m to 2.8m to Clinton, now at 3.7m to 2.85m in Biden's favor with 78% reporting (so rough justice it finishes at 4.75m to 3.65m, for a 10-15% increase).

What about the battleground states?

GA - 2.1m to 1.9 Trump in 2016, 2.5 to 2.5 Biden in 2020.  Around 25%.
NC - 2.36m to 2.19m Trump, 2.73 to 2.65 Trump.  Increase of about 15-20%
PA - 2.97 to 2.93 Trump, 3.3 to 3.3 Biden.  Increase of about 10-12% (maybe more not clear to me what the final totals will be).
TX - 4.68m to 3.88m Trump, 5.86 to 5.21 (with 85% reporting, do that mean this ends up roughly at 6.9 to 6.1 for Trump?  That would be around a 50% increase.  Even now its at a 30% increase (Trump's increase is roughly 25% in line with national averages, Biden's though is already at 35%, if the higher totals are true, Trump had almost a 50% increase and Biden almost a 60% increase).  May call into question what money does in a race, when you dramatically outspend your opponent and his voting total increase almost matches yours.
MI - 2.28 to 2.27 Trump, 2.8 to 2.65 Biden.  Increase of about 19%.

Seems like roughly 20% more voters is most "safe" states, with lower total increases as you'd expect in some states that were back to back battle grounds, with a big jump in TX as a "new" battleground.

So let's test that battle ground supression theory and look at Fl.  FL - 4.61 to 4.5 Trump, and 5.66 to 5.28 Trump.  A 20% increase for a repeated battleground.  Maybe that just means FL was "battle-grounded out" because of its repeated status and just shared in the general voting boost that applied country wide.

I mean, it's too early to pick the exact national increase, but Trump has already beaten the total that Hillary got in 2016 and Biden is even further out in front of that (heck Trump is going to beat the total votes Obama got in both 2012 and 2008 as the loser of the popular vote in 2020).

[Grant]

I doubt the Democratic Congress will have any humility.   

Well, it's already looking like I was half-right here.  Pelosi just had to spend most of a Democratic Caucus conference call defending the brand from centrist Democrats tearing her and Tha Squad a new one.  All while the entire thing was being leaked to the press and driving leadership nuts.  But no humility there.  Pelosi refuses to see what members of her own party are telling her.  Defunding the police and socialism were not winners in middle America. But, hey, keep digging that hole. 

[LetterRip]

Eligible voting population has increased from 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 years ago, so comparing candidates on raw numbers isn't very meaningful.

[TheDeamon]

Eligible voting population has increased from 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 years ago, so comparing candidates on raw numbers isn't very meaningful.

But we have had Presidential election cycles where voter turnout dropped from cycle to cycle.

[TheDeamon]

I doubt the Democratic Congress will have any humility.   

Well, it's already looking like I was half-right here.  Pelosi just had to spend most of a Democratic Caucus conference call defending the brand from centrist Democrats tearing her and Tha Squad a new one.  All while the entire thing was being leaked to the press and driving leadership nuts.  But no humility there.  Pelosi refuses to see what members of her own party are telling her.  Defunding the police and socialism were not winners in middle America. But, hey, keep digging that hole.

The "Fun" scenario is the Speaker of the House is voted on by the House at large. With the smaller Democratic Majority in the House, it doesn't take many Democratic "defectors" to allow the Republicans to seat someone as the Speaker instead of Pelosi. The Republicans and the defectors just have to agree on who that person would be. (Which means they likely deviate from simply making the current Minority Leader the Speaker) But that may be a bridge too far for the Republicans.

[DonaldD]

Georgia just reported a bunch of counted ballots - looks like the bulk of the remaining ballots.  Biden is now up by ~4200... but none of the big players is calling Georgia for Biden yet...

[Aris Katsaris]

Georgia just reported a bunch of counted ballots - looks like the bulk of the remaining ballots.  Biden is now up by ~4200... but none of the big players is calling Georgia for Biden yet...

I hear there are military ballots to be counted still, and those are typically majority Republican, so Georgia can still flip back the other way.

[Grant]

The "Fun" scenario is the Speaker of the House is voted on by the House at large. With the smaller Democratic Majority in the House, it doesn't take many Democratic "defectors" to allow the Republicans to seat someone as the Speaker instead of Pelosi. The Republicans and the defectors just have to agree on who that person would be. (Which means they likely deviate from simply making the current Minority Leader the Speaker) But that may be a bridge too far for the Republicans.

Yeah.  I don't think the Dems will go with Kevin McCarthy.  The most important factor is that if the Centrist Dems go in that direction, the rest of the party would never forgive them.  They need to outnumber the progressives within their own caucus and put one of their own in there.  But I'm not sure they have the numbers.  You have to differentiate between Dems that are just centrist, and Dems that are not only centrist but are in tight districts and afraid of losing their seats in 2022.  How many of those are left? 

But for fun's sake, who could the centrist Dems agree on to support from the Republican party?  That could also get enough Republican support?  Will Hurd? 

[Grant]

Georgia just reported a bunch of counted ballots - looks like the bulk of the remaining ballots.  Biden is now up by ~4200... but none of the big players is calling Georgia for Biden yet...

Decision Desk did.  But don't think they count as a "big player". 

[Grant]

Will Hurd?

Ooops.  Nevermind.  Will Hurd quit. 

[TheDrake]

"What a campaign needs to do to staff one statewide recount, let alone multiple recounts, is overwhelming," said Benjamin Ginsberg, a top Republican election lawyer who served as national counsel to Bush's campaigns.
"Bush v. Gore was one state. We put out a call and hundreds of lawyers, political operatives and many others responded," Ginsberg said. "Even with that, it taxed the Party to its limits to do just one state. It is at best unproven that the Trump campaign can command the sort of infrastructure they would really need to pull this off."

"The frustration that the President is expressing about the seeming unwillingness of his legal team to take certain positions is not unusual in that there are a lot of cases when clients want their lawyers to take action that the lawyers simply don't see as viable," said Ashley Taylor, an attorney who has represented Republican candidates in recounts and other election law issues.

link

[Grant]

It is at best unproven that the Trump campaign can command the sort of infrastructure they would really need to pull this off."

I think this kind of thing just backs up the assertions of those who always insisted that Trump, and the Trump Administration, was always too incompetent to ever be a real threat to the Republic.  There has been a bunch of fear mongering over the last four years about just how dangerous he was.  He's a clown, and when one of your top advisor is Rudi Guiliani (the wacked out clown 2010s version, not the 1990s/2000s version) what more you expect? It was a fluke, an act of God, that the guy was ever elected in the first place.  Not 4th grade communication skills. 

Really, Oprah could probably do a better job at threatening democracy if she wanted.  The biggest danger was always that his stupidity and vanity made him vulnerable to other idiots and grifters and those trying to manipulate him.  I know lots of you thought W was a moron, but can we at least all agree now that he was miles ahead in intellect and character than Trump? 

[DonaldD]

3,300 of Georgia's 14,200 provisional ballots have now been counted, and they are breaking marginally towards Biden (54%/46%).

Trump would need to make up 4,400 votes over the next 11,000 - basically, he has to amass more than 7,700 out of the remaining ballots, or about 70% of the remainder, significantly reversing the trend so far.

[Aris Katsaris]

That's how I felt during the Gore "recount" in Florida.  It's absurd to demand of the opposition what we wouldn't demand from our own team.

The thing in Florida was effectively caused by the butterfly ballots taking away votes by accident from the Democratic party. So the will of the voters was violated and this violation gave Bush the win when Gore should have been president... but AFAIK it was done by accident, not deliberate fraud.

This in turn motivated Democrats to try to fix the false election outcome, by selective recounts. But that was from the beginning bull*censored*. The problem was in the ballots, not in the counting thereof.

Frankly the whole Florida election should have been repeated with properly made ballots, but I don't know if your constitution permits it or what not.

In fact, a big take away from this result - for me - is that never Trumpers have been repudiated.

Your cult of personality is showing. In the Democrat party, there are perhaps the centrists and the leftists.... in the Republican party there *used* to be conservatives, libertartians, hawks, whatever -- but now the only division that matters is people who like Trump and people who don't like Trump.

You are speaking of Trump and his opponents like a Stalinist would speak of Stalin and Stalin's opponents.

I wonder what will happen with you lot when Trump dies.

[TheDeamon]

In fact, a big take away from this result - for me - is that never Trumpers have been repudiated.

Your cult of personality is showing. In the Democrat party, there are perhaps the centrists and the leftists.... in the Republican party there *used* to be conservatives, libertartians, hawks, whatever -- but now the only division that matters is people who like Trump and people who don't like Trump.

I think the Democrats need to tread very carefully over the next 2 to 4 years or they might be in for a very nasty shock:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/04/politics/exit-polls-2020-update/index.html

The majority of Trump and Biden supporters said they cast ballots more in support of their candidate than against his opponent, though Trump's base was even more loyal to him. More than 4 in 5 people said they voted for the President, while just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same.

On the air early Tuesday evening they straight up broke down "just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same"(voted for him) as "voted against the other candidate."

Now go back and look at that historic voter turnout that happened this year. You can be certain that if someone voted Trump, they're against what the Democrats want to do. Now remember that nearly a third of the people who turned out to vote for Bidenagainst Trump probably are lukewarm at best in regards to the Democratic 2020 platform.

If the Republicans can bring forward a "Trump 2.0" with the policies, but without the runaway mouth, of Donald Trump for the 2024 Election, the Democrats are potentially toast. If the Democrats push forward with their 2020 platform too aggressively, they're also likely to get roasted in the 2022 midterms.

The Democrats might want to think that the Republicans are the ones in trouble, but Trump has shown them a path forward, they just have to follow it. If the Republicans do that, the Democrats are going to be in for a world of hurt.

[TheDeamon]

On the air early Tuesday evening they straight up broke down "just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same"(voted for him) as "voted against the other candidate."

Somewhat obvious correction that was missed on my earlier review:

On the air early Tuesday evening they straight up broke down the other side of "just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same"(voted for him) as "voted against the other candidate."

[Aris Katsaris]

If the Republicans can bring forward a "Trump 2.0" with the policies, but without the runaway mouth, of Donald Trump for the 2024 Election, the Democrats are potentially toast. If the Democrats push forward with their 2020 platform too aggressively, they're also likely to get roasted in the 2022 midterms.

I think the runaway mouth is what won Trump most of his support. Demagogues gotta demagogue.

Moreover, if still alive Trump is going to run again on 2024. Any Republican that dares run against him on the Republican primaries will be deemed an enemy of the people by Trump's supporters.

[cherrypoptart]

I heard NPR bring up Florida and they basically lied about what happened saying that the Supreme Court with Bush people on it stepped in and stopped the recount. The problem was that Al Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount but only a recount in his cherry picked districts where any recount would be very likely to favor his chances. In other words, states must have uniformity of their process.

And that may be a problem in Pennsylvania. States can determine their own processes within reason but they must be uniform across the state. They aren't allowed to have some districts doing things one way and other districts doing things with their own style and flair. There doesn't have to be voter fraud for the courts to step in and say you can't do things willy-nilly all over the place across the state, accepting ballots in one area that are not accepted in another and vice versa. The watchword is consistency.

But people still saying that the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush because they didn't let Gore get a recount only in heavily Democrat areas still chaps me rather raw, especially when it's our so called media and our tax-payer funded media at that. And that's how it is too, story after story, spin and spin and spin with half truths tenderly hand crafted only to deceive.

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/opinions/supreme-court-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballots-douglas/index.html

"Pennsylvania's constitution includes a "free and equal" clause, and the state supreme court has invoked that provision to provide more protection to the right to vote than federal courts do under the US Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had issued a ruling that extended the absentee ballot receipt deadline to November 6, three days after Election Day, so long as the ballots were postmarked by November 3 or, for ballots without a postmark, there was no evidence that they were mailed after Election Day."

How are there ballots without a postmark?

So if they don't have a postmark how would you have evidence that there were mailed after election day? The postmark is the evidence of when they were mailed. How is that not totally fishy?

And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court legislated from the bench in extending the voting deadline too. I believe they said because of Covid. There have been pandemics before. The legislature if it was their intention could have included contingencies and allowances in the law but apparently they did not. That's definitely lawsuit worthy.

Democrats insist we need to have faith in our elections, well at least when they win or think they'll win, but there's a lot of shady stuff going on. That's not conspiracy either. Accepting ballots without postmarks? That's fact.

[DonaldD]

With 8,400 of the 14,200 provisional ballots counted in Georgia, Biden's lead is now about 7,200.  Even if Trump gets 100% of the remaining uncounted ballots, it won't be enough.

[Aris Katsaris]

How are there ballots without a postmark?

So if they don't have a postmark how would you have evidence that there were mailed after election day? The postmark is the evidence of when they were mailed. How is that not totally fishy?

Well, I googled it:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-postmark-challenge

In Pennsylvania, postage is prepaid on ballot envelopes to be returned by mail. Typically these prepaid envelopes are not automatically postmarked.

In a statement to Fox News, a spokesperson for the Postal Service said that the agency will “try to ensure” that every ballot mailed by voters receives a postmark, whether it is prepaid or mailed with a stamp by voters.

“Although we instruct our employees throughout the country to adhere to our ballot postmarking policy, such practice does deviate from normal procedures, since the primary purpose of cancellation is to ensure that postage cannot be reused, and some categories of postage are pre-canceled before they enter the mailstream,” the spokesperson said. “As a result, we acknowledge that circumstances can arise that prevent ballots from receiving a legible postmark.”

And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court legislated from the bench in extending the voting deadline too. I believe they said because of Covid. There have been pandemics before. The legislature if it was their intention could have included contingencies and allowances in the law but apparently they did not. That's definitely lawsuit worthy.

Seems like a state issue to me, if it's about state laws vs the state constitution, and hasn't the state Supreme Court already decided on this? I don't see much room for Trump's campaign here.

[DonaldD]

Seems like a state issue to me, if it's about state laws vs the state constitution, and hasn't the state Supreme Court already decided on this? I don't see much room for Trump's campaign here.

Honestly, what is the real concern, here?  Is the intent to adhere to define specific rules, or is it to identify the will of the voters?

I'm not talking about this specific election now, but rather more generally.  If I was the boss of everything, it would simply not matter when a ballot was cast, be it in person or by mail, nor when it was received - as long as it was received in time to be counted.  There is nothing particularly special about election "day" - that is just when vast numbers of people get organized to make the mechanisms of in-person voting available. The current set up was put in place what, hundreds of years ago to allow time between that day and certification - time enough to count, recount and validate.  If a state has the ability, it could accept votes cast after that date without problem.  Of course there needs to be 'a' cutoff for casting votes, but that is a function of the certification date and the time required to process all votes.

The challenge with the hard and fast rules about receiving votes by an arbitrary date is that voters can be disenfranchised due to the delivery methods.  Of course, that is always going to happen (something lost in the mail for 20 years is simply lost) but votes received while counting is still occurring?  Disregarding those is simply arbitrary but worse, such restrictions lend themselves to abuse.

As for security - measures are in place to protect election security, and changes can be made as methodologies and technologies change.

[Grant]

There is nothing particularly special about election "day"

There kinda is.  It's constitutionally mandated in Article Two. 

If a state has the ability, it could accept votes cast after that date without problem.  Of course there needs to be 'a' cutoff for casting votes, but that is a function of the certification date and the time required to process all votes.

Sure.  A state could accept votes cast after that date.  But like you say, there must be a cutoff date.  That cutoff date has already been set in the Constitution.  We have a cutoff date.  You can say that the cutoff date should be dependent on the certification date, but what is the difference if you simply set an initial cutoff date? 

I understand that in the spirit of democracy that some states makes allowances.  They have that right in some areas.  I don't really have a problem with it except that it sets a precedent that we're constantly moving a deadline because some people can't seem to make it in time. 

I have been and will continue to be of the mind that government should not coddle citizens.  They should be treated as adults.  There is a cutoff date.  It's no different than getting to a plane on time.  There is, for the majority of voters, plenty of time to get your vote in, whether it is by mail or at the polls.  There has been plenty of bending backwards already to make sure that votes are counted.  Keeping polls open late, etc.  That's good and there is room for allowances.

But the key here for me is that the government is not responsible for making sure that you exercise your rights.  It's a right, not something the government should hand you on a silver platter.  You have the right to vote.  It's not the government's job to drive you to the polls, make sure you understand the ballot, give you a free ID card, and extend things out if you get caught in traffic, oversleep, are stuck in a hospital, etc.  If you want to vote, you can, and the government MUST NOT IMPEDE YOU.  But the government shouldn't have to go out of it's way to oblige a voter either.  There is a middle ground.  It's fuzzy and there is room, but the basic philosophy should be that it is the voter's responsibility.

This is just the same as any other right.  You have the right to bear arms, but the government shouldn't have to buy you a gun or pay to teach you how to use it or give out free hunting licenses or concealed carry permits, etc.  You have the right to free speech.  Doesn't mean the government is obliged to give you a platform or make sure that you get equal time or whatever.  That' s what I believe. 

I know this is at odds with the basic liberal idea that every vote is precious and must count, particularly in the case of voter ID, etc.  But that's my philosophy of personal responsibility.  That's the difference between my conservative outlook and a liberal outlook. 

[DonaldD]

No, it's not.  The date on which electoral college electors vote is simply mandated to be the same day throughout the country.  Congress has, in conjunction with its powers, mandated a specific "election day".  The states' legislatures have enacted laws specifying that they will run elections and respect the will of the electorate when choosing electors, but there is literally nothing in the federal constitution about the president being chosen by popular vote within states, so it is hardly possible that the federal constitution would mandate a specific date for those elections.

[DonaldD]

Also... that is not a "conservative" vs a "liberal" concept. 

As an aside, once you allow mail-in voting, or any non-in-person voting, the delivery of the vote is no longer in the control of the voter.

If the post office delays one person's ballot by 3 days (or 10 day, or two weeks) more than another voter's ballot, that has nothing to do with irresponsibility.  That's a red herring and misplaced self-virtue talking, generally.

[NobleHunter]

Speaking of results, the election has been called for Biden.

[yossarian22c]

Nevada has been called as well.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“Also... that is not a ‘conservative’ vs a ‘liberal’ concept.“

Perhaps this is just a huge misunderstanding, but you, Y-22, NH, LR, and Drake are all “liberal”, correct? Is it a coincidence that none of the conservatives on this board agree with federally sponsored voter hand-holding measures, ie. ; waiver of election cycle registration, presentation of identification, and default in-person ballot delivery, yet all of you do?

Are you applying a rhetorical distinction between a general “concept“, and the very specific application of ”mail-in-voting“ which;  renders “... the delivery of the vote... no longer in the control of the voter.“, yet makes the government responsible for that vote being registered under virtually all conceivable mishaps?

If so, would you be in favor of a holding a new election in which implementation of personal voter responsibility could lend legitimacy to the results?

[TheDrake]

Donald,

“Also... that is not a ‘conservative’ vs a ‘liberal’ concept.“

Perhaps this is just a huge misunderstanding, but you, Y-22, NH, LR, and Drake are all “liberal”, correct? Is it a coincidence that none of the conservatives on this board agree with federally sponsored voter hand-holding measures, ie. ; waiver of election cycle registration, presentation of identification, and default in-person ballot delivery, yet all of you do?

Are you applying a rhetorical distinction between a general “concept“, and the very specific application of ”mail-in-voting“ which;  renders “... the delivery of the vote... no longer in the control of the voter.“, yet makes the government responsible for that vote being registered under virtually all conceivable mishaps?

If so, would you be in favor of a holding a new election in which implementation of personal voter responsibility could lend legitimacy to the results?

I can be called liberal, and almost certainly by your standards. With respect to voting, I'm fine with reforms. They should make voting easy and secure, not one at the expense of the other. I think signature match is sufficient. You don't? Okay. Make a proposal that isn't just everybody should plow into overcrowded polling stations. Tell me you want to expand polling stations. Tell me you support a secure, remote method to register and verify identity. I'll get on board. You want to scrub voter rolls? Don't just dump people. Contact them. Verify that we're not scrubbing valid voters because they happen to have the same name as somebody else. Use tax data to test the rolls, everybody submits a return every single year with their address, SSN, and can be cross checked. Require a universal, national voting ID. Require a blockchain unassailable electronic submission. Suggest a national holiday for voting, or just move it to veterans day and roll it together. Require businesses to close that day.

But all I ever hear from conservative circles is, everyone should have an ID anyway. Everyone should just show up on election day, never mind that they might be working two jobs that day. Just go to your polling location, even if you live in a rural area with no public transport. Polling lines that take eight hours to get through are no problem, if you really want to vote you should be willing to stand in inclement weather longer than it takes to get the latest iphone.

You call it "hand holding". I call it inclusion.

[noel c.]

Drake,

“I can be called liberal, and almost certainly by your standards. With respect to voting, I'm fine with reforms. They should make voting easy and secure, not one at the expense of the other.“

Agreed.

“I think signature match is sufficient. You don't? Okay.”

Would “matching” a fraudulent signature, with another fraudulent signature meet your standard of “security“?

“Make a proposal that isn't just everybody should plow into overcrowded polling stations.”

At 5:00 P.M., November 3rd, my polling station looked no more crowded than a train terminal, and there was only one polling place in all of Spanish Fork. As I checked designated locations in other cities going north and south from me, there was, likewise, only one polling station per city. I cannot recall being in an overly crowded poll even when I lived in California.

“Tell me you want to expand polling stations.”

If your’s was too crowded, approach the State about setting up another. I certainly will not object. The issue returns to personal responsibility.

“Tell me you support a secure, remote method to register and verify identity.”

It has always existed. Commonly we call it an “absentee ballot“. My only objection to making this a default choice is that the purpose behind a secret ballot is circumvented.

“I'll get on board. You want to scrub voter rolls? Don't just dump people. Contact them.”

This is where the liberal mindset is taking over. It is not the job of government to tell individuals that an election is taking place, and they need to register. If a voter is that detached from the world around them, it is probably a good bet that they are not qualified to register an informed choice. Voting in a democracy is all about cultivating an educated electorate.

“Verify that we're not scrubbing valid voters because they happen to have the same name as somebody else.”

That would be addressed by taking the individual initiative to register. Again, you are treating people like juveniles.

“Use tax data to test the rolls, everybody submits a return every single year with their address, SSN, and can be cross checked.”

I seriously doubt that the demographic that you are concerned about can be relied upon to file yearly tax returns, but if they did not, it would still not disqualify their vote if they are serious about it.

“Require a universal, national voting ID.”

That is called a valid Social Security card.

“Require a blockchain unassailable electronic submission.“

Why?

“Suggest a national holiday for voting, or just move it to veterans day and roll it together. Require businesses to close that day.“

There you go with the hand-holding again. Adults can find time between work hours, and/or school, to vote. I have thirteen-hour days, and manage. We don’t need one more stupid federal holiday to exercise our civic responsibility.

“But all I ever hear from conservative circles is, everyone should have an ID anyway. Everyone should just show up on election day, never mind that they might be working two jobs that day.“

Or a full time job, and school. I will repeat; voting is an adult activity.

“Just go to your polling location, even if you live in a rural area with no public transport.”

I seriously doubt that many rural residents are this helpless, but for those who are the absentee ballot is a sufficient remedy.

“Polling lines that take eight hours to get through are no problem... “

I have never seen such a thing, and I do not believe that you have either.

“... if you really want to vote you should be willing to stand in inclement weather longer than it takes to get the latest iphone.“

You make an interesting point; should the commitment to vote equal the motivation to possess the latest iPhone. Even juveniles seem to rise to the occasion.

“You call it ‘hand holding’. I call it inclusion.“

The difference is that I am right. Further, what makes a vote precious is its legitimacy. Why would you advocate compromising my vote?

[TheDeamon]

But all I ever hear from conservative circles is, everyone should have an ID anyway. Everyone should just show up on election day, never mind that they might be working two jobs that day. Just go to your polling location, even if you live in a rural area with no public transport. Polling lines that take eight hours to get through are no problem, if you really want to vote you should be willing to stand in inclement weather longer than it takes to get the latest iphone.

Identification should be required to register. Identification methods should be used to release an absentee(/mail in ballot) or for an in person vote.

I could care less about someone voting absentee(done that while Active Duty), or voting early(done that too), or voting in person on election day(also have done that).

My issues on voting is the seeming lack of interest in securing the vote(lack of strong identification for registration), or even trying to properly verify the person is who they say they are otherwise(sending ballots out without a request, or not requiring any form of ID for in person voting if registered).

I'm perfectly fine with expanded early voting options. I'm even fine with the mail in ballot up to a point, but there are things which need to be refined further. As to the long polling lines? I've never had the occasion to live in such a precinct so it is outside my experience, but I also realize that certain cities probably have high rise apartment buildings with more eligible voters living there than live in my entire precinct. I don't live in that situation, so it isn't really my place to tell them how to handle that. But I do think offering all three options of Early in-person voting, mail-in(or drop-box) voting, and the traditional in-person vote on election day is a good mix.

How the highly urbanized areas address the issue of staffing and siting of poling locations for areas with large populations is likely to largely be a manpower issue(too many people, not enough poll workers), and that is a domain that has avenues for potential correction, they just have to work out how best to handle that. Clearly many rural areas seem to be able to produce 4 or 5 poll workers for every 1,500-ish registered voters(I just looked at the precinct level results for my county to get the registered voter count for my polling location, which handles two precincts). So why other locations seem incapable of the same is likely to be a good starting point.

[TheDrake]

I can get something notarized online. I send a picture of my ID, and a picture of myself. Why can't people register that way?

Noel, I'm glad you enjoy your privilege of working jobs where you can take off for an hour or more in the middle of the workday, and drive the automobile you can afford, to a rural polling place. Try that when you have an hour and a half commute via train and bus into San Francisco from Gilroy, which isn't in the same county.

Early voting does solve a lot of the problem, and I'm a strong advocate for it. I'm okay with not sending pre-emptive ballots, if the process to get an absentee ballot is unrestricted, simple, and honest.

I'm okay with eliminating ballot collection, sometimes called harvesting, if reasonably equivalent alternatives exist.

To a certain extent, I think I'd support necessary re-registration for everyone over selective silent removal.

See how I'm willing to make concessions, but you aren't Noel? See how you say incorrect things, like claiming a social security card is ID, when it doesn't satisfy any requirement for voting?

I'm not treating voters like juveniles, I'm treating them like citizens and customers. The state exists to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around. I'm tempted to ask if you would have supported poll taxes and literacy tests, because after all adults can pay a nominal fee and pass a simple test?

[noel c.]

Drake,

“I can get something notarized online. I send a picture of my ID, and a picture of myself. Why can't people register that way?“

I never have, and venture to guess that you are more sophisticated than the vast majority of people who you are concerned about. To register, and make an absentee ballot request, that sounds like a perfectly acceptable option to me... just not widely accessible. Remember, you are talking about individuals who may not even know that there is an election which they need to register for.

“Noel, I'm glad you enjoy your privilege of working jobs where you can take off for an hour or more in the middle of the workday, and drive the automobile you can afford, to a rural polling place.“

Actually, I did not take time off from work. I voted between work, and school. Yes, I have vehicles, but public transit (Bus, and Train) is available for those who do not.

“Try that when you have an hour and a half commute via train and bus into San Francisco from Gilroy, which isn't in the same county.“

Your polling place is located one and one-half hours from your residence? California was not that disorganized when I was there. Gavin Newsom must be dramatically more incompetent than Jerry Brown. I would raise hell with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has established an advisory committee in each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia.

“Early voting does solve a lot of the problem, and I'm a strong advocate for it. I'm okay with not sending pre-emptive ballots, if the process to get an absentee ballot is unrestricted, simple, and honest.”

Early voting creates a set of problems of its own. Jimmy Carter destroyed the campaigns of down-ballot Democratic candidates with his early concession to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

“I'm okay with eliminating ballot collection, sometimes called harvesting, if reasonably equivalent alternatives exist.“

What would a “reasonable equivalent” to ballot harvesting look like?

“To a certain extent, I think I'd support necessary re-registration for everyone over selective silent removal.”

On that we are apparently in agreement.

“See how I'm willing to make concessions, but you aren't Noel? See how you say incorrect things, like claiming a social security card is ID, when it doesn't satisfy any requirement for voting?”

It satisfies federal identification requirements for employment, but you are correct that it should have all of the validation safeguards of a State driver’s license. You can consider that a concession if you like. Who could disagree with reliable Federal voter identification?

“I'm not treating voters like juveniles, I'm treating them like citizens and customers.”

No, voters are not customers, they are citizen-owners. They need to assert their superior status over the State. Don’t encourage governmental agencies to believe otherwise.

“The state exists to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around.“

The State exists at the pleasure of the people, and we dictate what we need through the franchise. It is government’s obligation to comply with our will, not the other way around.

“I'm tempted to ask if you would have supported poll taxes and literacy tests, because after all adults can pay a nominal fee and pass a simple test?“

I would not have supported a “poll” tax under any circumstances. It reverses the relative standing of government, and the people. If there was a way to constitutionally exclude citizens suffering from mental incompetency, I would be sympathetic to the proposition for the same reason that I agree with minors being barred from the franchise. Unfortunately I can not see a way of legally making that determination. Again, democracy requires an educated electorate.

Hopefully these people self-disenfranchise, and are not made targets of ballot harvesting, although I am certain that it has been tried... probably successfully.

[DonaldD]

I know, Canada is a socialist backwater, but we don't have this incessant drama over litigating federal elections in ways similar to what the USA puts itself through every 4 years.

We also have equivalent levels of voter fraud as does the USA, that is to say, negligible.

And as for identification and voter registration?  We allow onsite registration using either accepted IDs OR via taking an oath.  We accept that there is no universally available ID available in the country (and this in a country with universal health care where IDs are provided as part of the service). We allow online registration.  We allow people to register while returning tax forms.  It is illegal to vote in a federal election if you are not a citizen, and that is generally sufficient to dissuade non-citizens from voting.  Mistakes do get made, no question. Since we do not disenfranchise adult citizens in other ways (we see you, prison-industrial complex) it really isn't that hard.

The dead also rarely vote - maybe because we have government pensions, and the controls on reporting deaths are far stricter in order to avoid continuing to pay dead people subsistence wages when they no longer should be collecting them.  Purging voter roles the way some US states do is just not a thing.

Do some non-citizens vote?  Yes, every election a few people are caught voting, mostly inadvertently, but guess what - it doesn't really matter.  The level of such votes is negligible.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“I know, Canada is a socialist backwater, but we don't have this incessant drama over litigating federal elections in ways similar to what the USA puts itself through every 4 years.“

Yes, Canada is a socialist backwater, which is why most Americans could not even name the Canadian Prime Minister, and you are on this site following the American presidential election as if you were citizen.

“We also have equivalent levels of voter fraud as does the USA, that is to say, negligible.“

This is epistemological tautology.

“And as for identification and voter registration?  We allow onsite registration using either accepted IDs OR via taking an oath.”

It is a good thing that Americans do not consider Canada a standard worth emulating. Don’t get me wrong, I like Canada. You just are not important enough to be relevant to the American political process.

“We accept that there is no universally available ID available in the country (and this in a country with universal health care where IDs are provided as part of the service).”

Good for Canada!

“We allow online registration.  We allow people to register while returning tax forms. It is illegal to vote in a federal election if you are not a citizen, and that is generally sufficient to dissuade non-citizens from voting.”

The United States is manifestly more important in the international scheme of things, and our standards need to be higher, of necessity.

“Mistakes do get made, no question. Since we do not disenfranchise adult citizens in other ways (we see you, prison-industrial complex) it really isn't that hard.“

It is not “mistakes“ that concern me.

“The dead also rarely vote - maybe because we have government pensions, and the controls on reporting deaths are far stricter in order to avoid continuing to pay dead people subsistence wages when they no longer should be collecting them.  Purging voter roles the way some US states do is just not a thing.“

The dead should never vote, and I am stunned that Canada ever has that problem. Election cycle voter-role purging is the only mechanism that non-socialist America has to avoid unsolicited ballots, and ballot requests.

“Do some non-citizens vote?  Yes, every election a few people are caught voting, mostly inadvertently, but guess what - it doesn't really matter.  The level of such votes is negligible.”

This sort of tampering with election integrity has an established history for creation of Banana Republic governments. Grant naively, in my opinion, believes that corruption on this order is inconceivable. South America’s struggle with post-colonial totalitarianism is textbook evidence that widespread election fraud is the rule, not the exception, where voter fraud investigation is not honored, immediate, thorough, and dispositive.