I know I sound like a broken record, but I don’t buy that.
Last time a recount was ended and decided by a governmental body other than the election boards it was bush v gore and the Supreme Court. Back then there was a judicial branch less accommodating to the republicans. If the goal was to appoint the winner that would be the way to go. Theres precedent and it’s much easier to wrangle seven judges than it is to get the whole house in line.
Why would it matter if the count is slow? Provisional ballots aren’t done for weeks after the election. In a close race it would be a long time till we’d know for sure anyway.
Why do you think only the republican counter will raise objections? That hasn’t been my experience…
When local boards refuse to certify an election the first step is a recount, not to kick it up the chain.
If it is as chaotic and as big a deal as you’re saying, wouldn’t the spotlight be on the count/recount in a way that would make it hard to manipulate?
I’m not gonna dox myself, but my objections to these lines of reasoning stem not just from having read extensively about the way 2000 was handled but also from my own experience working an election.
I’m interested to see if people have been discussing how to use the election process to disrupt the election itself though.
I also don’t think it’s a big deal if a hand count takes longer. Like I said before, provisional ballots aren’t finalized for weeks after the election so what’s the big deal?
It also provides a level of transparency to refute those claims if there is no fraud.
In the future there will be more contested elections. If you want to stop hearing people claim voter fraud then we need to start practicing clear and open processes now instead of pushing those people to the sideline.
Most elected officials don’t take office until January. The window between the election and Those people being seated is two months and some weeks no matter what. If the count is done in two hours, two days or two weeks, there’s still two months and some weeks to drum up a fraud case.
You mean the 2000 election that the hand recount took so long the supreme Court told Florida to stop counting when Bush was ahead, and then when all votes were counted Gore would have won?
Yeah. Great example of how delays caused by objections this rule allows can lead to not all votes being counted.
They would have had to recount the whole state of Florida to get the correct result (gore wins), not the counties they were recounting, so bush v gore was decided correctly. Maybe not for the right reasons, but it reflected reality.
What I was referencing was that it’s pretty silly to think that the plan would be to herd the house into choosing the president when it’s easier to influence five or six judges and it worked before.
Pretty simple:
I know I sound like a broken record, but I don’t buy that.
Last time a recount was ended and decided by a governmental body other than the election boards it was bush v gore and the Supreme Court. Back then there was a judicial branch less accommodating to the republicans. If the goal was to appoint the winner that would be the way to go. Theres precedent and it’s much easier to wrangle seven judges than it is to get the whole house in line.
Why would it matter if the count is slow? Provisional ballots aren’t done for weeks after the election. In a close race it would be a long time till we’d know for sure anyway.
Why do you think only the republican counter will raise objections? That hasn’t been my experience…
When local boards refuse to certify an election the first step is a recount, not to kick it up the chain.
If it is as chaotic and as big a deal as you’re saying, wouldn’t the spotlight be on the count/recount in a way that would make it hard to manipulate?
I’m not gonna dox myself, but my objections to these lines of reasoning stem not just from having read extensively about the way 2000 was handled but also from my own experience working an election.
They’re pretty explicit about the plan here: chaos, providing an excuse to ignore actual votes
Where are you seeing someone saying that?
The election board has a majority who deny the 2020 results. What exactly do you think they’re planning to do?
I don’t know what people think or plan.
I’m interested to see if people have been discussing how to use the election process to disrupt the election itself though.
I also don’t think it’s a big deal if a hand count takes longer. Like I said before, provisional ballots aren’t finalized for weeks after the election so what’s the big deal?
It allows time to make all sorts of wild claims about voter fraud
It also provides a level of transparency to refute those claims if there is no fraud.
In the future there will be more contested elections. If you want to stop hearing people claim voter fraud then we need to start practicing clear and open processes now instead of pushing those people to the sideline.
Most elected officials don’t take office until January. The window between the election and Those people being seated is two months and some weeks no matter what. If the count is done in two hours, two days or two weeks, there’s still two months and some weeks to drum up a fraud case.
It doesn’t if the people doing the counting are interested in creating bogus claims of fraud.
You mean the 2000 election that the hand recount took so long the supreme Court told Florida to stop counting when Bush was ahead, and then when all votes were counted Gore would have won?
Yeah. Great example of how delays caused by objections this rule allows can lead to not all votes being counted.
They would have had to recount the whole state of Florida to get the correct result (gore wins), not the counties they were recounting, so bush v gore was decided correctly. Maybe not for the right reasons, but it reflected reality.
What I was referencing was that it’s pretty silly to think that the plan would be to herd the house into choosing the president when it’s easier to influence five or six judges and it worked before.