• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
In that case I suspect it is rather inevitable that the Trump campaign will request a recount.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Georgia could claim that the full hand recount done during the audit constitutes a recount.

Technically, a candidate can request a recount after an audit. The recount would be a machine recount. The unusual full hand recount done for this audit is far more extensive and reliable than a machine recount, which establishes the original recount with audit as more reliable than a machine recount.

That means Georgia may take it to court to have the full hand recount stand as a recount (or better recount) than what would otherwise be allowed by a machine recount. Trump seems a bit out of funds and lawyers, so he may not pursue legal action. Especially since it is clear it won't change anything.

Also, I think the RNC would be putting pressure on Trump not to request a recount. It won't change the election results even if Trump wins Georgia. And a machine recount won't change Georgia when there has already been a more thorough full hand recount.

Trump pushing for Georgia to do a machine recount that won't affect anything but spend a whole lot of Georgian's taxpayer money that could be spent on better things (including maybe tax decreases) is not going to sit well with voters going into a close and very important Senate race in Georgia. The RNC does not want that.

If Trump pursues a recount and even one Senate seat is lost, he will be blamed. Trump has little upside and a potential huge downside.

Trump may do it. But it won't change anything. And it could trun bad for him.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I doubt it. Georgia could claim that the full hand recount done during the audit constitutes a recount.
.....
Click to expand...


It already is a recount.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Wednesday that his state will conduct a manual hand recount of all ballots cast in the presidential race in the state, as he faces growing pressure from fellow Georgia Republicans over unsubstantiated accusations of voting irregularities and mismanagement of the state's elections.

"This will help build confidence. It will be an audit, a recount and a recanvass all at once," Raffensperger said at a press conference. "It will be a heavy lift."
Click to expand...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-hand-recount-audit-presidential-race/
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I doubt it. Georgia could claim that the full hand recount done during the audit constitutes a recount.

Technically, a candidate can request a recount after an audit. The recount would be a machine recount. The unusual full hand recount done for this audit is far more extensive and reliable than a machine recount, which establishes the original recount with audit as more reliable than a machine recount.

That means Georgia may take it to court to have the full hand recount stand as a recount (or better recount) than what would otherwise be allowed by a machine recount. Trump seems a bit out of funds and lawyers, so he may not pursue legal action. Especially since it is clear it won't change anything.

Also, I think the RNC would be putting pressure on Trump not to request a recount. It won't change the election results even if Trump wins Georgia. And a machine recount won't change Georgia when there has already been a more thorough full hand recount.

Trump pushing for Georgia to do a machine recount that won't affect anything but spend a whole lot of Georgian's taxpayer money that could be spent on better things (including maybe tax decreases) is not going to sit well with voters going into a close and very important Senate race in Georgia. The RNC does not want that.

If Trump pursues a recount and even one Senate seat is lost, he will be blamed. Trump has little upside and a potential huge downside.

Trump may do it. But it won't change anything. And it could trun bad for him.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of gray area in Georgia's law on this. It seems to give the SoS a lot of discretion as in regards to a recount. The law says a losing candidate can request a recount before the vote is certified which is set to be done this Friday.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I doubt it. Georgia could claim that the full hand recount done during the audit constitutes a recount.

Technically, a candidate can request a recount after an audit. The recount would be a machine recount. The unusual full hand recount done for this audit is far more extensive and reliable than a machine recount, which establishes the original recount with audit as more reliable than a machine recount.

That means Georgia may take it to court to have the full hand recount stand as a recount (or better recount) than what would otherwise be allowed by a machine recount. Trump seems a bit out of funds and lawyers, so he may not pursue legal action. Especially since it is clear it won't change anything.

Also, I think the RNC would be putting pressure on Trump not to request a recount. It won't change the election results even if Trump wins Georgia. And a machine recount won't change Georgia when there has already been a more thorough full hand recount.

Trump pushing for Georgia to do a machine recount that won't affect anything but spend a whole lot of Georgian's taxpayer money that could be spent on better things (including maybe tax decreases) is not going to sit well with voters going into a close and very important Senate race in Georgia. The RNC does not want that.

If Trump pursues a recount and even one Senate seat is lost, he will be blamed. Trump has little upside and a potential huge downside.

Trump may do it. But it won't change anything. And it could turn bad for him.
Click to expand...
He will do it because he believes in his alternate paranoid universe where the results will inevitably fall his way. They MUST! Because Rudi has said they would, he will see to it. Even if they have to cheat by substituting millions of fake Trump ballots (that's allowed, isn't it?).
 
quadraginta said:
This part isn't exactly true, at least not in NC. This is not to say that it wouldn't be exceedingly difficult, but I don't think it would be impossible.

Here's why. When someone requests an absentee ballot here, a unique code is generated for that request. This code can be found printed on a label which is affixed to the return envelope for the ballot. Said label also has the name and address of the voter who requested the ballot.

There is a box on the ballot itself where that same code is copied (by hand, which may offer even different issues).

So there are two separate items which if combined can provide a direct trail to the identity of that particular ballot's recipient.

Now I suspect (would hope) that there are layers of security which are intended to prevent, or at least make it exceedingly difficult to manage to combine these two data points, but nonetheless they are there.

I have no idea about the process in any other state, but that is what has been done here for at least the last three elections. (Those being the ones for which I have requested an absentee ballot.)
Click to expand...

That is my understanding as well. I have not looked into all states, but I have previously looked into a few.

A vote is secret, but it can be traced back to a voter if necessary. That is sometimes necessary for resolving issues with provisional ballots, anomalies discovered during audits, and for law enforcement.

It usually works something like this:

The ballot has a scannable identifier such as a number or some type of bar code. The document given to a in-person voter or the envelope for a mail-in ballot also has a scannable identifier.

Data from the ballot is stored in one database using one system, and the data for the envelope is stored in another database using another system. Often the identifiers for the ballot and envelope for one voter are note the same; there is a third database and system that matches ballot IDs to envelope IDs.

Usually nobody has access to more than one system. If there is an actual need to match a vote to a voter, it would require multiple people going through a bunch of red tape and justifications. But it can be done if needed.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
That is my understanding as well. I have not looked into all states, but I have previously looked into a few.

A vote is secret, but it can be traced back to a voter if necessary. That is sometimes necessary for resolving issues with provisional ballots, anomalies discovered during audits, and for law enforcement.

It usually works something like this:

The ballot has a scannable identifier such as a number or some type of bar code. The document given to a in-person voter or the envelope for a mail-in ballot also has a scannable identifier.

Data from the ballot is stored in one database using one system, and the data for the envelope is stored in another database using another system. Often the identifiers for the ballot and envelope for one voter are note the same; there is a third database and system that matches ballot IDs to envelope IDs.

Usually nobody has access to more than one system. If there is an actual need to match a vote to a voter, it would require multiple people going through a bunch of red tape and justifications. But it can be done if needed.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about this?
 
Norman Alexander said:
He will do it because he believes in his alternate paranoid universe where the results will inevitably fall his way. They MUST! Because Rudi has said they would, he will see to it. Even if they have to cheat by substituting millions of fake Trump ballots (that's allowed, isn't it?).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. His tweets all day suggest he knows Georgia's results are not going to change. Even Trump isn't immune to feeling as if he's beat.
 
Biden tops 79 million votes

Biden 79,013,759

Trump 73,316,921

Margin: 5,696,838
 
acbytesla said:
Are you sure about this?
Click to expand...

Fairly sure. It has been a number of years since I looked into it, but not decades.

I initially found it rather disconcerting. But then then protections involved seemed reasonable. And the need for audits and law enforcement seemed justified.

Consider that some states report whether your vote was counted. How can that be done if the ballot cannot be traced back to you?

Some states allow a person who has submitted an absentee or mail-in ballot to void that ballot and submit a new one, in some cases even after that ballot has been counted. How could that be done if the ballot could not be traced back to the voter?

There have been some controversies and lawsuits about this. But when I looked into it this was the way it was done in most places. In many cases, to get the data to match a vote and voter would require a court order. But it could still be done, if needed.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Lindsey, you twit! You're failing at Trump-win!
Click to expand...

To me, it seems to me like Lindsey Graham is being horribly naive. My view is that trump doesn't respect him and never will. Graham will be used as a doormat for as long as dirt rubs off. Any window for all of this trump-fawning being to his overall benefit is exceedingly small.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
They use weasel words so they can claim they meant something else.
Click to expand...

Of course.

Analogy:

Person A: “Do you think you can find someone to burn down my competitor’s business? How much would it cost me?”

Law Enforcement Officer: “You’re under arrest for conspiracy to commit arson”.

Person A: “I was only asking questions!”

Or, “I was only joking”.

All very mob-like.
 
TofuFighter said:
To me, it seems to me like Lindsey Graham is being horribly naive. My view is that trump doesn't respect him and never will. Graham will be used as a doormat for as long as dirt rubs off. Any window for all of this trump-fawning being to his overall benefit is exceedingly small.
Click to expand...

He just won reelection. He has 6 years in the interim to attach himself to another popular figure.

The conservative voters will forget, just as they forgot that this parasite was previously attached to McCain before attaching himself to Trump.

Being such an openly mercenary lackey doesn't do much for his public image as an honorable person, but it will likely keep him in office for the foreseeable future.
 
TofuFighter said:
To me, it seems to me like Lindsey Graham is being horribly naive. My view is that trump doesn't respect him and never will. Graham will be used as a doormat for as long as dirt rubs off. Any window for all of this trump-fawning being to his overall benefit is exceedingly small.
Click to expand...

Some people find erotic enjoyment in humiliation. Just a possibility. That explains much about Graham.
 
Aridas said:
An election like this one?
Click to expand...

Every vote matters. And there were some pretty big implications of that one vote.

An even better system, though, would be one where there couldn't be any doubt about the legality of a given vote. The article described an improperly marked ballot that had to be decided by judges.

There's only so much you can ask for, though.
 
dudalb said:
It this is Trump's strategy he is even more stupid then he thought.
he cannot stay in office after Jan 20th,period. The COnsitution says so.
Click to expand...

The constitution also says he can not make money from his foreign hotels. It says a lot of things, it is who will enforce it that is the question.
 
turingtest said:
And even if their "slinging crap against the wall to see what sticks" strategy doesn't work to keep Trump in office, it will, for around 40% of the American population, serve perfectly well to taint Biden's presidency. And the GOP will almost surely work that to their advantage. We saw what they did to a President (Obama) about whose election there was no controversy- "the number one goal is to make him a one-term president"; imagine what they can do, in terms of blocking Biden in any of his policy goals or (say) Supreme Court picks, when they can use a controversy they've created and fed to pretend there's some doubt about the legitimacy of his election. McConnell & Co don't ever have to come right out and call it The Great Election Steal of 2020- it's sufficient for their purposes if all they ever do is imply it, leaving their brain-dead base to do all the inferring necessary. They neuter Biden by getting their base to do all the heavy-lifting of believing his election was a fix.
Click to expand...
Ding! Ding! Ding!

What do we have for him, Johnny?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom