By what authority did five major US States simultaneously stop counting votes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RidgeSprinter said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Why don’t you provide some names to AOC? Apparently she has a full scale purge of opposition in mind.
Click to expand...
Drain the Swamp?
Click to expand...
More like swamp the drain.
 
Can;t indict a sitting president. Things may change in January, however.
 
toabb said:
Can;t indict a sitting president. Things may change in January, however.
Click to expand...
And take note that Hillary was not indicted despite provable wrongdoing. I don’t expect the same from the other side, however.

If there was anything legitimate on Trump the four years of continual attempts would have turned something up. Retribution is something else, however.

I don’t suppose making 72+ million citizens angry is something that would stop the supposedly newly “elected” regime. . . . A good way to heal the country after discounting objections that the election ought to be properly analyzed when it is so contentious. :confused:
 
Maximian said:
The key point: he NEVER said “stop vote counting “ he said “stop voting “

There is one state which accepts ballots post-marked election-day for several days to come. Im sure that’s one of the aspects he had in mind.
Click to expand...
But that’s still continued counting of votes already cast on or before Election Day, not continued voting.

The guy who put his ballot in the mail on Tuesday is just like the guy who pulled the lever or marked the paper on Tuesday. The vote is locked in before the deadline and should be counted (unless the law of that particular state specifies that mailed ballots must be received by Election Day, as all-mail Oregon apparently does but other states don’t).
 
Nothing, technically or otherwise, says that vote counting must be completed in one day.

Certainly not that the whole country needs to know about it within that day.

Think about what things were like when the Constitution was put together.

Yes, we’re used to fast counting (and even faster prediction) in the mass communication era, but there’s nothing in the Constitution or the law about it. The various state meetings of electors that actually vote for the President don’t happen until mid-December, and certification of the results happens even later. There’s time to get this right.
 
Maximian said:
I don’t understand why they have the right to stop.
Click to expand...
They’re people and probably want to sleep?

Granted, it would be nice if they had a “night shift” ready to come in, but stopping the count for the night, by itself, isn’t suspicious, much less grounds for asking “why they have the right.”

Imagine how people found out the election results before television, radio, telegraph…
 
Heck I am trying to see how they even had the right for mail in voting? Did these state legislature vote to allow mail in voting?
 
Usagi said:
They’re people and probably want to sleep?
Click to expand...
This is one thing I never understood. How is it suspicious that people wanted to go home to their families and bed? What were they supposed to do, chain them to the table until they finished counting?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
The electoral college was never meant to give proportional voting power to the people.
Click to expand...
Not perfectly proportional, no. That’s what the two electors for the state’s Senate representation are for.

But Balto1 is correct that even the House, and therefore the electoral allocations tied to the number of Congresscritters, has been falling away from proportionality as populations have grown without an adjustment to the number of House seats.
 
I assume you’re making the President’s distinction between “absentee ballots” (which have been in use since the Civil War) and “mail-in ballots” (meaning ballots being mailed to all registered voters with or without request, which only some states do)?

Presumably there had to be some kind of state-government authorization in any state that changed its method of distributing ballots for this year, but I don’t know the specifics in all those states. I’m from Kentucky, where anyone could request what would normally be an absentee ballot (an expansion due to COVID), but still had to request it.
 
phil3 said:
Heck I am trying to see how they even had the right for mail in voting? Did these state legislature vote to allow mail in voting?
Click to expand...
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada all have absentee ballots by request. Michigan specifically cites a ballot proposal that was passed allowing for all Michiganders to vote absentee without a specified reason … but they don’t just send the ballots out willy-nilly.

Of those, Arizona and Nevada let you request “Permanent Early Voting” status when you register to vote, so that after the single request you keep getting absentee ballots for every election in which you are eligible to vote (though you have to re-register if you move so they know your new address).

None of these states that became important in the count this year are among those that automatically mail ballots to everyone, much less those (whichever they are) that just started that practice this year, the thing Trump spoke against.

EDIT: Apparently I am wrong on one point. According to a different source here (Absentee and Mail Voting Policies in Effect for the 2020 Election), Nevada is one of the states that passed a modification to its laws allowing for ballots to be mailed to all registered voters in an election affected by emergency circumstances, presumably intended to apply to the November 2020 election.
 
Last edited:
From the State Department’s assessment of election fraud in Ukraine.
  • Illegal Use of Absentee Ballots: According to the respected NGO “Committee of Voters of Ukraine” (CVU), massive electoral fraud was committed through the illegal use of absentee voter certificates. For example, people were caught in Dnipropetrovsk and Sumy oblasts with their pockets stuffed with blank absentee ballots that they were using to vote at multiple polling stations.
  • Opposition Observers Ejected: Observers from Our Ukraine and other opposition groups were expelled from most polling stations in eastern Ukraine on Election Day. For example, in Territorial Election Commission (TEC) district number 42 in Donetsk oblast, Our Ukraine observers were kicked out of all but a few polling stations.
  • North Korean-Style Turnout in the East: Turnout in the pro-Yanukovych eastern oblasts was unnaturally high. In several electoral districts, turnout for the run-off round increased by 30 to 40 percent over the first round. In Luhansk oblast, the reported turnout rate hit nearly 96 percent – a number that, to quote the OSCE, even Stalinist North Korea would envy. A similar turnout rate was reported in Donetsk oblast, where 98 percent of the votes went to hometown candidate Prime Minister Yanukovych.
  • Mobile Ballot Box Fraud: In the second round of the election, the number of voters who supposedly cast ballots at home using mobile ballot boxes was double that of the first round. Much of this voting occurred without observers being present and was massively fraudulent. In Mykolayiv oblast, for example, nearly 35 percent of the oblast’s voters purportedly cast their ballots “at home.”
  • Computer Data Allegedly Altered To Favor Yanukovych: There were credible reports showing that that Yanukovych supporters gained illegal access to the Central Election Commission’s computer system and illegally altered vote tabulation data being transmitted by TECs to the CEC.
  • Reports of Opposition Fraud: Yanykovych’s supporters allege that Yushchenko’s supporters stuffed ballot boxes in western Ukraine. But the reports and evidence of pro-Yanukovych fraud greatly outweighed those indicated for Yushchenko.
Vaguely familiar. 🤔
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
Usagi:
They’re people and probably want to sleep?
Click to expand...
This is one thing I never understood. How is it suspicious that people wanted to go home to their families and bed? What were they supposed to do, chain them to the table until they finished counting?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that certain volunteers were told counting would stop and were sent home, but counting went on without them. This would be a species of changing procedures on the fly to nullify the requirement of properly bi-partisan observers for accountability.

There are ways to depict events as innocuous or egregious without the proper context. So it is important to access all the circumstantial details before deciding whether things are suspicious or not.
 
Petra202 said:
That is disheartening!
Click to expand...
Funny how Obama’s State Department identified those indicators as “tell-tale” of election fraud in Ukraine but Biden supporters are dismissing the same indicators in 2020 as “conspiracy theory.”

If you have been following the pursuit of identifying election fraud this year you will recognize multiple instances of each in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
 
I take back what I daid. They are trying to influence the courts, a bit like a media trial.
 
Maximian said:
I take back what I daid. They are trying to influence the courts, a bit like a media trial.
Click to expand...
I have seen a claim that Zuckerberg spent, in 2500 electoral districts, $350 million of his own money funneled through an organization called the Center for Tech and Civic Life. The money purportedly ended up in the hands of those carrying out key functions within the electoral process - the “vote counting system.” This was not political donation money, but something else entirely. Highly suspicious.

Edit: A detailed article is here:


The question that needs to be answered is whether the money went to predominately Democrat jurisdictions to facilitate voting and curation in those areas in order to increase the margins for Democrats in the states receiving the grants? And were swing states targeted specifically?

The Center for Tech and Civic Life has refused to turn over its data on where the monies ended up.

So it is possible to spin this as big tech helping elections in a time of crisis, but that would be pretty naive.
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
I take back what I daid. They are trying to influence the courts, a bit like a media trial.
Click to expand...
Really it is more than that. It is to instill a feeling of certainty of victory in the minds of those who voted Democrat so that when the results are confirmed a “reversal” of decision to Trump will feel more like a theft. The victory was ours but stolen away from us.

Psychological manipulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top