To the Republic


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Captain Battletoad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?
But then we'd end up with a Pence/Warren duel.
I'm not seeing the downside.

The normalization of using violence to resolve our disputes. Violence sounds good until we're confronted with the prospect of losing.

If politicians use force to resolve their disputes, now they can use force against the public to resolve disputes.


Irontruth wrote:


Please list the presidents you think won less than 50% of the vote.

If we are talking about popular vote, Gore and Hillary Clinton spring to mind [EDIT: Or I should say W Bush and Trump]. I also suspect that Bill got less then 50% when he was first elected due to Ross Perot.

I tend to doubt many candidates in recent times has gotten significantly more the 25% of the total of all eligible voters.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?

That's actually the other way the 'grumbling' could be addressed about the Electoral College!

Winner of the Electoral College = President

Winner of the Popular Vote (in the event of a difference) = Vice President

In the event the President-elect wins both, then the opponent with the most votes gets the Vice Presidency.

That's an AMAZING way to keep the checks and balances in!

Good thinking!

EDIT: It would also make the Vice Presidency MEAN something, and if both candidates HONESTLY are expecting to run this country, well, one of them will have to grin and bear it. It'd also make for cleaner conventions, and this effort to race to the bottom for someone that won't 'threaten' but will 'look good' as VP!

EDIT2: Sort of like how the All-Star game for some sports leagues sets the venue for the ultimate game of their prospective championships, even!

Except the way it actually would work out,since the VP has little formal power, they'd just be pushed even more out of the loop, putting them in an even worse place to take over should it be necessary.

Idon't see any advantage.


Irontruth wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?
But then we'd end up with a Pence/Warren duel.
I'm not seeing the downside.

The normalization of using violence to resolve our disputes. Violence sounds good until we're confronted with the prospect of losing.

If politicians use force to resolve their disputes, now they can use force against the public to resolve disputes.

It was a joke, mate. Dueling's illegal so I wouldn't worry about it becoming normalized by any means. We live in the least violent time in human history, despite how it may feel given recent events.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?
But then we'd end up with a Pence/Warren duel.
I'm not seeing the downside.

The normalization of using violence to resolve our disputes. Violence sounds good until we're confronted with the prospect of losing.

If politicians use force to resolve their disputes, now they can use force against the public to resolve disputes.

It was a joke, mate. Dueling's illegal so I wouldn't worry about it becoming normalized by any means. We live in the least violent time in human history, despite how it may feel given recent events.

I get the joke. I started it.

At the same time, there are people out there who don't see it as a joke and actually want to increase the levels of violence in this country. I switch gears and I do it fast.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll never forget that time Tina Turner shouted out

Two men enter, one man leaves with a mandate for executive authority constituting the duly elected office of president of the United States of America

Or something like that


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Splitting the Presidency and Vice Presidency doesn't matter, since the VP is only as relevant as the president makes them (barring a 50/50 tie in the Senate). Unless you dramatically overhaul the Executive branch, there's no point in splitting them, unless you're trying to encourage congress to impeach the president to make way for their party.

We already have a system that can result in divided government by elections, it's by splitting power between the Executive and Legislative branches (since the Supreme Court isn't elected). I don't think creating inherently divided government is that beneficial as it will drastically reduce the ability for government to get things done and make positive change.

It does sometimes mean that a regressive party will win and make bad changes to our society. We have to figure out ways to improve our national discussion about who we are and what our goals are to prevent that from happening. When it does happen, we just have to make sure we support efforts to defend each others civil rights, like free speech.

Since Republicans won both branches of government. That means liberal speech is now politically incorrect, BTW. So, please remember to keep fighting against politically correct speech.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Vidmaster wrote:
As far as the protesters I support peaceful protests but Violence should not enter into it. Imagine if the situation were reversed. If Hillary won and people were out protesting for trump what would you think of them?

If hillary had lost the popular vote I'd understand.

With hillary winning the popular vote there is nothing to complain about. The reasons for voting trump over hillary are inanely irrational. Unless everyone protesting is a millionaire looking forward to their taxes going down there is NO reason to vote for trump, at all. In this entire race no one has been able to articulate an argument for trump that wasn't completely inane, absolutely false, or at lease equally applicable to the other side.

I asked a bunch of mostly conservative friends what qualifications Trump has, hoping someone could convince me. The arguments I got were "He ran big companies" and "He's more qualified than Obama was." And "Hillary wasn't qualified."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I'll never forget that time Tina Turner shouted out

Two men enter, one man leaves with a mandate for executive authority constituting the duly elected office of president of the United States of America

Or something like that

Hopefully Trump "master of the deal" doesn't bust any and have to face the wheel.


Just a quick general reminder to us all...though relavant to the discussion, the thread is more about how the US republic works and it's relevance today than other miscellaneous aspects of the election.

I think people (like me) might still feel some pretty strong feelings about it and want to avoid those types of ideas for that reason.

Otherwise, in relevance to the Republic (or a popular vote or other type of representation), thanks for expressing your opinions!


Irontruth wrote:

Splitting the Presidency and Vice Presidency doesn't matter, since the VP is only as relevant as the president makes them (barring a 50/50 tie in the Senate). Unless you dramatically overhaul the Executive branch, there's no point in splitting them, unless you're trying to encourage congress to impeach the president to make way for their party.

We already have a system that can result in divided government by elections, it's by splitting power between the Executive and Legislative branches (since the Supreme Court isn't elected). I don't think creating inherently divided government is that beneficial as it will drastically reduce the ability for government to get things done and make positive change.

It does sometimes mean that a regressive party will win and make bad changes to our society. We have to figure out ways to improve our national discussion about who we are and what our goals are to prevent that from happening. When it does happen, we just have to make sure we support efforts to defend each others civil rights, like free speech.

Since Republicans won both branches of government. That means liberal speech is now politically incorrect, BTW. So, please remember to keep fighting against politically correct speech.

I think the idea might be to replicate the form of checks and balances found in other Republics where you have a President, but you also have a Prime Minister. Both can be a check on the other to avoid excesses of power from either.


jocundthejolly wrote:


I asked a bunch of mostly conservative friends what qualifications Trump has, hoping someone could convince me. The arguments I got were "He ran big companies" and "He's more qualified than Obama was." And "Hillary wasn't qualified."

so absolutely false.


Bannon just became a Trump aide.

I threw up in my mouth a little bit.


I don't understand your comment BNW. Do you mean to say the other person's statement was false? Because if you do, that just seems rude, as you can't know if that person really had that experience or is making it up and passing judgment on it like that isn't kind.

I can easily imagine many people saying those kinds of things, who are you to call Jolly a liar?

Maybe I misunderstand, and for the record do not want to derail the thread, so I'll leave it at that.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?

That's actually the other way the 'grumbling' could be addressed about the Electoral College!

Winner of the Electoral College = President

Winner of the Popular Vote (in the event of a difference) = Vice President

In the event the President-elect wins both, then the opponent with the most votes gets the Vice Presidency.

That's an AMAZING way to keep the checks and balances in!

Good thinking!

EDIT: It would also make the Vice Presidency MEAN something, and if both candidates HONESTLY are expecting to run this country, well, one of them will have to grin and bear it. It'd also make for cleaner conventions, and this effort to race to the bottom for someone that won't 'threaten' but will 'look good' as VP!

EDIT2: Sort of like how the All-Star game for some sports leagues sets the venue for the ultimate game of their prospective championships, even!

That would also provide significant encouragement for politically motivated assassins.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Splitting the Presidency and Vice Presidency doesn't matter, since the VP is only as relevant as the president makes them (barring a 50/50 tie in the Senate). Unless you dramatically overhaul the Executive branch, there's no point in splitting them, unless you're trying to encourage congress to impeach the president to make way for their party.

We already have a system that can result in divided government by elections, it's by splitting power between the Executive and Legislative branches (since the Supreme Court isn't elected). I don't think creating inherently divided government is that beneficial as it will drastically reduce the ability for government to get things done and make positive change.

It does sometimes mean that a regressive party will win and make bad changes to our society. We have to figure out ways to improve our national discussion about who we are and what our goals are to prevent that from happening. When it does happen, we just have to make sure we support efforts to defend each others civil rights, like free speech.

Since Republicans won both branches of government. That means liberal speech is now politically incorrect, BTW. So, please remember to keep fighting against politically correct speech.

I think the idea might be to replicate the form of checks and balances found in other Republics where you have a President, but you also have a Prime Minister. Both can be a check on the other to avoid excesses of power from either.

We're not going to be fundamentally changing the entire structure of our government any time soon. Adding a Prime Minister would require a massive rewrite to the Constitution, or a completely new governing document.

The US system came out of a direct rebuttal to the British system at the time. Virtual representation was the touted system, that each district in Britain would elect a minister, but that minister was responsible for representing the entire empire. When the colonists argued for "representation" the British argued "it's right there in parliament!"

The US has had the same governing document for so long now, it's overall form is essentially sacrosanct. We're not Italy, willing to draw up a new one every 7 years. (hyperbole, I realize Italy doesn't make an entirely new one every 7 years, closer to 12)


Terquem wrote:
I don't understand your comment BNW. Do you mean to say the other person's statement was false? Because if you do, that just seems rude, as you can't know if that person really had that experience or is making it up and passing judgment on it like that isn't kind.

That. is. not. What. makes. something true or false.


Well, please excuse my ignorance, but I still don't understand what you were trying to say. Are your trying to say the statements related to us were patently false? Because that is irrelevant, as the original poster was relating his or her experience with asking a question and even if the question was loaded, relating the answers carries with it no statement of truth or falsehood, only that, "that is what was said."

Or were you pointing out your opinion that what was posted was made up.

I'm sorry I don't get it. Would it be too much to ask what it was you meant by saying

"so absolutely false?"

I think it would help me a lot.


Terquem wrote:


I'm sorry I don't get it. Would it be too much to ask what it was you meant by saying

"so absolutely false?"

I think it would help me a lot.

me: arguments for trump applied equally to both sides, were absolutely false, or

other poster The arguments I got were

"He's more qualified than Obama was." Obama Graduated top of his class from Harvard, was head of the law review, and a constitutional scholar. This is absolutely false.

"Hillary wasn't qualified." this is just inane. She was pretty much vice president under Bill Clinton, a senator, and secretary of state. This is absolutely false

"he ran a large company" He inhereited a large company and hasn't done a particularly good job with it. While technically true is absolutely meaningless as a qualification.

I'm not saying anything about the other poster, I'm saying that the arguments they got for Trump also fall into one of my catagories


Ah, so

"Also, absolutely false"

would have been clearer to me.

Thank you


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Just a quick general reminder to us all...though relavant to the discussion, the thread is more about how the US republic works and it's relevance today than other miscellaneous aspects of the election.

I don't believe it does work anymore. The nation is so inherently divided that it's impossible to have a government that is both functional and representative of the people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Just a quick general reminder to us all...though relavant to the discussion, the thread is more about how the US republic works and it's relevance today than other miscellaneous aspects of the election.
I don't believe it does work anymore. The nation is so inherently divided that it's impossible to have a government that is both functional and representative of the people.

The US has always had some rather large divides and bitter feelings between different sections of it.

Originally it was between the Slave States and the Non-slave States. It is perhaps the only one that was so harsh and so bitter that it finally tore the states apart temporarily and was the foundation for a strong Increase of Federal power that forged the Union back together again.

Later it was Over various issues regarding a more Agricultural society and an Industrial society that then got mixed in with the idea of Isolationism verses Invovlement with other nations during the WW eras.

In fact, the feelings of the issues were so strong that FDR, a very popular president did not feel that he could get involved with events in WWII, despite feeling very strongly about doing so (and doing everything he could) until Japan attacked the US.

Later, in the 60s we had the entire segregation and integration that, in essence, has continued to the present day in regards to what some states will see as approved discrimination vs. what others will view as evil in regards to all sorts of various minority groups (and it's far beyond just racial discrimination) in the US.

I'd say the US has had deep divides since the beginning, and if anything, it's the ability for people to vote for change every 2 (and 4) years that's kept the fabric of the US together.

I believe they called it the ability to have a revolution, but without bloodshed.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a reminder to debate the points, not the users, and keep the conversation civil. Thanks!


CrystalSeas wrote:

The rules for counting absentee ballots do not have exceptions for "so many other ballots have already been counted that these votes are irrelevant"

Those ballots were all counted by Dec 5, 2000

Aides to Jones said they expect most of the absentee and provisional ballots to be counted in the next week. Legally, counties have until Dec. 5 to present final tallies.

All of the votes counted by Dec 5th were indeed counted, but not all the votes cast for President were actually counted.

CrystalSeas wrote:

How about this

Are absentee ballots counted?

from these folks Vote.org

Vote.org are not election officials, they are a private organization and don’t make or enforce election law.

Irontruth wrote:
Just curious, can you link me a state statue that says absentee ballots don't have to be counted if there aren't enough to sway the election?

To answer your question...

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't know the rules in all the states, but California moved to close this gap in a proposition in 2001 and voted upon in 2002 called Proposition 43.

In it, they mandate that all votes count as long as they are done legally.

This includes absentee votes.

Many saw it as an effort to stop the same thing from happening in California as happened in Florida.

Whether this idea is true for all states, I don't know presently. In many ways, it could be that the traditional way of absentee which is accepted by many is no longer in effect and all states have taken a similar approach.

Every Vote counts in California proposition 43

We will start with the California law-

1. The Law Prior to Proposition 43
California law provides that a United States citizen of at least 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote. Cal. Const. art. II, § 2. California law also provides that the Legislature shall define residence and provide for registration and free elections. Cal. Const. art. II, § 3. However, while the California Constitution recognizes the right to vote if certain conditions are met, neither the United States Constitution nor the California Constitution expressly guarantee that those votes will be counted.

Specifically, this measure provides that if a post-election deadline imposed by the Elections Code prevents the proper tabulation or recounting of ballots, the county elections official may petition the superior court for an extension of that deadline sufficient to permit the tabulation or recounting of ballots. (Id.) The court may grant the petition if it finds that the time limitation would prevent the counting of all votes as required by the proposed amendments to the Constitution. (Id.)

Proposition 43 purports to create voter confidence in California elections by assuring California voters that their vote will not be bypassed due to time constraints and statutory deadlines. (Id.) Proposition 43 gives the process of counting ballots a higher degree of importance than other statutory deadlines and obligations.

Simply put, California proposition 43 was a measure to put higher priority to vote counting, which is a legal requirement, than vote reporting deadlines, which is another legal requirement.

The passing of that proposition, in and of itself, backs up what I initially said…that some votes are not counted because they don’t matter, for the additional specified reason which I did not mention…because of time constraints and to meet statutory deadlines.

Does every state have something like California’s Prop 43? No they don’t.

Moving on to the federal government…

In practice, elections for local, state, and federal office are conducted primarily by local election officials in the nation's counties, parishes, and independent cities or townships. These local election officials, in most states, exercise broad authority. Despite their relative autonomy, these local election officials are bound by their respective state statutes regarding the conduct of elections. These statutes include the manner in which votes are to be counted. At a minimum, the county’s obligation to count and report the vote accurately, and in an objective and impartial manner, is implicit if not explicit in law.

Note the key word accurately.

Definition

1) free from error especially as the result of care 2) conforming exactly to truth or to a standard 3) able to give an accurate result

Local election officials have “broad authority” and “relative autonomy”. The count and report of the vote must be accurate.

But the word missing from the federal government’s page that would incorporate counting every last vote even when it doesn’t matter is the word precise.

Definition

1) exactly or sharply defined or stated 2) minutely exact

A precise count is also an accurate count, but an accurate count is not necessarily a precise count.

The bottom line is, local election officials cut corners when it doesn’t matter. The vote has to be accurate, it doesn’t have to be precise. Although I will concede California has an explicit incentive to prioritize counting every last vote this year than it did in 2000, so Hillary and Donald’s California vote totals are going to be much more precise than the California totals in 2000.

If the popular vote for the Presidential election actually mattered, then the count for it would have to be precise. Since it doesn't matter, the popular vote is just accurate enough for each state to be correct for assigning those electors to a candidate. No one is checking up on local election officials to make sure their popular vote counts are precise.


NPC Dave wrote:
If the popular vote for the Presidential election actually mattered, then the count for it would have to be precise. Since it doesn't matter, the popular vote is just accurate enough for each state to be correct for assigning those electors to a candidate. No one is checking up on local election officials to make sure their popular vote counts are precise.

I don't see the difference. The popular vote in every state matters - enough to determine who gets the state.

If we elected the President by a national popular vote, the national popular vote matters - enough to determine who wins.
Whether we precisely count every single vote to be certain the victory was by 2,557,654 votes not 2,557,653 votes matters just as much (and as little) as precisely how much one candidate won Hawaii by.

As for counting absentee ballots

Quote:

What are absentee ballots? Do they only count in close elections?

Many absentee ballots are cast by voters who are unable to vote at their physical polling place due to being an active duty military member, a family member of someone on active duty or a U.S. citizen residing overseas. All ballots submitted according to State laws are counted in every election.

The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same.

You can of course choose to discount this as well, on the grounds that it isn't actually law, though it is a government source.


thejeff wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
If the popular vote for the Presidential election actually mattered, then the count for it would have to be precise. Since it doesn't matter, the popular vote is just accurate enough for each state to be correct for assigning those electors to a candidate. No one is checking up on local election officials to make sure their popular vote counts are precise.

I don't see the difference. The popular vote in every state matters - enough to determine who gets the state.

If we elected the President by a national popular vote, the national popular vote matters - enough to determine who wins.
Whether we precisely count every single vote to be certain the victory was by 2,557,654 votes not 2,557,653 votes matters just as much (and as little) as precisely how much one candidate won Hawaii by.

As for counting absentee ballots

Quote:

What are absentee ballots? Do they only count in close elections?

Many absentee ballots are cast by voters who are unable to vote at their physical polling place due to being an active duty military member, a family member of someone on active duty or a U.S. citizen residing overseas. All ballots submitted according to State laws are counted in every election.

The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same.

You can of course choose to discount this as well, on the grounds that it isn't actually law, though it is a government source.

The difference between precision and accuracy is essentially prescision is replicability (aka, clustered shots) vs accuracy is hitting the mark. In general both precision and accuracy is desired but in elections it isn't required. For example, it isn't important to be accurate about the exact number so long as you can be precise. So, if a candidate is leading the vote count by 30,000 votes and the total number of absentee ballots is only 25,000 then you don't have to count the absentee ballots to know the leading candidate won. You don't need to accurately know the number of votes cast for either candidate to know who won, but you DO need to know with precision that A has more than B.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quote:
The difference between precision and accuracy is essentially prescision is replicability (aka, clustered shots) vs accuracy is hitting the mark. In general both precision and accuracy is desired but in elections it isn't required. For example, it isn't important to be accurate about the exact number so long as you can be precise. So, if a candidate is leading the vote count by 30,000 votes and the total number of absentee ballots is only 25,000 then you don't have to count the absentee ballots to know the leading candidate won. You don't need to accurately know the number of votes cast for either candidate to know who won, but you DO need to know with precision that A has more than B.

Whilst that's true and would mean that not counting all the absentee votes would be known ahead of time to have no impact on the result in some circumstances, it doesn't really answer the question of whether they are counted.

All the websites (that I found anyway with not much more than a cursory search) say that they are all counted and that the claim that they aren't is a popular myth.

Do you have any kind of source or link where the opposite is put forth convincingly? (ie Some sort of 'official' or at least knowledgeable site where it's stated as a fact that they aren't all counted?)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't think it's a trivial issue - the total count could well matter in deciding whether to ask for a recount in any given district (is that the term?) for example, as presumably a significant factor there is how close the candidates are and for that precision is required.


almost a week in...and I'm wondering where it all went so wrong...


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Do you have any kind of source or link where the opposite is put forth convincingly? (ie Some sort of 'official' or at least knowledgeable site where it's stated as a fact that they aren't all counted?)

thejeff linked to an official US federal government webpage that says all ballots are counted.

I don't know how much more clearly it can be stated.

What are absentee ballots? Do they only count in close elections?
Many absentee ballots are cast by voters who are unable to vote at their physical polling place due to being an active duty military member, a family member of someone on active duty or a U.S. citizen residing overseas. All ballots submitted according to State laws are counted in every election.

The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Quote:
The difference between precision and accuracy is essentially prescision is replicability (aka, clustered shots) vs accuracy is hitting the mark. In general both precision and accuracy is desired but in elections it isn't required. For example, it isn't important to be accurate about the exact number so long as you can be precise. So, if a candidate is leading the vote count by 30,000 votes and the total number of absentee ballots is only 25,000 then you don't have to count the absentee ballots to know the leading candidate won. You don't need to accurately know the number of votes cast for either candidate to know who won, but you DO need to know with precision that A has more than B.

Whilst that's true and would mean that not counting all the absentee votes would be known ahead of time to have no impact on the result in some circumstances, it doesn't really answer the question of whether they are counted.

All the websites (that I found anyway with not much more than a cursory search) say that they are all counted and that the claim that they aren't is a popular myth.

Do you have any kind of source or link where the opposite is put forth convincingly? (ie Some sort of 'official' or at least knowledgeable site where it's stated as a fact that they aren't all counted?)

No, because I am fairly certain there isn't any such link/information. I was simply responding to thejeff because he said that he didn't see the difference. (Which I assumed he meant between accuracy and precision.)


NPC Dave wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

The rules for counting absentee ballots do not have exceptions for "so many other ballots have already been counted that these votes are irrelevant"

Those ballots were all counted by Dec 5, 2000

Aides to Jones said they expect most of the absentee and provisional ballots to be counted in the next week. Legally, counties have until Dec. 5 to present final tallies.

All of the votes counted by Dec 5th were indeed counted, but not all the votes cast for President were actually counted.

CrystalSeas wrote:

How about this

Are absentee ballots counted?

from these folks Vote.org

Vote.org are not election officials, they are a private organization and don’t make or enforce election law.

Irontruth wrote:
Just curious, can you link me a state statue that says absentee ballots don't have to be counted if there aren't enough to sway the election?

To answer your question...

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't know the rules in all the states, but California moved to close this gap in a proposition in 2001 and voted upon in 2002 called Proposition 43.

In it, they mandate that all votes count as long as they are done legally.

This includes absentee votes.

Many saw it as an effort to stop the same thing from happening in California as happened in Florida.

Whether this idea is true for all states, I don't know presently. In many ways, it could be that the traditional way of absentee which is accepted by many is no longer in effect and all states have taken a similar approach.

Every Vote counts in California proposition 43

We will start with the California law-

1. The Law...

You didn't link a law that said ballots aren't counted if they aren't enough to swing the election.

You talk about a law that addresses issues of deadlines versus completeness, but it doesn't say anything about comparing the number of absentee ballots to the margin of victory.

Can you link a law that says absentee ballots aren't counted based on an estimate that they won't effect the outcome of the election? You've said this is true, I want to see you back it up with actual information. Name a state with the official policy to not count absentee ballots if the race isn't "close".


in other news, I need more chocolate in my life...


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Quote:
The difference between precision and accuracy is essentially prescision is replicability (aka, clustered shots) vs accuracy is hitting the mark. In general both precision and accuracy is desired but in elections it isn't required. For example, it isn't important to be accurate about the exact number so long as you can be precise. So, if a candidate is leading the vote count by 30,000 votes and the total number of absentee ballots is only 25,000 then you don't have to count the absentee ballots to know the leading candidate won. You don't need to accurately know the number of votes cast for either candidate to know who won, but you DO need to know with precision that A has more than B.

Whilst that's true and would mean that not counting all the absentee votes would be known ahead of time to have no impact on the result in some circumstances, it doesn't really answer the question of whether they are counted.

All the websites (that I found anyway with not much more than a cursory search) say that they are all counted and that the claim that they aren't is a popular myth.

Do you have any kind of source or link where the opposite is put forth convincingly? (ie Some sort of 'official' or at least knowledgeable site where it's stated as a fact that they aren't all counted?)

No, because I am fairly certain there isn't any such link/information. I was simply responding to thejeff because he said that he didn't see the difference. (Which I assumed he meant between accuracy and precision.)

Ah, I see. I misunderstood. Apologies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NPC Dave wrote:
The bottom line is, local election officials cut corners when it doesn’t matter.

Good grief. You really believe that all the down-ballot races are thrown away as soon as the Presidential votes are partially determined?

You seem to forget how voting is structured: At the precinct level, there are usually no more than 2500 votes to be counted. And those are votes for things like precinct delegate: people who are only running IN THAT PRECINCT.

All of the ballots get counted because all of the races are on the same ballot. There is simply no way to ignore whole precincts of voters because the ballot is not simply a piece of paper with your presidential vote on it. It has every other ballot issue, judicial candidate, local officials, state reps and state senators, congressional candidates, and state-wide candidates To say nothing of local tax issues and laws.

If they don't count some of the ballots, then they don't have any way of determining who won the local posts.

Every vote on every ballot is counted. They don't ignore some parts of a ballot. In most places, they can't because the sheets are machine tabulated. You can't stop the machine from reading some parts of the ballot.

It takes a matter of seconds to count an absentee ballot. You just feed it through the machine. And everything on the sheet is tallied.

It's obvious you've never actually worked in a precinct on election day. Let me strongly urge you to apply for the job and work next time you have a local election. You'll have a lot more information and be both accurate AND precise in your statements if you do.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Do you have any kind of source or link where the opposite is put forth convincingly? (ie Some sort of 'official' or at least knowledgeable site where it's stated as a fact that they aren't all counted?)

thejeff linked to an official US federal government webpage that says all ballots are counted.

I don't know how much more clearly it can be stated.

What are absentee ballots? Do they only count in close elections?
Many absentee ballots are cast by voters who are unable to vote at their physical polling place due to being an active duty military member, a family member of someone on active duty or a U.S. citizen residing overseas. All ballots submitted according to State laws are counted in every election.

The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same.

Yeah, I'm convinced.

I have a certain respect for BigDTBone and I misread his post. As such, thinking what I thought he thought I wondered what made him think that...But I was wrong. Apologies. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
almost a week in...and I'm wondering where it all went so wrong...

Well, it may have started with many democrats and members of the media drinking their own kool-aid.

It probably finished there, too.


Snow,

Maybe but it doesn't help lessen the revulsion.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saying Trump is unqualified to be president, is a little silly IMO. Sure he does not come from a political background, but that does not matter. The Constitution is set up in a way that any natural born citizen can aspire to and become president.

One can make the claim that modern politics makes it more difficult for a "political outsider" to become president, but as long as that person meets the requirements set up in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, like it or not, that person is 100% qualified.

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 wrote:


No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Eligible =/= Qualified


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it really matter whether or not Trump meets some arbitrary definition of "qualified"?

There are so many legitimate and demonstrable problems with Trump that invoking vague baseless claims that he is "unqualified" is totally unnecessary. The man is already a compulsively lying, narcissistic billionaire snake oil con artist extraordinaire possessing a streak of sociopathy a mile long. Compared to that, being unqualified is a relatively minor problem.


I worry that too many people have bought into the false hype the media is known for. President Trump... still weird saying it... will NOT destroy modern civilization; he will NOT start a dark ages chapter of civil rights. Heck most of the damage he can do can easily be undone by electing a sensible Democrat in 4 years. The biggest worry I had was his potential impact on forcing the supreme court too far right which would have a deleterious effect on future civil rights actions. Yes future efforts. As much as the media likes to cause panic the supreme court isn't known for reversing rulings. So things shouldn't get worse just stay the same for a long while.

The sad thing is while Hillary couldn't win, Bernie Sanders had much of the same support from disaffected voters that Trump did. I am convinced he could have easily won.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Aranna wrote:
The sad thing is while Hillary couldn't win, Bernie Sanders had much of the same support from disaffected voters that Trump did. I am convinced he could have easily won.

I suspect business would have preferred trump to sanders. Whatever the result would have been, the election would have played out very differently, IMO. It's hard to predict all the differences there would have been.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Snowblind wrote:

Does it really matter whether or not Trump meets some arbitrary definition of "qualified"?

There are so many legitimate and demonstrable problems with Trump that invoking vague baseless claims that he is "unqualified" is totally unnecessary. The man is already a compulsively lying, narcissistic billionaire snake oil con artist extraordinaire possessing a streak of sociopathy a mile long. Compared to that, being unqualified is a relatively minor problem.

This is all why he isn't qualified, the unqualified isn't something extra that is just tossed onto the pile, it's the result.


I always thought the EC was stupid, ever since I learned about it as a kid. Still do.

It's worked well for Republicans lately, so I don't see it going away in my lifetime. I wish it would.


Rysky wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

Does it really matter whether or not Trump meets some arbitrary definition of "qualified"?

There are so many legitimate and demonstrable problems with Trump that invoking vague baseless claims that he is "unqualified" is totally unnecessary. The man is already a compulsively lying, narcissistic billionaire snake oil con artist extraordinaire possessing a streak of sociopathy a mile long. Compared to that, being unqualified is a relatively minor problem.

This is all why he isn't qualified, the unqualified isn't something extra that is just tossed onto the pile, it's the result.

Not quite. He's everything you say and he's also unqualified. He's got no idea what the job actually is or how to do it. He thought he could commute from NYC and do it part time.

He's got no clue.

All of which means he'll be played by his advisers, on anything he doesn't just dump on their backs entirely. Which would be comforting, if they weren't people like Pence & Bannon.
Also doesn't mean he can't run his mouth off and screw things up, even while they're doing most of the work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hillary lost because people felt she would just get them more of the same. If she had actually tried to convince people that she intended change, she would have won. There have been miles and miles of analysis, but the fact is that every recent election has been won by the one preaching change.


Ironically isn't the republican party suppose to be the party all for keeping it the same and the dems are about change I mean Barack Obama slogan was?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Aranna wrote:
The sad thing is while Hillary couldn't win, Bernie Sanders had much of the same support from disaffected voters that Trump did. I am convinced he could have easily won.
I suspect business would have preferred trump to sanders. Whatever the result would have been, the election would have played out very differently, IMO. It's hard to predict all the differences there would have been.

If you remember way back, there was talk of Bloomberg jumping in to play spoiler if Bernie won the nomination.

But yeah, the idea that Sanders would have sailed to victory is enticing, but really hard to know. We don't know what the line of attack on Sanders would have been, or what unforced errors he would have made. He didn't really face a lot of attacks, even in the primary. Were there skeletons in his closet that could have been brought to light?

Some of the attacks on the east coast elite socialist Jew pretty much write themselves.

Even on a more baseline level, even if he'd gotten some of the disaffected white working class types, Clinton didn't do as well as Obama had with blacks & Latinos and given that she won both decisively in the primaries, I doubt Sanders would even have done as well.

Basically, I see the "Sanders would have won" argument as little more than "it should have been my candidate". It's possible, but I don't think the data's out there to support it yet.

151 to 200 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / To the Republic All Messageboards