Election Day Thread - Nov. 3, 2020

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

Trump basically pissing on democracy by suggesting fraud, filing lawsuits, wanting recounts in some states, stopping the count in others... what a joke.

We know Biden will file lawsuits if states go against him...it’s par for the course

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...-election-week

Let’s not act like this isn’t normal

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

We know Biden will file lawsuits if states go against him...it’s par for the course

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...-election-week

Let’s not act like this isn’t normal

Directly from your link:

Originally Posted by Chico's article

the goal here is to count every single vote, and we have a whole team leading up to this."

Bustos said Democrats have already dedicated $10 million this cycle to "litigation efforts" and are prepared to spend more post-election if the need arises.

"We will use every legal means necessary to make sure that we count every vote," she said.

That's the difference between Dems and Republicans, Biden supports every legal vote being counted, and Trump is pushing hard to stop counting mailed in ballots that were legally cast.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

Directly from your link:



That's the difference between Dems and Republicans, Biden supports every legal vote being counted, and Trump is pushing hard to stop counting mailed in ballots that were legally cast.

Yes...every LEGAL vote. Legal is key here and if votes aren’t legal, then that’s the problem. Interesting you don’t think proper oversight is needed to ensure this solemn right is protected.

I keep coming back to “if you commit a crime you should go to jail”...well we have laws which govern this great nation. I don’t here agreement on the other side for some strange reason

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yes...every LEGAL vote. Legal is key here and if votes aren’t legal, then that’s the problem. Interesting you don’t think proper oversight is needed to ensure this solemn right is protected.

I keep coming back to “if you commit a crime you should go to jail”...well we have laws which govern this great nation. I don’t here agreement on the other side for some strange reason

This is where it gets real nitpicky, because no doubt you are on the side that says if you didn't do it in front of a witness, or didn't follow all of the exact instructions to a T then the vote should be invalid. Whereas I disagree, minor clerical errors should not stop a vote from being counted. I trust the USPS system to make sure every ballot sent before or on election day was postmarked appropriately. I am fine with not counting ballots sent after election day.

I also trust given that we've had fair and free elections for 200 years that oversight has always been there so that citizens had confidence in the system. It's only a problem this year because POTUS is scared of losing.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yes...every LEGAL vote. Legal is key here and if votes aren’t legal, then that’s the problem. Interesting you don’t think proper oversight is needed to ensure this solemn right is protected.

I keep coming back to “if you commit a crime you should go to jail”...well we have laws which govern this great nation. I don’t here agreement on the other side for some strange reason

"observe" is the term that people are having differing opinions on. I heard Trumps team (in that odd Guiliani press conf yesterday) say they were able to observe from a distance but werent able to see the specifics of each ballot and confirm names and signatures etc.

Thats more than "observe" in my opinion. Observe in this sense means being in the corner, out of the way, observing the process but not being a part of the process. Observe doesnt mean your people get access to each individual vote so you can vet and test every ballot for name and matching signatures etc. Trumps team basically wants access to each vote so they can do their own count.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

"observe" is the term that people are having differing opinions on. I heard Trumps team (in that odd Guiliani press conf yesterday) say they were able to observe from a distance but werent able to see the specifics of each ballot and confirm names and signatures etc.

Thats more than "observe" in my opinion. Observe in this sense means being in the corner, out of the way, observing the process but not being a part of the process. Observe doesnt mean your people get access to each individual vote so you can vet and test every ballot for name and matching signatures etc. Trumps team basically wants access to each vote so they can do their own count.

Sure, that’s what courts are for.

Acting like Biden wouldn’t want this if shoe was on other foot is dishonest and not surprising

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Sure, that’s what courts are for.

Acting like Biden wouldn’t want this if shoe was on other foot is dishonest and not surprising

chico , you're acting like trump now. Take some pride in yourself and just stop.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Sure, that’s what courts are for.

Acting like Biden wouldn’t want this if shoe was on other foot is dishonest and not surprising

"thats what courts are for" -- my understanding is that the US Constitution gives power to establish state election laws to each States legislature. There is no inherent constitutional federal right for a political party to have partisan observers. I have learned that there are non-partisan Federal observers and then there are the partisan campaign observers, which is what trump is talking about here.

I do not think trumps campaign can federally challenge a States local decisions on the scope of partisan observers ability to observe.

To do so, the SCOTUS would most likely go well beyond the strict construction of the US Constitution. thankfully we have "originalists" on the Court and Im sure they would never flip flop on their strict construction originialist approach to favor one political party over another. (sarcasm .. they will and they do much like Scalia did)

If PA election laws say partisan observers must be 100 feet away from vote counting (or whatever PA says) .. then the partisan observers must follow that State law.

Federal Court has no say so in that.

Dont get this confused with the prior other challenges in PA regarding whether ballots mailed but not received until after Election day should count. in this case I believe a Federal challenge is warranted and most likely successful bc in this case it was the PA governor and not the PA state legislature that changed the state election law. that would fall within the US Constitution province since it would violate the federal law that says only state LEGISLATURES can make state election law. (unless there is some PA legislation that gives the PA Gov powers to change election laws during a declaration of emergency - covid - but I havent read or heard that)

Laws are usually onions with layers to peel.
----------------

regardless .. we stop counting now, Biden wins Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan and is the next POTUS. Whatever happens in PA is moot.