YouTube Will Warn Users That Election Day Results 'May Not Be Final' (engadget.com) 351
An anonymous reader shares a report: Google knows that many people will be using YouTube to keep up with the US election on November 3rd. Many politicians use the platform to communicate with voters, and some news organizations will likely livestream round-the-clock coverage. Keeping up with Election Day can be difficult, though, so YouTube is preparing a small but useful information panel that will appear at the top of search results and election-centric videos. It will remind users that "results may not be final" and, using a massive 'SHOW ME' button, point them toward a Google-run election hub. It's not the first time that YouTube has used this feature. Back in March 2019, the Google-owned operation added an alert that appeared alongside controversial search queries. If someone had typed 'virus in paracetamol,' for instance, YouTube would throw up a small card that details the hoax and, more importantly, a trustworthy assessment from a fact-checking partner such as The Quint. It was launched in India but has since expanded to other countries including the US. Last month, YouTube also introduced some panels that appear alongside election-related queries -- such as how to vote, and how to register to vote in your state -- and link to information by authoritative sources such as the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank.
Whatevs (Score:3)
The results in my mind will be final and that's all that matters. /s
Re:Whatevs (Score:4, Funny)
The results in my mind will be final and that's all that matters. /s
Thank you, Donald.
Re: Whatevs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh...so you're not a fan of the electoral college?
No, but regardless of my feelings else they are the electors are not "The American people"; they're representatives of the people, so saloomy's statement simply isn't true.
Re: Whatevs (Score:4, Interesting)
The people created and empowered the electoral college. We shot our previous leaders, declared ourselves leaders and told some people to set up a system because we didn't want a tiny majority implementing tyranny on the rest anymore than a single king. We have quaroms and division of powers all over the place in our system to reinforce this. They implemented this in our name and thus far we haven't shot them for the result but reserve the right to do so. TADA.
Re: Whatevs (Score:3, Insightful)
FFS, go back to high school and study.
The idea was to prevent the tyranny of the 51 percent. That combined with the sovereignty of the state (as in United States) directly results in a system of electorates.
Despicable as you may find it, it really is very well thought out, and achieves what is intended.
But, of course, because the Left relies upon tyranny, they're pushing for a different system.
Re: Whatevs (Score:3)
The US is not a democracy. It is a Republic which emjoys significant democratic principles. It is intentionally NOT a democracy explicitly to protect the 49% from the mob rule of the 51%.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Four years of libs thinking Hillary won. I expect the same after Biden loses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have GOT to be kidding me?
You missed all the street violence and people with signs shouting "He's not my president" ?
The marches, etc?
You'd never seen anything of that sort from the right for all these years when they lost like you did this time around.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yes, "He's not my president" this isn't a slogan to say he didn't win the election. But the fact that Trump doesn't represent the values of the people who are protesting.
Also, He is the president of the United States, as a US Citizen I am his boss, not the other way around. We as American had elected him to run the country, not to run our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
not to run our lives.
you spelled 'ruin' wrong
Re:Whatevs (Score:5, Informative)
An entire column about Not My President when Obama was elected [cbsnews.com].
The comedian Hannity announcing on national tv to the uneducated that Obama is not his president [realclearpolitics.com].
The white supremacist site Breitbart's article on Not My President [breitbart.com].
And entire thread about Not My President along with not acknowledging him [freerepublic.com].
Another article about how Obama wasn't their president [redstate.com]. Please note this person believes they've never seen a president win re-election based on outright lies, smears and cynicism. Most likely this same person doesn't acknowledge the same in the con artist, nor his corruption.
School superintendent [pinknews.co.uk] declaring Obama wasn't his president.
Speaking of marches and protests and signs [youtube.com].
And speaking of violence, apparently those attacks on Obama supporters [thehill.com] and property of minorities [nbcnews.com] wasn't that big a deal in your eyes, not to mention a rise in hate crimes [reuters.com].
But you're right, the right was perfectly peaceful when a black president was inaugurated. Twice.
Re:Whatevs (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole birther movement was an extension of the "not my president" thought as well. If Obama is ineligible to be president then, well, he's not the president.
Re:Whatevs (Score:4, Interesting)
And Obama won the popular vote both times. Imagine if he hadn't...
But the Republican party is hypocrisy for sale all the way. Obama nominated Merrick Garland in February. Picked a moderate, so as to avoid a fight over replacing Scalia with a liberal. Still had the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees. And none of that was 'good enough' for the Republicans with their 'righteous' insistence that the voters must decide. He wasn't even given a hearing.
And the voters didn't decide - because of the Electoral College. But that didn't stop Trump from nominating hard-right judges. That didn't stop the Republicans from confirming them on a strict party line basis. And that didn't stop them from reversing their deeply held convictions about election year proprieties and railroading Barret into place - with explicit calls from Trump for her to hand him the election.
All in the service of a set of Senators representing a distinct minority of the population. So, let's stop calling it a democracy already...
Re: (Score:3)
The electoral college serves a VERY important function, it helps keep from allowing 2-3 of the most populous states from running roughshod over the wills and needs of the remaining 48-47 states out there.
Math isn't your strong suit, is it?
First, add up the population of those 2-3 states. It's way, way less than 50% of the country. And that's assuming every resident of those states belongs to the same party, instead of they roughly 60/40 split actually present in those states. So no, a direct popular vote for President wouldn't mean NY and CA runs everything.
Second, what is the basis of the number Electoral College votes a state gets? Number of Congresspeople. So every state gets 2, and then those evil
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"
Where does it say anything about the people voting for President? It doesn't. You know why? They don't, the states do.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This happened in Belarus?
https://www.bbc.com/news/elect... [bbc.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
You realize that people are able to check the stuff you make up, right?
No, that's happening in 2020 (Score:5, Funny)
It's so weird to watch candidate Donald Trump campaign against President Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
1. GP mentions 2016 election, impling there was violence from liberals after Trump won.
2. I correctly point out that there wasn't.
I was all set to be on your side here... but the two links Train0987 provided were to liberal protests on the 9th, 10th and 11th of November, 2016, some of which turned violent. They were specifically a reaction to the Trump's election, and took place months before he was sworn in.
Re: (Score:3)
You're still talking about something different from what was linked. I'm not disagreeing about the protests in general, but the claim was that there was street violence from the left protesting Trump, which wasn't under Trump's watch. The Proud Boys weren't yet organized.
Note that I am not in any way trying to support Trump. I despise him and really hope that he's voted out next week, by a sufficiently-large margin that no one will believe his inevitable puerile protests. But you're arguing vociferously a
Yeah, it is (Score:4, Insightful)
But hey, thanks for playing this round of false equivalency & 13/50!
Re: (Score:2)
When are people going to accept that the United States is NOT a "Democracy" like the UK or Italy or any other place in the world?
Say it with me: "Constitutional Republic."
We have this thing called the Electoral College. It's a back-check against the populous cities coasts out-powering the will of the little people in flyover country. You know, the other half of the country that doesn't live in the big coastal cities. Don't their voices count too? Hint: That bloc almost never supports Democrats.
In fact
Re:Whatevs (Score:5, Insightful)
If the popular vote meant anything you might have a point. But it doesn't. Trump didn't campaign to win the popular vote, he campaigned to win the Presidency.
As an example, in CA, NY, and IL alone Clinton spent a total of $21,479,005. In those same states Trump spent $391,798. Trump didn't waste money chasing states he wasn't going to win and didn't need. Clinton threw a ton of money into getting as many votes as possible in states she already had.
Only morons think that if the popular vote mattered the campaigns would have been run the same and the popular vote outcome would be the same.
Re: (Score:3)
I hear you, you have a point.
But shouldnt ( in a Republic that is supposed to have Democratically elected leadership ) the popular vote matter?
Re:Whatevs (Score:4, Insightful)
The popular vote in each of the 50 states does matter. In fact, it's all that matters.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How so? There would be a perceived imbalance either way, better to err on the side of smaller states. They would've never agreed to join a union otherwise.
If the popular vote is all that mattered then smaller states would get no representation at all.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? There would be a perceived imbalance either way, better to err on the side of smaller states. They would've never agreed to join a union otherwise.
If the popular vote is all that mattered then smaller states would get no representation at all.
Electoral votes are number of senators + number of representatives, so big states do overpower small states by a large margin in the electoral college. Texas is worth two whole Ohio's for example. If TX flips blue, you can bet your ass Republicans would suddenly take interest in splitting electors proportionally to the vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whatevs (Score:4, Informative)
I hear you, you have a point.
But shouldnt ( in a Republic that is supposed to have Democratically elected leadership ) the popular vote matter?
So the smaller states won't get completely steamrolled by the larger states. That was completely the point of the electoral college and the Senate.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I get that.
Do you get that twice now, nation wide, the electoral vote went one way and the popular vote went another?
What is the complete point of voting when it basically doesnt count?
Let me ask you this, and be honest. If the electoral/popular vote were seeing "your" candidates loosing, wouldnt you want to change it?
Yes, I know that a constitutional amendment is required.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you get that twice now, nation wide, the electoral vote went one way and the popular vote went another?"
Of course we realize that, that's the entire purpose of the Electoral Congress. Without it people in smaller states wouldn't bother to vote at all. They would have no voice whatsoever.
You act as though the larger states are crippled by the EC. California has 55 votes. New York has 29. Nebraska has 5. Kansas has 6.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would people in smaller states stop voting with a popular vote scheme.
Their vote would count just like any other.
This is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
At no point in time was it done to protect the smaller states from the bigger ones. America was built from the ground up by a ruling class. If you look at the history of the revolution it was literally our ru
Re: (Score:2)
I hear you, you have a point.
But shouldnt ( in a Republic that is supposed to have Democratically elected leadership ) the popular vote matter?
There is no requirement to have a popular election for the presidency. For better or worse, choosing the president is left to the several states (as the senate originally was). All 50 have an election to choose the slate of electors that will vote, but they do not have to. Iowa, for example, could decide tomorrow that they want the legislature to appoint the electors, and it would be entirely constitutional.
The "the popular vote should matter!" argument comes only from those ignorant of how our governmen
It absolutely means something (Score:2, Informative)
I get that you're all "winning is all that matters, might makes right" and all, but, well, I know the other side is about decorum to a fault but there is something to be said for Democracy. I mean real, actual Democracy. Not "Democracy so long as I win" but actually having to stand on the merits of your ideas rather than using procedural tricks to ram through your unpopular policies.
Fact is if the
Re:It absolutely means something (Score:4, Informative)
when a minority party again and again gets to run the government it means we're not really a democracy.
You do realize that they're both minority parties, right?
Something like 43% of the population belongs to the Republican party and 46% belong to the Democratic party. Neither party manages to break 50%. Sure, the Democratic party have the larger minority, but they're both minority parties. You will always have a minority party leading because no party actually hits 50%.
(Unless you define "minority" to mean "the smaller of the two" which - you really shouldn't, especially when the Republican party isn't that much smaller. Technically you'll never have a "minority party" leading because by definition the "majority party" is the party that holds the most seats.)
Just because people are upset with Republicans doesn't mean they like Democrats. Both parties are incredibly unpopular with the majority of voters. Neither party can claim they represent "a majority of America" because neither party does.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a party that forced through a Supreme Court Nominee that doesn't know basic civics let along law (look up Beau Of The Fifth Column's videos on her, she couldn't answer basic questions about the 1st amendment)
I agree with the rest of your post, but conspiracy theory arguments are not helping. There are a lot of problems with both the candidate and the process, but that's not it. I haven't watched the videos you are referencing, but it would be a neat trick for someone who was a Professor of Law at Notre Dame to not know basic civics or law.
And despite all that Trump, McConnell and their party still have a 50/50 shot of winning everything. This despite of polling that shows the overwhelming number of Americans want a stimulus, want help and want healthcare.
To me, that's actually the saddest part of it all. The fact they still have a shot and that without pandemic hit Trump would have surely won.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's kinda the point. If the US system were more fair and democratic, then politicians would have to cater to the desires of the majority instead of the rural minority.
Whether different people would end up winning elections is kind of besides the point. I happen to think most politicians are in it for ego and adopt positions as needed. Is that bad? May
Re: (Score:2)
What fucking planet do you live on?!
Re:Whatevs (Score:4, Insightful)
Just think, if it was not for the Electoral College you wouldn't have had Bush or Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
And how, exactly, do you know this?
Re: (Score:3)
I love the way you think when people discuss hypotheticals, they must think it's reality. Definitely shows the capacity for abstract thought.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has a shit system too. We elect a local MP with first-past-the-post and then which ever party as the most MPs forms a government and selects who will be Prime Minister.
We actually have no direct control over who is the PM, and we regularly get a new one selected by the ruling party without consulting us at all. In fact 4 of the last 6 got their positions initially without any consultation of the people.
Re: (Score:3)
To this day there are Jacobites who hope for a restoration of the Stuart monarchy, and there hasn't been a Stuart on the throne since 1714 and the legitimate line went extinct in 1807. There's always someone out there for whom the results aren't "final" yet.
Band-aid over a gunshot wound (Score:3)
Social media and the internet in general was supposed to be this liberating force that enabled rational discourse among different groups. Because of the algorithmic nature of these advertisers' products you basically get echo chambers for fringe factions as well as a huge massive platform for spreading conspiracy theories.
I honestly don't know if US-style democracy is capable of surviving this. It worked when the crazies (on either side) were kept to a dull roar and largely left to socialize with themselves. Honestly, the more different-thinking groups stayed away from each other, the better. Take something non-political like the anti-vaxxers or the people who say the COVID vaccine will contain a tracking device so Bill Gates will know where you are at all times. Back in 1791, there was no concept of someone being able to shout out random crap and have it heard by every citizen via the all-seeing all-knowing computer in their pocket. We shall see what happens. Even if the election result is far off of rounding errors and could never be decided by absentee ballots, I expect this will take weeks to settle and possibly years to recover from (if we do.)
It is. (Score:2)
Trump's lawyers will make that permanent (Score:2)
Even if the constitution says that the new POTUS must be sworn in on 20th Jan, Rudi 'I wasn't doing anything wrong' Guilliani and his team will make sure that Trump goes to his grave saying "I am the Greatest President EVER- you got that EVER!"
I fully expect YouTube.... (Score:2)
Electoral College (Score:2)
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Nor should they be. (Score:3)
When states on the east coast announce their results before the polls on the west coast have closed, it influences votes on the west coast through the bandwagon effect.
For the same reason, the results of exit polling should not be published before polls in all states have closed, otherwise it's tantamount to election tampering.
cause why? (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course they are (Score:4, Informative)
Well, that's not something the Feds can control nor mandate.
How each state runs it's elections, with dates, certifications, etc....that is pretty much 100% their purview.
Do remember that the Feds are really supposed to be pretty limited in their power to control states directly...even with decades of overreach and pushing the interstate commerce to give them even more power, they still cannot order states or individuals really do "do" anything, and in this case, that is how they do their elections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However the Supream Court could dictate that the States change their rules. Just like how Homosexual marriages had been legalized, not from states laws (which is their normal domain), nor from legislative acts. But from a court decision.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ONLY if the states laws are found to unconstitutional.
I've said this on another thread, and should have here, that states can make their own laws as long as they pass constitutional muster, like with any other laws...
Setting deadlines and dates, should be NO proble
Supreme Court just blocked vote counting in WI (Score:2, Insightful)
The Supreme court just ruled that Wisconsin can't count votes received after election day which were mailed prior to the election.
Combine this with the Trump administration's sabotage of the post office, and the associated mail delays, and the republican party's election theft scheme is now in full swing.
We need overwhelming numbers to defeat these criminals and save American democracy.
Your country needs you to set aside any petty excuses, and do your duty at the polls. Since republicans are targeting mail
Re:Supreme Court just blocked vote counting in WI (Score:4, Funny)
We need overwhelming numbers to defeat these criminals and save American democracy.
But the only candidates on the ballot are politicians...
Re: (Score:2)
But the only candidates on the ballot are politicians...
I understand the attempt at humor in the message. But note that this is a circular statement. BEING on a ballot makes you a politician.
Re:Supreme Court just blocked vote counting in WI (Score:4, Informative)
What the Supreme Court said is that Wisconsin doesn't have to count ballots that arrive after Election Day.
Guess what? My blue state, Massachusetts, also doesn't count ballots that arrive after Election Day. They made it very clear that they don't care what the postmark is - if mail-in ballots are not in the hands of election officials when the polls close, they won't count.
Yet no one cares when a blue state does it.
(And what the Supreme Court actually said was that Wisconsin gets to set their own election rules, exactly like the Constitution says they do, and that you can't sue them in court to change their decisions.)
Re: (Score:3)
If you haven't mailed your ballot weeks, or even months ahead of time this election than that's on you. All the more so this election, especially when you consider the overwhelming level of news coverage that this has gotten. There is no excuse for your ballot getting there late unless you live in a cave without postal service.
Re: (Score:3)
If you haven't mailed your ballot weeks, or even months ahead of time this election than that's on you.
You can't mail back your ballot until you receive your blank ballot from the state.
You'll never guess what WI didn't mail out on time.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal govt doesn't start or stop things on a dime, it takes AGES to get past the inertia to start a task and once started, nye impossible to stop or slow down.
I've seen the mail here be variable in the past few years myself, I guess it depends on what part of the US you live in, every state is different.
I think it's going to be tight, but we do have
Re: (Score:2)
A federal judge blocked a series of actions implemented by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that have led to widespread mail delays, calling them "an intentional effort on the part of the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local, state, and federal elections."
citation provided [motherjones.com]
Here is some information on the consequences of the Trump administration's postal service sabotage.
Seriously, what is going on here? [nytimes.com]
This seems very illegal. [motherjones.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No counterpoint whatsoever?
Didn't think so.
Yes we care (Score:2)
So we have to pick our battles. That doesn't mean we don't care. We are trying to enfranchise as many as we can, but we can't do anything if Trump & the GOP win.
Your post is like saying it's not fair we stormed the beaches of Normandy because we weren't fighting the war in Poland. One thing at a time man.
Re: (Score:3)
First off, I already know you're a left-wing kook, so I shouldn't bother responding, but:
but the people fighting for Democracy do not have unlimited resources. The other side does (because authoritarianism pays very, very well).
You're joking, right? The Democrats have pulled in something like five times more money than the Republicans have this election cycle. It's all public.
As far as I can tell, Democrats are mostly upset that Republicans are using their own laws and their own norms against them. You want to know why Republicans were able to confirm Justice Barrett? Because Harry Reid changed the rules to let Obama pack the federal courts. P
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what? My blue state, Massachusetts, also doesn't count ballots that arrive after Election Day. They made it very clear that they don't care what the postmark is - if mail-in ballots are not in the hands of election officials when the polls close, they won't count.
Yet no one cares when a blue state does it.
where did they make this clear? From what I found they will count ballots received up to Nov. 6, three days after Election Day.
As long as your ballot is postmarked for Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 3 and received by Friday, Nov. 6, your ballot will be counted. This was not the case for the state primary.
from https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/09/22/massachusetts-how-to-vote-by-mail-polls-explainer [wbur.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what? My blue state, Massachusetts, also doesn't count ballots that arrive after Election Day.
The difference is MA didn't mail out those ballots too late for them to be returned by election day. WI did.
In many places in WI, if you make your mailman wait while you fill out your ballot so it can be returned the day you received it, the returned ballot will not arrive by election day.
Re: (Score:2)
No exaggeration. If the Supreme Court doesn't get fixed pretty damn quick your healthcare is going away. COVID-19 is a pre-existing condition, having had it jacks your rates up.
And if you care about bodily autonomy know that Roe v Wade is at risk.
If Trump wins again there is a very real danger that the Republicans will continue to destroy democracy until there is so little left you can never get rid of them.
Roe v Wade isn't just about body autonomy anymore (Score:2)
A woman in El Salvador has already had it happen to her. She miscarried, was accused of abortion and tried for murder.
And the side that wants to criminalize abortion supports the death penalty for murder. Like Trump said, "There has to be some kind of Punishment". People forgot, I didn't. You shouldn't either. It's terrifying.
Re: (Score:3)
there are 3 bills in various state senates that treat abortion as murder and punish it as such.
Democracy in action. THOSE representatives WON THE POPULAR VOTE.
You got a problem with THE POPULAR VOTE deciding for you, all of a sudden?
Re: (Score:2)
Good riddance Obamacare.
That damned thing drove my insurance SKY high and is still going up.
We need something better, but OC is not it.
And...what do you mean "fix" the Supreme Court?
Are you saying you want (if the Dems win) to go radical and alter the number of sitting justices from the current 9?
I know FDR floated that idea, but it was not then and not now a popular thing for the majority of US c
Re: (Score:2)
Since the Republicans put their pick in a week before the election the gloves are off now. Norms don't matter any more.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a pretty big concession. The best argument you can come up with is that I don't have enough skin in the game to give an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme court just ruled that Wisconsin can't count votes received after election day which were mailed prior to the election.
.
You are either ignorant or lying. What the court actually said was that Wisconsin had the power to set its own election rules, and that the courts should not intervene because the constitution specifically gives the states that power.
So which is it? Did you make a mistake, or are you lying in order to generate faux outrage?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They did a little more than that. Read some of the opinions, especially Kavanaugh's. He's claiming some precedent where the only legitimate results are the results as of 12:01am on November 4. That's the opposite of "judging the constituti
Re: (Score:3)
They did a little more than that. Read some of the opinions, especially Kavanaugh's. He's claiming some precedent where the only legitimate results are the results as of 12:01am on November 4. That's the opposite of "judging the constitutionality of state laws". He's saying that nationwide, all votes must be counted by that time, even in states where millions of early votes and absentee ballots cannot by law be counted until the polls close on election day. Which of course, leaves just a few hours to count millions of ballots.
Don't forget, that there are laws in some states that absentee/mail in ballots cannot even be processed, much less counted, until election day. With the millions of votes already cast, that makes it impossible for all of those votes to be counted by 12:01 Nov 4, even before you take into account votes collected on election day itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems election staffs have had some time prepare for mail in voting. Any not being prepared is on the the state with the problem. They not the federal courts or federal executive if counts are not out and correct by say 6pm on wednesday.
You can only do so much preparation if you can't even open the external envelopes of the ballots before election day. You're talking hundreds of thousands of ballots that have to be opened, crosschecked with voter databases, doublechecked, verified, sorted, counted, and reverified, at a time when many states already have trouble staffing in-person polling places. The bottleneck is the counters.
Re: (Score:3)
They did a little more than that. Read some of the opinions, especially Kavanaugh's. He's claiming some precedent where the only legitimate results are the results as of 12:01am on November 4. That's the opposite of "judging the constitutionality of state laws". He's saying that nationwide, all votes must be counted by that time, even in states where millions of early votes and absentee ballots cannot by law be counted until the polls close on election day. Which of course, leaves just a few hours to count millions of ballots. It's a naked effort to disenfranchise anyone who voted early or by mail, and to try to throw certain states to Trump, even though he will probably lose those states (PA, FL, etc). By Kavanaugh's logic, Dewey beat Truman.
https://slate.com/news-and-pol... [slate.com]
and here's the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
I just read the entire opinion. Kavanaugh's concurrence does not say ANY of the things you claim it does. There is nothing in there about precedent requiring the counting of all votes by 12:01AM on November 4th. In fact, there is nothing in there about precedent requiring the counting of all votes immediately after the election at all. I'm not sure what you were reading, or how you could possibly misread his concurrence to say anything like that. Read it. It's long, but it does exactly what the GP says it d
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's not something the Feds can control nor mandate.
It certainly is [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not something the Feds can control nor mandate.
How each state runs it's elections, with dates, certifications, etc....that is pretty much 100% their purview.
Do remember that the Feds are really supposed to be pretty limited in their power to control states directly...even with decades of overreach and pushing the interstate commerce to give them even more power, they still cannot order states or individuals really do "do" anything, and in this case, that is how they do their elections.
Hey, let's do something absolutely outrageous and read the constitution. I know this is slashdot, and that's way too close to reading the article, but let's try:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
So the congress absolutely, positively, gets to determine the date by which the states must have their electors.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The constitution says that the states get to select where, when and how their elections happen - unless congress regulates it. Congress has regulated when the election happens, and that is on a given day, not over a season.
The issue is not Democrats counting every vote, the issue is rampant fraud. The democrats have done everything they can to remove all checks and balances for veracity. In many districts there is no way to tell if someone voted once by mail and another time in person. We are already seeing
Re: (Score:3)
In many districts there is no way to tell if someone voted once by mail and another time in person
This is a lie. But it sure sounds truthy, doesn't it?
Enormous numbers of duplicate votes have already been detected and removed in some jurisdictions
Now you just need to correlate that with places where duplicate votes are illegal.
Tip: There are jurisdictions where only your last vote counts.
In places like Las Vegas signature matches are being allowed at 40% where 90% is the typical threshold
Signature matches are like the FBI's fiber evidence. Everyone assumes it's way more effective than it actually is.
Voter rolls need purged nationwide of voters that do not meet minimum requirements
Such as regularly voting for your preferred party.
Re:Of course they are (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with signature matching is that your signature ma not match what is on your ID while still being your signature.
There have been studies done where you sign something when you get in, you sign something when you get out an hour later. And the two signatures don't match for a significant fraction of people.
I did not understand why Democrats were against literacy test in the 60s. Until I read one of these test myself and realized that one could pass the test the way it was written. The test was mostly given out to African American because most white people were not required to take it. white people would not have passed the test either. That was obviously a way to suppress the African American vote.
VoterID laws look fine on paper, until you realize in many cases it is the same story. You can use your driver license as a voter ID. Except traffic cops in some district mostly target African American driver that their license to be revoked disproportionately. You can get a proper voter ID, but I have seen district where there is only one voterID office in the district, it is only opened on the fifth wednesday of the month between 10am and noon. That's right! The fifth Wednesday of the month! It is not even open 2 hours every month. And it is open at a time where people typically work.
And there are stories like this everywhere. That's why Democrats are trying to loosen the restrictions on voting. Republicans have been pushing the most absurd voting requirements in an attempt to suppress votes from part of the population that usually does not vote for them.
Democrats aren't trying to create fraud, they are trying to combat voter suppression. I don't have the right to vote in the US and I see that clearly. If you think it is about creating fraud, look at it more carefully, you'll realize it is about enabling more people to vote that HAVE the right to vote.
Re: (Score:3)
100% opposition to Voter ID?
IDs cost money. You don't get Voter ID until you make it completely free. Otherwise it's a poll tax and unconstitutional.
And that counts the supporting documentation for the ID. To get a new copy of my birth certificate via mail, I have to pay $50. I can get one for free if I go to the county registrar's office of the county where I was born, but that's 2000 miles away.
You also need those VoterID offices to be open beyond normal business hours, because taking time off work to get an ID also costs money.
Re: (Score:2)
American democracy is on its death bed
American democracy is way more stable. It might even survive Kamala/Biden ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal no longer matters. "Because I said so" seems to be the new law of the land. No precedent needed.
It's both frightening and fascinating watching my country tear itself apart. I mean, I'd felt it coming for a while, but didn't think it would accelerate as fast as it has over the last four years. No matter the results of the election, things are going to get real ugly afterwards. There's just this feeling of overwhelming anger hovering on the brink, and it isn't gonna take much to make either the rig
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that you haven't read it either. In Bush v Gore, the court's opinion said specifically that it was not to be used as precedent
https://www.yalelawjournal.org... [yalelawjournal.org]
https://www.newyorker.com/maga... [newyorker.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bet you five-to-one that he first lawsuits at the national levels will be filed by the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could take you up on that. Trump is heading for a decisive win.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats wouldn't be acting the way they are right now if Biden was really up by 14 or whatever bullshit number they're reporting today.
Re: (Score:2)
We are seeing a high amount of early voting, as well absentee votes, the Absentee votes may take a while to get counted, and if a state is tight it may take a few days. It would make sense to carefully count every vote, even though it may mean we will have to wait a few days.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why only ballots postmarked by election day should count. It's inviting fraud to tell one side how many votes they need to make up before the counting stops. That's how boxes of ballots get mysteriously found in trunks of cars.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even live in this country, how on earth can you claim there are armed groups "observing" the voting about to kick off a war? Good grief.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, so the whole Democrat "hanging chad" debacle escapes your memory. Gee, how convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Understood, but if someone is going to wag their finger then they need to call out all parties, not just the one they don't like.