- Reaction score
- 1,299
- Points
- 1,160
FJAG said:
What antivirus are you using? I got Malawarebytes and it had no problem with the website.
US Presidential Election 2020
- Thread starter mariomike
- Start date
- Status
What antivirus are you using? I got Malawarebytes and it had no problem with the website.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,154
- Points
- 1,040
>Georgia Senate seats have gone to a run-off, so what happens if the re-vote winds up with the same results? If there a limit as to how many times they can repeat the process?
Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-50.
"(8) The candidate receiving the highest number of the votes cast in such run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff to fill the nomination or public office sought shall be declared the winner."
Highest number, so not necessarily a simple majority if a bunch of voters spoil ballots, do write-ins, or whatever.
Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-50.
"(8) The candidate receiving the highest number of the votes cast in such run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff to fill the nomination or public office sought shall be declared the winner."
Highest number, so not necessarily a simple majority if a bunch of voters spoil ballots, do write-ins, or whatever.
- Reaction score
- 34,833
- Points
- 1,090
Interesting reflection from a former conservative journalist and activist.
https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1324908316548493313?s=19
https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1324908316548493313?s=19
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,154
- Points
- 1,040
>It'd probably be healthier for the US if results were not released until 100% of a states' votes were counted.
"Calling states" remains controversial, and can amount to a form of voter suppression.
The litigation that happened in FL in 2000 occupies most of the bandwidth of the discussion of the FL 2000 presidential results; sometimes overlooked is the early call (for Gore) made by some networks when panhandle polls were still open.
Some may recall the objections a few years back to US networks broadcasting eastern Canadian election results while western polls were still open.
Controversy exists because reporting election outcome information while an election is in progress changes the information known to some but not all of the participants prior to casting a vote. Even a prediction based on partial but actual information must be treated as information.
It matters because the information can act as a form of voter suppression, and can discredit the media. A person lined up to vote late in the day doesn't know whether the election in his state is close, but calls elsewhere may discourage a voter from remaining in line, if necessary after polls close. When calls turn out to be inaccurate, or accurate but unreasonably premature, public discord results and people lose trust in the callers (media).
People who favour encouraging voter turnout and counting every vote, along with those who desire that trust in major media should be restored, should also tend to favour election reporting blackouts until all polls are closed.
"Calling states" remains controversial, and can amount to a form of voter suppression.
The litigation that happened in FL in 2000 occupies most of the bandwidth of the discussion of the FL 2000 presidential results; sometimes overlooked is the early call (for Gore) made by some networks when panhandle polls were still open.
Some may recall the objections a few years back to US networks broadcasting eastern Canadian election results while western polls were still open.
Controversy exists because reporting election outcome information while an election is in progress changes the information known to some but not all of the participants prior to casting a vote. Even a prediction based on partial but actual information must be treated as information.
It matters because the information can act as a form of voter suppression, and can discredit the media. A person lined up to vote late in the day doesn't know whether the election in his state is close, but calls elsewhere may discourage a voter from remaining in line, if necessary after polls close. When calls turn out to be inaccurate, or accurate but unreasonably premature, public discord results and people lose trust in the callers (media).
People who favour encouraging voter turnout and counting every vote, along with those who desire that trust in major media should be restored, should also tend to favour election reporting blackouts until all polls are closed.
- Reaction score
- 1,299
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 230
Victory!Infanteer said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,154
- Points
- 1,040
"I eventually realized that most people who run right-dominated media outlets see it as their DUTY to be unfair and to favor Republicans because doing so would some how counteract perceived liberal bias."
Sheffield's reflections state the situation incompletely. Consider what has happened recently at the NYT, the internal pressure to conform reported by people at other agencies, and the outcasting of reporters whose writing is deemed insufficiently ideologically compatible. Liberal bias is real, not perceived. The "DUTY to be unfair" exists on both "sides". The high water mark for "wild and unchecked", "not credible", is the "Russian collusion" story. The sooner journalists acknowledge the problem is bipartisan and eschew the self-serving tendency to adopt a position of moral advantage based on unsubstantiated and erroneous deployments of adjectives ("perceived"), the more likely a reversion to proper professional journalism becomes.
Sheffield's reflections state the situation incompletely. Consider what has happened recently at the NYT, the internal pressure to conform reported by people at other agencies, and the outcasting of reporters whose writing is deemed insufficiently ideologically compatible. Liberal bias is real, not perceived. The "DUTY to be unfair" exists on both "sides". The high water mark for "wild and unchecked", "not credible", is the "Russian collusion" story. The sooner journalists acknowledge the problem is bipartisan and eschew the self-serving tendency to adopt a position of moral advantage based on unsubstantiated and erroneous deployments of adjectives ("perceived"), the more likely a reversion to proper professional journalism becomes.
Brad Sallows said:
Bull. Not a single vote’s result is released in a state until every single vote is cast. Not a single call is made until results begin being released. The only overlap is states called in the east while polls in the west are still open. The only states that are called that fast are the ones where the polls make it ludicrously obvious that the state can only go one way. There was nobody sitting in Arizona considering voting for Trump who didn’t because Fox has already called the state. Nobody in Kentucky chose not to vote for Biden because the networks had already called it for Trump. If a person in Alaska chooses not to vote due to results in New York, that’s their choice, but it’s not a result of any barrier or obstacle being put in his place that makes it harder for that individual to vote. Nothing decisive has happened with the electoral vote in the three hours between Eastern Time and Pacific Time.
- Reaction score
- 7,920
- Points
- 1,360
mariomike said:
You mean like Canada?
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,606
- Points
- 1,140
Several states allowed mail-in votes to be postmarked 3 Nov and could be received and counted several days later. Vote tallying and subsequent candidate standings were being displayed on the major networks on Nov 3 while, theoretically, mail in votes were still being deposited.Brihard said:
- Reaction score
- 6,631
- Points
- 1,260
Ain't over for another 75 days until inauguration - and even then ...Navy_Pete said:
op:Weinie said:
OK, fair, I'll grant that I cannot rule out the possibility of mail pickup and postmarking happening in the roughly five hour window between the close of polls and midnight. I would be surprised if much mail deposited after 7 PM or so gets postmarked the same day, I would be astonished if this number were at all significant in the context of an election. More to the point, nothing within the electoral system nor the news media has stood between that voter and casting their mail in ballot in the hours or days prior. But I'll grant you 'technically correct' on your correction of my point, and I'll accept that small asterisk on what I asserted. I believe though that my larger point remains sound.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,154
- Points
- 1,040
>Bull. Not a single vote’s result is released in a state until every single vote is cast.
FL votes in two time zones. Eastern part polls closed 19:00 Eastern; panhandle part polls closed 20:00 Eastern. Early results started coming in after 19:00 and before 20:00.
>There was nobody sitting in Arizona considering voting for Trump who didn’t because Fox has already called the state.
If by "the state" you mean AZ rather than one of the eastern states, you're completely beside the point; not what I wrote about. Red herring.
>If a person in Alaska chooses not to vote due to results in New York
That argument can be made about every kind of voter suppression (discouragement). ID too hard to get? Voter chooses not to apply. Etc. The proposal that reported results from polls closing earlier doesn't influence voters in areas with polls closing later is dead right there, especially in US jurisdictions with heavy turnout late in the day and long and/or complicated ballots. We used to bitch about it in Canada. West coast US states used to bitch about it, until they became gimmes for the Democratic party.
FL votes in two time zones. Eastern part polls closed 19:00 Eastern; panhandle part polls closed 20:00 Eastern. Early results started coming in after 19:00 and before 20:00.
>There was nobody sitting in Arizona considering voting for Trump who didn’t because Fox has already called the state.
If by "the state" you mean AZ rather than one of the eastern states, you're completely beside the point; not what I wrote about. Red herring.
>If a person in Alaska chooses not to vote due to results in New York
That argument can be made about every kind of voter suppression (discouragement). ID too hard to get? Voter chooses not to apply. Etc. The proposal that reported results from polls closing earlier doesn't influence voters in areas with polls closing later is dead right there, especially in US jurisdictions with heavy turnout late in the day and long and/or complicated ballots. We used to bitch about it in Canada. West coast US states used to bitch about it, until they became gimmes for the Democratic party.
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 530
The policy on this website has been to quote your sources when you are making an assertion of fact. This thread has been allowed to wobble along with personal opinions masquerading as factual statements given the ongoing confusion and contention over the vote, but at this point in the process, if you wish to state something in a factual manner, bring the source so those who wish to do so can do their own fact checking. There is enough disinformation being peddled on the internet and various news agencies, this site won't play that game and those types of posts will be removed.
- Milnet.ca Staff
- Milnet.ca Staff
Brad Sallows said:
Were any Florida results released before 8 p.m. Eastern? If some were report, I'll concede that point in the specific case, though I also doubt many/any people are sitting at home in the panhandle waiting til the last hour to see the mail in results from other counties to decide if they're vote at all. Again, there's no barrier here, nor any undue influence.
Your other examples - voter ID requirements, etc - doesn't speak to the notion that results reporting in one state 'suppresses' the vote in others.
'Voter suppression' isn't merely people deciding not to vote for whatever reason. It's a strategy or tactic used to reduce the incidence of eligible voters casting ballots, generally to impact the outcome in favour of the actor (foreign or domestic) using the tactics. Voters choosing not to vote as an incidental effect of something unrelated to their exercise of their franchise is not 'voter suppression'. There are plenty of documented instances of voter suppression - many never get attributed to whoever was really behind them - but this ain't it.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,154
- Points
- 1,040
>Were any Florida results released before 8 p.m. Eastern?
I have no screenshots of live update sites. Will this do as a statement of the state of FL's intent?
"The results of 800,000 ballots will be announced at 7 o'clock tonight so you will get a very good idea of what things look like in Broward at 7 o'clock," predicted Broward Supervisor of Elections Peter Antonacci before polls closed."
>Your other examples - voter ID requirements, etc - doesn't speak to the notion that results reporting in one state 'suppresses' the vote in others.
The other example speaks to shifting the goalpost to "choice". Choices are influenced, and I'm writing about influence.
>'Voter suppression' isn't merely people deciding not to vote for whatever reason.
Did I claim it was the only kind of suppression? I claim it is one kind of suppression. It doesn't have to be intentional. We can partition suppression into "intentional" vs "unintentional" if you wish, and into "statutory" vs "influential", and whatever other axes you wish. Much of suppression clearly consists of attempts to influence people with information, whether it is factual, false, misrepresentation, or speculative. Regardless of plausible deniability, I'll continue to believe that some people are willing to give things a nudge in a preferred direction when they're in a position to do so.
Finally, it doesn't even matter if you refuse to call it "suppression". There's still a problem with a thumb on the scale that doesn't need to be there. To recap: people who want to maximize turnout and count every vote should be against speculative early calls, not finding reasons to excuse them. If you disagree with those aspirations, fine.
I have no screenshots of live update sites. Will this do as a statement of the state of FL's intent?
"The results of 800,000 ballots will be announced at 7 o'clock tonight so you will get a very good idea of what things look like in Broward at 7 o'clock," predicted Broward Supervisor of Elections Peter Antonacci before polls closed."
>Your other examples - voter ID requirements, etc - doesn't speak to the notion that results reporting in one state 'suppresses' the vote in others.
The other example speaks to shifting the goalpost to "choice". Choices are influenced, and I'm writing about influence.
>'Voter suppression' isn't merely people deciding not to vote for whatever reason.
Did I claim it was the only kind of suppression? I claim it is one kind of suppression. It doesn't have to be intentional. We can partition suppression into "intentional" vs "unintentional" if you wish, and into "statutory" vs "influential", and whatever other axes you wish. Much of suppression clearly consists of attempts to influence people with information, whether it is factual, false, misrepresentation, or speculative. Regardless of plausible deniability, I'll continue to believe that some people are willing to give things a nudge in a preferred direction when they're in a position to do so.
Finally, it doesn't even matter if you refuse to call it "suppression". There's still a problem with a thumb on the scale that doesn't need to be there. To recap: people who want to maximize turnout and count every vote should be against speculative early calls, not finding reasons to excuse them. If you disagree with those aspirations, fine.
- Status
Similar threads
