Why should we let votes overturn an election? Because that is what an election is?

[TOP]

If there are sufficient time and resources then why are their voting lines that require people to wait for hours in order to vote?
If one area has a 15 minute wait max and another has a 3 - 4 hour wait, doesn't that tell you that the resources are not sufficient in all areas?

Ballots should be counted based on the law. Why do you think the laws don't matter?
If the law states that a ballot must be postmarked on or before election day and received no later than 7 days after election day, do you think all those ballots that meet the law should be counted?

Let's look at some of the states you seem to think are creating this "flow in" of ballots.
This is only a partial list -
Alaska - postmarked by Nov 3
Iowa - postmarked by Nov 2
Illinois - postmarked by Nov 3
Kansas - postmarked by Nov 3
Kentucky - postmarked by Nov 3
Mississippi - postmarked by Nov 3
Montana - postmarked by Nov 3
Nevada - postmarked by Nov 3
New Jersey - postmarked by Nov 3


Are you accusing Kansas, Mississippi and Montana of not being fair by allowing ballots to be mailed on election day with no restriction date for receiving the ballot?

No long waits here Why would you wait until election day to mail a ballot? Plenty of time and resources to vote......(and mail before election day)

 

[Legion]

Why would you wait until election day to mail a ballot? Plenty of time and resources to vote......(and mail before election day)

It's racist to say that judges should not nullify state election laws just in time for an election, though.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Kavanaugh asked a question in a recent decision, why should we let votes overturn an election? The answer is because elections are decided by votes, not what Kavanaugh wants the results to be.

In particular, Kavanaugh complained that votes counted after midnight might change the results. No where did he come up with any proof that votes counted after midnight were worse than votes counted before midnight. Just that he wanted the right to cut short the count, if trump is winning. But what if trump is losing, then he wanted the votes to count.

who knew you were this fucking stupid

he is basically addressing the issue of potential for fraud

are you really saying that you fucks can't get your ballot in and counted by midnight on November 3rd?

For fucks sake

 

[CFM]

That is utter nonsense.
Ballots sent through the mail have to meet the standards required by the state.

The voter has to be registered
Signature has to match.
In most cases the bar code on the envelope will have to match the one sent to the voter.
The ballot has to be an official ballot sent to the voter.

The Post Office can't just manufacture ballots out of thin air that meet the requirements.

Never said the Post Office could did I, boy. If that's what you believe, why would anyone trust anything you had to say on any issue?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Invalid argument.

LOL. Wow. You are so intelligent to use two 3 syllable words in one sentence. I'll bet you impress everyone down at the bar and restaurant.

Ballot deadlines and voting laws are determined by each state's legislature.

What has happened recently is a spate of DEMOCRAT-backed court cases seeking to nullify state election laws by judicial fiat, particularly in battleground states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

But you knew that, didn't you?

Let's look at the PA case.
State law says the ballots should be postmarked by 8PM on election day, Nov 3.
That means state law allows for ballots to arrive after election day and be counted.

Any ballot received on or before election day would meet the law's requirement even if the postmark is not legible. So clearly some ballots without a legible postmark will be counted. To not count a ballot because the postmark is not legible would violate the law and disenfranchise voters. The issue here is ballots that arrive after election day that don't have a legible postmark. In order for the ballot to be illegally sent under the law it would have to be mailed after 8PM on election day.
Mail currently is never delivered the next day after it is mailed. Mail dropped off after 8pm would normally be postmarked the following day. That means any ballot dropped off late that gets a legible postmark would be rejected under the law and the court ruling. So the court ruling only applies to mail without a valid postmark. Ballots received the day after the election would require that they have been mailed on or before election day to arrive that day. Those ballots would be legally counted as long as the postmark is legible. The certainly would show the voter intended to vote and had sent the ballot in ahead of the deadline. The failure of the Post Office to put a legible postmark on the envelope is not the fault of the voter and yet you would punish the voter for the failings of the Post Office.

The real issue here is how many envelopes containing ballots will arrive after election day that don't have legible postmarks. It may be zero. It may be 10% of the ballots received. The most likely scenario is less than 1% will not have a legible postmark. Let's wait and see how many ballots this would actually apply to before we claim this ruling will change any election outcome. Based on the current number of absentee ballots already received in PA compared to the number of ballots requested there may be about a million ballots that haven't yet been returned. If we assume that 1% don't have a legible postmark that would mean there could be 10,000 ballots in question. Less than the margin of victory from 2016. If we assume 10% then it would be 100,000 which is more than the margin of victory.

But all of this assumes that those million remaining ballots are somehow mailed after election day and almost all of them don't get postmarked and all of them are votes for Biden. We are now in the Twilight Zone for conspiracy theories here. The court made a reasonable assumption that few ballots would be mailed late and a small percentage of those might be missing the postmark. Far more would likely be mailed on election day that are missing the postmark and therefor the voter shouldn't be punished for the failings of the Post Office.

If after the election you can provide evidence that the margin of victory for Biden is less than the number of ballots received after election day then you might have an argument. But without that evidence, you are simply making a fantastical leap of speculation that defies reality.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Never said the Post Office could did I, boy. If that's what you believe, why would anyone trust anything you had to say on any issue?

You actually said this which makes no sense so I had to try to interpret it:

If the Democrats need votes in certain States, the Post Office will be buying delivering all the votes Democrats needed to find.

I assumed you meant to delete "buying".

The Post Office can't deliver votes. It can only deliver ballots. The ballots must meet the state's requirements. Somehow you are arguing that the Democrats would simply not vote absentee ballots until after they saw they were losing the election. That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they just send in all those ballots on time to be counted? Your argument only makes sense if somehow there are magical ballots that appear out of nowhere that can then be sent in and counted even though they were never requested. The Post Office would have to be complicit in this scheme that you think can happen. I am curious as to whether they manufacture the magical ballots before or after they drink the blood of infants.

 

[Legion]

Let's look at the PA case. State law says the ballots should be postmarked by 8PM on election day, Nov 3.

Pennsylvania’s Election Code requires a county board to determine if a ballot declaration is “sufficient” by making sure it is filled out, dated, and signed.

And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, claiming "emergency jurisdiction" said that mailed ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6. That's a 3-day extension which the legislature did not pass ad the the governor did not sign into law.

It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day". The ruling also prohibits a challenge to the validity of a ballot based on signature comparisons.

The state law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. But DEMOCRATS pushed for the state court ruling and got it.

Now it's going before the US Supreme Court, if they'll hear the case.

 

[CFM]

You actually said this which makes no sense so I had to try to interpret it:

If the Democrats need votes in certain States, the Post Office will be buying delivering all the votes Democrats needed to find.

I assumed you meant to delete "buying".

The Post Office can't deliver votes. It can only deliver ballots. The ballots must meet the state's requirements. Somehow you are arguing that the Democrats would simply not vote absentee ballots until after they saw they were losing the election. That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they just send in all those ballots on time to be counted? Your argument only makes sense if somehow there are magical ballots that appear out of nowhere that can then be sent in and counted even though they were never requested. The Post Office would have to be complicit in this scheme that you think can happen. I am curious as to whether they manufacture the magical ballots before or after they drink the blood of infants.

The Post Office delivers the mail. If the votes are done and mailed in, the Post Office will deliver those votes. That doesn't mean they will make up the votes. You're an idiot if that's what you thought.

Of course, anyone that thought an incompetent black BOY should be President based solely on skin color can't be very smart.

 

[CFM]

True. In theory, if we could find a way to vote electronically and have it safe from hackers or glitches, we could install a new POTUS the day after the election (or as soon as a new cabinet and staff could switch over).

Theory wasn't the reason the 20th amendment was passed.

BTW, I didn't mean voting electronically when I said modern technology. You assumed and that's what gets you in trouble.

Also, we couldn't install a new President the day after the election unless the Constitution is amended to be able to do so. If you knew the contents of the Constitution, you wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.

 

[Legion]

If after the election you can provide evidence that the margin of victory for Biden is less than the number of ballots received after election day then you might have an argument. But without that evidence, you are simply making a fantastical leap of speculation that defies reality.

Laughable. I have to allow fraud to occur before I can challenge the possibility by arguing that the existing election code should not be overturned by judicial fiat?

Is that like "we have to pass it to find out what's in it"?

 

[Legion]

who knew you were this fucking stupid

I did.

 

[TexanManWithPlans]

Theory wasn't the reason the 20th amendment was passed.

BTW, I didn't mean voting electronically when I said modern technology. You assumed and that's what gets you in trouble.

Also, we couldn't install a new President the day after the election unless the Constitution is amended to be able to do so. If you knew the contents of the Constitution, you wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.

Man. You sure like to argue. I know what the Constitution states. Inauguration used to be in March but was moved to January due modern technology making vote tabulation easier and faster.

 

[CFM]

Man. You sure like to argue. I know what the Constitution states. Inauguration used to be in March but was moved to January due modern technology making vote tabulation easier and faster.

Not if you think that modern technology would allow us to install a President the day after the election without amending the Constitution. I point out your mistakes.

According to all pertinent portions of the Constitution, could a President be inaugurated on November 4 this year?

 

[Monad Portal]

Counting the vote was supposed to take until December 15th. That is over a month, and is enough time. We have gotten used to estimating the outcome by midnight, but that is not a legal or constitutional requirement. The midnight deadline is made up by Kavanaugh out of nothing.

There is no midnight deadline.



It used to be much worse. Votes would take weeks to count. They would take weeks to even transport the tallies. If the Founding Fathers had heard Kavanaugh's midnight deadline, they would have laughed. They simply did not have the technology to count an entire state's votes by midnight.

the constitution is a living document.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

why do the demmycrats want people to be able to vote after the election is over.......do they not understand the concept of "over".........wait, I take back the question.......they still haven't figured out that the election of 2016 is over......

They don't. The votes in question were cast before the election, stupid whore.

 

[StoneByStone]

Kavanaugh asked a question in a recent decision, why should we let votes overturn an election? The answer is because elections are decided by votes, not what Kavanaugh wants the results to be.

In particular, Kavanaugh complained that votes counted after midnight might change the results. No where did he come up with any proof that votes counted after midnight were worse than votes counted before midnight. Just that he wanted the right to cut short the count, if trump is winning. But what if trump is losing, then he wanted the votes to count.

Republicans are Republicans in name only.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The Post Office delivers the mail. If the votes are done and mailed in, the Post Office will deliver those votes. That doesn't mean they will make up the votes. You're an idiot if that's what you thought.

Of course, anyone that thought an incompetent black BOY should be President based solely on skin color can't be very smart.

But your claim is that the Post Office is suddenly going to deliver all those ballots after the election is over. That makes no sense except to people like you that believe in fairy tails and conspiracy theories.
Why would the Post Office wait until after the election to deliver ballots? Why would voters wait until after the election to vote?

It seems you think there is this conspiracy to not vote until your candidate is losing then suddenly decide to vote at that point. If someone goes to the trouble of requesting a mail in ballot why would they then wait? Did they hit themselves repeatedly over the head with a ball peen hammer like you have done?

 

[CFM]

But your claim is that the Post Office is suddenly going to deliver all those ballots after the election is over. That makes no sense except to people like you that believe in fairy tails and conspiracy theories.
Why would the Post Office wait until after the election to deliver ballots? Why would voters wait until after the election to vote?

It seems you think there is this conspiracy to not vote until your candidate is losing then suddenly decide to vote at that point. If someone goes to the trouble of requesting a mail in ballot why would they then wait? Did they hit themselves repeatedly over the head with a ball peen hammer like you have done?

The Post Office delivers mail.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Not one of those states said ballots could be mailed 14 days after the election and still count. .

why can lib'ruls no longer read?.....in the primaries, in Wisconsin, federal judge who was overturned......

But last week, U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled absentee ballots could count as long as they were received by clerks by April 13 — six days after election day — regardless of when they were sent.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I think floridafan is correct in that you lied about anyone trying to allow ballots be mailed 14 days after the election.

and I think you are an idiot......which one of us wins?.......yay.......ME!!!!!......