Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

2019 election results thread

1235

Posts

  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Kind of mystifying that they are entertaining an idea of trying to invalidate the will of their voters.

    I mean, is it?

    They basically did that in Georgia by throwing away absentee ballots and deregistering voters until the guy in charge of certifying the election could comfortably deem himself said election's winner without too many eyerolls, and I seem to recall some races in I think Virginia a year or two before that where the Republicans were saying outright they'd keep finding ways to reject a result until they won ("Recount? Nah, we're drawing straws. Not happy with that? Flipping a coin. That lands wrong? We won't acknowledge it because we think we won.").

    A state senate just unilaterally declaring an election null and void because the voters chose incorrectly is more blatant than that, sure, but the difference is one of degree more than kind, and it isn't that big a leap in that department either.

    Fun fact, the lady who lost the straw pull (well... technically a bowl) won this time 58-40

    She ran ads that were basically "don't let a bowl take your vote away."

    Should we read anything in to this?

    Was it a good ad, did the incumbent suck turds, or is this just what you might expect to see when there’s less voter apathy...

    People tend to feel more motivated if they feel that something is stolen from them, and they literally stole that seat 2 years ago with the 'discovery' of a tie-making ballot that turned a win to drawing lots.

    The ballot was inspected for its validity in open court. Drawing lots was the procedure for breaking ties. As I recall, there was something distasteful about how the ballot’s existence was revealed... something about it being added in a way that didn’t involve an opportunity to recount others? Nonetheless, I don’t think we should be using “outright stole” language. The guy who ran the mail fraud scheme was committing outright election fraud. But iirc we just don’t know that happened here.

    In any case, if they wanted to outright steal it, and were willing to fake ballots to do so, it seems to me they would have “found” more than 1 and not had to submit to a random drawing

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Kind of mystifying that they are entertaining an idea of trying to invalidate the will of their voters.

    I mean, is it?

    They basically did that in Georgia by throwing away absentee ballots and deregistering voters until the guy in charge of certifying the election could comfortably deem himself said election's winner without too many eyerolls, and I seem to recall some races in I think Virginia a year or two before that where the Republicans were saying outright they'd keep finding ways to reject a result until they won ("Recount? Nah, we're drawing straws. Not happy with that? Flipping a coin. That lands wrong? We won't acknowledge it because we think we won.").

    A state senate just unilaterally declaring an election null and void because the voters chose incorrectly is more blatant than that, sure, but the difference is one of degree more than kind, and it isn't that big a leap in that department either.

    Fun fact, the lady who lost the straw pull (well... technically a bowl) won this time 58-40

    She ran ads that were basically "don't let a bowl take your vote away."

    Should we read anything in to this?

    Was it a good ad, did the incumbent suck turds, or is this just what you might expect to see when there’s less voter apathy...

    People tend to feel more motivated if they feel that something is stolen from them, and they literally stole that seat 2 years ago with the 'discovery' of a tie-making ballot that turned a win to drawing lots.

    The ballot was inspected for its validity in open court. Drawing lots was the procedure for breaking ties. As I recall, there was something distasteful about how the ballot’s existence was revealed... something about it being added in a way that didn’t involve an opportunity to recount others? Nonetheless, I don’t think we should be using “outright stole” language. The guy who ran the mail fraud scheme was committing outright election fraud. But iirc we just don’t know that happened here.

    In any case, if they wanted to outright steal it, and were willing to fake ballots to do so, it seems to me they would have “found” more than 1 and not had to submit to a random drawing

    A poll worker rejected the ballot, mentioned it to family, they heard they lost by one vote, and went back to re-include the ballot.

    monikerAngelHedgieshrykeMillFencingsaxKayne Red RobeZibblsnrtCaptain InertiaGennenalyse RuebenRedTideMan in the MistsPreacherMorganVElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusCantideToxArdolMatevTraceAegisLabelJaysonFourMoridin889ElldrenFry
  • cncaudatacncaudata Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    One of the interviews on WAMU with an older Republican gentleman in Virginia had the same sentiment. To paraphrase him:

    "85% of the area of the state votes for a Republican but more people live in that 15% urban area. So thank god for the electoral college."

    There is an underlying though because of how maps present the visible information that red areas which are less densely populated should hold more sway because they hold more land. Oddly enough I feel this is not just a structure problem which it is but a data visualization problem.

    Instead of showing the map and square miles for votes maybe it it should be built out with population density.

    It's less a data visualization issue then you'd think. Trust me, Canada is dealing with a silly resurgence of this kind of stupidity after our recent election. It's actually just about losing. They are mad that they don't have more voters then the people on the other side. It's fundamentally just a lack of belief in democracy. They are unwilling to accept the idea that they might be unpopular.

    These folks, and I don't just mean the pubs in power, I mean actual voters, know exactly what they're asking for. The new thing to do, based on my mom's facebook feed, is to just shout "It's not a democracy, dummy! It's a Republic!" any time the subject of the senate or electoral college comes up. They are actively arguing against democracy.

    Side note: the last time she did this it was to yell at a state representative, which was pretty fun...

    PSN: Broodax- battle.net: broodax#1163
    Mazzyx
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    One of the interviews on WAMU with an older Republican gentleman in Virginia had the same sentiment. To paraphrase him:

    "85% of the area of the state votes for a Republican but more people live in that 15% urban area. So thank god for the electoral college."

    There is an underlying though because of how maps present the visible information that red areas which are less densely populated should hold more sway because they hold more land. Oddly enough I feel this is not just a structure problem which it is but a data visualization problem.

    Instead of showing the map and square miles for votes maybe it it should be built out with population density.

    It's less a data visualization issue then you'd think. Trust me, Canada is dealing with a silly resurgence of this kind of stupidity after our recent election. It's actually just about losing. They are mad that they don't have more voters then the people on the other side. It's fundamentally just a lack of belief in democracy. They are unwilling to accept the idea that they might be unpopular.

    This is what happened when my district went blue for the first time. Local conservatives threw a fit because, if it hadn't been for all the areas that voted Dem, the Republican candidate would have won.

    David Frum was right.

    monikershrykeFencingsaxRozRchanendurandal4532Gennenalyse RuebentynicMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusCantideToxHacksawMatevLabelYoutubeJaysonFourElldren
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    edited November 7
    david frum does not deserve credit for the idea that conservatives do not accept fair losses

    Shorty on
    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    monikerDouglasDangerStyrofoam SammichTetraRayCouscousFencingsaxCaptain InertiapainfulPleasanceHeirtynicToxArdolYamiB.LabelJaysonFour
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    david frum does not deserve credit for the idea that conservatives do not accept fair losses

    Frum's point was a little more core to the whole project then that (ie - "Conservatives do not really believe in democracy and will reject the system if it deprives them of power") and he did phrase it really well, which is generally how you get credit for things like that.

    Captain CarrotFencingsaxCaptain InertiaQanamilGennenalyse RuebenBlackDragon480CantidoQuidMan in the MistsjmcdonaldElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusCantideCentipede DamascusMild ConfusionHacksawThe SauceBigJoeMMatevAegisYoutubeKamarJaysonFourTynnanMoridin889Elldren
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    The AZ GOP chairwoman is now suggesting destroying one person, one vote at the state level because democracy is bad if the GOP does not win.

    Kelli Ward supported the Bundy standoff(s?), that she has a fundamental problem with republican government doesn't come as a shock.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Conservatives have been bitching about how We're Not a Democracy for decades at least. It was a common enough argument when I was in college approximately 8 thousand years ago.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    JragghenwanderingmonikerRchanenGennenalyse RuebenDouglasDangerpainfulPleasancespool32FencingsaxMan in the MistsPolaritieLord_AsmodeusboogedybooToxArdolthatassemblyguyThe SauceTofystedethMatevA Kobold's KoboldJaysonFourMoridin889Elldren
  • TNTrooperTNTrooper Registered User regular
    The last time Kelli Ward was on national news was when she complained McCain timed his impending death announcement to hurt her primary chances, McCain passed away several hours later. She is garbage dressed up like a human.

    steam_sig.png
    monikerArbitraryDescriptorFencingsaxMan in the MistsElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusthatassemblyguyJaysonFourTynnanElldren
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Kind of mystifying that they are entertaining an idea of trying to invalidate the will of their voters.

    I mean, is it?

    They basically did that in Georgia by throwing away absentee ballots and deregistering voters until the guy in charge of certifying the election could comfortably deem himself said election's winner without too many eyerolls, and I seem to recall some races in I think Virginia a year or two before that where the Republicans were saying outright they'd keep finding ways to reject a result until they won ("Recount? Nah, we're drawing straws. Not happy with that? Flipping a coin. That lands wrong? We won't acknowledge it because we think we won.").

    A state senate just unilaterally declaring an election null and void because the voters chose incorrectly is more blatant than that, sure, but the difference is one of degree more than kind, and it isn't that big a leap in that department either.

    Fun fact, the lady who lost the straw pull (well... technically a bowl) won this time 58-40

    She ran ads that were basically "don't let a bowl take your vote away."

    Should we read anything in to this?

    Was it a good ad, did the incumbent suck turds, or is this just what you might expect to see when there’s less voter apathy...

    People tend to feel more motivated if they feel that something is stolen from them, and they literally stole that seat 2 years ago with the 'discovery' of a tie-making ballot that turned a win to drawing lots.

    The ballot was inspected for its validity in open court. Drawing lots was the procedure for breaking ties. As I recall, there was something distasteful about how the ballot’s existence was revealed... something about it being added in a way that didn’t involve an opportunity to recount others? Nonetheless, I don’t think we should be using “outright stole” language. The guy who ran the mail fraud scheme was committing outright election fraud. But iirc we just don’t know that happened here.

    In any case, if they wanted to outright steal it, and were willing to fake ballots to do so, it seems to me they would have “found” more than 1 and not had to submit to a random drawing

    A poll worker rejected the ballot, mentioned it to family, they heard they lost by one vote, and went back to re-include the ballot.

    Also the Republicans during that whole mess were incredibly, openly explicit about saying they would not recognize any method of handling the situation that didn't result in the Republican winning. When asked if they'd recognize a drawn lot which seated the Democratic candidate they said they wouldn't, and would find some other way to seat their person. They were basically wearing t-shirts saying "we will steal this election come hell or high water."

    AngelHedgiemonikerJragghenGennenalyse RuebenIncenjucarMillDouglasDangerDunderpainfulPleasanceHeirFencingsaxMan in the MistsMorganVElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusHacksawThe SauceMatevBigJoeMkimeA Kobold's KoboldYoutubeKamarJaysonFourMoridin889Elldren
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Kind of mystifying that they are entertaining an idea of trying to invalidate the will of their voters.

    I mean, is it?

    They basically did that in Georgia by throwing away absentee ballots and deregistering voters until the guy in charge of certifying the election could comfortably deem himself said election's winner without too many eyerolls, and I seem to recall some races in I think Virginia a year or two before that where the Republicans were saying outright they'd keep finding ways to reject a result until they won ("Recount? Nah, we're drawing straws. Not happy with that? Flipping a coin. That lands wrong? We won't acknowledge it because we think we won.").

    A state senate just unilaterally declaring an election null and void because the voters chose incorrectly is more blatant than that, sure, but the difference is one of degree more than kind, and it isn't that big a leap in that department either.

    Fun fact, the lady who lost the straw pull (well... technically a bowl) won this time 58-40

    She ran ads that were basically "don't let a bowl take your vote away."

    Should we read anything in to this?

    Was it a good ad, did the incumbent suck turds, or is this just what you might expect to see when there’s less voter apathy...

    People tend to feel more motivated if they feel that something is stolen from them, and they literally stole that seat 2 years ago with the 'discovery' of a tie-making ballot that turned a win to drawing lots.

    The ballot was inspected for its validity in open court. Drawing lots was the procedure for breaking ties. As I recall, there was something distasteful about how the ballot’s existence was revealed... something about it being added in a way that didn’t involve an opportunity to recount others? Nonetheless, I don’t think we should be using “outright stole” language. The guy who ran the mail fraud scheme was committing outright election fraud. But iirc we just don’t know that happened here.

    In any case, if they wanted to outright steal it, and were willing to fake ballots to do so, it seems to me they would have “found” more than 1 and not had to submit to a random drawing

    A poll worker rejected the ballot, mentioned it to family, they heard they lost by one vote, and went back to re-include the ballot.

    Also the Republicans during that whole mess were incredibly, openly explicit about saying they would not recognize any method of handling the situation that didn't result in the Republican winning. When asked if they'd recognize a drawn lot which seated the Democratic candidate they said they wouldn't, and would find some other way to seat their person. They were basically wearing t-shirts saying "we will steal this election come hell or high water."

    A: who said that?

    B: so we agree that what happened was that a poll worker who had excluded a ballot came to believe that they may have done so wrongfully, they also came to learn that their potential mistake could have changed the result of the election, so they brought the ballot before a court which re-examined it and agreed that it had initially been wrongfully excluded; furthermore, the relevant law is that valid ballots must be counted regardless of whether poll workers initially mistakenly exclude them, so it subsequently was counted and the total was adjusted accordingly?

    I am comfortable with my assessment that "literally stole the seat" is not a correct description of that situation.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    edited November 8
    Except, when a ballot gets disregarded. It's done so on the approval of more than one person. Officials from both parties oversee the process and the rat fucking republican's person agreed with it being thrown out the first time. They only changed their mind, when they realized they could potentially steal an election.

    Mill on
    ZibblsnrtshrykeTetraRayDouglasDangerpainfulPleasanceFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenMan in the MistsElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusTNTrooperCantidethatassemblyguyHacksawTofystedethMatevBigJoeMLabelYoutubeKamarMoridin889ElldrenRoz
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Kind of mystifying that they are entertaining an idea of trying to invalidate the will of their voters.

    I mean, is it?

    They basically did that in Georgia by throwing away absentee ballots and deregistering voters until the guy in charge of certifying the election could comfortably deem himself said election's winner without too many eyerolls, and I seem to recall some races in I think Virginia a year or two before that where the Republicans were saying outright they'd keep finding ways to reject a result until they won ("Recount? Nah, we're drawing straws. Not happy with that? Flipping a coin. That lands wrong? We won't acknowledge it because we think we won.").

    A state senate just unilaterally declaring an election null and void because the voters chose incorrectly is more blatant than that, sure, but the difference is one of degree more than kind, and it isn't that big a leap in that department either.

    Fun fact, the lady who lost the straw pull (well... technically a bowl) won this time 58-40

    She ran ads that were basically "don't let a bowl take your vote away."

    Should we read anything in to this?

    Was it a good ad, did the incumbent suck turds, or is this just what you might expect to see when there’s less voter apathy...

    People tend to feel more motivated if they feel that something is stolen from them, and they literally stole that seat 2 years ago with the 'discovery' of a tie-making ballot that turned a win to drawing lots.

    The ballot was inspected for its validity in open court. Drawing lots was the procedure for breaking ties. As I recall, there was something distasteful about how the ballot’s existence was revealed... something about it being added in a way that didn’t involve an opportunity to recount others? Nonetheless, I don’t think we should be using “outright stole” language. The guy who ran the mail fraud scheme was committing outright election fraud. But iirc we just don’t know that happened here.

    In any case, if they wanted to outright steal it, and were willing to fake ballots to do so, it seems to me they would have “found” more than 1 and not had to submit to a random drawing

    A poll worker rejected the ballot, mentioned it to family, they heard they lost by one vote, and went back to re-include the ballot.

    Also the Republicans during that whole mess were incredibly, openly explicit about saying they would not recognize any method of handling the situation that didn't result in the Republican winning. When asked if they'd recognize a drawn lot which seated the Democratic candidate they said they wouldn't, and would find some other way to seat their person. They were basically wearing t-shirts saying "we will steal this election come hell or high water."

    A: who said that?

    B: so we agree that what happened was that a poll worker who had excluded a ballot came to believe that they may have done so wrongfully, they also came to learn that their potential mistake could have changed the result of the election, so they brought the ballot before a court which re-examined it and agreed that it had initially been wrongfully excluded; furthermore, the relevant law is that valid ballots must be counted regardless of whether poll workers initially mistakenly exclude them, so it subsequently was counted and the total was adjusted accordingly?

    I am comfortable with my assessment that "literally stole the seat" is not a correct description of that situation.

    Except that a similar thing happened in 2000 and SCOTUS ruled that failing to apply a recount standard across all ballots violated the equal protection clause and so the re-evaluation must be done in full or the ballot must be excluded.

    Plus the whole “republicans changed their mind on whether or not it should be excluded”

    wbBv3fj.png
    Phoenix-DshrykeJragghenBlackDragon480TetraRaymonikerDouglasDangerFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenMan in the MistsElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusthatassemblyguyAngelHedgieHacksawMatevBigJoeMHefflingYoutubeKamarJaysonFourMoridin889Elldren
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Kind of mystifying that they are entertaining an idea of trying to invalidate the will of their voters.

    I mean, is it?

    They basically did that in Georgia by throwing away absentee ballots and deregistering voters until the guy in charge of certifying the election could comfortably deem himself said election's winner without too many eyerolls, and I seem to recall some races in I think Virginia a year or two before that where the Republicans were saying outright they'd keep finding ways to reject a result until they won ("Recount? Nah, we're drawing straws. Not happy with that? Flipping a coin. That lands wrong? We won't acknowledge it because we think we won.").

    A state senate just unilaterally declaring an election null and void because the voters chose incorrectly is more blatant than that, sure, but the difference is one of degree more than kind, and it isn't that big a leap in that department either.

    Fun fact, the lady who lost the straw pull (well... technically a bowl) won this time 58-40

    She ran ads that were basically "don't let a bowl take your vote away."

    Should we read anything in to this?

    Was it a good ad, did the incumbent suck turds, or is this just what you might expect to see when there’s less voter apathy...

    People tend to feel more motivated if they feel that something is stolen from them, and they literally stole that seat 2 years ago with the 'discovery' of a tie-making ballot that turned a win to drawing lots.

    The ballot was inspected for its validity in open court. Drawing lots was the procedure for breaking ties. As I recall, there was something distasteful about how the ballot’s existence was revealed... something about it being added in a way that didn’t involve an opportunity to recount others? Nonetheless, I don’t think we should be using “outright stole” language. The guy who ran the mail fraud scheme was committing outright election fraud. But iirc we just don’t know that happened here.

    In any case, if they wanted to outright steal it, and were willing to fake ballots to do so, it seems to me they would have “found” more than 1 and not had to submit to a random drawing

    A poll worker rejected the ballot, mentioned it to family, they heard they lost by one vote, and went back to re-include the ballot.

    Also the Republicans during that whole mess were incredibly, openly explicit about saying they would not recognize any method of handling the situation that didn't result in the Republican winning. When asked if they'd recognize a drawn lot which seated the Democratic candidate they said they wouldn't, and would find some other way to seat their person. They were basically wearing t-shirts saying "we will steal this election come hell or high water."

    A: who said that?

    B: so we agree that what happened was that a poll worker who had excluded a ballot came to believe that they may have done so wrongfully, they also came to learn that their potential mistake could have changed the result of the election, so they brought the ballot before a court which re-examined it and agreed that it had initially been wrongfully excluded; furthermore, the relevant law is that valid ballots must be counted regardless of whether poll workers initially mistakenly exclude them, so it subsequently was counted and the total was adjusted accordingly?

    I am comfortable with my assessment that "literally stole the seat" is not a correct description of that situation.

    Except that a similar thing happened in 2000 and SCOTUS ruled that failing to apply a recount standard across all ballots violated the equal protection clause and so the re-evaluation must be done in full or the ballot must be excluded.

    Plus the whole “republicans changed their mind on whether or not it should be excluded”

    Remember that they never found the rejected ballot. Only a ballot that the guy who rejected it said looked like the one he'd rejected. We know that both democrats and republican ballots were rejected according to the same standard so it is irrelevant whether he decides after the fact that that standard was wrong. A Democrat could have said with equal standing, I also remember rejecting a ballot exactly like the one he remembers rejecting for the democrat.

    It is fundamentally cheating because its changing the test after the fact when the result isn't what you want.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    PreacherElvenshaePhoenix-DthatassemblyguyMatevBigJoeMLord_AsmodeusYoutubeKamarRawkking GoodguyMoridin889
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    david frum does not deserve credit for the idea that conservatives do not accept fair losses

    Frum's point was a little more core to the whole project then that (ie - "Conservatives do not really believe in democracy and will reject the system if it deprives them of power") and he did phrase it really well, which is generally how you get credit for things like that.

    you also get credit for things by not being a warmongering piece of shit fuckstain who materially, directly contributed to the conditions that he is allegedly criticizing

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    YamiB.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    david frum does not deserve credit for the idea that conservatives do not accept fair losses

    Frum's point was a little more core to the whole project then that (ie - "Conservatives do not really believe in democracy and will reject the system if it deprives them of power") and he did phrase it really well, which is generally how you get credit for things like that.

    you also get credit for things by not being a warmongering piece of shit fuckstain who materially, directly contributed to the conditions that he is allegedly criticizing

    You don't actually. Otherwise we'd all be getting a lot more credit.

    painfulPleasanceMonwynYoutubeTynnan
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Except, when a ballot gets disregarded. It's done so on the approval of more than one person. Officials from both parties oversee the process and the rat fucking republicans person agreed with it being thrown out the first time. They only changed they're mind, when they realized they could potentially steal an election.

    Yes, that's what I was pointing out about the law here. I remember skimming the decision at the time. As I recall the relevant election law in this case, it doesn't care which officials fucked up. Rather, the mandate of the court was to determine whether the ballot presented to them was a valid attempt to vote for a candidate. It doesn't matter whether the person who made the initial, incorrect determination saying that it wasn't was a democrat, or a republican, or a democrat and a republican in agreement. Rather, the rule of law in this case involved the court determining the validity of the ballot, which they did, not saying "well, since a republican signed off on it earlier they don't get to call take-backsies now!" Rather, if the court had said that, then they would have been the rogue agents.

    I mean, that's my recollection. Maybe I'm wrong! Regardless, I think it's corrosive to describe that as literal election fraud unless you actually have a really good understanding of both the relevant law and procedure used which can substantiate that charge.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Kind of mystifying that they are entertaining an idea of trying to invalidate the will of their voters.

    I mean, is it?

    They basically did that in Georgia by throwing away absentee ballots and deregistering voters until the guy in charge of certifying the election could comfortably deem himself said election's winner without too many eyerolls, and I seem to recall some races in I think Virginia a year or two before that where the Republicans were saying outright they'd keep finding ways to reject a result until they won ("Recount? Nah, we're drawing straws. Not happy with that? Flipping a coin. That lands wrong? We won't acknowledge it because we think we won.").

    A state senate just unilaterally declaring an election null and void because the voters chose incorrectly is more blatant than that, sure, but the difference is one of degree more than kind, and it isn't that big a leap in that department either.

    Fun fact, the lady who lost the straw pull (well... technically a bowl) won this time 58-40

    She ran ads that were basically "don't let a bowl take your vote away."

    Should we read anything in to this?

    Was it a good ad, did the incumbent suck turds, or is this just what you might expect to see when there’s less voter apathy...

    People tend to feel more motivated if they feel that something is stolen from them, and they literally stole that seat 2 years ago with the 'discovery' of a tie-making ballot that turned a win to drawing lots.

    The ballot was inspected for its validity in open court. Drawing lots was the procedure for breaking ties. As I recall, there was something distasteful about how the ballot’s existence was revealed... something about it being added in a way that didn’t involve an opportunity to recount others? Nonetheless, I don’t think we should be using “outright stole” language. The guy who ran the mail fraud scheme was committing outright election fraud. But iirc we just don’t know that happened here.

    In any case, if they wanted to outright steal it, and were willing to fake ballots to do so, it seems to me they would have “found” more than 1 and not had to submit to a random drawing

    I am well aware of the seriousness and severity of the charge that I am leveling, and remain perfectly comfortable with the accusation. I'm glad to see the margins increase this go 'round.

    Gennenalyse RuebenPreacherMillPhoenix-DArdolshrykethatassemblyguyAngelHedgieHacksawBigJoeMMvrckLord_Asmodeus
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    bad data viz is often intentionally used to mislead

    transparency map is a good way of doing it i like that

    also
    As a rural AZ resident, it is frustrating that the state’s population centers, Phoenix & Tucson, could control politics in this conservative state.
    lol it's frustrating that the places where people live have a say, you say

    Look the idea that more votes should count more than less votes is just crazy.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited November 8
    Viskod wrote: »
    bad data viz is often intentionally used to mislead

    transparency map is a good way of doing it i like that

    also
    As a rural AZ resident, it is frustrating that the state’s population centers, Phoenix & Tucson, could control politics in this conservative state.
    lol it's frustrating that the places where people live have a say, you say

    Look the idea that more votes should count more than less votes is just crazy.

    It’s all well and good to talk of human votes, but what of this empty plain, this mountain, that swamp, this swath of desert? Surely these should get a vote as well?

    Jealous Deva on
    tynicArdolFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusTynnan
  • PiotyrPiotyr Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    bad data viz is often intentionally used to mislead

    transparency map is a good way of doing it i like that

    also
    As a rural AZ resident, it is frustrating that the state’s population centers, Phoenix & Tucson, could control politics in this conservative state.
    lol it's frustrating that the places where people live have a say, you say

    Look the idea that more votes should count more than less votes is just crazy.

    It’s all well and good to talk of human votes, but what of this empty plain, this mountain, that swamp, this swath of desert? Surely these should get a vote as well?

    This one person who owns 5000 acres of land in rural Kentucky should be worth just as much as the 500,000 people that live in that same area of space in Louisville.

  • LordSolarMachariusLordSolarMacharius Red wine with fish Registered User regular
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    bad data viz is often intentionally used to mislead

    transparency map is a good way of doing it i like that

    also
    As a rural AZ resident, it is frustrating that the state’s population centers, Phoenix & Tucson, could control politics in this conservative state.
    lol it's frustrating that the places where people live have a say, you say

    Look the idea that more votes should count more than less votes is just crazy.

    It’s all well and good to talk of human votes, but what of this empty plain, this mountain, that swamp, this swath of desert? Surely these should get a vote as well?

    This one person who owns 5000 acres of land in rural Kentucky should be worth just as much as the 500,000 people that live in that same area of space in Louisville.

    Well now, no need to go that far. I'm sure Republicans would be perfectly happy if everyone got one vote, and then three fifths of a vote for every acreage of land they live on.

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    538 has their post election analysis up.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-virginia-mississippi-and-kentucky-can-tell-us-about-2020/

    It is very much what we figured and knew.

    Dems are murdering Republicans in Suburban areas. Not just in VA but also in KY and Missouri. But Republicans are doing better than normal in rural and exurb areas. Some of the flips were pretty historic like the PA county government flips that have been Republican since the Civil War. Or in Missouri the special election was over a 9 point swing.

    And the last bit was that people came out and voted. This is an off year election but even Kentucky 43% of registered voters voted compared to ~30% in 2015.

    03x29di.png
    QuidFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudBandableIncenjucarshrykeElvenshaeMild ConfusionMan in the MistsFencingsaxSleepkimeBullheadGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusA Kobold's KoboldLabelShadowfireYoutubeJaysonFourMoridin889never dieElldrenCentipede DamascusForar
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Get fucked Mitch, I hope your ass gets kicked to the curb next year.

    He has been acting (relatively) restrained the last couple of months, at least compared to the normal evil fuck he is. Between passing election security funds and his tepid response on impeachment support for Trump, I think all this is getting to him even if it’s just a bit. He might not lose his seat, but he’s at least worried enough to temper his behavior.

    I want him gone so much.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    ExtreaminatusElvenshaeBlackDragon480BullheadMorganVGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusA Kobold's KoboldTicaldfjamYoutubeJaysonFourForar
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    bad data viz is often intentionally used to mislead

    transparency map is a good way of doing it i like that

    also
    As a rural AZ resident, it is frustrating that the state’s population centers, Phoenix & Tucson, could control politics in this conservative state.
    lol it's frustrating that the places where people live have a say, you say

    Look the idea that more votes should count more than less votes is just crazy.

    It’s all well and good to talk of human votes, but what of this empty plain, this mountain, that swamp, this swath of desert? Surely these should get a vote as well?

    This one person who owns 5000 acres of land in rural Kentucky should be worth just as much as the 500,000 people that live in that same area of space in Louisville.

    Gosh yes, that person is an aristocrat

    ArbitraryDescriptorIncenjucarMonwynpainfulPleasanceLord_AsmodeusCantideA Kobold's Kobold
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Except, when a ballot gets disregarded. It's done so on the approval of more than one person. Officials from both parties oversee the process and the rat fucking republicans person agreed with it being thrown out the first time. They only changed they're mind, when they realized they could potentially steal an election.

    Yes, that's what I was pointing out about the law here. I remember skimming the decision at the time. As I recall the relevant election law in this case, it doesn't care which officials fucked up. Rather, the mandate of the court was to determine whether the ballot presented to them was a valid attempt to vote for a candidate. It doesn't matter whether the person who made the initial, incorrect determination saying that it wasn't was a democrat, or a republican, or a democrat and a republican in agreement. Rather, the rule of law in this case involved the court determining the validity of the ballot, which they did, not saying "well, since a republican signed off on it earlier they don't get to call take-backsies now!" Rather, if the court had said that, then they would have been the rogue agents.

    I mean, that's my recollection. Maybe I'm wrong! Regardless, I think it's corrosive to describe that as literal election fraud unless you actually have a really good understanding of both the relevant law and procedure used which can substantiate that charge.

    The law is not code to be exploited. It was fraud because it was clearly fraudulent.

    wbBv3fj.png
    AngelHedgiemonikershrykeFencingsaxPreacherMan in the MistsMorganVGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusA Kobold's KoboldBigJoeMLabelYoutubeJaysonFourHacksaw
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    That VA election 2 years ago was fraud because they were explicit about not accepting a losing result on the drawing of lots, if such were to occur. You know, in addition to the other fraudulent aspects.

    steam_sig.png
    PreachermonikerElvenshaeMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusBigJoeMBlackDragon480YoutubeJaysonFourFry
  • SeñorAmorSeñorAmor !!! Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »

    Seems like if the population centers of a conservative state are voting progressive, perhaps it's not a conservative state.

    PhillisherePhoenix-DDoodmannQuidFencingsaxAimGONG-00VishNubTofystedethElvenshaeMonwynZomroMan in the MistspainfulPleasanceMorganVGennenalyse RuebenAegisLord_AsmodeusCantidoCantideA Kobold's KoboldBigJoeMBloodsheedMild ConfusionLabelShadowfireBlackDragon480IncenjucarknitdanOut Of ContexttynicthatassemblyguyToxJaysonFourHacksawMoridin889never dieMetzger MeisterElldrenFry
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Maybe...just maybe the "silent majority" is not actually a majority.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    FencingsaxElvenshaeMan in the MistspainfulPleasanceLord_AsmodeusA Kobold's KoboldMild ConfusionIncenjucarknitdanOut Of ContexttynicthatassemblyguyToxHacksawMoridin889never dieMetzger MeisterElldrenbrynhrtmn
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Maybe...just maybe the "silent majority" is not actually a majority.

    Well they certainly aren't silent.

    monikerExtreaminatusElvenshaeAistanBullheadshrykeMan in the MistspainfulPleasanceTetraRayGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusCantidoCantideAbsoluteZeroA Kobold's KoboldThe SauceMild ConfusionBlackDragon480IncenjucarknitdantynicToxTicaldfjamYoutubeJaysonFourHacksawTynnanMoridin889never dieMetzger MeisterElldrenEinzelbrynhrtmn
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited November 8
    Land as voting share seems to also come from the romantization of secessionism, a bunch of flowery words to say: "well, the Feds can't come down to smite us since we are willing to resort to terrorism, so they have to do what we want".

    EDIT: Also, the classical Rural vs. Urban divide, where the "salt of the earth" types believe that they can threaten to cut food supply to the cities.

    TryCatcher on
    Doodmann
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I believe Mississippi was low turnout though and we lost there. Democrats still not doing a great job of turning out southern black voters.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    shrykeA Kobold's Kobold
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Conservatives have been bitching about how We're Not a Democracy for decades at least. It was a common enough argument when I was in college approximately 8 thousand years ago.

    It's always projection. They bitch about it not being a democracy while doing their best to make it not a democracy.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    FencingsaxEmerlmaster999Man in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenCantideA Kobold's KoboldMild ConfusiontynicYoutubekime
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I believe Mississippi was low turnout though and we lost there. Democrats still not doing a great job of turning out southern black voters.

    We need to reinstate the VRA

    ArdolKayne Red Robedurandal4532ElvenshaeDoodmannBullheadshrykeQuidMan in the MistspainfulPleasanceMorganVGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusEmperorSethCantidoCantideA Kobold's KoboldmiscellaneousinsanityMild ConfusionLabelBlackDragon480tynicTicaldfjamYoutubeJaysonFourHacksawDoctorArchkimeMoridin889ElldrenEinzelbrynhrtmnCentipede Damascus
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I believe Mississippi was low turnout though and we lost there. Democrats still not doing a great job of turning out southern black voters.

    Republicans doing a great job preventing them from turning out.

    FencingsaxPhillishereBullheadMan in the MistspainfulPleasanceMorganVGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusCantidoCantideA Kobold's KoboldBigJoeMMild ConfusionTicaldfjamYoutubeJaysonFourHacksawMoridin889ElldrenCentipede Damascus
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    I believe Mississippi was low turnout though and we lost there. Democrats still not doing a great job of turning out southern black voters.

    We need to reinstate the VRA

    Then we're gonna need a new Supreme Court

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    durandal4532DouglasDangerTetraNitroCubaneMan in the MistsCantideA Kobold's KoboldIncenjucarTicaldfjamYoutubebrynhrtmnForar
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Get fucked Mitch, I hope your ass gets kicked to the curb next year.

    He has been acting (relatively) restrained the last couple of months, at least compared to the normal evil fuck he is. Between passing election security funds and his tepid response on impeachment support for Trump, I think all this is getting to him even if it’s just a bit. He might not lose his seat, but he’s at least worried enough to temper his behavior.

    I want him gone so much.

    McConnel is getting what he wants: a ridiculous, untenable tax cut for the rich and he's STILL put conservative judges into seats.

    Like, he swindled a supreme court seat; dude is going to die happy no matter what happens, knowing he's swayed the supreme court to his bullshit ideals for the forseeable future.

    CelestialBadgerFencingsaxmonikerpainfulPleasanceArdolA Kobold's KoboldMild ConfusionBlackDragon480IncenjucarTicaldfjamYoutubeRhesus PositiveJaysonFourHacksaw
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Get fucked Mitch, I hope your ass gets kicked to the curb next year.

    He has been acting (relatively) restrained the last couple of months, at least compared to the normal evil fuck he is. Between passing election security funds and his tepid response on impeachment support for Trump, I think all this is getting to him even if it’s just a bit. He might not lose his seat, but he’s at least worried enough to temper his behavior.

    I want him gone so much.

    McConnel is getting what he wants: a ridiculous, untenable tax cut for the rich and he's STILL put conservative judges into seats.

    Like, he swindled a supreme court seat; dude is going to die happy no matter what happens, knowing he's swayed the supreme court to his bullshit ideals for the forseeable future.

    Also Trump is very likely to get another SC seat.

    CelestialBadgerExtreaminatusDouglasDangerXaquinIncenjucarYoutubeHacksaw
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    I believe Mississippi was low turnout though and we lost there. Democrats still not doing a great job of turning out southern black voters.

    I mean, given Mississippi's particular history, an unreasonable proportion of their black population is unable to vote due to felon disenfranchisement. Also voter ID, also weird polling place locations, etc. Also the candidate didn't do much to campaign to black voters (and frankly it would likely be a wash if he did.)

    The bigger problem in Mississippi is ennui and candidates running unopposed.

    uH3IcEi.png
    Youtube
  • A Kobold's KoboldA Kobold's Kobold He/Him MississippiRegistered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    I believe Mississippi was low turnout though and we lost there. Democrats still not doing a great job of turning out southern black voters.

    I mean, given Mississippi's particular history, an unreasonable proportion of their black population is unable to vote due to felon disenfranchisement. Also voter ID, also weird polling place locations, etc. Also the candidate didn't do much to campaign to black voters (and frankly it would likely be a wash if he did.)

    The bigger problem in Mississippi is ennui and candidates running unopposed.

    I think it's fairly safe to say that there's a lot of problems w/r/t MS turnout and it's gonna be hard to disentangle all of them

    Switch Friend Code: SW-3011-6091-2364
    Twitter delenda est
    Youtube
Sign In or Register to comment.