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
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.
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...
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.
+18
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited November 2019
david frum does not deserve credit for the idea that conservatives do not accept fair losses
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.
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.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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.
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."
+26
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
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, 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.
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”
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
+11
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
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
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.
+4
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+7
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
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 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
Posts
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.
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...
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.
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.
Kelli Ward supported the Bundy standoff(s?), that she has a fundamental problem with republican government doesn't come as a shock.
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.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Gosh yes, that person is an aristocrat
The law is not code to be exploited. It was fraud because it was clearly fraudulent.
Seems like if the population centers of a conservative state are voting progressive, perhaps it's not a conservative state.
Well they certainly aren't silent.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
It's always projection. They bitch about it not being a democracy while doing their best to make it not a democracy.
We need to reinstate the VRA
Republicans doing a great job preventing them from turning out.
Then we're gonna need a new Supreme Court
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
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.
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