Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Does taking many days to "count ballots" suggest excellent government?

Days go by, and California counts and counts and counts. And, uh, counts. And counts some more.

And apparently, days after the primary, it's STILL going on.

Florida, also with a large population, although somewhat smaller, seems to get elections decided MUCH more quickly, and yet also seems to count every ballot.

Can we draw any conclusions from that?

Or must we just, you know, automatically stand by our political favorites.

Days go by, and California counts and counts and counts. And, uh, counts. And counts some more. And apparently, days after the primary, it's STILL going on. Florida, also with a large population, although somewhat smaller, seems to get elections decided MUCH more quickly, and yet also seems to count every ballot. Can we draw any conclusions from that? Or must we just, you know, automatically stand by our political favorites.

I don't know much about the voting process in the US but I read they have thirty days to count the ballots. I also read it has always been like that since Americans have many voting options and most of them opt for the mail-in one which, as the news said, is the most time- consuming one. They were , once again, accused by Trump of trying to "steal the elections" without proof, nonetheless. I don't think it's a sign of anything since they are working within the time limit they were given and we are talking about millions of voters.

I don't know...

I don't know much about the voting process in the US but I read they have thirty days to count the ballots. I also read it has always been like that since Americans have many voting options and most of them opt for the mail-in one which, as the news said, is the most time- consuming one. They were , once again, accused by Trump of trying to "steal the elections" without proof, nonetheless. I don't think it's a sign of anything since they are working within the time limit they were given and we are talking about millions of voters. I don't know...

California is larger than Florida.
Florida has a history of fraud.
Voting by mail is sensitive to fraud.

California is larger than Florida. Florida has a history of fraud. Voting by mail is sensitive to fraud.

Immediately stating the result would be suspect.

I have not seen any proof that the elections in USA are corrupt.

Immediately stating the result would be suspect. I have not seen any proof that the elections in USA are corrupt.

Florida is not that much smaller but seems to be much faster.

"Voting by mail is sensitive to fraud" writes @tpr.

So, if that's true, why go out of the way to mail out millions of unrequested ballots?

Furthermore, if I am understanding the news updates, the mail-in ballots being counted so far seem to be CHANGING the proportions for each candidate, compared to the same-day votes, as the counting goes on. And on. And on. And they're permitted to show up several days later, apparently.

Does that inspire confidence, if voting by mail is harder to guard against fraud, as you seem, to me at least, to be saying?

I have to wonder if the system couldn't be improved. But I'm no expert, and each must form his or her own opinion.

It is what it is, eh? It's just "one of those things," as they say.

How do the fire hydrants work in Florida? Dependably?

Florida is not that much smaller but seems to be much faster. "Voting by mail is sensitive to fraud" writes @tpr. So, if that's true, why go out of the way to mail out millions of unrequested ballots? Furthermore, if I am understanding the news updates, the mail-in ballots being counted so far seem to be CHANGING the proportions for each candidate, compared to the same-day votes, as the counting goes on. And on. And on. And they're permitted to show up several days later, apparently. Does that inspire confidence, if voting by mail is harder to guard against fraud, as you seem, to me at least, to be saying? I have to wonder if the system couldn't be improved. But I'm no expert, and each must form his or her own opinion. It is what it is, eh? It's just "one of those things," as they say. How do the fire hydrants work in Florida? Dependably?

"the elections in USA are corrupt"

  • Al Gore vs. Bush was corrupt, as brother Jeb Bush manipulated the vote in Florida.
    Trump called the election of Biden stolen and made the mob storm the Capitol.
    Trump called to produce extra votes for him and urged Pence to annul the election of Biden.
"the elections in USA are corrupt" * Al Gore vs. Bush was corrupt, as brother Jeb Bush manipulated the vote in Florida. Trump called the election of Biden stolen and made the mob storm the Capitol. Trump called to produce extra votes for him and urged Pence to annul the election of Biden.

Some things around the vote proper are undemocratic.

Gerrymandering.
No, you can't convince me
it is done to make the districts
more democratic.

Making it more difficult to make
citizens of afrikan heritage to vote.

Some things around the vote proper are undemocratic. Gerrymandering. No, you can't convince me it is done to make the districts more democratic. Making it more difficult to make citizens of afrikan heritage to vote.

Trump did not "make" any "mob" "storm" the capitol.

Judging by his actual speech, he hoped for some outside "peaceful" protest in D.C. as a whole -- he did not entreat anybody to trespass or break windows or attack anybody at the Capitol. That's not how most Republicans act. Trump expressly urged others to behave "peacefully." Find his actual words and don't just believe me.

Weeks earlier, as the counting drew on and on, Trump apparently expressed hope that more votes could be located. Indeed, packets of mail-in ballots DO sometimes get misplaced and only found later, after searching. Trump didn't ask anybody to "manufacture" votes.

Trump apparently DID worry that that election had seen some rigging against him. Do you remember the news at the time? Or did you not see all of the news then available. Many did not. Do you remember how he was well ahead, late .. and then? Counting and counting and counting and, whoops ... he lost, after all! Remember?

But despite his apparent worry about that, when his first term ended he ....calmly stepped down. Right on time.

And America got the next four years under Biden, such as they were.

As far as Bush vs. Gore, the election result was validated by the Supreme Court. And they have life tenure and often don't follow the wishes of either the right or the left, and don't need to. The Supreme Court is among the very most trustworthy governmental institutions on Earth, in my opinion. They don't seem to rubber-stamp ANY party's position.

Again, don't believe me. Check for yourself.

Only the Left seems to be calling to "enlarge" the Supreme Court so they can pack the court with new justices in hopes of gain more frequent results that they favor, apparently.

The Republicans, though having a majority in both houses of Congress, don't even talk about doing such a thing, so far as I can tell. The Republicans seem to honor the institutions of government and are content to leave the Supreme Court with nine-justices, as it long has had.

In any event, we'll have to wait now, to see how things turn out in California, as they count, and count, and count some more!

History in the making. It's interesting!

Trump did not "make" any "mob" "storm" the capitol. Judging by his actual speech, he hoped for some outside "peaceful" protest in D.C. as a whole -- he did not entreat anybody to trespass or break windows or attack anybody at the Capitol. That's not how most Republicans act. Trump expressly urged others to behave "peacefully." Find his actual words and don't just believe me. Weeks earlier, as the counting drew on and on, Trump apparently expressed hope that more votes could be located. Indeed, packets of mail-in ballots DO sometimes get misplaced and only found later, after searching. Trump didn't ask anybody to "manufacture" votes. Trump apparently DID worry that that election had seen some rigging against him. Do you remember the news at the time? Or did you not see all of the news then available. Many did not. Do you remember how he was well ahead, late .. and then? Counting and counting and counting and, whoops ... he lost, after all! Remember? But despite his apparent worry about that, when his first term ended he ....calmly stepped down. Right on time. And America got the next four years under Biden, such as they were. As far as Bush vs. Gore, the election result was validated by the Supreme Court. And they have life tenure and often don't follow the wishes of either the right or the left, and don't need to. The Supreme Court is among the very most trustworthy governmental institutions on Earth, in my opinion. They don't seem to rubber-stamp ANY party's position. Again, don't believe me. Check for yourself. Only the Left seems to be calling to "enlarge" the Supreme Court so they can pack the court with new justices in hopes of gain more frequent results that they favor, apparently. The Republicans, though having a majority in both houses of Congress, don't even talk about doing such a thing, so far as I can tell. The Republicans seem to honor the institutions of government and are content to leave the Supreme Court with nine-justices, as it long has had. In any event, we'll have to wait now, to see how things turn out in California, as they count, and count, and count some more! History in the making. It's interesting!

For Germany, Federal Constitutional Court restricted electronic voting in certain ways because even if voting is done on an electronic device the citizen must be able to reliably check the significant steps of the election process.

Does taking many days to "count ballots" suggest excellent government?

At least it suggests that there is no electronic blackbox invovled in faking or accidentally distorting results.

Disclaimer: I am not saying at all that there is any indication of fake results at all.

For Germany, Federal Constitutional Court restricted electronic voting in certain ways because even if voting is done on an electronic device the citizen must be able to reliably check the significant steps of the election process. > Does taking many days to "count ballots" suggest excellent government? At least it suggests that there is no electronic blackbox invovled in faking or accidentally distorting results. Disclaimer: I am not saying at all that there is any indication of fake results at all.

So, perhaps I'm misinterpreting the opinions being expressed, but it seems that one seems to think mail-in ballots might be more susceptible to mischief, and another seems to think that machines are more susceptible.

I actually think same-day machine or, if necessary, even paper voting -- at staffed and overseen sites, with actual showing of ID and confirmation with voting rolls, together with limited, requested mail-in votes (also coupled with identification and signature verification), is the way to go.

Some states seem to handle voting very securely and efficiently. And some of those states are blue and some are red.

It CAN be done quite well and securely, I think.

I'm puzzled if and whenever inefficient systems or possibly insecure systems are not changed.

I think physical, on-site voting with machines IS pretty secure. I like the machines. Indeed, I generally trust machine tabulation, too. Machines don't favor any party. I think voting machines are typically pretty well made.

I don't like mass, unrequested mail-outs of millions of ballots, especially when they don't have to be received by the election day. Some states do mail-in ballots pretty well, however. They can be helpful, if done right.

It would be nice if every state followed a single, well-designed standard.

So, perhaps I'm misinterpreting the opinions being expressed, but it seems that one seems to think mail-in ballots might be more susceptible to mischief, and another seems to think that machines are more susceptible. I actually think same-day machine or, if necessary, even paper voting -- at staffed and overseen sites, with actual showing of ID and confirmation with voting rolls, together with limited, requested mail-in votes (also coupled with identification and signature verification), is the way to go. Some states seem to handle voting very securely and efficiently. And some of those states are blue and some are red. It CAN be done quite well and securely, I think. I'm puzzled if and whenever inefficient systems or possibly insecure systems are not changed. I think physical, on-site voting with machines IS pretty secure. I like the machines. Indeed, I generally trust machine tabulation, too. Machines don't favor any party. I think voting machines are typically pretty well made. I don't like mass, unrequested mail-outs of millions of ballots, especially when they don't have to be received by the election day. Some states do mail-in ballots pretty well, however. They can be helpful, if done right. It would be nice if every state followed a single, well-designed standard.