Here we go again - He who counts determines the winner (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

In one of the CT house races, George Logan was comfortably ahead on election day and even the day after. But, we of course keep counting until the counters get the result they want so now George is not the winner any more Maybe I can sneak a few boxes of ballots in.

They're trying the same thing in Arizona. It's even worse there since so many polling stations kept people from actually voting on Tuesday. Funny how the out of service equipment was in republican sections of town.

 

[Steve R.]

Tucker Carlson has an excellent video on this topic.

Tucker Carlson: Mechanics of our elections aren't working | Fox News Video

Fox News host Tucker Carlson voices his concerns over uncounted ballots in Arizona and Nevada on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

www.foxnews.com

At the 5:30 minute mark (approximate) Tucker addresses who benefits the most from election delays.

Tucker missed bringing-up Al Franken.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an editorial aside, as to why the election process has been breaking down; it is a continuation of the progressives implementing increasing obfuscating policies to eliminate standards. This has been going on for 50+ years. To explain a bit better. Exams such as the Civil Service Exam, SAT, and ACT have been lambasted by progressives as being discriminatory to minorities, racist, misogynistic, etc. In terms of the election process standards such as voter identification have been claimed by progressive as repressive. Additionally, the progressive claim that limiting voting to election day is also repressive. Can't get your vote in by election day, why you can submit it later since personal responsibility is no longer a standard of performance (sarcasm). To paraphrase: "If everyone is special, no one is special", when there are no standards then decisions can be made based on any arbitrary reason.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Ah yes. The state that "elects" Ilhan Omar. I think empty ballots in her district sell for $250 each.

 

[ColinEssex]

I've noticed that on these forums, certain people have alot to say about fake voting, corruption of voters, faulty equipment, vote counters that can't count, postal votes not counted etc etc. Even the orange idiot disputed the last Presidential election and acted like a petulant child by refusing to go.
So, my question is this - why is it, that in the most advanced nation on earth - capable of hitting an asteroid millions of miles away, why is it so hard to get accurate results in usa elections? That is of course, if what certain people here say is true, and not sour grapes because their idol didn't win, or their political party didn't win. Are these whines just excuses? Like a child saying 'I failed my exam because the questions were worded wrong'. They seem to blame everything if they don't get their desired result. What result would stop these idiots moaning day in day out?
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

why is it so hard to get accurate results in usa elections?

Most states run clean and fast elections. Florida counted over 7 million votes in 5 hours. So it can be done. Arizona can't seem to get a million counted in a week and neither can Alaska. In Connecticut and New York and Pennsylvania, we find boxes of ballots until the counters like the results. You know, the dictator's method - It's not the people who cast the ballots who determine the outcome, it is the people who count the ballots.

Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) is still complaining about Russian interference in 2016 (apparently she forgot that it was her campaign that paid for it) and Stacy Abrams refused to concede her loss in Georgia in 2018.

Florida had massive vote counting problems in 2000 (Bush v Gore) that ended up in the Supreme Court. Bush was ultimately declared the winner but no one knows, the vote was extremely close. Florida decided to clean up its act and has succeeded.

 

[ColinEssex]

So why can't the problems be fixed? It would be nice to get a result that everyone is happy is an accurate reflection of the peoples votes. - isnt that democracy? Or is it the USA style democracy where the result is fabricated to fit who pays the most in bribes. It seems to outsiders that a USA election is no better than Russia or China.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

So why can't the problems be fixed? It would be nice to get a result that everyone is happy is an accurate reflection of the peoples votes.

One-day voting, voter ID, and paper ballots would go a long way to fixing these issues. The only exception is military personnel who are serving overseas.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So why can't the problems be fixed?

Part of the problem is because it is a state controlled process so there are 50 opinions. The other part is because the Republicans have their heads buried you know where and can't bring themselves to believe that anyone could possibly cheat. And the Democrats have convinced much of the public that unless you allow three weeks to vote and another month to count and no voter ID requirements that you are a racist. Connecticut just voted "yes" on the ballot question last week to allow early voting. There was noting of course regarding the rules. So, we may start voting for 2024 next month.

 

[ColinEssex]

One-day voting, voter ID, and paper ballots would go a long way to fixing these issues. The only exception is military personnel who are serving overseas.

So why not have that? Its not that hard, we do that in the UK elections. Seems that if the USA doesn't get a grip, the elections will continue to be a joke. The orange idiot even incited people to wreck Congress because he was having a tantrum.
Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Still, obviously nothing will change to enable a fair election, so our (and the worlds) satire programmes will have plenty of ammo come the next joke Presidential elections. It's the republicans turn next, so that means the orange idiot will get in, that's another 4 years of craziness for the world to laugh at.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

So why not have that?

Because the left would lose elections

 

[NauticalGent]

So why can't the problems be fixed?

The powers that be do not WANT it fixed. End of story

 

[Pat Hartman]

There are still almost 20 house seats that haven't been settled yet but look at the map. Red = Republican and Blue = Democrat. You can pick out the large population centers by color The Republicans are currently in the lead 215-201. There's a total of 435 seats in the House.

Democrats call the middle of the US "flyover country" since they believe that everyone who lives there is ignorant and carries a gun. Despite the fact that it is the blue, high-crime cities where people are killed every day in gang related gun battles.

The eastern counties of Oregon are trying to separate from Oregon and join Idaho because they have nothing in common with Portland.

 

[ColinEssex]

Because the left would lose elections

What, if the elections were fair and honest? Good job they're fiddled and faked. Much better to win by cheating than to win honestly.
Col

 

[Isaac]

I told my family this today and now saw this post and reminded me of it. Deja vu, I think I posted this a few years ago on awf (sorry):

If you had a room full of 1000 people, and you had a bunch of rooms like that. You got some kind of opinion-survey going with 2 answers. You came back the next day and were told breathlessly, "Yeah, we finished the election. They're all 499 to 501!". There is NO CHANCE in the world you would accept that as statistically plausible! You would immediately assume something odd had happened, as the likelihood of such a perfectly even split on ANY ISSUE in the WORLD seems extremely unlikely. And yet, as Americans, we have come to accept that time and time again. I have 3 races in Arizona (governor, attorney general, supt of public instruction), that are within one-one-thousandth of a percent. And we just breathlessly say "oh wow we're so divided". C'MON! this is NOT like studying coin flips in Stats 101.

 

[Isaac]

I've noticed that on these forums, certain people have alot to say about fake voting, corruption of voters, faulty equipment, vote counters that can't count, postal votes not counted etc etc. Even the orange idiot disputed the last Presidential election and acted like a petulant child by refusing to go.
So, my question is this - why is it, that in the most advanced nation on earth - capable of hitting an asteroid millions of miles away, why is it so hard to get accurate results in usa elections? That is of course, if what certain people here say is true, and not sour grapes because their idol didn't win, or their political party didn't win. Are these whines just excuses? Like a child saying 'I failed my exam because the questions were worded wrong'. They seem to blame everything if they don't get their desired result. What result would stop these idiots moaning day in day out?
Col

I agree with you, it's absolutely hard to believe that in our nation we can't come up with a system and tabulate it using a software that works FLAWLESSLY just ONE day a year. I mean c'mon, how hard can that possibly be.

If you have to, test the damn machine with 20,000 ballots a day for 3 months every day before the election.
It's ridiculous these machines sit there in a building for a year and on election day, someone in Arizona says "Well, sorry. We found out that when a certain ink is used, it spits them back out to the voter".
Well how in the world did you not already know that from testing? Anyone heard of testing?

This is one of those situations where the states doing their own things may not be so great. 50 scenarios, each with 50 idiots running a position that's of the utmost importance, but since people don't see the position as important, anyone who can make fog on a glass gets voted in- like Katie Hobbs in Arizona, someone who for the first 95% of the campaign trail (until it was obvious she was probably going to win), every time you saw her she looked like she had just gotten up in the morning. Literally hadn't run a comb through her hair in weeks, multi colored hair, baggy t-shirts, it was so embarrassing. They finally find a photo over the last few days that looks like she might be an awake, showered human being but it was a long time in coming.

No I am not focused on looks too much - but there is a certain limit below which you CAN absolutely look at someone and say Ummm...No...I don't think so...not you

 

[ColinEssex]

Good post Isaac, if Americans think the voting is bizarre, imagine how the outsiders see it.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

Americans are pretty dumbed down by our education system which has been fine tuned to turn out followers rather than thinkers. Just check our world ranking these days. So, if the press says "that race was never close. We told you that more Democrats voted mail in than Republicans". That primes the public to expect the Democrats to win and so since they have no concept of statistics and things like standard deviations, they just nod and say sadly, we'll do better next time. BUT when the uncounted votes are from Republican districts that lean 65% for the Republican, then if the Republicans are well ahead going in to the home stretch and Republican districts remain to be counted, how does the Republican lose? Easy, The people in charge of counting keep finding outstanding ballots that just keep coming out of the woodwork because chain of custody is racist. And they rely on the uneducated public to go along with the joke. Math just doesn't matter when you can barely add with a calculator. Why do you think that states never publish the number of ballots distributed ahead of time. Nor do they publish the number of ballots received by mail by election day. Nor do they publish the number of people who voted in person. Weeks later someone discovers that in a number of precincts more votes were counted than there are registered voters. But who cares by then? Are we going to overturn an election because people who were not registered to vote, voted? Not in a banana republic we don't. It would be racist to not count all votes, legal or illegal since we can't ever tell which is which is which.

At some point, the Republicans need to get over their niceness and challenge the vote totals when ANY illegal votes are cast. Force a new election if it comes to it.

 

[moke123]

Why do you think that states never publish the number of ballots distributed ahead of time. Nor do they publish the number of ballots received by mail by election day. Nor do they publish the number of people who voted in person.

Election Data Hub | Georgia Secretary of State

Voter Data Hub - Learn about Active registered voters in Georgia, and to visualize Absentee Voting data for the November 2022 General Election.

sos.ga.gov

Conneticut:

Public Reporting

 

[Pat Hartman]

@moke123 I was speaking about Before/During the election not after the fact.
How many ballots were printed?
How many mail in ballots were requested?
How many were sent out?
How many were received back?
We know all these numbers the morning of the election but they are hidden and never revealed. And, we have no way short of an audit to match the numbers on the web sites you referenced after the fact. And since the Democrats think that audits are racist, they obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Looks a little guilty to me. Why would you obstruct an audit that would show that your count was clean? Especially if the opps were paying for it. Wouldn't you want to sit back and chuckle?

Then we have the same day voting.
How many registered voters per precinct?
How many ballots sent to each precinct?
How many voters got checked off the list?
How many ballots were scanned?
How many ballots were unused/voided?

The ballots scanned is a count we have immediately but the other counts of how many voters signed in and how many ballots were unused/voided have to be reconciled when the polls close.

Additional numbers should be kept such as how many envelopes were received vs how many ballots were scanned for the mail in votes. Sometimes we get more envelopes than we get ballots scanned but it can never be the other way around.

This is basic accounting 101. Count everything as many ways as you can to ensure your counts are accurate. It is the sloppiness of the counting process that makes people question the results. Simple things like reconciling the number of envelopes received with the number of votes cast makes it much harder to dump illegal ballots into the mix in the dead of night which is a simple and obvious way to cheat once you know how many votes your side is down.

All the numbers that are known before election day should be posted before election day. The other counts are developed as voters vote in person and mail in ballots are opened and counted.

Some states count mail in ballots as they arrive. Others don't count until election day. I think they should be counted as they are received but the vote tallies can be secret until the polls open if that makes more sense. What can't happen is that you have 100,000 mail in ballots received and counted when the polls open and then later in the day "discover" additional ballots that were "misplaced". That's why the count of received ballots is so critical. If the ballot is not here when the polls open, it can't count. PERIOD.