onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Latest tallies are right at 1.5%, not 2.5%.
Look at it from the other side. Double the entire margin is in the California vote. Trump won the rest of the nation by about 1.5%.
J
Recount?
- Thread starter CavLancer
- Start date
Look at it from the other side. Double the entire margin is in the California vote. Trump won the rest of the nation by about 1.5%.
J
warpus
In pork I trust
How hard is it to count a bunch of ballots anyway? Figure out how to count and do it once...
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Once again, WRITE OVER BALLETS were not counted, these were counted in 2016 Study by Washington Post and Florida university
The Fact check in 2008 needs to be updated.
We mostly know how to count. The problem is if there's a tied election. By tie I don't mean an exact tie, but that the totals are so close that the election hinges on ballots where a voter used a pink gel pen instead of the approved black one, or they impregnated a chad instead of punching it, or they circled people's names rather than filling in the bubble, or they scribbled a giant mark over their candidate's bubble and the scribble got down into the Natural Law party's candidate's bubble for some reason but entirely fills in the Democrat's one so the intent is pretty clear. And then there are the ones where there's some question about the form of ID used/whether they still live in the precinct and whether their provisional ballot should really be counted, and then there are occasional actual miscounts, and so on, and so forth.
Luckily recounts rarely change anything unless the margin is tiny, within at most 0.03% or so. This effort is frivolous for a few reasons, and that is one of them. But if the gods of probability feel like pulling a fast one on us like they did in 2000, or in this election, or this one, then the recount efforts can go on and on and on...
warpus
In pork I trust
It seems to me that in those cases the problem is either a badly designed voting ballot or a case of a voting ballot being spoiled (and those don't count)
But I do see your point and how it illustrates that sometimes recounts are necessary. It should be a quick process though, a couple hours, and all the votes are counted again.
It depends on the voter intent laws in the state in question as to whether the ballot counts or is considered spoiled. Some are quite liberal, some are strict, and exactly how strict they should be is up for debate. And then there's the interpretation of those laws, which the candidates will lock horns over. They should probably just cut off the recounts at the first or second one and then certify the results, cut off legal challenges over minutiae and only reconsider if serious, systemic fraud is discovered.
That's not what happens, though. The 2000 election was decided after a little over a month by a rather dubious 5-4 SC case, but the legal battles over the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election and the 2008 Minnesota Senate election both went on until June of the following year.
That's not what happens, though. The 2000 election was decided after a little over a month by a rather dubious 5-4 SC case, but the legal battles over the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election and the 2008 Minnesota Senate election both went on until June of the following year.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Unless they uncover evidence of hacking to change results and major fraud the election results wont change. Non of the results look suspicious given how wrong the polls were and the rest of the country went Republican.
Which is ironic considering how Trump said the election was rigged
Last edited:
warpus
In pork I trust
Why make it so complicated? There are case studies out there that tell you what works and what doesn't.
The "wrongness" of the polls in itself is enough to arouse suspicion. So, what, did the people polled by nine separate polls tell the surveyors that they were going to vote one way, and then went to the balloting station and they all did something else?
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I almost wanna barf when I say it, but I honestly believe the "shy Trumper" hypothesis.
I think people just voted for Trump and didn't tell anyone. I think that's why the polls were wrong.
I think people just voted for Trump and didn't tell anyone. I think that's why the polls were wrong.
That many people in that many polls just refusing to participate in the polls and then they all vote Trump...I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.
Plus, what's with this "record low turnout"? In BATTLEGROUND states?!?? I'll tell you what does explain it, though: because if you create fake votes or try to switch votes, that can be easily audited. But if you simply throw out votes you don't like, how do you audit that? Ask everyone with no record of voting whether they really did vote? Voting is supposed to be anonymous, and the government is not supposed to track that.
Someone who is trying to be eluded simply erases the bare minimum number of votes they dont like to tip swing states. And lo and behold, what do you get? "Record low turnout", Trump conveniently wins all the swing states, and Clinton wins the popular vote. Which is exactly what happened.
Plus, what's with this "record low turnout"? In BATTLEGROUND states?!?? I'll tell you what does explain it, though: because if you create fake votes or try to switch votes, that can be easily audited. But if you simply throw out votes you don't like, how do you audit that? Ask everyone with no record of voting whether they really did vote? Voting is supposed to be anonymous, and the government is not supposed to track that.
Someone who is trying to be eluded simply erases the bare minimum number of votes they dont like to tip swing states. And lo and behold, what do you get? "Record low turnout", Trump conveniently wins all the swing states, and Clinton wins the popular vote. Which is exactly what happened.
plarq
Crazy forever
US really need UN observers to see if the election is rigged.
Zkribbler
Deity
You're undoubted right. Did ya see the viral picture of the two of them voting, with Trump peering over to see how she was voting? If he'd had seen her voting for Hillary, he'd be looking for Wife #4..
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
She has to see the writing on the wall anyway. I hope he gives a parachute worth wearing should she, you know, get Trumped.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
We really don't need to hear about your experiences with that. Keep it in the closet.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
For you the butthurt probably has more to do with your homosexual fixation than it does the election results. At least that's what we're all beginning to suspect.
Last edited:
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I don't see a cite.
This is from CNN last year.
The results: The two major conclusions here are that Gore likely would have won a hand recount of the statewide overvotes and undervotes -- which he never requested -- while Bush likely would have won the hand recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, although by a smaller margin than the certified 537 vote difference.
A sampling of headlines from the time include "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush, But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of all Uncounted Ballots," from The Washington Post, and "Study of Disputed Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," from The New York Times.
However, as the Post concluded, "While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.htmlA sampling of headlines from the time include "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush, But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of all Uncounted Ballots," from The Washington Post, and "Study of Disputed Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," from The New York Times.
However, as the Post concluded, "While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes."
J
I am a suspect in being fixated on you?
