Thanks for your reply. Hear, hear, preserve the electoral college and our great American patchwork of sovereign states! says this lady from flyover Ohio. I think I was not clear about proposing a recognized coordination of states, where lawyers are individually making a case for there being sufficient fraud to overturn a state’s results.…
Thanks for your reply. Hear, hear, preserve the electoral college and our great American patchwork of sovereign states! says this lady from flyover Ohio. I think I was not clear about proposing a recognized coordination of states, where lawyers are individually making a case for there being sufficient fraud to overturn a state’s results. In my imagined scenario each case would still be about the votes in a single state, but lawyers would be allowed to argue for fraud because the electoral votes of a combination of states whose results are arguably suspect could add up to a reversed electoral college result. I would think this would preserve a meaningful electoral college, as fraud could be legally broached and investigated state by state. This would only be invoked in the case of ample evidence of funny business in a sufficient number of states.
I do appreciate that voters who vote in the park are doing so as good citizens in good faith, and if they are turning over their ballots as on Election Day, in person with signature matching to certified election officials, I can see how the integrity of the vote is preserved. I object to the weak links in the chain of ballot custody of unsolicited ballots being mailed out en masse and multiplied unguarded ballot receptacles; these are invitations to the nefarious to fraudulently farm votes or add or manipulate ballots, which override the benefits of convenience. “One person, one vote” is sacrosanct in our republic. We are a nation of laws we agree upon through electing our legislators, and I feel that we should agree that votes not cast according to the law should not be accepted, no matter how good the intentions of the officials in taking it upon themselves to tweak the law. Laws that ensure a short, verifiable chain of custody ensure that each precious vote counts as equally as any other, give us confidence in a fair outcome and prevent alarm over suspect procedures from dividing us. Personally, I am more interested in a transparently fair outcome, with valid objections addressed so that I’m confident that all my fellow citizens and I have spoken, than I am in who wins.
I very much appreciate your taking the time for a good discussion, despite our political differences. Despite the partisan clamor out there, I do trust that the great majority of Americans on both sides remain generous and fair-minded toward each other.
Thank you for your reply. I certainly agree that we want elections that the majority of citizens can be confident are fair. It is up to each state's legislature to decide how to choose its electors and to set the standards for elections and the counting of ballots.
Therefore, I still respectfully disagree with your suggestion. I believe it would take a Constitutional amendment to do what you suggest, because, no matter how noble the intent, it interferes with each state's ability to control its own elections. It would subject voters and votes in different states to standards that were not set by that state's legislature and standards that were not part of that state's vote.
The time is now for each state's legislature to study its election procedures and enact new procedures as they deem necessary, so we are ready for the next election. It is then up to election commissions to follow the law in setting the up elections and counting the votes. Any known concerns must be litigated before the election, that is why our Supreme Court did not take the case on the voting in the park and other issues. There had already been lawsuits before the election, which were resolved by the Court, but voting in the park was not one of them, even though it was well known that it was happening (had it not been well-known, few if any would have been able to vote). Had Trump won, instead of Biden, I am sure he would never have contested those votes, which is why the courts require such litigation before the election. Further, he contested the vote in only two counties, even though all of the other procedures he objected to were statewide--this was a problem in Bush v. Gore and one of the reasons SCOTUS stopped the recount. And there was no discussion anywhere of the fact that if a ballot is thrown out, so are all the votes on the ballot, which would likely have changed the results for other federal, state and local offices. We didn't see any Republicans cheering on the possibility that they might lose elections they thought they had won.
As a side note, while signatures are compared to ballots in Wisconsin during the counting process, they are not compared at the time of turning in the ballot, in fact state law prohibits any procedures relating to counting the ballots before election day; thus signature-wise it made no difference in whether the ballots were turned in at the park or not.
We don't need more lawsuits, we don't need more fodder for lawsuits and we don't need procedures that invite lawsuits. Lawsuits are the opposite of confidence in elections. The answer lies in state law that expresses the will of that the people of that state through their legislature and governor and in adherence to that law by election officials and voters.
Only time for a brief reply. I do agree that it would likely take a Constitutional amendment to enable cases claiming fraud in the vote for national office to be brought in a number of individual states if their combined electoral vote total would change the results. But I don’t see how that would interfere with a state’s ability to control its own elections, when each case would be argued according to that state’s election law. I can also see, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases of disputes between states, that it could take up cases where funny business in one state results in disenfranchising the voters of another state, and clearer guidelines for bringing such suits would be helpful for next time. It is a muddle to ordinary folks that in some cases a court will say, you can’t object to a policy until someone is actually hurt by it and has standing, and in others, after the fact is too late. I agree that we don’t need more law suits, except when election officials and perhaps some ineligible voters do not adhere to state election laws, and it is then legal recourse that makes for confidence.
Thanks for your reply. Hear, hear, preserve the electoral college and our great American patchwork of sovereign states! says this lady from flyover Ohio. I think I was not clear about proposing a recognized coordination of states, where lawyers are individually making a case for there being sufficient fraud to overturn a state’s results. In my imagined scenario each case would still be about the votes in a single state, but lawyers would be allowed to argue for fraud because the electoral votes of a combination of states whose results are arguably suspect could add up to a reversed electoral college result. I would think this would preserve a meaningful electoral college, as fraud could be legally broached and investigated state by state. This would only be invoked in the case of ample evidence of funny business in a sufficient number of states.
I do appreciate that voters who vote in the park are doing so as good citizens in good faith, and if they are turning over their ballots as on Election Day, in person with signature matching to certified election officials, I can see how the integrity of the vote is preserved. I object to the weak links in the chain of ballot custody of unsolicited ballots being mailed out en masse and multiplied unguarded ballot receptacles; these are invitations to the nefarious to fraudulently farm votes or add or manipulate ballots, which override the benefits of convenience. “One person, one vote” is sacrosanct in our republic. We are a nation of laws we agree upon through electing our legislators, and I feel that we should agree that votes not cast according to the law should not be accepted, no matter how good the intentions of the officials in taking it upon themselves to tweak the law. Laws that ensure a short, verifiable chain of custody ensure that each precious vote counts as equally as any other, give us confidence in a fair outcome and prevent alarm over suspect procedures from dividing us. Personally, I am more interested in a transparently fair outcome, with valid objections addressed so that I’m confident that all my fellow citizens and I have spoken, than I am in who wins.
I very much appreciate your taking the time for a good discussion, despite our political differences. Despite the partisan clamor out there, I do trust that the great majority of Americans on both sides remain generous and fair-minded toward each other.
Thank you for your reply. I certainly agree that we want elections that the majority of citizens can be confident are fair. It is up to each state's legislature to decide how to choose its electors and to set the standards for elections and the counting of ballots.
Therefore, I still respectfully disagree with your suggestion. I believe it would take a Constitutional amendment to do what you suggest, because, no matter how noble the intent, it interferes with each state's ability to control its own elections. It would subject voters and votes in different states to standards that were not set by that state's legislature and standards that were not part of that state's vote.
The time is now for each state's legislature to study its election procedures and enact new procedures as they deem necessary, so we are ready for the next election. It is then up to election commissions to follow the law in setting the up elections and counting the votes. Any known concerns must be litigated before the election, that is why our Supreme Court did not take the case on the voting in the park and other issues. There had already been lawsuits before the election, which were resolved by the Court, but voting in the park was not one of them, even though it was well known that it was happening (had it not been well-known, few if any would have been able to vote). Had Trump won, instead of Biden, I am sure he would never have contested those votes, which is why the courts require such litigation before the election. Further, he contested the vote in only two counties, even though all of the other procedures he objected to were statewide--this was a problem in Bush v. Gore and one of the reasons SCOTUS stopped the recount. And there was no discussion anywhere of the fact that if a ballot is thrown out, so are all the votes on the ballot, which would likely have changed the results for other federal, state and local offices. We didn't see any Republicans cheering on the possibility that they might lose elections they thought they had won.
As a side note, while signatures are compared to ballots in Wisconsin during the counting process, they are not compared at the time of turning in the ballot, in fact state law prohibits any procedures relating to counting the ballots before election day; thus signature-wise it made no difference in whether the ballots were turned in at the park or not.
We don't need more lawsuits, we don't need more fodder for lawsuits and we don't need procedures that invite lawsuits. Lawsuits are the opposite of confidence in elections. The answer lies in state law that expresses the will of that the people of that state through their legislature and governor and in adherence to that law by election officials and voters.
Only time for a brief reply. I do agree that it would likely take a Constitutional amendment to enable cases claiming fraud in the vote for national office to be brought in a number of individual states if their combined electoral vote total would change the results. But I don’t see how that would interfere with a state’s ability to control its own elections, when each case would be argued according to that state’s election law. I can also see, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases of disputes between states, that it could take up cases where funny business in one state results in disenfranchising the voters of another state, and clearer guidelines for bringing such suits would be helpful for next time. It is a muddle to ordinary folks that in some cases a court will say, you can’t object to a policy until someone is actually hurt by it and has standing, and in others, after the fact is too late. I agree that we don’t need more law suits, except when election officials and perhaps some ineligible voters do not adhere to state election laws, and it is then legal recourse that makes for confidence.
Well, we shall see. It is up to our legislators now. I hope they are up to task. Be well.
Thanks! Stay healthy and warm up there!