Election integrity and the transfer of power

[Isgrimnur]

I'm sure the 'political prisoner' rabble is already being roused.

[Alefroth]

You love to see it-

https://www.cpr.org/2024/08/12/tina-pet ... l-verdict/

Twelve Mesa County jurors found Tina Peters guilty of four felonies on Monday after a lengthy criminal trial, marking yet another conviction tied to post-2020 election conspiracy theories.

Peters faced a total of 10 criminal charges related to her role in helping a man gain unauthorized access to voting equipment during a secure software update in May 2021. The county’s voting machine’s passwords and copies of its hard drive were later posted online by people trying to undermine the validity of the election system.

She is facing up to 22 years. I hope it was a worth it.

And 7.5 as a minimum. FAFO indeed.

[waitingtoconnect]

People don’t understand what certification means in this context and the conspiracy whack jobs have played into this. It’s just saying the count is done and over and here are the results - every anglophone democracy has rolls like this. In the Uk they are called returning officers and you get to wear a funny uniform https://www.kentonline.co.uk/news/natio ... rm-122260/.

It just means you say the count is over my job of running the election in my county is done. It doesn’t mean I have to hand check every vote myself and a vote for someone I don’t like is corrupt.

You were responsible for making sure the election ran smoothly and safely, you were responsible for making sure the officials you appointed were doing their jobs.

So if you fail to certify you are certifying your own incompetence.

And if you want $/;&ing worldwide media attention then be like the British and wear a $:52!ing big hat.

[Grifman]

People don’t understand what certification means in this context and the conspiracy whack jobs have played into this. It’s just saying the count is done and over and here are the results - every anglophone democracy has rolls like this. In the Uk they are called returning officers and you get to wear a funny uniform https://www.kentonline.co.uk/news/natio ... rm-122260/.

It just means you say the count is over my job of running the election in my county is done. It doesn’t mean I have to hand check every vote myself and a vote for someone I don’t like is corrupt.

You were responsible for making sure the election ran smoothly and safely, you were responsible for making sure the officials you appointed were doing their jobs.

So if you fail to certify you are certifying your own incompetence.

And if you want $/;&ing worldwide media attention then be like the British and wear a $:52!ing big hat.

The problems are:

1) Some election boards think they have the power to not certify an election. Inevitably they lose (every litigated case I have seen results in a loss), but if a lot of boards do this in the upcoming election, it will cause chaos and uncertainty, and cast doubts on the election.

2) GA (and maybe some other states?) have passed rules saying the the election boards need to be "satisfied" with the election or they can delay certification. Now it appears that these rule conflict with the law but again, more lawsuits, delay and uncertainty.

If Trump loses, it's going to be messy. And I am worried about the potential for violence for those that feel he's been cheated again.

[Grifman]

Oops!

[Kurth]

People don’t understand what certification means in this context and the conspiracy whack jobs have played into this. It’s just saying the count is done and over and here are the results - every anglophone democracy has rolls like this. In the Uk they are called returning officers and you get to wear a funny uniform https://www.kentonline.co.uk/news/natio ... rm-122260/.

It just means you say the count is over my job of running the election in my county is done. It doesn’t mean I have to hand check every vote myself and a vote for someone I don’t like is corrupt.

You were responsible for making sure the election ran smoothly and safely, you were responsible for making sure the officials you appointed were doing their jobs.

So if you fail to certify you are certifying your own incompetence.

And if you want $/;&ing worldwide media attention then be like the British and wear a $:52!ing big hat.

The problems are:

1) Some election boards think they have the power to not certify an election. Inevitably they lose (every litigated case I have seen results in a loss), but if a lot of boards do this in the upcoming election, it will cause chaos and uncertainty, and cast doubts on the election.

2) GA (and maybe some other states?) have passed rules saying the the election boards need to be "satisfied" with the election or they can delay certification. Now it appears that these rule conflict with the law but again, more lawsuits, delay and uncertainty.

If Trump loses, it's going to be messy. And I am worried about the potential for violence for those that feel he's been cheated again.

Agree with this 100%. The problem is that the people that we've entrusted to follow and enforce our election laws have been infiltrated by individuals that don't give a rat's ass about the actual laws. And that's, at least in some ways, the rot that is at the core of the problems we are currently facing. Our system relies on relatively low level people to keep and enforce the laws. We talk about "norms' all the time, but in lots of ways, that's really waht the law is, too. We have precedent ('norms") that we are supposed to follow.

But when the people entrusted with following those laws/norms are willing to ignore them - or are persuaded by bad actors that the norms/law is other then what it is - we are basically screwed.

Of course, there is an appellate process where these issues can be litigated and resolved by a higher authority, but that process is anything other than quick and efficient, and the fact that it is even susceptible to higher court review somehow seems to give a gloss of acceptability to the wrongful decision below. It seems like a no-win situation, and that's not even getting to the question of whether our Supreme Court, as currently constituted, could possibly render an objective, non-partisan decision based on the law.

In the end, unless Harris/Walz somehow manages to pull off a victory that is so significant that it leaves no doubts, I fear the chaos that will ensue,.

[Jaymann]

Remember in 2020 when misguided idiots tried to stop the vote counting while Trump was still ahead? That will seem like child's play compared to where we are headed.

[Grifman]

FAFO time:

[Grifman]

Interesting:

[Alefroth]

Jeebus, 2026? Justice sure moves slowly for some.

[Pyperkub]

Interesting:

INterestingly enough, I'm not seeing the money quote from Kemp at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, unless it's behind the paywall (and there's no link to the source for that).

[Grifman]

And they now are being sued:

[Jaymann]

I like it, take some preemptive action.

[Grifman]

Preemptive strike and victory:

[waitingtoconnect]

It’s the rise of the sovereign sheriffs that worries me.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maga-group-t ... 00546.html

I do t know what it is but as a big traveler all these far right folk have these very sinister smirks.

[Grifman]

Nutjobs:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/politics ... index.html

Likely impossible to do at this point, and also likely illegal. Conservatives sure like to waste the taxpayers money sometimes. And they ignore the whole point of machine counting - it's more accurate than handcounting and tabulation. It's why we have computers. It's like telling them to have their employees do everything by hand and not use Excel spreadsheets.

[hepcat]

And Trump's camp has been very vocal in the past about cutting off results almost immediately after election day. It's highly unlikely hand counting votes will be done within that time period.

[Smoove_B]

I'd like to think anyone paying attention can see plain as day that one party is doing everything they can to restrict, limit and influence voting outcomes. Why that's not a major red alert, I have no idea - I guess when you think your votes will be counted it's fine.

[Pyperkub]

It's also about women voting and making it insanely difficult

https://newrepublic.com/article/186160/ ... ing-rights

As a result, as the National Organization for Women details in a report on how Republican voter suppression efforts harm women:

Voter ID laws have a disproportionately negative effect on women. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, one third of all women have citizenship documents that do not identically match their current names primarily because of name changes at marriage. Roughly 90 percent of women who marry adopt their husband’s last name.

That means that roughly 90 percent of married female voters have a different name on their ID than the one on their birth certificate. An estimated 34 percent of women could be turned away from the polls unless they have precisely the right documents.

Just by coincidence, Republicans will suggest, at this moment in history millions of American women are seriously pissed off at the GOP.

And, Republicans will tell you, that has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump and Mike Johnson threatening to shut down the government if Democrats don’t go along with these draconian new requirements for women to vote.

[Kraken]

In one of those "paths to victory" stories I read that trump wins if he gets GA, NC, and PA. PA and NC are both wobbling so he's going to take GA one way or another. He just needs a pretext to let SCOTUS decide it.

[Grifman]

Another problem in the horizon:

[Smoove_B]

Add it to the list of reasons the Electoral College needs to be added to history's dustbin.

Do those articles actually mention Lindsey Graham was there this week personally trying to convince them?

[Carpet_pissr]

In one of those "paths to victory" stories I read that trump wins if he gets GA, NC, and PA. PA and NC are both wobbling so he's going to take GA one way or another. He just needs a pretext to let SCOTUS decide it.

I doubt his sometimes lapdog Graham will be making sus calls to the election commissions there this time. Although nothing happened to him at all last time he did it, so maybe he will.

Edit: kinda bammed - just saw Smoove's post about Graham after posting this! lol

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, read about it here.

Graham, acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, was working to encourage Pillen to call a special legislative session at which lawmakers could consider changing the state's apportionment of electoral votes, the source said.

Nebraska allocates its electoral votes by congressional district. The swing district around Omaha often goes to Democrats in an otherwise ruby red state.

Still don't know what they have on him, but it has to be bad.

[Carpet_pissr]

Yeah, read about it here.

Graham, acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, was working to encourage Pillen to call a special legislative session at which lawmakers could consider changing the state's apportionment of electoral votes, the source said.

Nebraska allocates its electoral votes by congressional district. The swing district around Omaha often goes to Democrats in an otherwise ruby red state.

Still don't know what they have on him, but it has to be bad.

The Russians or the MAGAts?

I say that only partially joking. His behavior the past several years has been so erratic and sus that I truly think something is afoul. Plus, his position on the foreign relations committees? Weasly turd of a man with outsized power that has massive input and info from his committee seats? Prime target for lots of nasties, not just Russia.

[Smoove_B]

The Russians or the MAGAts?

[Grifman]

Well, it looks like this is now dead:

A pressure campaign from Donald Trump and Republican allies to change Nebraska election law was dealt a significant setback on Monday as a pivotal Omaha state senator said he would not support a last-ditch effort to overturn a 30-year law that awards electoral votes by congressional district rather than statewide winner-take-all.

State Sen. Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat who joined the GOP earlier this year, said in a statement Monday that he would not vote to change the law in Nebraska before the November election.

“After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change,” McDonnell said. “I have notified Governor (Jim) Pillen that I will not change my long-held position and will oppose any attempted changes to our electoral college system before the 2024 election.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/23/politics ... index.html

[Smoove_B]

The idea that we still need to count on random elected individuals to act as guardrails for democracy in 2024 is insane. I'm glad he's speaking out but the idea that it even came this close is bananas.

[Zaxxon]

But you can bet your ass it’ll be in place for 2028.

[Smoove_B]

Speaking of which, I had no idea that the House tried to ditch the EC back in late 1969 via a Constitutional Amendment, but the Senate ended up blocking it, because of course they did. Or maybe I did know it and blocked it out after learning it almost happened.

Same as it ever was, I guess. Can you even imagine what that alternate America might look like in 2024?

[ImLawBoy]

But you can bet your ass it’ll be in place for 2028.

By then Maine will be able to counter that. They also split their electoral votes and typically have one that goes R. My understanding is that it's too late for Maine to make the switch this year because of the state voting rules, but they were prepared to eliminate the split vote if Nebraska had done so earlier. If Nebraska changes its split vote format for 2028, Maine will also likely do so and things will at least even out.

[Kraken]

Speaking of which, I had no idea that the House tried to ditch the EC back in late 1969 via a Constitutional Amendment, but the Senate ended up blocking it, because of course they did. Or maybe I did know it and blocked it out after learning it almost happened.

Same as it ever was, I guess. Can you even imagine what that alternate America might look like in 2024?

Hard to say. Superficially, we'd have had a long run of D administrations since Republicans have only ever won the popular vote for president once in this century. But that's simplistic because without the EC to game, the GOP would have had to become a very different party.

[Zaxxon]

But you can bet your ass it’ll be in place for 2028.

By then Maine will be able to counter that. They also split their electoral votes and typically have one that goes R. My understanding is that it's too late for Maine to make the switch this year because of the state voting rules, but they were prepared to eliminate the split vote if Nebraska had done so earlier. If Nebraska changes its split vote format for 2028, Maine will also likely do so and things will at least even out.

Such a wonderful system we have.

[Grifman]

But you can bet your ass it’ll be in place for 2028.

Well, I'd have no problem with that. What NE does is unusual, with the except of Maine, all other states are winner take all with respect to the EC. It's doing this just a couple of months before the election that is janky. Every state has the right to decide how to allocate their electoral votes. It might favor Republicans but the state has every right to do this.

[Zaxxon]

But you can bet your ass it’ll be in place for 2028.

Well, I'd have no problem with that. What NE does is unusual, with the except of Maine, all other states are winner take all with respect to the EC. It's doing this just a couple of months before the election that is janky. Every state has the right to decide how to allocate their electoral votes. It might favor Republicans but the state has every right to do this.

Absolutely. I’m not judging their right to do it. Just pointing out that it’s gonna happen, and this is one more permanent slight tilt to the GOP.

[Skinypupy]

Well, this is comforting. (screams into the void)

Mr Speaker, do you commit to observing regular order in the certification process of the 2024 election, even if Harris beats Trump?

MIKE JOHNSON: Well of course -- if we have a free, fair, and safe election we're gonna follow the Constitution, absolutely

There is a 0.0% chance Johnson will decide the election is "free, fair, and safe" unless Trump wins.

[YellowKing]

Gotta love the logic that elections are only fair if your candidate wins. I can't believe grown adults with even a modicum of intelligence believe these people are serious.

[Carpet_pissr]

If there wasn't a follow-up to that to get him to answer without qualification, that was a media fail. Or something along the lines of: "the not "free and fair election" suggestion has been debunked and disproven many times even under Republican administrations. What would make you say that instead of a simple yes or no?

We need them to PUSH these assholes on this until they squirm. All it takes is some balls.

[hepcat]

Johnson has gone against Trump in the past, so I’m not as worried about him as I would be someone like a Vance. He’s just paying lip service to the GOP’s current leash holder.

[Grifman]

PA, MI and AZ to sue election boards that refuse to certify:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 350963007/