Reply With Quote
Don't they have to get permission or some law bypassed in states where the statute of limitations has passed for a recount? Why have one if you can just ignore it?
You know this because???
Or are you going to take the "I told you so" as if the recount proves anything at all about fraud?
Don't they have to get permission or some law bypassed in states where the statute of limitations has passed for a recount? Why have one if you can just ignore it?
The kind Trump talked barely is rarer than hen's teeth, but Jill Stein might be right about shenanigans with absentee ballots for all I know -- that's a much more plausible allegation than voter impersonation on its face.
You're right that I've merely presumed she's wrong. I disbelieve Jill Stein pretty much reflexively -- all out of integrity with me.
I was arguing for the desirability of routine audits, not routine recounts. Universal recounts would obviously be onerous.
Why not have routine audits? God forbid a politician should ever be inconvenienced by the discovery of a tally that is incorrect or tampered with.
You mean it's rarely been exposed?
Seems to me that fraud has to occur during the voting process. At that point, it would be easiest to detect. After the fact, a ballot is a ballot, so there's likely no real good way to determine if fraud occurred unless it was blatant by canvassing boards evident through recount.
With that said, I don't believe Stein either. I also don't believe Trump. I don't have any basis for disbelief other than the fact I generally require evidence to consider a claim true (if it matters).
I think the voting process/counts should be isolated from the candidates. The problem with that is that partisanship runs through every aspect of society and business, so any committee formed to deal exclusively with voting issues needs oversight, and the oversight committee needs oversight. The best way available to provide it is through competing self interest. We simply cannot trust any group or individual to have autonomy at that level.
However my question was more about PA being recounted. I recall the 2000 election Florida recount had to occur by a certain time, then it was taken to court and extended, then again.
This is why I question statute of limitations in these cases. They are only going to affect political races that cannot afford to pe ion for exceptions.
You mean it's rarely been exposed?https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-ballots-cast/In some cir stances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such cir stances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
It's a vendible system of justice, if you can afford it.
some limitations would seem commonsensical. for example not permitting a recount one year after the election.
Sure, but how is any statute of limitations any different just because more time has elapsed? Expired is expired.
Sadly that's probably not how they'd rig it. Who's been watching the ballots under 24 hour surveillance and lock and key? If someone slipped in 30k extra Hillary ballots into the pile, you could count them all correctly and she'd be the winner. And it's going to look fishy as if it happens, only thing we will be able to do is take to the streets. Maybe a civil war is what we need
continuity of government depends (in our system) on a timed handover. dispensing with statutes of limitation for challenges to the election were to invite mischief and instability.
But it was done. I don't know the laws enough to know where the walls exist, perhaps there are secondary deadlines and drop dead dates that cannot be overridden except through an act of congress.
my impression was that this was all initiated within the deadlines, but I could be wrong. I know all about election law, state by state.
The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.
If a state never gets to name electors, the number needed to win goes down; a majority of those named is enough. Even with 260-232, Trump should win unless there wee lots of faithless electors...If someone has a majority of electoral votes submitted, the Senate and House open the tally and merely name the winner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions