CA still counting Super Tuesday votes?
- Thread starter biggreydogs
- Start date
It absolutely is. That’s why votes are not “certified” for a couple of weeks after Election Day. Generally, 99% of election results are “known” the next morning following the voting. There are exceptions. An election like a few years ago in the Iowa #2 are once in a life time events. The general elections of 2020 really was not close, just had a sore assed loser string it out and then try to overturn the voters decision. 2000 was a close one...and who knows who won but that might have been a “Do over” for the 1960 election which was really close but won by the other party.
Examples? @SA_Hawk has struggled to provide any
The biggest delay imo involves absentee/mail in ballots since election officials obviously have to validate a ballot is authentic. And the rules for when they can do that vary by state.
personally, I’d love it if we can have all states agree to begin the verification process say a week before the election, and then count the ballots themselves on Election Day. I’d argue they shouldnt be counted ahead of time in case that information were to be leaked, affecting turnout on Election Day.
I think he was referring to the general case that most elections are decided fairly quickly, with the exception of very tight cases that will involve recounts and such.
The projection here by yourself and @SA_Hawk is strong. Which candidate filed numerous lawsuits last election (that were all roundly thrown out) and now has felony election tampering charges pending?
Since you both are simpletons, I'll just tell you. It's Trump.
Last edited:
Con playbook. Make shit up and then believe it.
Indeed, states do have their own processes for casting and counting ballots, indeed some places take longer because those processes run away from rather than towards technology in various ways or because they're bigger, and indeed none of this matters that much in CA elections.
I'm sure CA is counting their ballots reasonably competently in light of the procedures they've devised. That said, I think the broader point is in designing those procedures, both access to the ballot and public confidence in it are important core values, and long processes undermine the latter as a practical matter, so you sort of deserve what you get (rightfully or wrongfully) when your process results in this kind of timing.
No one had serious issues with the process until people started shouting “rigged” without any evidence.
The length of time it takes to count votes shouldn’t mean anything.
Are their reasons for folks to doubt? Other than not liking the results of elections? Casting doubt upon the entire process is an effective ploy to spread doubt, fear and lies….and those making the “noise” are hardly a majority of voters….they just get a majority of the media’s attention.
That would be because it’s enshrined in the constitution that elections are run by the states. So you effectively have 50 different elections going on with different rules for each.
On the one hand, it makes it very difficult to rig elections on a large scale, but it can result in delays as a result.
States like Oregon don't have much problem counting votes. Florida learned its lesson in 2000 and made enough changes to be able to get votes counted in a reasonable time, and put automatic recounts in place for tight races in order to keep candidate requests for recounts from being a delay.
California is gonna California.
Yes I did.
In California the S.O.S has until April 12 to certify the election. We have nearly 21,000 voting precincts.
What would be an appropriate timeline to certify in your opinion?
I agree that things could be much better. But saying that a difference of 115MM people is not much smaller is idiotic. That is almost the entire population of Germany and Poland combined as a difference.
That would be a positive change compared to last time. I wouldn’t place any bets on that, given the track record.
