Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Emotional-Hornet-947 t1_izsxbm1 wrote

FTA: "...appears to have avoided the fate of former Governor's Councilor Herbert Connolly, who in 1988 arrived to the polls too late to cast a ballot for himself and lost by a single vote."

93

PakkyT t1_izteem4 wrote

But then it would have been a tie. Wonder how they would have resolved that back then?

18

420blz69 t1_iztgp3v wrote

In the event of an exact tie, the seat is awarded to the male candidate, and the female candidate is put in jail

58

BrockVegas t1_izto6xc wrote

Waaaaaay back then in the olden times of.... 1988?

A fight to the death with some clubs and spears most likely, given the age and all.

Fuck me I feel old now.

3

PakkyT t1_izuq22z wrote

Yeah, 1988 was already 34 years ago.

2

EnoughIdeas t1_izw788h wrote

ahh a less civilized time. Now we solve theses issues with a good old gun fight.

1

AbidanYre t1_izu226g wrote

I think an election in Virginia came down to drawing names out of a hat a couple years ago.

3

deadlyspoons t1_izt01dy wrote

House makeup is Democrats: 125 Republicans: 27 Independent: 0 Unenrolled: 1 Vacant: 7

This critical race will determine whether the 2022 Mass GOP is “embarrassing” or “mortifying.”

58

YellowSea11 t1_izt6lap wrote

you know what's really telling about Mass? While the voting was going on .. and there was a margin of error by only 1, yes 1, vote, both parties thanked everyone for hard work. In the last decade of voter fraud , recounts, overturning , gerrymandering and 100 other ways this system is fucked; I'm really sorry the good , honest people that VOLUNTEER to run elections aren't thanked much more often.

48

CloudStrife012 t1_izu5fw5 wrote

Funny how you mention vote fraud, because thats clearly what's going on here.

−50

BlaineTog t1_izzcin9 wrote

Why would anyone rigging an election choose to win by exactly one vote? Why wouldn't you win by enough so it's not weird?

1

Eric_Fapton t1_izxq8mr wrote

Thank you! Thank you, everyone!

“What’s that i hear? You guys want a speech?”

“Well I didn’t really come prepared but…”

“Four skin, and 37 years ago, My father thrust himself into my mother. Eric_Fapton was shot out of a dick just like the rest of you. But unlike the rest of your fathers funk, out of this dick came (no pun intended), the vote that would decide an election!”

0

Unique-Public-8594 t1_izsu2vx wrote

A single vote. Holy smokes. This will make history books, no? Thank you to each voter who made the effort to vote.

47

and_dont_blink t1_iztb65t wrote

There are now three this cycle that gave an election to Democrat by one vote in the NE after recounts.

  • Paulos vs Morrison in CT
  • Kassner vs Mirra in the north shore
  • Mosley vs Gagne in NH

To say it's a statistical anomaly is a bit of an understatement. Here's a list of super-close votes that have occurred across the country from 1800 to 2010.
You'll also notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred, several votes, things like "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" or "we couldn't find 50 votes so decide to do a coin toss" (not making this up). You'll also notice they almost all involve small vote counts in the hundreds (congressional), as the more votes you have the more statistically unlikely it is -- by the time you are talking elections in 5,000-10k range it's powerball-ish.

It's a great way to get downvoted because of all the election-denier stuff, but I think it's fair to say it's weird as hell and if these results were going the other way we'd have a whole lot of questions in the same way you would someone in an area repeatedly winning the Powerball. That it's all favoring one side, and all happening in the same region makes it weirder.

The thing is, if you wanted to mess with an election, why would you make it so obvious? If you were a foreign power that wanted to really destabilize a democracy, this might be an approach -- the side winning feels no choice but to dig in while knowing something is weird harming their faith in elections, while the other side becomes full on rabid that something seems very wrong.

Edit: As mentioned, it's a great way to get down voted but that's fine, it's part of the "have to dig in while knowing something is wrong" part but you have to realize how irrational & impartial it comes off. One election would make the news because of its statistical improbability, three is weird as hell and when you keep adding qualifiers like the same region and for the same party...

20

Awkward-Media-3550 t1_iztgb4d wrote

Have you actually measured how much of a statistical anomaly? Highly divisive elections draw people into two groups effectively, lots of elections across several states, once you factor everything, close elections isn’t that crazy.

If anyone was interfering in American elections, it would require covertly corrupting thousands of independent low level election workers, none of whom would say anything.

The main threat to American elections is not fraud, it’s people calling them fraud because they didn’t win.

13

and_dont_blink t1_iztj6pj wrote

>Have you actually measured how much of a statistical anomaly? Highly divisive elections draw people into two groups effectively

I think you mean calculated, but that depends on each race -- the higher the vote count the less likely it is. e.g., an election between 20,500 people being decided by one vote is much less likely than an election between 20 or 200. Hence why it never really happens throughout our election history as counts go higher as shown in the link.

>If anyone was interfering in American elections, it would require covertly corrupting thousands of independent low level election workers

We don't know the why of what's behind this, but you're starting with an unproven assumption about how many people it would involve especially in a closer election.

Things like software aside, take for example this recent very weird case in CT which involved a republican town clerk handing over ballots that had been kicked back for being filled in improperly. That person then forged the votes and signatures then turned them into be counted normally. There's still an ongoing FBI probe so a lot of people didn't have to testify as to what was really going on.

0

itsgreater9000 t1_izu4xj4 wrote

> I think you mean calculated, but that depends on each race -- the higher the vote count the less likely it is. e.g., an election between 20,500 people being decided by one vote is much less likely than an election between 20 or 200.

This is true, but I think the probability increases are not as stark as we see a higher partisan split among a population of voters. For example, sure, there's a 1% probability that you get a vote total like 51-49, but take into account that the town is evenly split and that there's only really 20 votes that can go one way or the other, and now the probability is now at 5%. I'm not trying to say there isn't electoral fuckery, but I think considering the sample size is so small it's hard to draw conclusions at this point in time. (yes, the sample size of elections is not in and of itself small, but given how elections work these days the actual sample size i think is quite small to draw any specific conclusions from it)

3

knign t1_iztimia wrote

Before getting into conspiracy theories, do you have actual statistical estimate?

I mean, for example, in Poulos vs Morrison the total number of votes cast is just over 10,000. With a district evenly split across party lines, 1 vote difference isn't that big of an anomaly.

I am pretty sure your list of close votes isn't exhaustive, it probably only includes a few examples which garnered most publicity.

5

AugustusPompeianus t1_iztqt58 wrote

I'm surprised why this isn't more common in more smaller states experience more of these tight elections.

2

Rapierian t1_izxcdu2 wrote

I definitely don't trust any election that's decided by so few votes. Even not accounting for malice, the margin of error of just accidentally processing a vote wrong has to be higher than 1 vote for most races...

2

CloudStrife012 t1_izu51yk wrote

I'm sure the third overturned election by 1 vote in favor of Democrats will definitely quell all suspicions of vote fraud. There's always those convenient 30 votes they previously forgot to count, which are somehow always democrat.

−5

answeryboi t1_izvgx4l wrote

Quick question: why would they rig this particular race? Democrats would have more than a supermajority in Massachusetts even if they lost this race.

10

2pacalypso t1_izuvtvp wrote

Just wait until the supreme court rules in favor of the independent legislature theory and states controlled by democrats don't even have to count** republican votes because fuck you that's why. I oppose it myself, but states like North Carolina need to push this shit so that they can hang onto power by any means necessary.

2

BlaineTog t1_izzc9n5 wrote

There's absolutely no reason for Dems to rig elections in New England.

1

BF1shY t1_izt0u3o wrote

>Democrat Kristin Kassner jumped into the lead over five-term Republican Rep. Lenny Mirra after a district-wide recount erased her narrow deficit and put her ahead by a single vote, an infinitesimally tight outcome that the incumbent plans to challenge in court.
>
>It will absolutely be a legal challenge." Mirra said.

Is there really such a thing as adults anymore? Just seems like big children that sue at every life hurtle they encounter.

Wish there were stricter rules for frivolous lawsuits, and the accuser has to pay all legal fees if found frivolous.

25

mattgm1995 t1_izuy4zo wrote

It’s not a frivolous law suit. Almost every election this close has them. Mirra is a great rep, and a wonderful guy. As a democrat who proudly voted to keep Lenny as my rep (even tho he’s a republican) he is a great rep.

3

BlaineTog t1_izzcuxx wrote

Any election this close needs a few recounts. That said, you're not wrong that the GQP has been particularly lawsuit-happy these days, so they were probably thinking of suing no matter the margin.

1

Thisbymaster t1_izt0l0t wrote

I think we shouldn't allow any numbers to be released until all votes are counted twice and the same numbers are returned in a district. Including provincial votes, mail in votes and any mail in votes that need to be fixed.

11

AsymptotesMcGotes t1_izuazq3 wrote

Wow. I live here and my wife and I both voted for the now winner. Insane.

10

PaulitoTuGato t1_izt51sq wrote

Will another recount come up with different results? I thought machines counted.

4

redditspacer t1_izt831b wrote

This finding was the result of a recount.

9

PaulitoTuGato t1_izt8jkx wrote

I understand. The first count had an outcome, the second count had a different outcome. Would a third count have a different outcome than the second count or first count? How was the first count incorrect?

4

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izth833 wrote

I think your question assumes a level of arbitrariness above what exists.

The machines are coded to read ballots in certain ways. If a ballot is damaged in some way (a crease in the target area for example), the computerized reading can be wrong.

However, if a human looks at the damaged ballot, the intention of the voter may be absolutely clear.

The hand-recount includes a process to adjudicate those.

While I think that a difference of one vote only should require a second round of review, it’s not like two people counted out a pile of cards and got different numbers. The ballots in question here are a small minority of the total ballots and it’s not a question of counting error but reading error.

8

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztku63 wrote

I think I understand what you are saying. My point was that when two separate counts don’t add up the same sum, most people would count again to at least try to verify the first or second count. I dunno, that’s what I would do. Maybe they should recount the ballots that changed the outcome of the original count a month ago?

4

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztlmwi wrote

I think it would make sense to review the ballots in question again, yes.

Edit: but the intent of some (or all) of those may be very obvious to the human eye, though not clear to a computer.

If two hand counts differed, I’d be more concerned. That might indicate that some ballots are not clearly marked for computer or for human reading.

But yes, again, I think when it’s this close, some extra scrutiny on the ballots in question is in order.

4

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztn8ti wrote

That’s all I’m saying. Thank you for sharing your insight! I have learned some things I didn’t know today

2

PinPlastic9980 t1_izufx3i wrote

during a hand recount usually multiple individuals (representing both candidates) are reviewing the ballots together. less likely to have issues during a recount than the machine counts as they will recount a set until the numbers line up for everyone.

2

knign t1_iztjdu1 wrote

Third count would very likely produce a different outcome, but the law doesn't require (or even allow) another recount.

Important part of orderly elections is finality. People vote, votes are counted, in some situation recounted, and that's it. Whoever won, won.

−1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztvx8h wrote

Third count (second by hand) would likely produce the same outcome as the first by hand.

Usually a hand recount is a very careful review by multiple people to catch and accurately record votes that the machines couldn’t read due to damages to the ballot.

3

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztjtmq wrote

Well that’s scary! I didn’t know that, and it doesn’t make sense to me. Thank you for enlightening me

−1

knign t1_iztlinl wrote

I mean, do you see an alternative? Every recount might change the result by a few votes, but we can't recount ad infinitum.

Mathematically speaking, with such a small difference, it's a draw. Neither candidate provably received more votes, but we have to select one. You can toss a coin (which is what they'd do if results were exactly equal), or stop after 1-st recount. Nothing is wrong with any of that.

2

alongfield t1_iztre66 wrote

The process used in MA makes another recount largely pointless.

The way MA recounts work, you have teams of two people for each ballot, and sets of 50 ballots. One reads the ballot and the other tallies. Other people can watch this process from right behind the readers if they're concerned the reader might misread ballots and can protest a call. (This is where the representatives for the protester would be, keeping their own tally.) Protested and ambiguous ballots are reviewed by the board of registrars. (At least 3 on the board.) The lawyer for the candidate that protested is also with that review board, as well.

The ballots in question went through this process, were protested, and 3+ other people reviewed, and determined whether to use the ballot and reading as called. At a minimum, you should have 5 people that just looked at that same ballot, plus observers.

Further action from there is to go to court over specific ballots that had been protested at the time of recount.

It's a pretty solid process.

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/Election-Recounts.pdf

3

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztmc4m wrote

I get what you are saying, it can’t go on recounting forever and a vote or two isn’t much. The fact that counts can’t ever be verified to specific numbers is scary to me, and leads me more into lacking faith in our election system

1

knign t1_iztok26 wrote

I don't know if you were old enough around year 2000 to witness this whole Florida recount debacle, "pregnant chads" and all that, but this was a good illustration why counting paper ballot is always imprecise, to some small degree. You can alter design of the ballot to minimize factor of randomness, and enforce some strict standards on canvassers, but it will never be zero.

The only ultimate solution here is electronic voting, where voter's intent can't be misinterpreted; however, in practice, people will never trust machines (even with paper trail), because "everything can be hacked". So we are stuck with paper ballots.

1

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztq147 wrote

I was born in 86 and wasn’t interested in politics until more recently. It is a complicated system that I still don’t fully understand. What is your opinion on mail in ballots? I didn’t vote that way, I don’t know how they look or how they are counted. If you have any insight I would appreciate it. It seems plausible to me that these could be some of the ballots you mentioned having to be inspected by a person?

1

Shufflebuzz t1_iztgp2x wrote

> Would a third count have a different outcome than the second count or first count?

Best two out of three?
Yeah, this doesn't inspire confidence in the system.

> How was the first count incorrect?

Regardless of party and election deniers and crazy conspiracy theories, I'd expect an explanation.

−4

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztwa0r wrote

Machine counts can easily be off by a few votes due to damaged or poorly marked ballots. The hand “recount” is mainly getting a human eye looking at the ballots the machine could not read.

It is not akin to two people each counting a pile of things and getting different numbers.

6

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztiws1 wrote

If I counted 123 grapes and upon counting again I had 124 grapes, I’d have to count at least a third time, to feel confident in my count. With such a close discrepancy, I might count a total of 5 times to feel confident in the count. I know it doesn’t shed a good light on our voting systems. The damage has already been done.

−3

transwarp1 t1_izxh82k wrote

More like if you had a machine that counted 120 green grapes, and 115 red grapes, and then a team of 4 people who took out one grape at a time and decided to count it as red or green (or neither). You already had four people evaluate each one.

1

PakkyT t1_iztf17y wrote

There are a lot of different things that go into tallying a vote. Not all votes are counted initially for several reasons including poorly marked ballots that the machines can not correctly determine if it is a vote or not to ballots marked as "provisional" which will be counted eventually but likely not included that first night of results.

4

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztfc7h wrote

So why would they even declare an outcome knowing it isn’t yet accurate?

−4

PakkyT t1_iztlt6f wrote

Because when the race is different by enough votes that those uncounted and problem votes won't matter. Meaning if you are showing 90% of the vote is counted and you are leading by 20,000 votes and they know the uncounted and problem ballots total up to 15,000, then even if every single one goes to the losing candidate, they still lose. So they call it. It is when the vote is close enough that those same ballots can pull the election one way or the other that they won't call a race for either until all are accounted for.

10

CloudStrife012 t1_izwg1wv wrote

No. Every single time in history when they do a recount, they find an extra 5,000 democrat votes that somehow they didn't count before. So in other words, a recount will just change from +1 in favor of democrats to +5,001 in favor of democrats. If they do another recount it will be 10,001+ in favor of democrats, and so on.

−1

AdmiralAK t1_izugrtm wrote

One more example of "every vote counts!" - never take it for granted

3

CloudStrife012 t1_izutjfy wrote

The anomaly keeps happening repeatedly and it's always favoring the same side...obviously something suspicious is going on and really makes half the country feel like no, your vote never counted. The results are pre-determined.

−4

BlaineTog t1_izzd7yy wrote

> The anomaly keeps happening repeatedly and it's always favoring the same side

Al Gore has entered the chat

1

Roadkill_Shitbull t1_izx2301 wrote

GOP: we want recounts!

GOP: Rrrrreeeeeeeeee!!1! No, not that one!

3

PaulitoTuGato t1_iztgx4q wrote

I think we need to see the results of a tie breaker count.

0

Eric_Fapton t1_izxn96g wrote

It so strange in a country where there are more democrats than republicans dems seem to keep winning. How can this be? It must be fraud that that majority seems to keep winning. Listen to yourselves. People. Its like being surprised that that a twenty year old keeps winning fights with a ten year old. He must be cheating!

0

Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_iztuz3k wrote

I read a comment by one of the recount participants in Georgetown that they allowed 5 spoiled ballots for Kassner that were not originally counted. Not sure what a spoiled ballot is.

−1

DarthSulla t1_izv7hds wrote

It’s one that was initially rejected. Can be for a number of reasons but poorly filling in the circles and signatures are the ones I’ve heard are common

5

answeryboi t1_izvf1yq wrote

Yep. I forgot to sign the outside of my envelope for my ballot and had to sign some forms and whatnot to ensure they accepted it.

1

as1126 t1_izufve0 wrote

It’s no wonder people don’t believe voting results. It doesn’t strike you as off that is the result? It looks very purposeful.

−3

answeryboi t1_izvesq3 wrote

Why does it strike you as off/purposeful? Do giu think we just shouldn't do recounts?

3

New_Relative_2268 t1_izvhrnm wrote

It looks so purposeful that I think it is just a coincidence.

Either that or someone really really wants to undermine peoples confidence in voting…and that’s not in the Democrats favour.

3

[deleted] t1_izt9zur wrote

[removed]

−9

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztfass wrote

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, unless you’re intentionally erasing nuance to create a strawman.

If a count is within narrow margins a recount makes sense, because everyone knows there can be small anomalies. Everyone also agrees that there are a small number of people who commit election fraud.

What most people realize is that those anomalies and fraudulent votes are not enough to swing an election outside a very slim margin.

14

Ok_District2853 t1_iztir60 wrote

Well that and most or all of the fraud comes from republicans.

7

March_Latter t1_iztni9w wrote

I think you need a history book.

−9

Ok_District2853 t1_izu3ydh wrote

Look man, democrats don't need to steel elections. They have a clear majority everywhere. It's only republican gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the nature of the Senate favoring less populated states that keeps them artificial going. Oh and the Fox news propaganda machine to which you are so obviously devoted.

If it were up to a popular vote there'd only be Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi. In other words, the dumbest states.

Sure, 75 years ago, maybe, but now? C'mon.

4

March_Latter t1_izu7wk0 wrote

Really!!! I think you need to see a map of republican districts. The only thing the democrats hold is the cities. Even in deep blue California half the states counties are republican by nature. I live in deep blue Massachusetts the 4th most educated state. We don't live in Boston, so almost every friend we have is republican. The only democrats come over from Rhode island and we are still trying to figure out who votes democrat in our elections. Oh I see you are on the anti Fox news thing!!!So exciting for you. But you can't put CNN, MSNBC,NPR, Politico, or any other group in the same boat and admit they are all lying can you. You just like the lies that you get told and god forbid you question those lies in front of your friends. Can't do that now, they won't be friends after that.

−1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izuavq7 wrote

Most Massachusetts precincts vote majority Democratic, whether in Boston or not.

Probably the reason most of your friends are Republican is that you are very fiercely Republican.

And that person is correct, that usually the majority of Americans overall vote Democratic.

6

March_Latter t1_izubnqg wrote

LOL... seriously come to Massachusetts. I can't even find union members who are Democrat. Every election we are confused.

−2

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izunigw wrote

There is data on this.

Your personal acquaintance is not an unbiased nor statistically representative sample.

3

john_hascall t1_izvn7oa wrote

“The only thing the Democrats hold is the cities”. You do realize that the majority of people live in cities.

4

[deleted] t1_iztopyp wrote

[deleted]

3

March_Latter t1_iztp8e2 wrote

That was an intelligent statement. Please tell me where and when Republican election fraud has occurred.

−8

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztudku wrote

There have been a small number of people arrested for voter fraud for the 2020 election, and even fewer prosecuted. Exact numbers are hard to get because of inconsistent reporting methods from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But fewer than 400 for all 2020 elections - including local, county, state, and federal - were forwarded by investigators to DAs for prosecution.

In many of these cases, who the fraudulent vote was for is not public information.

In several, they have been for Republicans, and in several, Democrats.

Most accountings identify more Republican fraudulent votes than Democratic. Both exist. Both are so rare as to only risk impacting an election with a tiny margin, such as this one.

7

March_Latter t1_iztx47y wrote

Sadly Journalism is dead...In twenty years we may know the answers but todays journalists work for a political party and might as well announce it on every broadcast. It does not help that no oversight has occurred in recent years either with that committee wasting all their time on political goose chases.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztyvlz wrote

I don’t see the relevance of your reflection on journalism.

7

March_Latter t1_iztzuzh wrote

The reason we are aware of outcomes of elections and investigations is journalists. The death of the local town journalist has left the work to the larger entities and they control the flow of news to their participants. I say participant because as you may have noticed a CNN viewer will never watch Fox and you can change those names as needed. So if CNN does not mention the event or changes its outcome to one that is positive to their party that becomes factual information to that participant. That happens daily if not hourly on big news days.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izu9ltr wrote

Oh this isn’t so. Studies have been done by non- journalists, and the data is public.

It matters not who reports it. The base information is available to be checked.

3

March_Latter t1_izua875 wrote

Really, let me help you with this one in a simple manner that will help you ascertain the truth. Tomorrow morning program your XM/Sirius to have CNN and FOX right next to each other. As you drive to work switch between them as often as is able and do so on the way home also. You could also do this with Bloomberg most of the day and MSNBC if you don't like CNN. At the end of the day tell me the differences in reporting. Not only factually but what light the news was discussed in. Whomever did the study you mention, flat out lied.

−2

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izumxlv wrote

Sir, I don’t get my news from listening to the radio or watching TV. I read, and I check all sources and raw data where available.

If it’s not, I take the information with a grain of salt.

I also read actual monographs on important topics by non-journalists.

Not everybody gets their information from popular media.

It’s remarkable to me that you think you are teaching me something after the unorganized and ill-thought-out positions you have posted here.

And the fact that you are saying as a fact that the author of a study you have never even seen, lied, is so obviously your will replacing your capacity to think that I’m amazed your will also overrode your ability to recognize even that.

3

March_Latter t1_izuwx16 wrote

Ill thought out you say, well your academic holiness let me bow down at your obvious intellect and belief that your news is unbiased. Being to mentally powerful yourself to do your own research must be difficult. If you believe the news you read is accurate nobody can help you. If you believe you are well informed, again nobody can help you. But stop masquerading as some sort of intellect. You are far from that.

−1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izv86ny wrote

Sigh. I haven’t asserted that news sources are unbiased.

You seem not to have processed the meanings of the words in my reply at all.

2

[deleted] t1_iztqpdl wrote

[deleted]

6

March_Latter t1_iztrbz2 wrote

I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose. Otherwise all elections are absolute in their eyes and unable to be challenged regardless of any anomalies. This makes them two faced trash, not stupid two face trashed as democrats love to say to everyone...Ever think about how you look when you refer to someone as stupid? Myself, I don't think you are stupid. Just unable to self reflect.

−5

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztsrsr wrote

I don’t perceive that many Democrats are against recounts in close races. Can you cite that?

3

[deleted] t1_iztsxkb wrote

[deleted]

3

March_Latter t1_izttazf wrote

Me? I am surely not worried about my honesty or the outcomes Democrats have brought on themselves. Enjoy January!

−2

answeryboi t1_izvfsr5 wrote

>I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose.

I believe Katie Hobbs -a Democrat and Arizona Secretary of State- is suing a republican county in AZ for not certifying their ballots even though them not certifying would result in 2-3 Democrats taking seats in AZ.

2

[deleted] t1_izttt7v wrote

[deleted]

0

March_Latter t1_iztvgp5 wrote

Three....You found three voters...Are you joking? Seriously the matter we are discussing involves 11 votes in a town and you found three voters in a state and claiming a win? Does anyone in your life take you seriously? Want to have fun? Lets go historical...1948 Lyndon Johnson election scandal. Current? Ozzie Myers. Both, although they show a pattern are not typically important are far more than three votes. Johnson is fun due to it being so blatant. Myers due to how widespread and long lasting it was. We can go on for a while...but three votes? Seriously fuck off.

1

March_Latter t1_iztolpx wrote

The point is you either trust the machine or you do not trust the machine. I would go with a machine count long before a hand count due to the inability to have bias, but if proven wrong by a double hand count the machine now needs to go as its inaccurate. If there is going to be a recount when close we can not say our elections are absolute and not to be questioned.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztq37n wrote

I’m not familiar with a hand-count and machine-count that were significantly different from each other. There are often a very small number of ballots that are damaged or not marked well and cannot be read accurately by the machine. Consequently, again, it may affect a very close race, so if the vote gap is very small, it makes sense to do a hand recount to eyeball the ballots that might not have been properly legible.

In this case, it is not that the machine is ‘inaccurate’ but that the ballot was not legible.

If you’re familiar with a case in which hand and machine counts differed beyond a small margin, please let me know.

Otherwise, this is not really a matter of trust but of statistics.

4

March_Latter t1_iztt2t0 wrote

Then the statistics need to be trusted. In the last 3 years how many close elections such as this one have been decided on the last batch of votes? Miracle last group to be counted seems to always be the winner for Democrats including this one. The first few times this happens its not a statistic. When its consistent it is. Overall we cannot fault one group but not the other when there is a possible issue. People on this thread claiming the republican is wrong when a recount decides against him? No way. The right to challenge is obvious and history shows him not to always be wrong on this.

−5

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztupnt wrote

Again, it’s not a matter of trust except in trusting to reason.

The sequence of vote counting does not impact the total.

It’s known that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and these are often counted last.

There’s nothing suspicious about that.

3

[deleted] t1_izsx6v6 wrote

[removed]

−37

Orang3Lazaru5 t1_izsxrk7 wrote

You know how numbers work, right?

15

Clear_Forever_2669 t1_izy850n wrote

Look at his post history. (he deletes it thinking it protects him, but you can still see all his posts)

I bet he thinks he's anonymous, too.

2

EXTRA-THOT-SAUCE t1_izt079r wrote

You must not understand how our political system works then.

7

RedPanda_001 t1_iztf239 wrote

You must not know to have that much trust with the government, ever wonder why presidents come out of office with more money than what their salary was? They do under the table deals with people to cover up stuff/ pass bills through, etc.

−9

EXTRA-THOT-SAUCE t1_j1muhmo wrote

Brave if you to make that assumption. I fucking hate the current system with every fiber of my being.

1