Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

oldschoolskater OP t1_ivg40hr wrote

"He continued: “Pennsylvania is one of only eight states that bans pre-processing of early mail-in ballots, forcing county officials to wait until 7 a.m. on Tuesday to begin opening returned ballots and scanning them into the system.”"

Is anybody opposed to counting votes early? If so why?

I'm for counting votes at least two weeks before the election. Obviously votes that come in at the last minute may take an extra day.

236

[deleted] t1_ivg5e3k wrote

[deleted]

110

username-1787 t1_ivg77qn wrote

They don't care who was ahead at midnight either. They're just opposed to the concept of democratic elections in general

63

ScratchMoore t1_ivg6zqg wrote

And they admit it! They want to stop the counts and come up with these laws as a way to make their whining sound legitimate.

11

YYYY t1_ivhq3vj wrote

>“Pennsylvania is one of only eight states that bans pre-processing of early mail-in ballots, forcing county officials to wait until 7 a.m. on Tuesday to begin opening returned ballots and scanning them into the system.”"

Keep in mind the the state Republican legislature set it up this way.

11

demichr t1_ivgmitp wrote

The GOP has allwsys been a propoent of mail in balloting UNTILL TRUMP. The late counting played into his 300 AM cheat. Since around then the mail ins are usually posted. All because of trump ego that he want cheating instead of losing.

−1

drewbaccaAWD t1_ivgw79s wrote

GOP isn't a fan of vote by mail and they were against this even before Trump. Lower propensity voters tend to vote Democrat and they are more likely to vote by mail than on election day... GOP is aware of this and tries to stop it from happening. They don't want it to be easy, they want the party faithful willing to crawl over broken glass to be the only ones to show up. The fewer the number of voters, the more it inherently benefits the GOP.

What changed with Trump is that he actively saw voting by mail as a way of creating chaos in the midst of a pandemic, knowing that by discouraging his supporters from voting that way there would be a larger disparity than usual between in-person voting and mail in ballots. It was all part of his master plan to just claim victory with many votes left uncounted... the only possible way this tosser could ever win by anything remotely close to the landslide he claims.

1

ScratchMoore t1_ivh7bwm wrote

What amazes me the most is that he is on record, recorded on video/audio, admitting that if he didn’t like the results, he would simply say it was rigged.

He told everyone he would lie, and his chucklefuck followers STILL THINK IT HAPPENED.

No amount of logic or reason will ever be able to crack through the dense skulls of MAGAts. And they are already admitting that they will only accept results that Republicans win, and will challenge any Democrat victories.

Fuck MAGA forever.

13

[deleted] t1_ivhpbof wrote

Thank you for typing something I haven't heard / seen in a while - chucklefuck. It gave me a good laugh, which was needed!

1

demichr t1_ivhw4nv wrote

A large segment of GOP felt that Sr. voters would go R and mail in would max Sr vote

0

Lord_Kano t1_ivk4uiq wrote

>What changed with Trump is that he actively saw voting by mail as a way of creating chaos in the midst of a pandemic, knowing that by discouraging his supporters from voting that way there would be a larger disparity than usual between in-person voting and mail in ballots.

I don't think that Trump is capable of this level of calculation.

0

drewbaccaAWD t1_ivl0oux wrote

No, but I don't think Trump is capable of looking at a tax form either. He hires more intelligent people to do actual work he isn't capable of.

Several of his inner circle, most notably Steve Bannon, are on video stating this was the plan well ahead of the election.

1

cocksherpa2 t1_ivhfepm wrote

Who exactly do you think passed our current mail in voting laws if not the Republicans?

−3

drewbaccaAWD t1_ivi71ol wrote

It was state senator Boscola's (D) bill and ultimately signed by Wolf (D).. It was a bipartisan bill in which state R's were initially willing to accept the no excuse required absentee voting that the D's wanted in exchange for eliminating the party line vote, amongst other things. It wasn't an R bill and the expansion of mail in voting was something the D's were pushing, not the R's.

Granted, the R's did ultimately vote for it. And a good number of D's upset with the amendments ultimately chose to not vote for it. Ironic that it's now the R's who want it deemed unconstitutional and thrown out. They claim they were "duped" and the bill doesn't represent what they voted for... Mastriano has written a couple of op-eds on the subject.

Perhaps it's not an issue that falls along a strict partisan divide but you need to look beyond just PA to GOP opinions across the board. Jeff Essmann, the Montana GOP chair didn't hold back his thoughts when his state was debating this in 2017 (long before Trump weighed in on any of this). I lived in WA state for a while and all the pushback I saw to the mail in ballots were coming from R's... and this was back in 2008ish when I was stationed there. Here's Texas AG Ken Paxton's take on the topic granted this came after 2020's general election.

There's also the issue of GOP obsession with voter ID laws which don't line up well with any sort of mail-in ballot which dates well before the 2020 election and any input from Trump sycophants.

And of course there was also this slip up to the SCOTUS, in which a GOP lawyer admits that more restrictions benefit the GOP... reducing mail-in ballots is one form of restriction although maybe the PA GOP wasn't in on the game in 2019 when they ultimately voted for Act 77 before turning on it.

6

demichr t1_ivhpi8x wrote

They thought they had the senior vote locked. And mail in was the best. The tRump cdme along

0

DugganSC t1_ivg8twi wrote

I think the argument is basically that, if early results are revealed, it could influence the election. Supposedly, there is already a similar effect where West Coast voting drops as the East Coast areas come back with preliminary results. People figure that the election is already over, since one side has a higher count, so they don't bother voting. Arguably, if all of these vote results are kept secret, there would be no effect like that. However, they are proceeding from the assumption that security is bad, and therefore they probably suspect that such preliminary results would get leaked.

As it is, I feel like our current method of news sources reporting exit polls as if they were actual numbers is somewhat deceptive, and manipulative.

91

Adam_Rahuba t1_ivho519 wrote

The argument is actually that Republicans get counted first. Then they look like they’re pulling a head and they have a massive lead so what they do is they start spreading disinformation about how democrats are cheating and somehow catching up and overtaking them even though they were in the lead and now all these new votes magically appear

18

slpgh t1_ivhsbso wrote

If you were to believe that it was possible to illegally add mail in votes then that model would work. Everyone new Dems were voting by mail, the argument that by now they knew how much they needed to win so new ballots were added.

−1

Kidspud t1_ivh4xal wrote

Do you have any articles suggesting that effect? I've studied political science for quite a few years and never encountered research showing that early poll closures on the east coast have that impact.

3

DugganSC t1_ivh6l9w wrote

Honestly? No. It's one of those things I grew up hearing, which seemed to make sense. Doing a quick search turns up papers like "Do exit polls influence voting behaviors?" which are locked behind pay walls, but the excerpts seemed to indicate that there is an effect scene, albeit a small one, on West Coast voting based upon East Coast exit poll results.

As someone who has studied political science, presumably you may have better access to those scholarly articles than I do.

9

racinreaver t1_ivig43t wrote

Anecdotally living on the west coast I know folks that didn't go out to vote because of early projections from the east coast. It was more common in the past where you might have to wait in line for an hour or two in lousy weather, but most folks I know now do early voting.

4

slpgh t1_ivhslrv wrote

My understanding is that they have limited impact because most of the western states are not competitive at least in presidential elections.

And in midterms the effects are localized anyway

3

burritoace t1_ivguekn wrote

>if early results are revealed, it could influence the election

Maybe that's the argument but I've seen nothing to suggest that it is actually true. I don't even understand what the mechanism for "influence" is here - if people see the vote going one way it seems just as likely to encourage them to vote as not. The argument seems pretty half-baked.

>I feel like our current method of news sources reporting exit polls as if they were actual numbers is somewhat deceptive, and manipulative.

I certainly agree that the way these things are reported is not enlightening and contributes to confusion.

1

DugganSC t1_ivgxm9q wrote

> Maybe that's the argument but I've seen nothing to suggest that it is actually true. I don't even understand what the mechanism for "influence" is here - if people see the vote going one way it seems just as likely to encourage them to vote as not. The argument seems pretty half-baked.

If voting were zero cost, it probably wouldn't, but most people have to take time off of work, arrange for transport, get childcare, etc. And if it looks like a bygone conclusion, why bother?

8

burritoace t1_ivh6prw wrote

The people closely watching election returns come in are mostly not the people who make a last minute decision whether or not to vote

6

DugganSC t1_ivh7k6v wrote

shrug Dunno. Election coverage is easy to find, and a lot of people will likely be stepping out of their workplace at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., and trying to make that final decision as to whether they want to make the effort. I could list a few cases I've known of people who made that last minute decision not to head to the polls, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.

6

Calm-Obligation-7772 t1_ivi5eh2 wrote

I, unfortunately, did this for the 2016 election. 🙃 Even though I was told I could leave work to vote, I never would have made it home and back in a reasonable amount of time on my break. It was only myself and one other employee closing and we weren't allowed to be alone so I couldn't leave early.

Thought there was no chance in hell Trump would win so I didn't end up voting. Biggest regret. I have not and will not ever miss another election.

1

IrrumaboMalum t1_ivhtcq1 wrote

It's not just "watching election returns." What if the news shows early voting numbers and says one party is up significantly and you were planning on going out to vote tomorrow.

Are you still going to vote if you're the opposing party? It seems hopeless for your candidate to win now, so why bother?

I'm fine with counting mail-in ballots early as long as the results are kept secure until close of polls - no leaks.

3

KentuckYSnow t1_ivhrfll wrote

If someone wasn't going to vote already they aren't going to change their mind day of.

−2

throwaway01002030405 t1_ivgdkeu wrote

It’s not just that we can’t count them until the day of, we can’t even prep them. If there are concerns (as mentioned elsewhere) that leaked early results could swing things, certainly we could all agree taking ballots out of their envelopes and getting them ready to be scanned is like… reasonable?

I feel like “certainly we can all agree” is the most hilarious thing I’ve ever said

48

UnaffiliatedOpinion t1_ivgreko wrote

Lol, we (as a society) can't even all agree on whether these votes are worthy of being counted at all!

20

tesla3by3 t1_ivgk2mc wrote

I'm opposed to actually counting the votes early, as the count will inevitably leak out. I wouldn't be opposed to preparing the ballots to be scanned- opening, unfolding, etc. But that would also involve additional security measures. Right now the ballots are kept unopened in sealed cases.

20

demichr t1_ivgoc3u wrote

Most places secure in locked ballot boxes. This was the actual occurance of votes secure and rhen removed; that trumpers used as evidence to acuse illegal stuffed ballots

5

burritoace t1_ivguku2 wrote

>as the count will inevitably leak out

Does it in other states that do this?

−1

tesla3by3 t1_ivhnksn wrote

It’s only done in like 10 states, but the likelihood of a leak will go up if more states start counting early.

I’d rather see investing in technology to process ballots more quickly.

1

demichr t1_ivhpaya wrote

The time is gettig them out of envelopes and ready for scanner. Tech cant get much faster.

5

tesla3by3 t1_ivhrd2x wrote

Which is why I said earlier I would not be opposed to opening and unfolding the ballots in advance.

Or building the technologies to prepare the ballots for scanning.

3

demichr t1_ivhwohd wrote

Oart of the prep is validation and scanner tech is pretty much maxed out. Usually the faster you the more jams u get you reach a sweet spot for speed / accuracy.

3

tesla3by3 t1_ivhwydq wrote

Ya need to edit that.

2

demichr t1_ivhxqsq wrote

Wea... not very nimble with a phone I am a desktop full keyboard guy

3

tesla3by3 t1_ivhy7de wrote

Lol. Same here I have the fattest fingers known to man

3

uraturdcutter t1_ivgaifh wrote

In my opinion the GOP essentially hates anything that increases voter participation or the convenience of voting. They are anti mail in voting and love to obstruct anything that changes the voting experience for the better.

10

demichr t1_ivhsm4v wrote

When u read the Zenke article. U will see why Republicans are pushing only voter or immediate family can deliver ballots to boxes. Anything to make voting harder is advantage Rs.

2

demichr t1_ivhq0y5 wrote

100% trump actually said the more people that vote means R lose. The R got nothing but cultet BS. they are out to get u. Econony and have no solution

2

Equivalent_Alps_8321 t1_ivi6jrx wrote

Yes because they are ultimately a minority and getting smaller. When more people vote they generally lose.

0

cocksherpa2 t1_ivhfrjx wrote

This sub is full of bots or morons, perhaps both

https://www.pahousegop.com/electionreform

−4

demichr t1_ivht76s wrote

Dont listen to what they say. WATCH what they do. GOP has hook line sinker swallowed the tRump anti mail in Vote

2

Lord_Kano t1_ivk5199 wrote

> GOP has hook line sinker swallowed the tRump anti mail in Vote

Some of us are old enough to remember when the Democrats didn't like mail-in absentee ballots because the majority of them came from deployed military personnel who tend to vote Republican.

All of politics is game-playing.

2

uraturdcutter t1_ivhkg5f wrote

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inquirer.com/politics/election/pennsylvania-mail-voting-law-act-77-mclinko-20220802.html%3FoutputType%3Damp

Some bipartisanship involved in creating act 77 but at the end of the day has the only people that have fought against mail in ballots or trying to limit the efficiency of mail in ballots are republicans.

Unless I’m misconstruing your reply, it seems as though you are under the impression republicans are for mail in ballots. One candidate for PA governor has spoken out against mail in ballots. I’ll give you 3 guesses which party he is from?

1

cocksherpa2 t1_iw4saty wrote

The Republicans sponsored and passed the legislation for our current vote by mail system.

Mastrianos opinion on the matter is irrelevant beyond his vote in 2020

0

sutisuc t1_ivgkrae wrote

Republicans are that’s why this is a thing. This way when all the votes from cities and people who voted by mail come in later they can scream “FRAUDDDD” and try to delegitimize results that don’t go their way.

5

drewbaccaAWD t1_ivgt9he wrote

I think counting mail-in votes starting when the polls open on election day is reasonable... what I think is unreasonable is that there's only one election day. So, I don't know that I agree with you that it should start two weeks early but I can't think of any reason not to start at least one day early so that we have an accurate count when the polls close on Nov. 8.

I'd really like to see some additional early voting options, at least in the larger cities, a few days before election day... options other than mail-in which I just don't personally trust. But regardless, I don't see any reason not to start counting the day before and not releasing any results until polls close on election day.

5

PolyDipsoManiac t1_ivhw13n wrote

It is to just add extra days to the process and try to inject more fear and uncertainty. You also introduce opportunity to attack the system—if you can stop counting after one day, and you make sure “your guys” get counted first, then you win.

4

rusty022 t1_ivgguow wrote

What method is used in other places, and around the world? If you count early, is that count public (which could impact future voters)? Don't some people send in a mail-in ballot but then change their vote by voting in-person with a provisional ballot? I think it's legitimately complicated, but far from too complicated to make this work well.

What would you suggest for a statewide mix of in-person and mail-in ballots, combined with provisional ballots?

2

ryumast3r t1_ivi2519 wrote

38 of the 50 U.S. states (including the 4 most-populous states) allow "processing" of absentee/mail-in ballots prior to election day.

Processing means different things depending on exact state statutes, but can include anything from simply comparing the signature to the voter roll to make sure they match all the way up to running ballots through the scanner but not hitting the "tabulate" button which compiles the results. It usually includes signature match, removing from the envelope, flattening it, and stacking it with other ballots.

This way, when counting can officially begin (again, different depending on the state), all the officials have to do is put it in the machine for tabulation or hit the button to get the result, making the whole process much faster.

In California, for example, the first results published are almost always the mail-in ballots that were received well in advance of election day and have been prepped and were allowed to start being counted up to 29 days prior to the election.

Someone mentioned earlier that this could lead to vote tallies being leaked, however I've never seen that be an issue in California and, being the most populous state, you'd think if it were going to happen that's where it would occur. This is mostly because they aren't tabulated in a central system prior to election day.

6

throwaway01002030405 t1_ivgijqg wrote

Prep the mail in votes ahead of time so they can be scanned more expeditiously. I think the counties could handle scanning all their mail ins on Election Day. Then just wait until after the polls close to start reporting. Provisionals should be held back until they’re verified as not being a second vote from someone who’s already cast one.

I don’t think you can cancel your mail ballot and vote provisionally after it’s been sent in. You can certainly turn it in and vote in person, but I think once it’s out of your hands and at the county office, it’s… out of your hands

4

rusty022 t1_ivgj21l wrote

>I don’t think you can cancel your mail ballot and vote provisionally after it’s been sent in. You can certainly turn it in and vote in person, but I think once it’s out of your hands and at the county office, it’s… out of your hands

Hmm, you may be right. I think I recall provisional requires handing in your mail-in ballot at the polling center?

2

throwaway01002030405 t1_ivgld81 wrote

It’s even a little more granular: if you bring every piece of paper and envelope of your mail in ballot to the polls, a poll worker can accept it and you can vote with a regular day-of ballot. If you forget any of the pieces you have to vote with a provisional. And actually if you forget the whole mail-in ballot entirely you can still vote with a provisional, cause they check to make sure you haven’t sent anything else in before they count it

4

srpayj t1_ivgkyi8 wrote

If you believe your mail in vote was lost or will not be counted for some technical reason. You can vote provisional. They review each provisional ballot after all the other votes are counted. If they see you already vote by mail or in person your provisional ballot will not be counted. I did this after my mail in ballot got lost in the postal system. The even notified me they counted it…. More than a week later.

2

Icy-Project861 t1_ivhxr4d wrote

Poll worker here. In PA, this is correct.

1

Thezedword4 t1_ivi9dqu wrote

Question: if you received a mail in ballot but did not fill it out or send it, do you need to bring it with you to vote like a commenter above is stating?

I received one automatically as did my partner (i think because we did in 2020) but since we had issues with mail in for the primaries, we're both voting in person

3

Icy-Project861 t1_ivj5egw wrote

If you live in PA, you must bring your mail in ballot with you, or you will have to vote provisional. It will still count as long as you haven’t sent in your mail in ballot, but it will take a few more steps.

1

Thezedword4 t1_ivlwmlk wrote

Thank you! They gave me all kinds of problems when I brought my mail in ballot in because it had a different address than where I'm registered. But I was at the polling location where I'm registered. Same place I've voted for 10 years. The mailing location and the registered location had the same ballot of people to vote for. My mail in ballot had a different address because I'm renting and move so much so I use my mom's address as I always have. I never had an issue before so I found that odd.

1

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_ivgrpbj wrote

I would be okay with prepping to count, but counting them early feels like it could influence the results.

2

slpgh t1_ivhs4zg wrote

There’s no way to keep the results secret and they can easily affect turnout on Election Day. This way all we can go by is how many ballots were returned.

We could possibly pre-process

1

FuzzPunkMutt t1_ivg41k5 wrote

I hope Fetterman wins. I really don't want to know that so many people around me are willing to be represented by a quack doctor who is probably going to vote to remove rights from people.

But I have met people, and I know that most people don't have any idea what politics actually is. They will be voting for the nice man they saw on Oprah, and that's all the further they can think.

We'll see on Wed. But in 2016 I learned to never underestimate the failings of democracy.

105

Tight_Departure_2983 t1_ivg80pj wrote

Mastriano winning would be a "flee the state" level event for my boyfriend and I. Oz winning would just confuse the hell out of me.

At least Mastriano runs on hate and control, which resonates with a lot of folks. Oz, however, is a well-known snake oil salesman. Who's his base, old folks who watch his show in a doctor's waiting room?

83

DugganSC t1_ivg91lf wrote

Ever since Reagan won, there's been discussions of the hazards of celebrity campaigns... Of course, people also predicted that Kennedy getting elected would mean that the Vatican would run the United States.

28

Cryptic_Skies t1_ivi9m73 wrote

> kennedy getting elected would mean that the Vatican would run the United States.

if i were a clever man, i would make a joke about the holy see running scotus with roe v wade being overturned, but i am not a clever man.

5

FuzzPunkMutt t1_ivgc395 wrote

I'm torn on weather I'd leave or not. I just got here, I kinda love this city. I think I would rather stay and help shelter my fellow LGBTQ+ peers, and be someone that promotes turning the tied against the absolute darkness of truly terrifying ideas like the ones Mastriano pushes.

I get what you mean though. Oz would just be par for the course - an idiot grifter grifted idiots to no ones surprise. Mastriano WOULD cement the idea that there is NOTHING worth discussing with republicans, and we should expect to treat them as such.

10

Pittman247 t1_ivgkts6 wrote

This Family will be right behind you if that happens.

I love and respect the women of my life too much to be a passive participant in the state-destruction of their humanity.

9

lift_heavy64 t1_ivhjz75 wrote

I'm already leaving next week. There are many reasons why but the fact that this governor race is even a discussion is absolutely nauseating.

9

CDewfus t1_ivgbx64 wrote

What are flee the state policies that he has?

4

Excelius t1_ivgfoi9 wrote

Mastriano was a speaker at the Stop the Steal Rally on Jan 6th, paid to bus down a group of protestors, and was pictured outside of the Capitol as it was being breached. He was one of the conspirators who attempted to put forth a slate of "alternate electors" to hand PA to Trump after he lost the state in 2020. He attempted to get PA to follow Arizona with a fraudulent "audit". He's bragged about how he could use his authority as Governor to change election results.

He's a Christian nationalist and has attended QAnon events.

I say without exaggeration this guy is an outright fascist.

67

Cylinsier t1_ivh3z1e wrote

Don't forget openly courting the antisemitic vote on Gab. Given we had a synagogue shooting in PA a few years ago, a candidate for governor courting donations and votes from the very platform where the shooter announced his plans should be an immediate turnoff for anyone. It's his own goddamn state, he knows exactly who he is courting on there because he is one of them.

19

touch_my_hard_disk t1_iviajl7 wrote

> openly courting the antisemitic vote

I’m just gonna write this cause I never have before.

I grew up on Pennsyltuckey. Almost everyone from my former life is a hardcore Trump fan and a Christian extremist.

I cannot for the life of me understand how/why these people simp so hard for the state of Israel while at the time being openly anti-Semitic. Did I miss something? Are they just idiots?

6

Cryptic_Skies t1_ivkgz5b wrote

they are evangelists. according to the bible, israel must exist in order for the second-coming to begin.

3

Btj20 t1_ivgdgfp wrote

I can’t speak for Tight, but my fiancé and I are in the same boat. We’re getting married soon and in a year or two will be looking to have kids. Mastriano winning scares us with him looking to make abortions illegal. Now, obviously we’re not looking to have an abortion just for the sake of having one, but God forbid something were to happen to her during the pregnancy that would risk her life, not being able to terminate the pregnancy right away to prevent that, and instead watch her suffer while our doctors run around trying to figure out the legal ramifications to what absolutely has to be done instead of being you know, doctors, scares us all to hell.

40

SCros13 t1_ivgflwb wrote

This is my thought process as well and it's genuinely pretty terrifying. My husband and I put off trying until we felt we were in a good spot and the potential of what you mentioned makes me regret that. This election is huge for a lot of people and a lot of reasons.

I'm also not able to vote yet (green card holder but not a citizen) and the fact that there are people saying it wouldn't be that bad or choosing to sit this one out because they don't like Mastriano/Oz but refuse to vote for a Democrat makes me angry and a little sad.

16

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ivgwyfs wrote

So pulling up stakes and moving is a better option than just driving to say New York or Maryland to get an abortion if the need arised?

−11

Btj20 t1_ivgx6mm wrote

No, but voting to not have that happen is way easier than both of those options.

13

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ivhek16 wrote

I was referring to saying they would move from the state, I didn't mention voting.

3

Btj20 t1_ivhezk7 wrote

Yes, you were replying to me. This whole post is about voting. What I’m saying is it’s a topic we’ve discussed and it is a possibility. Moving is not out of the question. It would be hard, but luckily possible for us if it were to come to that. But it is easier to vote and make sure that’s not something we have to worry about.

7

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ivi84z7 wrote

>Mastriano winning would be a "flee the state" level event for my boyfriend and I

That's what I was commenting on.

2

LookAnOwl t1_ivgpz1x wrote

I mean, off the top of my head, if I were trans, gay or a woman of child-bearing age that isn't ready to be a parent (or lets be honest, just a woman in general), I would have lots of concerns being in a Mastriano-run state.

17

Radek_Of_Boktor t1_ivkennq wrote

Don't forget Jewish. Mastriano's hate covers so many groups it's hard to keep track of them all.

2

jralll234 t1_ivgxm5b wrote

He is out to destroy public education in this state under the guise of eliminating property taxes.

12

sawamander t1_ivgfcs2 wrote

The Heartbeat bill is a big one. "On day one, Mastriano will place an immediate ban on Critical Race and Gender Theory Studies in Pennsylvania schools." This is also pretty fucking wild; he is bringing up nonexistant issues to stoke fear and hatred in his base. Unless he wants to instate bans on college courses, which is also nuts.

"On day one, Mastriano will place an immediate ban on biological males in girls' locker rooms and restrooms. On the same day, Mastriano will ban biological males from competing in girls' sports." Indicates to me he wants it to be as challenging as possible for me to piss in a public place, which I moved to Pennsylvania to get away from, so the only remaining reason to stay would be med marijuana. Other places have rec.

11

Odd_Description_2295 t1_ivhbudk wrote

Are you serious?

So you want another pat toomey who will vote along party lines?

Another trump ass kisser. Thats all.

Whereas fetterman has proven that he is the rifht person for this job?

Lol. Do you all just live in the clouds?

1

pangaea1972 t1_ivgi5x1 wrote

Lol Oprah endored Fetterman.

8

fireballsdeep t1_ivj98bc wrote

Yeah, a week before the election and it wasn't made into a big deal. Oprah spawned Oz. She's much more culpable than not.

3

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ivgx55w wrote

It's going to be Shapiro and Oz.

Too much faith lost in the fake persona that is John Fetterman.

−21

FuzzPunkMutt t1_ivgyeg9 wrote

The absolute stupidity presented when you say Fetterman is fake so your rooting for a quack tv personality.

15

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ivhcoh1 wrote

Did I say I was voting for OZ?

Not hardly Lil' Buckaroo.

Want to talk stupidity? It's pretty fucking stupid thinking there are only two people on the ballot for senate.

Fetterman is fake. His persona is built on him being the average working man, wearing his Carhartts and sitting in his brick basement.

But it's a show, a false front, a con.

Just like Oz, Fetterman is a fake.

−5

FuzzPunkMutt t1_ivhezkb wrote

>Not hardly Lil' Buckaroo.

Jesus, you're annoying as fuck. Good luck with that.

9

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ivi8qmn wrote

And you're one of those people that makes shit up from whole cloth.

I never mentioned Oz, and never in the hell said I was rooting for him.

The annoying as fuck people are those like you who cannot focus on a comment without putting your own ingrained beliefs into your next comment when it has no bearing.

You literally got mad because I called out Fettermans fake working man shtick. It caused you so much grief that you had to make up a lie about what I said to make your fragile ego feel better about a politician.

​

Go find a serious post where I rooted for Oz, not one where is was playing devils advocate or being outright sarcastic.

4

FuzzPunkMutt t1_ivjkv5u wrote

I couldn't care less if you just want to throw away your vote. That's your choice.

I called you annoying because of how you present yourself -- so let us be clear on that. Kthanks.

1

LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ivk9tpc wrote

First day on the internet?

Here you will find people who communicate differently than your own circle in real life.

I called you a Lil' Buckaroo because you imagined something that wasn't there. Like a little child would while playing Cowboys and Indians or something. It was a joke. But you couldn't see that because of your own preconceived notions about "Republicans who are voting for Oz" or some shit.

So there's that.

Ahh, the old "throw away your vote" line...

If I vote how am I throwing it away? If the two major parties present candidates that I do not agree with why should either of them receive my vote?

The two major parties through their closed primaries do not allow me any input on who the candidates are so why would you think I am duty bound to give my vote to one of their picks?

In the presidential election almost 30% of eligible voters didn't even vote. But somehow I am throwing my vote away by showing up and casting my votes for the people that most closely represent my values and beliefs? Really?

Those 30% are the ones "throwing" away their vote, by not voting.

That's 30% of people that no party, including yours and which other major party is not yours, could not put up a candidate to attract those 30% to even bother showing up to vote.

And I'm "throwing away" my vote?

No, I am not. I will sleep very well tonight knowing that I did not cast my vote for someone who I consider either a carpet bagger or a closet racist.

I will sleep very well knowing that I did not participate in the "lesser of two evils" method of voting that the two parties have foisted upon us.

I will sleep very well knowing that I was not in any way responsible for sending one of two liars, one of two con men to the Senate where they will be bought off by lobbyists.

Can you say the same?

2

Financial_Lime_252 t1_ivg6dln wrote

So the exact same “red mirage” that happened in the 2020 election (though probably not quite to the same degree as there was more mail in voting happening then).

There will no doubt be several people who don’t understand this declaring a republican victory before the mail in votes are counted, just like there were then.

I remember the odds on betting sites actually swung in favor of trump when the initial votes were being counted on election night because people failed to grasp this and thought trump was winning.

69

throwaway01002030405 t1_ivgd4o5 wrote

Personally I think we’ve moved past people just not understanding it, they’re willfully misunderstanding

52

LookAnOwl t1_ivgpivn wrote

>There will no doubt be several people who don’t understand this declaring a republican victory before the mail in votes are counted

Oh, they'll understand it just fine, but that's not what they'll say.

12

UsernameChallenged t1_ivjkekc wrote

1st vote comes in

1 R. 0 D

Chants of 'Stop the Count!' echo in the distance...

3

newtypezaku t1_ivg5p27 wrote

Reporting always looks weird because we do this at the county level and all of the empty ones can count their R votes real fast.

68

1stCaptainSkrall t1_ivgv3vs wrote

I cannot wait until the election is over and I can stop hearing about this

59

Birdface3000 t1_ivjhmak wrote

Trump says he's announcing his run on Nov 15, we'll have 6 beautiful days of no campaigning

5

OkSeaworthiness2638 t1_ivhdg9b wrote

Yes its called the red mirage. Its why theyre so obsessed with same day counting.

35

AKoolPopTart t1_ivhm6am wrote

Yeah, but waiting for over a month is also ridiculous and will just give Republicans more reason to claim fraud.

You have a week, day/night shifts and very generous over time pay, start counting.

11

nicksloan t1_ivi1yx9 wrote

I’m honestly curious… where does the budget to do that come from? What happens if you are looking for election workers in a period of very low unemployment and just can’t find enough people? What about when your county’s election staff prefers to let the early leader stay on top for as long as possible to establish a narrative?

“Count faster” is a suggestion that sounds simple, but is nearly impossible in practice for both good and bad reasons.

2

AKoolPopTart t1_ivi3c49 wrote

I don't know man. I'm just a dude on reddit.

6

nicksloan t1_ivi47ns wrote

Haha. Fair enough. It does feel pretty hopeless. Here’s to the end of ad season.

2

AKoolPopTart t1_ivjjvxz wrote

Thank god....the dreams...the nightmares....they are finally over....

1

thewormauger t1_ivjb7pw wrote

This made my shitty mood about the dread of these elections slightly less shitty. thank you for that

2

IAmMostDope92 t1_ivgghhj wrote

Get out to vote and take a friend.

22

usskawaii t1_ivh2acb wrote

As someone who recently moved here from Florida, Mastriano’s threats to make PA the new Florida terrify me. I know from experience exactly what that would entail.

10

FeSpoke1 t1_ivgt7jk wrote

I actually like Election Day. How did we survive without early voting?

7

FeSpoke1 t1_ivj7dl3 wrote

Give me a break. We have managed to improve all processes in this world during my lifetime except voting. It’s worse. And it’s by design in case you aren’t clever enough to see that.

0

crothwood t1_ivvea03 wrote

In what way is it worse?

Don't actually answer, we all know. More people are able to vote now so your dipshit ideaology has a harder time getting seats.

Also, you forgot to change accounts.

1

ryptide t1_ivgxdpu wrote

This is going to be a mess.

There are going to be all sorts of problems in PA and elsewhere as the early vote and mailed ballots get challenged.

7

lumentec t1_ivhx6wl wrote

Honestly, I don't see any reason to even reveal vote counts until all votes have been cast*. We can wait. There is no benefit to early information but there are potential negatives. I'm not even sure why it's a thing.

6

Piplup_parade t1_ivhkjtx wrote

it’s a good thing the population of Pennsyltucky has been plummeting for the past decade or two

5

slpgh t1_ivhrz5s wrote

Who cares? We know that Democrats use more mail ins and therefore count later. We saw that in 2020. That’s an obvious prediction that does not matter

2

UsernameChallenged t1_ivjk7ec wrote

I never understood the reason to rush, I mean election day is in November, and they don't go into office until January. Most likely we will know basically all winners by Wednesday afternoon. Is that not fast enough?

2

Sb321-4 t1_ivjjxcl wrote

Regardless of the outcome, I hope Fetterman takes a while to rest. He deserves it

0

KentuckYSnow t1_ivhr8xr wrote

Lol fetterman was up how much according to summer polls? Now it's flat, when we all know they favor the D? Now he's telling people about early leads by the other guy? Sounds like he's trying to plant a narrative for his likely loss.

−2

PierogiPowered t1_ivg9p60 wrote

Of course.

Democrats skew younger and tend to be employed and/or raising families. We don't have time to wait in line to vote. We're voting by mail.

−3

burritoace t1_ivgv626 wrote

I don't think I've ever waited in any appreciable line to vote in Pittsburgh

33

IrrumaboMalum t1_ivhumjf wrote

I think my longest wait was 15 minutes once. And I live off of Penn Ave and I can see Children's Hospital from my porch - so it's not like I'm in the outskirts of the city.

7

Pghlaxdad t1_ivgesfo wrote

We also ignore the Republican bullshit around vote by mail. If I believed those fraud claims, I'd vote in person too.

Weirdly, before the Right lost its collective mind on vote by mail, I think it skewed Republican.

8

LookAnOwl t1_ivgqccp wrote

Honestly, because the right lost its collective mind on vote by mail, I'm no longer voting by mail. It feels like they're looking for any reason to discard mail-in ballots, so I want to be there when my vote is cast to ensure minimal fuckery with my ballot.

20

Pghlaxdad t1_ivgvvtb wrote

I’ve had the same thought. But between living in Allegheny County and being able to confirm that my ballot was accepted, I’m pretty confident I won’t be disenfranchised this election. But next election (assuming we have one), so may be less confident.

At least it looks like Mastriano won’t be able to fuck things up from the governor’s mansion

7

ryptide t1_ivgxw4m wrote

Have you confirmed that your ballot is good? Because this just dropped, too. Apparently a bunch of non-dated or incorrectly dated ballots which will now require in-person curing.

https://www.alleghenycounty.us/elections/incorrect,-no-date-ballots.aspx

9

Pghlaxdad t1_ivhlmq8 wrote

Thank you for sharing - I’m good.

For anyone reading, this is a link with names of Allegheny County residents who made a mistake completing a mail in ballot

7

mmobley412 t1_ivhzlg9 wrote

Same. I know there are the online checks etc but I don’t trust the right when it comes to voting. In person seems to be the safest and most reliable method

−1

Dihanouch t1_ivi9w50 wrote

Unfortunately folks Fetterman has no chance since the last and the only debate. It is unfortunate for him . I believe the guy would work and represent the poor but realistically his performance was in question. OZ is highly qualified for the position but the question: is he going to serve the poor ?

−8

uraturdcutter t1_iviayq2 wrote

What are Oz’s qualifications for being a US senator? What government experience does he have? Or familiarity or personal stake in the state of Pennsylvania?

7

QuiggityQwo t1_ivjdej2 wrote

Well for starters he can speak in complete sentences

−6

[deleted] t1_ivheyfk wrote

[removed]

−23

capchaos t1_ivhql06 wrote

Will you be with Oz in Philly this weekend fishing in the Atlantic?

1

Spartacous1991 t1_ivgiz67 wrote

Oz should have this in the bag.

−24

capchaos t1_ivhrgso wrote

Maybe if he hadn't killed those 300 dogs.

0