Election Results and just the results

Post Reply New Topic

I value reason, as well as facts.
The principle is, that if something is valid of one side of politics, it should be valid for the other, all things being equal.
I can't see how anyone can argue against that,

I have heard differently.
Not "all their claims are being found to be frivolous."
Perhaps Brictoria can enlighten us.

Apparently, that is exactly what happened.

That's not what I and everyone else have heard. If any of it isn't frivolous, what is it?

As I understand it, the Democrats did challenge the results of the 2016 election, indirectly, using Jill Stein as a proxy (Given she was even further behind (with no electoral college votes from any other states, there was considerably less reason\motivation for her to challenge a count than Mr Trump currently has):

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein_presidential_campaign,_2016#Recount_petitions

The challenges were quickly halted when one found that Mr Trump had won more votes than the initial count had shown:

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/jill-stein-election-recount_n_58507032e4b092f08685ff68?ri18n=true

Yet Trump is too addled with personality disorders to do the same as the Clinton campaign four years before.

I haven't followed all the cases (many of which have been filed by "third parties", rather than the Trump campaign), so not certain what basis they were framed around.

I have a suspicion that there will be some commencing in the near future and lodged by the Trump campign related to signature verification (and whether it took place\was adequately performed), coupled with the affect of including improperly verified votes on the total and the dilution of the value of legitimate votes as a result.

Little hints I have heard relate to details such as return envelopes (which have voter signature and are legally required to be retained) having been discarded, preventing the lawfully required ability to confirm a match with the signature on file, along with the fact that this year a significantly greater number of postal votes were submitted (up to 10x previous elections, I believe), yet the number that failed signature checks decreased from an average of around 2-3%, down to 1/10 of that this year. Based on previous "failure" rates on the checks, 2-3% of the vote potentially being rejected (based on levels historically recorded) could alter the results in many of the swing states.

There may also be something related to late votes (which were required to be seperated from those which arrived before a specific time) being intermingled with those that arrived prior, potentially diluting the "value" of legitimate votes should it be determined that they were not to be counted.

There are a few other details as well (One state potentially assisting voters with incorrect signatures to "cure" the issue for those voting for\in a county likely to vote for Mr Biden, while not allowing the same option to those more likely to vote for Mr Trump), but I'll wait to see whether they are referenced.

On a side note, the challenges aren't only being raised with regards to the current election, but also to set a precedent so that in future elections the process will be better defined and requirements are followed, which would assist in reducing the potential areas which an unsuccessful candidate could find potential problems.

Only because Clinton wasn't a sitting president and held no political seat after the election. That's why Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff had to try changing the outcome instead, via hundreds of hours and years long investigations and hearings.

The republicans have barely scratched the surface in trying to undo an election compared to the democrats.

Remember what was being said about the democrat politicians setting bad precedents in their attempts to end a presidency?

Last edited by Tempus Fugit on 16 Nov 2020, 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

You mean he should hide behind proxies when contesting the results, rather than doing so directly?

Like I said, Clinton couldn't do anything on her own since she was an ex-politician and therefore had to rely on others to contest the outcome of the election for her.

Or just maybe, the Dems actually had had evidence of Trump consorting with Russian intelligence, and trying to blackmail Ukraine into implicating Biden in nonexistent wrongdoing. I'm going to trust Robert Mueller and American intelligence before I fall for Putin's propaganda parroted by Trump.
All very different from the sour grapes of a demented narcissist like Trump, whose charges have no merit.

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 16 Nov 2020, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why are we dragging Hillary Clinton into the current mess? some people just can't accept Trump is an embarrassment and he does it all by himself.

Proxies or not, Trump's charges of misconduct by the Biden campaign are facetious. That's the difference.

Because Clinton conceded but Trump hasn't.

From your subjective point of view, maybe. From other subjective points of view, maybe not.

For those interested in an objective evaluation, we'll just have to wait to see what evidence both sides can produce.

There's a great documentary on Hillary Clinton doing the rounds on SBS TV, must watch it.