2020 Election early voting and eventually results

Don’t you think that all the Republican efforts to get votes thrown out, or to make it difficult to vote or even to interfere with ballots are going to be a bigger issue?

quote:

---

All the indications are that fraud is not really a problem (or at least that's what the news media keep repeating).

---

Most of what I said has nothing to do with fraud. And unless you count the fame drop-off boxes in California as fraud, none of it did.But it’s all there, and it will be - and should be - a bigger issue than correctly disqualified votes. Unless something even worse happens.

And the Republicans are working hard on disqualifying more. You seem determined to ignore that point. Trump himself is insisting that counting should stop on the 3rd, despite the problems with the postal system which will delay ballots. The problems which seem to have been intentionally created to delay ballots... And that’s not all.

I’m sure that the various rows over attempts to disqualify votes that should be accepted will overshadow any normal problems.

That’s sort of inconsistent. If nobody is going to complain about the antics of the Republican Party in California because the result won’t be close, why would they complain about completely normal disqualifications? And there are serious issues in other states, too.

Again, my point is that the open attempts to disqualify perfectly valid ballots - by being so egregious - will outweigh the natural disqualifications. As so far, they have.

I don’t think you can argue quantity at this point, not when many egregious disqualifications are proposals or pending final court decisions at this point.

I think that there will be far more than 100,000 ballots at stake. We don’t know how many will be invalidated yet. Maybe none. But with a partisan Supreme Court (and at least one Justice very much into invalidating ballots), we can’t say.

There usually isn’t a campaign to invalidate ballots either.The Republican Party has been about discouraging voting for some time, but they are getting more and more blatant in their opposition to democracy.

How often have partisan courts thrown out legitimate votes?There’s already cause to think that some of the. Conservative Justices are planning to disqualify a large number of votes in Pennsylvania if it will help Trump.

quote:

---

Are you just setting yourself up so you can say you were cheated if the pollsters prove wrong like they did in 2016?

---

Hardly. The court decisions will not be secret.

Probably it will go to the Supreme Court.They’ve already said they will look at Pennsylvania if the late-arriving votes make a difference to the outcome.They declined to hear the North Carolina case, although 3 Justices wanted to and wanted to disqualify ballots (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) - and Alito left open the possibility of reopening it after the election (and the whole thing looks very dodgy to me).Then there’s Texas, but I don’t know how far that’s got.Probably there will be more, especially if Biden wins. Not to mention the possibility of even worse shenanigans that will be clearly visible.

quote:

---

But then, of course, they can't "look at" anything until someone brings a suit. And then they pretty much have to decide (or decide not to take the case, which is also a decision)

---

I’ve been talking about cases that have already been brought. As you should have gathered.

quote:

---

So what you're saying is you think they'll decide these cases "wrongly", isn't it?

---

There is certainly cause to think that they might disqualify legally cast votes, by overriding the State authorities, and changing the rules after the fact. Three Justices have already indicated that they would, in the case of North Carolina.

quote:

---

People scream blue murder when the courts rule against them, as they always do when there are two opposed parties to a suit.

---

I see you’re reduced to innuendo now.As for court-packing The Republicans have made it clear that they when they have power they will use it to promote ideologues to the courts when they can and block judicial appointments - regardless of merit or need - when they can’t. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to redress that. Indeed, it is necessary to the political health of America that it is addressed.With Trump politicising the civil service and his supporters clamouring for show trials of political opponents, it seems to me that there is a real threat of tyranny. It reminds me of the Soviet Union.

quote:

---

Innuendo? Hardly. I claimed that people will scream when rulings go against them and I gave examples of some screaming.

---

And in context it was clearly intended as innuendo.

quote:

---

As for court packing, sure, there's nothing illegal about it, go ahead, add a few pliable justices to the Supreme Court. You might not even need to go that far. Just the threat of enlargement was what (some say) cowed the Court back in the 1930s into a less assertive stance.

---

It’s not only legal it’s far more justifiable than what the Republicans have been doing. Which can more fairly be called court packing.

quote:

---

I'm sorry if stating facts that you agree with is taken by you as "innuendo"....

---

Ah, the standard I’m sorry I got caught faux-apology.

quote:

---

Why have a judiciary at all?

​

If n is the number of Supreme Court justices, then all you need is a President and half the Senate (VP casting the tie vote) to add another n+1 justices and suddenly every law that President signs will automatically be constitutional!

---

Well that is where the Republicans are trying to go by controlling judicial appointments and by appointing judges by ideology rather than merit. Using expansion to rebalance the court would reduce that effect, not create it.Of course, the Republicans will say otherwise, but they’ve already proven that they’re lying hypocrites only interested in maintaining power.