US Election 2020

[laklak]

Voted today, enabled Trump. No lines, in and out in 15 minutes. Voted for Republicans, Democrats, NPAs (No Party Affiliation), and one Libertarian.

[Joe]

I dropped our ballots off Saturday. I did my usual split ticket down ballot, but was anti-incumbent at the federal level.

[Tero]

I've never voted for anyone but Democrat. I've left a very few items blank. Not every election year for sure. I have voted since 1980. Possibly 1978.

[pErvinalia]

Communist!

[Brian Peacock]

I hacked into the Florida election commission mainframe - it was running Windows XP - and dropped 300,000 votes on the Alligator Reform Party.

[laklak]

They're reptiles, you can't trust them. Cold blooded, only in it for the fish and small mammals.

[rainbow]

They're reptiles, you can't trust them. Cold blooded, only in it for the fish and small mammals.

...so a bit like Libertarians?

[Seabass]

In her obituary, 93-year-old Inver Grove Heights woman asks voters to not vote for Trump
https://www.twincities.com/2020/10/20/i ... for-trump/

Georgia May Adkins of Inver Grove Heights died of a stroke Sept. 28 at United Hospital in St. Paul. She was 93.

Her obituaries published in the Pioneer Press included details of how she wanted to be cremated and then honored with an Oct. 16 service at St. Stephen’s Lutheran Church in West St. Paul under COVID-19 protocols.

Adkins also had one other request: shun Donald Trump. “In lieu of flowers, Georgia preferred that you do not vote for Trump,” the obit read.

Her Oct. 11 obit has now gone viral on social media, with thousands of people sharing it on Facebook — and causing supporters of both presidential candidates to comment that they will either honor her plea or reject it.

“We got you covered Georgia!” read one Facebook comment.

“What a peach!” another commenter wrote.

[Scot Dutchy]

The great American "democracy" in action.

Wisconsin can't count mail-in ballots received after election day, supreme court rules

Court sided with Republicans in 5-3 ruling, awarding party a victory in crusade against expanding voting rights and access

The US supreme court has sided with Republicans to prevent Wisconsin from counting mail-in ballots that are received after election day.

In a 5-3 ruling, the justices on Monday refused to reinstate a lower court order that called for mailed ballots to be counted if they are received up to six days after the 3 November election. A federal appeals court had already put that order on hold.

The ruling awards a victory for Republicans in their crusade against expanding voting rights and access. It also came just moments before the Republican-controlled Senate voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, a victory for the right that locks in a conservative majority on the nation’s highest court for years to come.

The three liberal justices dissented. John Roberts, the chief justice, last week joined the liberals to preserve a Pennsylvania state court order extending the absentee ballot deadline but voted the other way in the Wisconsin case, which has moved through federal courts.

The shape of things to come. The country being ruled by a non elected court. What Fucking system.

[Tero]

Aside from the amendments, that deal with blacks voting etc., I don't see anything in the constitution that would allow the court to rule on vote counting.

The U.S. presidential election process, like all other elections in the United States, is a highly decentralized system.[13] While the U.S. Constitution does set parameters for the election of the president and other federal officials, state law, not federal, regulates most aspects of elections in the U.S., including the primaries, the eligibility of voters (beyond the basic constitutional definition), and the specific details of running each state's electoral college meeting. All elections, including federal, are administered by the individual states.[14]

Thus, the presidential election is really an amalgamation of separate state elections instead of a single national election run by the federal government. Candidates must submit separate filings in each of the 50 states if they want to qualify on each state's ballot, and the requirements for filing vary by state.[15]

The eligibility of an individual for voting is set out in the Constitution and regulated at state level. The 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution state that suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of race or color, sex, or age for citizens eighteen years or older, respectively. Beyond these basic qualifications, it is the responsibility of state legislatures to regulate voter eligibility and registration.[14] And the specific requirements for voter eligibility and registration also vary by state, e.g. some states ban convicted felons from voting.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... l_election

From the election to December 14th, the court should not be involved
Monday December 14, 2020 – Electors cast their electoral votes

[Brian Peacock]

Next they'll be saying that votes which haven't been counted by 12 midnight on election day won't qualify.

[Sean Hayden]

Democracy's stupid. Look, we've been at this long enough now that we should be able to define a set of standards for any office, and government in general. Now, just fill the positions with the people best able to execute those standards. Instead of voting for a dog catcher, you hire the most qualified catcher of dogs.

Or, even better, put a coin in charge. You keep your crazy parties, but now they only agree on a set of possibilities from which The Coin decides. "We had some good flips this year"... "Well, with a set like that it's hard to miss"... "That's an interesting point. What do you make of Republican concerns that this year's set favors Democrats"... "Ultimately, I think the coin decides Bob"... "Indeed"...

[Joe]

Bush v Gore wasn't supposed to be a precedent, but here they go.

In a significant footnote, Kavanaugh also wrote that state courts do not have a “blank check” to step in on state laws governing federal elections, endorsing conservative justices’ rationale in deciding the election in 2000 between George W Bush and Al Gore.

Two decades ago, in Bush v Gore, the supreme court decided – effectively – that Bush would be the US president after settling a recount dispute in the swing state of Florida. Back then, three conservative justices – William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – said that the Florida supreme court “impermissibly distorted” the state’s election code by ordering a recount of a close election, during which voting machines were found to have issues correctly counting the votes.

In Monday’s ruling, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch – both Trump appointees – endorsed that view expressed in the Bush v Gore case, a move that could foretell how the court, which now has a 6-3 conservative majority, would rule if the results of the presidential election are contested.

[laklak]

The great American "democracy" in action.

Exactly. SCOTUS correctly ruled that the Wisconsin courts cannot unilaterally change Wisconsin law. Shows exactly how separation of powers is supposed to work.

If they want to count votes AFTER election day they need to change the state law. Y'all are completely wrong on this.

[laklak]

They're reptiles, you can't trust them. Cold blooded, only in it for the fish and small mammals.

...so a bit like Libertarians?

All your small mammals belong me.