2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The longer the delay the more people will suspect that fraud has occurred if there is an unexpected win.

The same people who suspected the attack on Paul Pelosi was staged. I hope they loudly protest. Their accusations did the Democrats a world of good in the midterms.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

The message I refer to is that Washington is "swampy" and needs to be reformed. That message had no problem gaining millions and millions of votes from voters that were looking for a champion against Washington.

Unfortunately the champion had enough defects of character that the establishment were able to deflect attention from the message to make it about Trump personally.

It wasn't just his character. It was that he pumped sewage into that swamp.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The longer the delay the more people will suspect that fraud has occurred if there is an unexpected win.

   One of those no-win situations.  It's taking longer because extra care is being taken in counting all the mailed-in ballots to ensure that no fraud occurs--which leads the election deniers to claim once again that the election is being 'stolen' because it is taking so long to count ballots.

    Many of the outstanding House races are in California, which allows mailed-in ballots to be mailed on election day and allows them to be received up to 7 days after the election.  In close races, which the remaining ones are, they need to make sure all mailed ballots have been received and counted before a winner is declared.   Alaska is a whole 'nother story with its ranked choice voting, which also takes time if no candidate initially wins more than 50% of the vote.

    With the shift of some states moving to mailed-in balloting, and more voters choosing to use mail-in ballots to vote, coupled with allowing the ballots to be mailed on election day, we're going to have to get used to waiting for complete election results for several weeks or more.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

The message I refer to is that Washington is "swampy" and needs to be reformed. That message had no problem gaining millions and millions of votes from voters that were looking for a champion against Washington.

Unfortunately the champion had enough defects of character that the establishment were able to deflect attention from the message to make it about Trump personally.

The dozen or so convictions and as many pardons which prevented convictions is why Trump lost.

 

If we want to discuss the Washington swamp.

 

Kushner stayed at Trump hotel at the same time as Qatar officials — two months before their property deal

 

https://www.rawstory.com/jared-kushner-qatar/?traffic_source=Connatix

25 minutes ago, newnative said:

   One of those no-win situations.  It's taking longer because extra care is being taken in counting all the mailed-in ballots to ensure that no fraud occurs--which leads the election deniers to claim once again that the election is being 'stolen' because it is taking so long to count ballots.

    Many of the outstanding House races are in California, which allows mailed-in ballots to be mailed on election day and allows them to be received up to 7 days after the election.  In close races, which the remaining ones are, they need to make sure all mailed ballots have been received and counted before a winner is declared.   Alaska is a whole 'nother story with its ranked choice voting, which also takes time if no candidate initially wins more than 50% of the vote.

    With the shift of some states moving to mailed-in balloting, and more voters choosing to use mail-in ballots to vote, coupled with allowing the ballots to be mailed on election day, we're going to have to get used to waiting for complete election results for several weeks or more.

What a mess. 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What a mess. 

Why is that? Is the time it takes to count votes a huge problem somehow? Are we without a government in the meantime? This is the normal experience in Australia which has huge mail in voting. nobody complains about fairness.

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What a mess. 

    No, not a mess.  Just the way elections have been evolving.   With some states allowing mail-in ballots to be sent up to and including election day, there will always be a delay until they arrive and are counted.  Delay doesn't equal mess.   There's no need to be in a hurry; states realize the process will not be finished on election night.  California, as one example, has until December 8 to certify its election results.

14 minutes ago, newnative said:

    No, not a mess.  Just the way elections have been evolving.   With some states allowing mail-in ballots to be sent up to and including election day, there will always be a delay until they arrive and are counted.  Delay doesn't equal mess.   There's no need to be in a hurry; states realize the process will not be finished on election night.  California, as one example, has until December 8 to certify its election results.

The reason that the same people who support conspiracy theories about the 2020 election are now calling this a mess is to promote distrust in the electoral system. And it's funny because these are also the same people who pushed for multiple recounts in the 2020 election. What a mess!

19 minutes ago, newnative said:

    No, not a mess.  Just the way elections have been evolving.   With some states allowing mail-in ballots to be sent up to and including election day, there will always be a delay until they arrive and are counted.  Delay doesn't equal mess.   There's no need to be in a hurry; states realize the process will not be finished on election night.  California, as one example, has until December 8 to certify its election results.

and, as politics becomes more and more polarized, the elections are closer and so take  longer to arrive at a result.

3 hours ago, newnative said:

    No, not a mess.  Just the way elections have been evolving.   With some states allowing mail-in ballots to be sent up to and including election day, there will always be a delay until they arrive and are counted.  Delay doesn't equal mess.   There's no need to be in a hurry; states realize the process will not be finished on election night.  California, as one example, has until December 8 to certify its election results.

How wonderful!

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

and, as politics becomes more and more polarized, the elections are closer and so take  longer to arrive at a result.

What it becomes less polarized?

Just now, nauseus said:

What it becomes less polarized?

It should return to the previous situation where there were more swing voters and the outcomes would be called earlier.

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

What a mess. 

Do you want the Federal government telling states how to conduct elections?  Not only would that require a change to the US Constitution, the Republican Party would fight it tooth and nail.

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you want the Federal government telling states how to conduct elections?  Not only would that require a change to the US Constitution, the Republican Party would fight it tooth and nail.

Let's just say that some sensible common guidelines and time windows might be agreed upon by all states. This might instill more trust in the system. Yes, I think the Federal Government would want more input plus the votes in each state can affect national policies, and so affect other states too. Voting for the shared president would be better run under similar rules nationwide.  

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Let's just say that some sensible common guidelines and time windows might be agreed upon by all states. This might instill more trust in the system. Yes, I think the Federal Government would want more input plus the votes in each state can affect national policies, and so affect other states too. Voting for the shared president would be better run under similar rules nationwide.  

Only one side doesn't trust the elections, the side that doesn't want elections.  There is no impetus to arbitrarily reduce the time allowed to count votes. To do so would require automated voting, you can't have it both ways. Not counting all votes because they ran out of time would be a non starter.

Actually, the Constitution does allow Congress to set the rules for House and Senate elections:

 

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in Decembunless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/750,

 

When pro-Trump extremists stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,  they probably weren’t thinking about the next election. But maybe they should have.

 

-----------------

 

And that specter of the potential for authoritarianism in America may have been a greater motivator for voters in 2022 than inflation (single-digits equal to that of the average European country), the economy, immigration or even abortion.

 

https://missouriindependent.com/2022/11/15/how-the-gops-expected-red-wave-crashed-on-the-rocks-of-the-insurrection/

According to Al Jazeera the GOP is now one seat from victory in the house. If the Dems take the house now ( with a literally last minute "surge" ), it will, IMO, certainly rile up conflict as many will suspect fraud ( due to time being taken to count votes ) whether that is true or not.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to Al Jazeera the GOP is now one seat from victory in the house. If the Dems take the house now ( with a literally last minute "surge" ), it will, IMO, certainly rile up conflict as many will suspect fraud ( due to time being taken to count votes ) whether that is true or not.

Many will suspect fraud no matter what the outcome. Actually, many will be convinced of fraud whatever the outcome.

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, the Constitution does allow Congress to set the rules for House and Senate elections:

 

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in Decembunless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/750,

 

 

Just now, nauseus said:

Silly salad.

Thank you for your reasoned analysis clearly based on not following the link to actually learn something. Had you done so, you would have found that it's actually quite significant.