Post by BrritSki Post by Philip Hole Post by BrritSki
Next time my American friends complain about cricket going on for day
after day with no winner, I'm just going to mention this Presidential
One. Trump claimed he had won. Well according to him. But why did he
try to force recounts which could result in him losing?
Two. The Democrats actually stole votes. They knew that if Trump still
won he would not want to look too deeply. If it looked like he might
lose he would panic and throw the Supreme Court at anything he could.
However, being impetuous, he would not wait for anything like proof or
evidence. The cases would be thrown out. Later, when he had proof,
everyone would say he was crying wolf.
I have heard it suggested (but I have no idea how true it is) that the
only established cases of attempted voter fraud, so far in this election
have been Republicans (following their leader's suggestion) attempting
to vote twice...
Post by BrritSki
Interesting theory. I have no idea if anyone cheated or not, but I think
their postal vote system is weird. Apart from the known problems of
postal voting , it seems to me that only votes that are actually
received at the polling station before the polls close should be valid -
if you're going to mail in a vote, why not do it in plenty of time ?
Allowing votes postmarked on election day is too open to manipulation
IMO and cause the endless delays we are seeing which are not good for
I've heard on another group (and from someone who's generally pretty
knowledgeable about such things), that the American postal votes are
actually much better controlled than ours are and with far tighter
identity checks. I don't know the details though and I would assume
they vary from state to state.
I've also seen reports of people having been able to check, online,
whether their vote had been received and accepted and, on finding it had
failed the identity checks, having been able to jump through further
hoops to get it accepted.
When it comes to the question of whether postal votes should have to be
posted before the end of election day or received before the election
day, I can see benefits both ways. Our way is certainly simpler and
allows for all the votes to be counted in one go.
Allowing votes which have been posted before the polls closed, but which
arrive later, is good as it allows people to wait till more of the
debates and discussions have been held before they vote. It also seems
a good idea when your president has quite explicitly witheld funding
from the post office in order to make it harder for people to vote by post!
Post by BrritSki
Also, how do they prevent people from voting in person after sending
in a postal vote ? Is there some sort of reconciliation process ? How
do we prevent that in the UK for that matter ?
In the UK, if you have a postal vote, the only way you can vote in
person is to turn up at your local polling station, with your postal
ballot in hand and post it there. The copy of the electoral roll that
the recording angels are using will show that you have a postal vote and
they won't give you a new ballot paper.
I don't know what the process is, in the US, but, at least in states
where it's logged online who's voted, they may be able to have a rather
more sophisticated system.
Best wishes, Serena
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. (John Donne)