Those who favor early counting of votes, why do you favor that?
I think counting should begin in a given locale after voting concludes in that locale, on the basis that you don't want to influence voters who haven't yet voted.
And how does not wanting votes counted early equate to suppression? They don't want them not counted ever, they want them not counted early.
edit to add quote
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
The conventional argument is to have all votes 'counted' on election day. It will drag out the count and more 'incidents' of mistakes will likely occur due to overwork of election workers. I see nothing wrong with doing daily vote tallies before election day and keeping them sequestered until after the polls close, then releasing the early counts. That is what Washington State does. Basically going to court to try and make voting and counting of said votes harder is in essence indirectly 'supressing the vote.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
--Bilbo Baggins
Results aren't released until the polls are closed on Election Day. I'm not sure why getting a jump on the heaps of ballots by counting them as they roll in is a problem? Especially if you want results reported out asap on Election Day?
I've got some first hand experience with the work involved in these things and the notion of making early voting available but not counting a single ballot until the polls close on Nov. 3rd and then somehow having a result to report that same night horrifies me. I don't even see how that is physically possible. No one involved in running elections in my state sees how that's physically possible either. So the count in Colorado starts when the voting starts. Coloradans are rather proud of how we run elections and think the rest of the country would benefit from our example. This is a bipartisan opinion. Tripartisan if you want to count the unaffiliateds as a party.
Ballot counting in my state, including early and absentee ballots, begins as soon as the polls open. Incidently, once counting has begun they cannot stop until finished so it's going to be a long night for poll workers.
Here is my "out on a limb" prediction for this election.
Biden wins Texas.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
The New Hampshire Union Leader, a conservative paper in (obviously) New Hampshire, has endorsed Joe Biden. He is the first Democratic candidate that they have endorsed in over a century.
Donald Trump did not create the social-media-driven political landscape we now live in, but he has weaponized it. He is a consummate linguistic takedown artist, ripping apart all comers to the delight of his fanbase but at the expense of the nation. America faces many challenges and needs a president to build this country up. This appears to be outside of Mr. Trump’s skill set.
Building this country up sits squarely within the skill set of Joseph Biden. We have found Mr. Biden to be a caring, compassionate and professional public servant. He has repeatedly expressed his desire to be a president for all of America, and we take him at his word. Joe Biden may not be the president we want, but in 2020 he is the president we desperately need. He will be a president to bring people together and right the ship of state.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I like to believe that Biden will have the Electoral college in the bag, but nobody can take it as done until after Nov 3.
The real grit of the fight is the 35 Senate seats up for election (33 on cycle and 2 special elections for appointed senators). Here is a page of statistics of polls for Congressional races. As I see it, the Democrats are expected to keep, if not add, to their number in the House. For the Senate, they need to win at least four more seats from Republicans to switch the leadership. If Biden and the House have to work with a Republican Senate,I see very little getting done as Mitch will just have his majority sit on their hands for two years as they did for Obama.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
--Bilbo Baggins
Mitch hasn't let his majority do much more than confirm judges under Trump, so they're pretty practiced at sitting on their hands. I wonder if they even remember how to do anything else.
Actually, assuming that Biden actually holds on and wins, they only need a net gain of three seats to control the senate, since Vice President Harris will be able to break a 50-50 tie. But Doug Jones is probably going to lose in Alabama, and if he does they would need to win four GOP-held seats to get a net gain of 3 seats. However, they currently are favored in at least five races (Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Maine and Iowa), probably favored in the Georgia special election (though what will happen once their is a run-off is hard to predict) and strongly competitive in three other races (the other Georgia seat, South Carolina and Montana) and somewhat competitive in several other normally very red states (Kansas, Texas, Mississippi, and the afore-mentioned Alabama). It adds up to a 73% chance of the Democrats taking control of the Senate, according to 538.
x-posted with River and Rose.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Yeah I threw an extra one in for good measure.
What I don't want to see should the Democrats take the whole cake is their usual 'Let's heal the divide/let's be bi-partisan' bullshit. The Republicans have bankrupted themselves over the last five years or more and the Democrats need to go in hard and fast. Trouble is with Joe it will more likely than not be the 'consesus' BS as per usual when Democrats have power.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
--Bilbo Baggins
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Here is my "out on a limb" prediction for this election.
Biden wins Texas.
538 is giving Biden a 38% chance of taking Texas. It's not that far out on the limb. More likely than losing a game of Russian roulette with two loaded chambers, actually.
The polls in 2016 significantly underestimated Trump's support in the upper Midwest, but slightly overestimated it in some Sun belt states. The polling companies have adjusted their sampling methodology, but if they have the same issue it's quite foreseeable that Biden will win Georgia and Texas while losing Iowa and Ohio. On the current polling, Texas is tied.
There are several significant differences from 2016. First is the constancy of Biden's lead, both throughout the year, and most significant, in the last week. By this point 4 years ago, Clinton's average lead in the national polls had dipped from about 7% to about 4%. Biden is holding steady at around 9% or 10%, depending on whose average you look at. Even more importantly, there are far less undecided voters that could fall Trump's way at the last second; Biden's percentage is over 50%, whereas Clinton was under 45%. Clinton had a high negative favorability rating; Biden has a net positive favorability rating. And Biden is leading in many more states, and very close in many others, so there would need to be polling errors in much more states than the few mid-western states and Florida that barely tipped the electoral college Trump's way despite the fact that the overall national polls were not off by much.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Oh, I expect Biden to win. But I was suggesting that the scenario where he wins states like GA and TX (and the electoral college) while losing states like OH and IA was very plausible. At the moment, the states which are lineball in the polls are TX, IA, OH, and GA.
Of course, in a world where Biden is far enough ahead to win Texas, he's probably not going to lose Pennsylvania no matter how many dirty tricks his opponents pull. But that works the other way too--if he underperforms the polls in one state, he's probably going to underperform in all the others too, at least ones that are demographically and culturally similar. This is basically what happened in the upper Midwest in 2016, after all. So unfortunately one can't really take comfort in arguments that sound like "for Biden to lose, the polls would have to be off in 6 different states!"
Correct. 538’s simulator (the one where you can assign states to candidates) takes those correlations into account and *won’t* let you make such assignments.
I played around with it. I didn’t see a path without PA.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
ETA: You must have meant just Trump, because there are lots of paths to victory for Biden without PA.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
A great (and mercifully short) video with Nate Silver about how likely it is that we will know who wins on election night (or more likely early the following morning).
Bottom line is that it is more likely than I thought it was. Florida, Arizona and North Carolina are all key states that are likely to be counted or mostly counted that night. If Biden wins any of them, he almost certainly will win the election.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
