ADVERTISEMENT

Who decides elections?

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
23,249
2,203
113
77
Fox or CNN shouldn't. But who gave the Associated Press the authority? Note the word Press. Just as a formality, some group from government should declare who won. We waited, and waited, to find out that Bush 43 had won. Also, a concession is not needed. We've moved to a place where the press calls the result and the loser has to make a concession speech. In the long run, I believe Biden won. But the loser has a right to challenge. You can tear into me now.
 
Upon further checking, the governor of each state announces the winner of that state on December 14. A long time to wait, which may be why people turn to AP. We had a long delay for Bush 43.
 
Upon further checking, the governor of each state announces the winner of that state on December 14. A long time to wait, which may be why people turn to AP. We had a long delay for Bush 43.

Sure. Trump has a right to challenge, so go ahead. But given the tight scrutiny over elections this year, it's hard to believe that the outcome will change. Interestingly, his solicitations for donations to his 'election defense' fund allow him to use half of the money to pay off campaign debts. Pays to read the fine print.

The Associated Press has called U.S. elections since 1848, when it used a new technology, the telegraph, to declare Zachary Taylor the next president of the United States. In our lifetime while cable networks have their own teams of experts who compile data and project winners, they rely on the AP’s reporting and data to cross-reference their work. And the AP supplies results to its subscribers, including The New York Times, Google, and myriad local newspapers. The general consensus is if the AP declares a winner, it must be true.
 
Last edited:
Fox or CNN shouldn't. But who gave the Associated Press the authority? Note the word Press. Just as a formality, some group from government should declare who won. We waited, and waited, to find out that Bush 43 had won. Also, a concession is not needed. We've moved to a place where the press calls the result and the loser has to make a concession speech. In the long run, I believe Biden won. But the loser has a right to challenge. You can tear into me now.
Historically, and the same is true this year, each state certifies their results and that is when the final tally becomes "official". That happens I think whenever the states want, but before the electoral college votes.

With Florida in 2000, nobody called it until the SCOTUS decided the case and the SoS of Florida certified the results. It was that close, and impossible to give a good statistical prediction of who would win. The results were literally within the noise of counting error. Similarly, Georgia is pretty close this year, and could conceivably still go either way. Nobody has called it yet and probably won't until the Georgia SoS certifies the results. If it were all coming down to Georgia, I doubt any major media would have made "the call".

Military ballots are still coming in to some states, and lots of people are still verifying and counting provisional ballots, braille ballots, and the like. It's always possible that a recount reveals that a vote count machine somewhere malfunctioned and flips a couple thousand votes, which could make a difference in a race as tight as Georgia. Trump has every right to ask for recounts in close states to ensure that isn't the case. I will support his right to do that unequivocally.

It's not "over", it's just really really unlikely that Trump will somehow pull it out. He'd need all the breaks on a series of very unlikely events. Newspaper articles and stories can be retracted if necessary. Remember "Dewey Defeats Truman".
 
The Associated Press has called U.S. elections since 1848, when it used a new technology, the telegraph, to declare Zachary Taylor the next president of the United States. In our lifetime while cable networks have their own teams of experts who compile data and project winners, they rely on the AP’s reporting and data to cross-reference their work. And the AP supplies results to its subscribers, including The New York Times, Google, and myriad local newspapers. The general consensus is if the AP declares a winner, it must be true.
1848.

Yes I know, I am against that. AP and NYT, Google. I guess if AP told you to jump off of a bridge you would do it. It's not 1848 any more and it should not take for a governor that long to bless an election.
 
Historically, and the same is true this year, each state certifies their results and that is when the final tally becomes "official". That happens I think whenever the states want, but before the electoral college votes.

With Florida in 2000, nobody called it until the SCOTUS decided the case and the SoS of Florida certified the results. It was that close, and impossible to give a good statistical prediction of who would win. The results were literally within the noise of counting error. Similarly, Georgia is pretty close this year, and could conceivably still go either way. Nobody has called it yet and probably won't until the Georgia SoS certifies the results. If it were all coming down to Georgia, I doubt any major media would have made "the call".

Military ballots are still coming in to some states, and lots of people are still verifying and counting provisional ballots, braille ballots, and the like. It's always possible that a recount reveals that a vote count machine somewhere malfunctioned and flips a couple thousand votes, which could make a difference in a race as tight as Georgia. Trump has every right to ask for recounts in close states to ensure that isn't the case. I will support his right to do that unequivocally.

It's not "over", it's just really really unlikely that Trump will somehow pull it out. He'd need all the breaks on a series of very unlikely events. Newspaper articles and stories can be retracted if necessary. Remember "Dewey Defeats Truman".
Yes. Seriously (after my light remarks to Thrice) we have a situation where the media was almost entirely against Trump and then we see the media declaring a winner, with not even as much as a passing glance for any irregularities.
 
Yes. Seriously (after my light remarks to Thrice) we have a situation where the media was almost entirely against Trump and then we see the media declaring a winner, with not even as much as a passing glance for any irregularities.
Yeah, I've always felt that no matter who is winning, the media tends to rush to declare a victory. If it is close and a recount is called for, they kind of downplay the recount and it doesn't usually get very much press. I guess it kind of makes sense because recounts very rarely alter the vote by more than a few hundred votes. But that doesn't mean they can't. Like I said, it is always possible that a machine malfunction occurs somewhere, or just plain human error that caused a misreporting of the correct numbers. It's rare, but not impossible, and if the margin is close I think it is important to check for those things as a matter of course before certifying anything.

I guess I agree with you that I do wish they would calm down if a recount is in play until the vote is certified and/or the recount shows no major discrepencies. But... the media is an industry, for better or worse. Caution and restraint don't draw as many eyes as fireworks and balloons upon calling a race. In the words of Dougie (and Trump!): It is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe
Cnn's all anti-trump 24/7 worked.

But, Fox's anti-Biden propaganda didn't work. Weird.
Fox had Biden with AZ since Thursday but CNN still doesn't. Their website was also more pro-Biden on Saturday than CNN's. I thought it was so strange I took a screen shot of it.

News networks project these. That gets people to watch them.
IIRC, it was the AP that actually projected Biden as the winner first and everyone else fell in line from there.
 
But, Fox's anti-Biden propaganda didn't work. Weird.
Fox had Biden with AZ since Thursday but CNN still doesn't. Their website was also more pro-Biden on Saturday than CNN's. I thought it was so strange I took a screen shot of it.

News networks project these. That gets people to watch them.
IIRC, it was the AP that actually projected Biden as the winner first and everyone else fell in line from there.

Fox may have decided that their future programming will have more appeal it if is focused on complaining about Biden/Harris than backing a whiney, tiresome Trump pursuing a false narrative.
 
The Justice Department’s top election crimes prosecutor resigned in protest after Barr authorized U.S. attorneys to probe alleged elections fraud. Richard Pilger told colleagues in an email that Barr’s memorandum breaks with the Justice Department’s policy on avoiding interference with elections that has stood for 40 years. A Justice Department official confirmed that the department is “looking into” allegations of ineligible voters in Nevada and mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania. (NPR / NBC News )
 
When democrats question something, its a criminal investigation
When Republicans question something, its just another conspiracy theory.
 
When democrats question something, its a criminal investigation
When Republicans question something, its just another conspiracy theory.

When someone has unwavering love or hate for any particular side, it's their problem.

These cases are being thrown out at the same rate all election cases dealing with fraud are, rapidly.
Despite what some say, it's extremely hard to commit election fraud at any level.
Especially at the rate where it would actually effect results.
It's much easier to attempt to suppress voter turnout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a
It's one thing to contest an election, but a continuous assault on the soundness of our electoral system is incredibly damaging to the country. The US has a 200 year history of fair elections and reasonable mechanisms for resolving disputes. But that is not what we have been hearing from Trump who has waged a war against voting and fair elections since he started running for President 5 years ago. HIs claims of massive fraud and stolen elections will make things harder for the next administration when he finally leaves, which supports his post presidency influence and fund raising. But it sucks for America.
 
Last edited:
The ruling was handed down Dec 12th.
Also, the vote count there was genuinely in dispute, being only a few hundred votes apart and what with all the ambiguous votes from "hanging chads" and the like. The edge cases mattered.

These elections are tens of thousands of votes apart, not hundreds. The few "edge cases" where a vote is ambiguous do not have the potential to flip it like it did in 2000.

Anyway, when a state certifies its results, it is over for that state, period. That will start happening soon for some states, and will continue through Dec. 14. Whenever Pennsylvania finishes its count (and likely recount), they will certify and it will be over. I doubt the courts will decide this one.

Edit:

Also, Happy Veteran's Day to all the Veterans out there. Thank you sincerely for your service.
 
To register to vote, you mail in a post card, email a form or check a box on your driver's license renewal. Security? Validation?
 
To register to vote, you mail in a post card, email a form or check a box on your driver's license renewal. Security? Validation?

Where were all of these republican tears in 2016?


(D) 65,853,516 to (R) 62,984,825 (Diff 2,868,664) but (R) 306 to (D) 232 (Diff 74) vs
(Currently)
(D) 77,372,350 to (R) 72,255,311 (Diff 5,117,039) and (R) 217 to (D) 290 (Diff 73)?

Seems there was a much better argument in 2016 for the Dems than 2020 for the Reps.
Hillary conceded on Nov 8th. We're at Nov 11th.

I don't mind the challenges. I think they're almost compelled to fight the fight but, the President not conceding, playing his 441th day of golf in 4 years, and hiding behind Twitter screaming like a child is not how to handle this at any level.
 
Last edited:
Where were all of these republican tears in 2016?


(D) 65,853,516 to (R) 62,984,825 (Diff 2,868,664) but (R) 306 to (D) 232 (Diff 74) vs
(Currently)
(D) 72,255,311 to (R) 77,372,350 (Diff 5,117,039) and (R) 217 to (D) 290 (Diff 73)?

Seems there was a much better argument in 2016 for the Dems than 2020 for the Reps.
Hillary conceded on Nov 8th. We're at Nov 11th.

I don't mind the challenges. I think they're almost compelled to fight the fight but, the President not conceding, playing his 441th day of golf in 4 years, and hiding behind Twitter screaming like a child is not how to handle this at any level.

I believe you flipped the # of votes on the current talliies attributed to parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weatherdemon
By law, a President doesn’t have to do anything until after the states certify. Last I checked the States haven’t finished the count. In fact, Georgia is now recounting by hand. With legal action filed, why would any President from any party, in any country, in the same situation concede? What I find hilarious is Biden and members of his staff are publically saying they have engaged with foreign leaders already. How dumb are they to think the Republicans aren’t chomping at the bit to prosecute and jail them under the Logan Act the same way they did to Trumps transition team.

So far, I’m tallying possible impeachment over the laptop (I will dub it Chinagate), 25 Amendment fit for duty removal (Alzheimer’s) , and Logan Act violations. Not to mention he can’t put any of his Radical Left people in key positions bc they don’t own the majority in Congress. This is quickly turning into a dumpster fire for the Dems. It gets better though bc the Republicans will not forget the craziness of the election or the Dem gaslighting and making threats. The midterms could be absolutely brutal for them. Good luck with that!
 
Last edited:
Also, the vote count there was genuinely in dispute, being only a few hundred votes apart and what with all the ambiguous votes from "hanging chads" and the like. The edge cases mattered.

These elections are tens of thousands of votes apart, not hundreds. The few "edge cases" where a vote is ambiguous do not have the potential to flip it like it did in 2000.

Anyway, when a state certifies its results, it is over for that state, period. That will start happening soon for some states, and will continue through Dec. 14. Whenever Pennsylvania finishes its count (and likely recount), they will certify and it will be over. I doubt the courts will decide this one.

Edit:

Also, Happy Veteran's Day to all the Veterans out there. Thank you sincerely for your service.
I would be a bit careful with that attitude simply because we've had so many mail in / provisional ballots this year compared to 2020 when pretty much everyone was voting in person.
 
By law, a President doesn’t have to do anything until after the states certify. Last I checked the States haven’t finished the count. In fact, Georgia is now recounting by hand. With legal action filed, why would any President from any party, in any country, in the same situation concede? What I find hilarious is Biden and members of his staff are publically saying they have engaged with foreign leaders already. How dumb are they to think the Republicans aren’t chomping at the bit to prosecute and jail them under the Logan Act the same way they did to Trumps transition team.

So far, I’m tallying possible impeachment over the laptop (I will dub it Chinagate), 25 Amendment fit for duty removal (Alzheimer’s) , and Logan Act violations. Not to mention he can’t put any of his Radical Left people in key positions bc they don’t own the majority in Congress. This is quickly turning into a dumpster fire for the Dems. It gets better though bc the Republicans will not forget the craziness of the election or the Dem gaslighting and making threats. The midterms could be absolutely brutal for them. Good luck with that!
Georgia is not finished with the vote counting. AFTER they are through counting the votes, they will then hand count the votes.

more on this subject later...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weatherdemon
It's one thing to contest an election, but a continuous assault on the soundness of our electoral system is incredibly damaging to the country. The US has a 200 year history of fair elections and reasonable mechanisms for resolving disputes. But that is not what we have been hearing from Trump who has waged a war against voting and fair elections since he started running for President 5 years ago. HIs claims of massive fraud and stolen elections will make things harder for the next administration when he finally leaves, which supports his post presidency influence and fund raising. But it sucks for America.
Two out of the last three elections the Democrat Party has lost, they have directly attacked the legitimacy of the American election process. HR1, the most important bill in each congressional session has been focused on nationalizing election standards so the Electoral College can be abolished because the Party views it as illegitimate. The entire Democratic Party just spent hundreds of millions of dollars, most of it taxpayer money, claiming the 2016 election was illegitimate without a shred of proof foreign tampering, which has been going on since before we were a country so we banned it in our Constitution, had any effect on the election.

Nixon knew the 1960 election was stolen. Eisenhower told him it was stolen and told him to contest it. He refused because we were in the Cold War and he knew the country would suffer and he couldn’t rule effectively anyway, so he remained silent for the greater good.

Al Gore, Hillary Clinton were way too selfish. You can’t spend four years contesting an election then the instant you win claim you can’t contest an election.

If anyone has a problem with this election being contested, blame Al Gore and the Democratic Party, both less virtuous than Richard Nixon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU Man
Also, the vote count there was genuinely in dispute, being only a few hundred votes apart and what with all the ambiguous votes from "hanging chads" and the like. The edge cases mattered.

These elections are tens of thousands of votes apart, not hundreds. The few "edge cases" where a vote is ambiguous do not have the potential to flip it like it did in 2000.

Anyway, when a state certifies its results, it is over for that state, period. That will start happening soon for some states, and will continue through Dec. 14. Whenever Pennsylvania finishes its count (and likely recount), they will certify and it will be over. I doubt the courts will decide this one.

Edit:

Also, Happy Veteran's Day to all the Veterans out there. Thank you sincerely for your service.
Correct. The final margin was 537. The Bush team wanted all the votes counted using the rules as they existed when the election began. The Gore team felt the election administration in four key Democrat counties could have permitted enough irregularities that, if corrected, would have changed the result. Later, they decided to contest the counting of the ballots in those counties altogether to try and completely revise the method of recording how each vote was recorded and therefore cast (discerning voter intention on over votes, chads, etc.). They wanted to change the rules after the election but only in counties that favored their party.

The Supreme Court didn’t decide the election. They decided that you can’t change the rules after an election begins and the time period for certifying the results had expired, so they directed the lower court to inform the Secretary of State to certify the results and transmit them to the state Election Commission, which is really the Florida Cabinet of statewide elected officials.

In other words, Bush won under the rules as they existed in reality, but might have lost, depending on your point of view, in some mystical alternative future where the rules could be changed so that Gore could win.

But there’s more: all of those ballots from the 2000 election are a public record. They are in a massive vault in Tallahassee. If you want to pay a fee, you can see them tomorrow morning. And a group of news organizations, led by the AP and New York Times, did just that. And they counted, by hand, all of the ballots using the standards that Gore proposed. And Bush still won and by a wider margin.

Our system works, including recounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a
Two out of the last three elections the Democrat Party has lost, they have directly attacked the legitimacy of the American election process. HR1, the most important bill in each congressional session has been focused on nationalizing election standards so the Electoral College can be abolished because the Party views it as illegitimate. The entire Democratic Party just spent hundreds of millions of dollars, most of it taxpayer money, claiming the 2016 election was illegitimate without a shred of proof foreign tampering, which has been going on since before we were a country so we banned it in our Constitution, had any effect on the election.

Nixon knew the 1960 election was stolen. Eisenhower told him it was stolen and told him to contest it. He refused because we were in the Cold War and he knew the country would suffer and he couldn’t rule effectively anyway, so he remained silent for the greater good.

Al Gore, Hillary Clinton were way too selfish. You can’t spend four years contesting an election then the instant you win claim you can’t contest an election.

If anyone has a problem with this election being contested, blame Al Gore and the Democratic Party, both less virtuous than Richard Nixon.
This is BS. There were multiple reports of foreign tampering in 2016 corroborated by the FBI. Mostly through mass manipulation of social media. So much so, that it indicted foreign nationals for it.

I don't think Nixon should be held as a shining example of virtuosity in any election considering his real and legitimate tampering in Watergate a few years later. Nixon didn't contest the 1960 election because the majority of the country didn't believe that he had actually won it and he didn't want to be seen as a "sore loser" (a quote from his own memoir); though he did allow groups to form what would today be PAC's promoting recounts in places like New Jersey. Even if Illinois was rigged in 1960 Nixon still would have lost. Still, the RNC was contesting Illinois' election results up until a month after election day.

Clinton conceded almost immediately when she lost and she wasn't the one driving the train on the Russia scandal. Gore's margin was closer than we had seen in more than a century and it literally came down to a single state. It wasn't like Trump where he's going to have to try and flip multiple states that he's losing by much larger margins than Gore was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu04
The legitimacy of Trump contesting the election was born from Gore’s contest. It fundamentally changed the way we look at the rules of the game. If people have a problem with Trump, blame Gore and get the votes to change the rules. Until then, nobody takes you seriously.
 
The legitimacy of Trump contesting the election was born from Gore’s contest. It fundamentally changed the way we look at the rules of the game. If people have a problem with Trump, blame Gore and get the votes to change the rules. Until then, nobody takes you seriously.
Again, if we would like to compare the two situations... Trump's current actions would be tantamount to Bill Clinton using every cabinet secretary to influence the recounts, as well as having just rushed through a supreme court nominee a few days earlier so they could vote in the Bush v. Gore case. It would have additionally seen Gore contest places like Nevada, Arkansas, and West Virginia where he was only a few 10's of thousands of votes behind Bush.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: watu04 and tbryce
In other news, Maricopa county just came out with another 13K ballots counted. Trump won them, but only with a net gain of ~1,200 votes. Biden's lead sits at 11,635 as of 8:30 PM Wednesday. Trump now needs a margin in the high 70's for the rest of the remaining votes (24k-26k), many of which are coming from Democratic friendly counties. Decision Desk just called 'Zona for Biden. Arizona basically doesn't due recounts as the number necessary for recounts is .1% which is something like 200 votes in this case and candidates can't request recounts there like they can in other states.

Just think, all Trump had to do to win Arizona was be less of an A*hole to an American POW / Longtime Senator / Former GOP Presidential Candidate while the guy died of brain cancer. "If you can't say anything nice... don't say anything at all"
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbryce
The legitimacy of Trump contesting the election was born from Gore’s contest. It fundamentally changed the way we look at the rules of the game. If people have a problem with Trump, blame Gore and get the votes to change the rules. Until then, nobody takes you seriously.
If Gore and Florida Chads hadn't of happened, Trump would still be doing what he's doing.

You know Trump doesn't need any justification to do what he does.
 
If Gore and Florida Chads hadn't of happened, Trump would still be doing what he's doing.

You know Trump doesn't need any justification to do what he does.
But almost nobody, instead of 40 percent of the country, would be listening to them.
 
But almost nobody, instead of 40 percent of the country, would be listening to them.
Maybe, but I doubt it.

After four years of seeing Trumps antics, a lot of them have been changed by these antics or changed with them. They went right along with him. I don't think that those who are watching need that same justification either. I believe they(the voters) have broken those bounds, and the republican politicians have aided them by cowtowing to Trump supporters. It's like a cult that nobody has the individual nerve to break out of, because nobody else will do it with them.
 
Trump antics?
Granted he is an asshxxx, but?

Fbi spying
Bogus investigation
Manufactured documents
Karagaroo court impeachmect
Constant investigations into every aspect of his life. And family
Opposition spew, Confront his supporters and get in their face. Resist
Impune everyone around him
Mis-quoted
24/7 hate him networks
Misrepresent his record and accomplishments
Demean his supporters
Blame, blame, blame
 
Maybe, but I doubt it.

After four years of seeing Trumps antics, a lot of them have been changed by these antics or changed with them. They went right along with him. I don't think that those who are watching need that same justification either. I believe they(the voters) have broken those bounds, and the republican politicians have aided them by cowtowing to Trump supporters. It's like a cult that nobody has the individual nerve to break out of, because nobody else will do it with them.
I believe you have an incorrect view of the root of the problem. Trump is not the root of the problem. Not even close! Both sides are at a point where they feel their way of life is being jeopardized or at risk. When people start to feel that way, they act out in the nastiest and most vile ways they can. This is our animalistic nature to fight at all cost to preserve ourselves and protect the pride. It has Zero to do with Trump bc after Trump there will be more Trumps!!!!!!

I absolutely hated Trumps attitude sometimes but you know what I ended up disliking even more after these past 4 yrs? Those Dems who chose to Lie and conspire, fake media, and big tech. How much different would it have been if Obama handled things differently with Trump? You cant hit someone with a two by four and cry foul when they hit back and try to bash your head into the ground.
 
I believe you have an incorrect view of the root of the problem. Trump is not the root of the problem. Not even close! Both sides are at a point where they feel their way of life is being jeopardized or at risk. When people start to feel that way, they act out in the nastiest and most vile ways they can. This is our animalistic nature to fight at all cost to preserve ourselves and protect the pride. It has Zero to do with Trump bc after Trump there will be more Trumps!!!!!!

I absolutely hated Trumps attitude sometimes but you know what I ended up disliking even more after these past 4 yrs? Those Dems who chose to Lie and conspire, fake media, and big tech. How much different would it have been if Obama handled things differently with Trump? You cant hit someone with a two by four and cry foul when they hit back and try to bash your head into the ground.
Yep, send that f**ker back to Kenya.
 
tucker had a list of 25 dead people that voted in the election last night. And had a list of hundreds of folks that had moved out of states but voted in those states anyway.

I doubt that there is enough "proof" to overturn this election for Trump. But that's not the damn issue. The issue is, as Americans, are we going to allow our election system to be B.S. or not?

why does one have to show an ID to get a hotel room, to take an SAT test, to open a bank account, to cash a check, to drive, to pick up a package at the post office, but not to freaking vote?

And there should be a mandatory "both party" system to verify mail-in signatures at every state's election.

After that, no bitching allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shon46
Maybe, but I doubt it.

It's like a cult that nobody has the individual nerve to break out of, because nobody else will do it with them.

There is an out of control pandemic ravaging the country and our ‘president’ is holed up sobbing about his personal future while the people he is supposed to protect are dying in larger numbers daily. Pence, the Covid task force leader, is AWOL focused instead on an election he lost.

The idea that Trump cares or ever cared about anything but himself is a joke.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT