US midterms: First results hours away as Biden's presidency faces change regardless of results

[Gandalf]

From what I've gathered in countries with mandatory voting there's a very high rejection rate of votes due to people voting for "Donald Duck", "God", "Satan" or whatever else would cause the vote to get rejected instead of not voting.

So essentially you'd just replace one problem with another.

Which countries?

Australia has mandatory voting, and I've never seen our rate of spoiled ballots go higher than 10%. Our last election had a rate of 6.75% nationally.

[Broomstick]

I think I would rather have that problem than the voter suppression problem that we have right now. Its my understanding that many countries have a mandatory holiday for election day, and that especially goes for ones that have mandatory voting like Australia. Not only is that not the case here in the States, no doubt you've heard all the shit that the Republicans have been doing to try and keep anyone not rich, white, and above retirement age from casting a ballot. And no, employers in this country feel no obligation to let you off work for an hour to go vote on election day, because they're run by the absolute worst human beings on Earth.

I am actually liking the early voting system where I live - you have 2-3 weeks to vote, at multiple locations 6 days a week with varying hours. If there's a problem with your voter registration there might even be time to do something about it. In some ways I like that better than a one-day election holiday because some people would still have to go to work that day.

The Republicans around here still prefer people avoid absentee/mail-in ballots, but with such ample time to get your vote in showing up in person isn't the burden it used to be for many.

[Broomstick]

'Too late for election officials to change the ballot' sort of says why they did it.The wheels of bureaucracy turn VERY slowly. I can buy 'there was no time to remove him from the ballot'. Though a month seems borderline.

I get that there are probably sound reasons for it, particularly in this day and age, but the US seems to be a bit too resistant to the idea of postponing elections for its own good sometimes. Where I'm from, if a candidate dies before the polls are due to open we push the election for their seat back by thirty days to allow time for their party to nominate a replacement.

Our election days are set by law - there is (at present) no mechanism to move them First Tuesday in November for anything Federal. State and local elections (including primaries) often have different days, but the laws as they currently stand do not allow re-scheduling.

I agree that this should probably be reconsidered, but it's not a matter of stubbornness, it's a matter of law that was written literal centuries ago and hasn't been revisited. With a side order of tradition. I mean, we actually held a Federal election in the middle of our civil war back in the day. The only time I have ever heard of a voting day in the US being rescheduled was during the 9/11 attacks, where voting was halted because actual buildings were collapsing and everyone was running away from Manhattan as fast as they could. In other words, for many it was physically impossible to get to the polls and in some cases the voting locations no longer existed. Short of something that catastrophic, no, Americans don't shift voting day whether we should or not.

[LadyTevar]

Our election days are set by law - there is (at present) no mechanism to move them First Tuesday in November for anything Federal. State and local elections (including primaries) often have different days, but the laws as they currently stand do not allow re-scheduling.

Heh.
Our Elections are set by LAW, and so is the Inauguration time, which is always in January.
WHY?

So there was enough time for voting to be counted by hand, the results be ran by StageCoach Mail to the central locations for final tallying, and for those elected to travel Via StageCoach to Philadelphia or DC, wherever the center of Government was at the time.

Even once there was Railroads the time period was not changed, because although Telegraph could get the Vote Tallies where they needed to be, it still took time to travel to DC.

Now, 200+ years later, we're not going to change it because it's now TRADITION to elect in November and Inaugurate in January, thus giving the "lame ducks" who've been voted out of Congress/WhiteHouse chance to complete Unfinished Business.

Or plot an attempted overthrow of the rightful elected government.

[bilateralrope]

Democrats one win away from controlling Senate as Mark Kelly wins swing state Arizona

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly has won his bid for re-election in the crucial swing state of Arizona, defeating Republican venture capitalist Blake Masters to put his party one victory away from clinching control of the chamber for the next two years of Joe Biden’s presidency.

With Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote, Democrats can retain control of the Senate by winning either the Nevada race, which remains too early to call, or next month’s runoff in Georgia. Republicans now must win both those races to take the majority.

The Arizona race is one of a handful of contests that Republicans targeted in their bid to take control of the 50-50 Senate.

It was a test of the inroads that Kelly and other Democrats have made in a state once reliably dominated by Republicans.

[Broomstick]

Our election days are set by law - there is (at present) no mechanism to move them First Tuesday in November for anything Federal. State and local elections (including primaries) often have different days, but the laws as they currently stand do not allow re-scheduling.

Heh.
Our Elections are set by LAW, and so is the Inauguration time, which is always in January.

Actually, inaugurations were originally in March. They were moved in 1933 to January. Pretty sure that had to do with increased ease of travel by various modern means like paved roads, cars, better trains, and the occasional airplane (although air travel was still pretty dicey back then)

So we can make changes, just not very readily.

[Raw Shark]

The convict labor has to be voluntary.

And that is gonna screw any "For Profit" prisons in Tennessee, which hire out the prisoners to make the Prison Owners extra money.
I now wonder if this also means prisoners will be getting more pay for their work, as some prisons the work was "punishment" and unpaid, while other prisons pay fractions of a dollar either per hour or per day's work.

Not quite the same as prison, but at my local County Jail working off-site is viewed as a desirable privilege. Every inmate who's there for longer than 60 days is required to have a job, but jobs in the jail itself (eg: janitor, cook, laundry) pay peanuts. If you're on your best behavior long enough, you can apply to get assigned to "The Farm," where they will work you like a rented mule and you will be watched like a hawk by shotgun-armed COs, but you get minimum wage and to be outside in the sun and fresh air all day (weather permitting).

[Raw Shark]

Before anybody asks, yes I have been to County enough that I'm on a first-name basis with some of the staff. Last time there was a shift change, the female CO who was taking over asked, "Who's in the Captain's Suite, and why?" The officer handing over the keys told her, "Oh, that's [Shark]. [Shark] is THE MAN. Polite. Respectful. No problems. He asked to be in solitary because of the 'vid." I've never been described as THE MAN other than that.

[LadyTevar]

Our election days are set by law - there is (at present) no mechanism to move them First Tuesday in November for anything Federal. State and local elections (including primaries) often have different days, but the laws as they currently stand do not allow re-scheduling.

Heh.
Our Elections are set by LAW, and so is the Inauguration time, which is always in January.

Actually, inaugurations were originally in March. They were moved in 1933 to January. Pretty sure that had to do with increased ease of travel by various modern means like paved roads, cars, better trains, and the occasional airplane (although air travel was still pretty dicey back then)

So we can make changes, just not very readily.

Thank you for the correction!

Either way, I think we should keep a gap between Election and Inauguration, because counting votes is still not fully automated, and there's always a need to have time for a physical recount in a close race.

[Captain Seafort]

Either way, I think we should keep a gap between Election and Inauguration, because counting votes is still not fully automated, and there's always a need to have time for a physical recount in a close race.

Why do you think a lack of automation and the occasional need for recounts justifies a gap between the election and the successful candidate taking their seat?

[Batman]

So they have time to determine who won the election and do the occasional recount?

[bilateralrope]

Either way, I think we should keep a gap between Election and Inauguration, because counting votes is still not fully automated, and there's always a need to have time for a physical recount in a close race.

I agree with that. Here in New Zealand, the votes are counted overnight and the MPs in parliament are changed the next day. It then takes a few weeks to count the special votes (anything cast outside of a polling place in a persons electorate). Under MMP, this can change the number of list MPs some parties get. Which means there have been some MPs who got sworn in the day after election day, then kicked back out a few weeks later. All in less time than the delay you have between the election day and that Senate runoff you've got in December.

That just seems absurd to me. Especially when I compare worker protection laws here to those in the US. Having a delay to make sure that you've got all the votes counted makes more sense.

At most, there might be room to argue about the length of that delay.

[Captain Seafort]

So they have time to determine who won the election and do the occasional recount?

That can be done overnight.

[bilateralrope]

So they have time to determine who won the election and do the occasional recount?

That can be done overnight.

Can it ?

Because to me it looks like there are still a few house seats that haven't finished their first count yet. Not sure why, but I'd guess it has something to do with postal votes needing to get through the post before they can be counted. As well as a Senate runnoff election scheduled for December 6.

[Captain Seafort]

Can it ?

Because to me it looks like there are still a few house seats that haven't finished their first count yet. Not sure why, but I'd guess it has something to do with postal votes needing to get through the post before they can be counted. As well as a Senate runnoff election scheduled for December 6.

That's how it's done in the UK and, if I understand you correctly, in NZ. If the US can't, then that's obviously a case of either a) not doing it properly or b) needing a few experts to be sent over to help train them up a bit.

[bilateralrope]

Can it ?

Because to me it looks like there are still a few house seats that haven't finished their first count yet. Not sure why, but I'd guess it has something to do with postal votes needing to get through the post before they can be counted. As well as a Senate runnoff election scheduled for December 6.

That's how it's done in the UK and, if I understand you correctly, in NZ. If the US can't, then that's obviously a case of either a) not doing it properly or b) needing a few experts to be sent over to help train them up a bit.

They aren't counted overnight here in New Zealand. All the votes that were cast in their electorate are counted overnight. But votes cast elsewhere, including votes cast overseas, need to get to the right place before they can be counted. And that does change how many MPs some parties get due to the proportional part of MMP.

How does the UK manage to get the votes counted overnight ?
My guess is that there aren't any races close enough for the special votes to change the winner. So the count on election night is close enough to know who won.

[Captain Seafort]

How does the UK manage to get the votes counted overnight ?
My guess is that there aren't any races close enough for the special votes to change the winner. So the count on election night is close enough to know who won.

If "special votes" are the NZ term for postal votes, they have to be in by the time the polls close.

[Bedlam]

Can it ?

Because to me it looks like there are still a few house seats that haven't finished their first count yet. Not sure why, but I'd guess it has something to do with postal votes needing to get through the post before they can be counted. As well as a Senate runnoff election scheduled for December 6.

That's how it's done in the UK and, if I understand you correctly, in NZ. If the US can't, then that's obviously a case of either a) not doing it properly or b) needing a few experts to be sent over to help train them up a bit.

There is a certain difference in Scale the UK is smaller than the majority of states (maybe all of them I'm not sure of the exact sizes) but I do agree that the process should be possible in a few days to maybe a week rather than requiring several months for a transition of power.

Although the structure of the American government particularly at the presidential level seems to be rather more unique to each holder than the UK system and the lack of the concept of His Majesties Opposition and shadow ministries probably makes the transition rather harder.

[bilateralrope]

How does the UK manage to get the votes counted overnight ?
My guess is that there aren't any races close enough for the special votes to change the winner. So the count on election night is close enough to know who won.

If "special votes" are the NZ term for postal votes, they have to be in by the time the polls close.

Special votes in NZ are any vote that wasn't case in a polling place within that voters electorate. Including votes cast be someone who was overseas. Since they take longest to arrive, I'm going to focus on the overseas votes.

When you say they have to be in, where exactly does the ballot have to be when the polls close ?

Lets say that the ballot was filled in the day before election day to guarantee it was postmarked election day. It's still going to take some time to arrive at the counting facility. How long would you wait for a vote cast overseas to arrive ?

There is a certain difference in Scale the UK is smaller than the majority of states (maybe all of them I'm not sure of the exact sizes) but I do agree that the process should be possible in a few days to maybe a week rather than requiring several months for a transition of power.

How long would you wait for ballots from overseas to arrive before telling people that their vote doesn't count because the post was too slow ?

How long do you think the US should wait after the main election day before having a runoff election ?
Remember, you can't know that a runoff is required until you've counted enough votes to rule out a situation where a runoff isn't required. In the case of the runoff this year, that means counting enough votes to know it's impossible for either candidate to get over 50%.

[Captain Seafort]

When you say they have to be in, where exactly does the ballot have to be when the polls close ?

In the ballot box. If you expect the post to take a while, get it posted early - that's one reason why there's a legal minimum time between the dissolution of Parliament (or death/"resignation" of an MP) and election day.

How long do you think the US should wait after the main election day before having a runoff election ?

Option 1: Don't. Use straight FPTP

Option 2: Use instant runoff, although given that the US apparently doesn't trust the average voter to put a cross in a box I shudder to think how they'd cope with numbers.

[Broomstick]

Either way, I think we should keep a gap between Election and Inauguration, because counting votes is still not fully automated, and there's always a need to have time for a physical recount in a close race.

Why do you think a lack of automation and the occasional need for recounts justifies a gap between the election and the successful candidate taking their seat?

We also occasionally need a run-off race if there's a tie, such as is happening in Georgia. A time gap of a couple months allows for counting, recounting, and if necessary a run-off race taken care of prior the time scheduled for winners to actually take office and start working.

[Broomstick]

So they have time to determine who won the election and do the occasional recount?

That can be done overnight.

Can it ?

Because to me it looks like there are still a few house seats that haven't finished their first count yet. Not sure why, but I'd guess it has something to do with postal votes needing to get through the post before they can be counted. As well as a Senate runnoff election scheduled for December 6.

We also have votes coming in from some rather remote locations in our own nation, AND military personnel overseas can vote by mail/absentee ballot so that means we have votes coming in from literally all over the world.

I can see an argument that the current gap between election and taking office could be shorter, but I don't think we can have a 24 hour turn-around time, even today.

[Highlord Laan]

Good news: The worthless fascist fucks don't control the Senate.

Bad news: The motherfuckers still speak.

[bilateralrope]

In the ballot box. If you expect the post to take a while, get it posted early - that's one reason why there's a legal minimum time between the dissolution of Parliament (or death/"resignation" of an MP) and election day.

Ah. So you don't want to give people who can't make it to a ballot box the option to vote on election day. Why is getting the result quickly important enough to force people to vote early ?

Oh and don't forget that 2020 had Trumps postmaster general trying to sabotage the postal system because postal votes were heavily democrat. A postmaster general that still holds that position because the president can't directly fire him. Why is your impatience so important that you'd weaken the elections against attacks that Trump attempted ?

Option 1: Don't. Use straight FPTP

Do you like third party candidates spoiling elections ?

Because that's what straight FPTP gets you. Especially when some candidates look like intentional spoilers.

Option 2: Use instant runoff, although given that the US apparently doesn't trust the average voter to put a cross in a box I shudder to think how they'd cope with numbers

At this point, I think it's more important to try and get anyone running straight FPTP to do something to prevent the spoiler problem than complaining about one of the states which has solved it because it's too slow for you.

[Jub]

At this point, I think it's more important to try and get anyone running straight FPTP to do something to prevent the spoiler problem than complaining about one of the states which has solved it because it's too slow for you.

Ranked voting where you can fill out a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, nth choice prevents spoilers perfectly. You just keep removing the least popular candidate from the running and use that ballots next highest rank choice (that hasn't yet been eliminated) and repeat until somebody has a majority. Easy as.