The vote by mail fiasco, as it unfolds

[Mark Leavy]

Looks like the Dems are already hard at work:

Military Ballots Found in the Trash in Pennsylvania, All Were Trump Votes

In all honesty, this looks like a very small number and fairly isolated.

However... if even one of your ream of condoms in the nightstand drawer has a pinhole through it, it does give one pause.

[glennds]

For example, states don't count their mail-in or absentee ballots at all unless there's a race where they could make a difference.

Please tell me more.
This would suggest the in-person votes are given priority over mail-in or absentee ballots? I hadn't heard this before.
What if the race looked like it were not close enough to turn to the mail-in and absentee ballots yet there were enough of those to make a difference?
Either way, I do not think this is widely known, so I'm intrigued.

[Mark Leavy]

For example, states don't count their mail-in or absentee ballots at all unless there's a race where they could make a difference.

Please tell me more.
This would suggest the in-person votes are given priority over mail-in or absentee ballots? I hadn't heard this before.
What if the race looked like it were not close enough to turn to the mail-in and absentee ballots yet there were enough of those to make a difference?
Either way, I do not think this is widely known, so I'm intrigued.

I'll vouch that I've known about this for at least a decade. It was never thought of as ominous. Just practical and standard procedure. Once the math makes it impossible for the underdog to upset the leader, why bother continue counting?

These days may be different.

[glennds]

For example, states don't count their mail-in or absentee ballots at all unless there's a race where they could make a difference.

Please tell me more.
This would suggest the in-person votes are given priority over mail-in or absentee ballots? I hadn't heard this before.
What if the race looked like it were not close enough to turn to the mail-in and absentee ballots yet there were enough of those to make a difference?
Either way, I do not think this is widely known, so I'm intrigued.

I'll vouch that I've known about this for at least a decade. It was never thought of as ominous. Just practical and standard procedure. Once the math makes it impossible for the underdog to upset the leader, why bother continue counting?

These days may be different.

I've tried to do some research of my own on this. To the best I can tell, the idea that mail-in or absentee ballots are not counted unless they could make a difference, is internet misinformation. Two reference sources:

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/by-ma ... ots-count/ The intro paragraph is helpful - "The law requires all valid votes to be counted in every election regardless of how they are cast."

Here is an interesting table that will show you how the statutes vary state by state regarding both the processing and counting of absentee/mail ballots. In many cases, mail ballot counting starts before election day. In other cases it does not happen until election day polls close. However there seems to be a consistent theme that either way absentee/mail-in results are not released until after polls close. It also seems obvious from the statute summary that mail-in and absentee ballots are clearly not conditional.
The variation between states is interesting. In some cases, it is at the discretion of the registrar.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... begin.aspx

[WiseOne]

My impression is that the Democrats are noticing that a lot of their constituency can't be relied on to properly fill out a form and mail it in.

Ouch. This is like the HRC deplorables comment in reverse.

True, but unlike the depolorables comment there's good cause for Democratic concern here. The Democrats are banking on strong support from black and Hispanic voters, particularly those living in ghetto neighborhoods and dependent on welfare. A substantial proportion of both groups are poorly educated, have limited English language skills, and are likely to have difficulty navigating complex bureaucratic requirements. There's no way that this doesn't translate to a lot of incorrectly filled out or lost ballots before the USPS and the ballot processing pipeline gets its chance to screw things up (whether accidentally or intentionally).

Another factor working against Democrats is that many more of them than Republicans are frightened of COVID-19 to the extent that they'll prefer voting by mail to going to the polls in person.

The only related factor working against Republicans is that the elderly may be more likely to vote by mail because of COVID concerns than they have been in the past. So we'll have to see how these things balance out.

[pp4me]

For example, states don't count their mail-in or absentee ballots at all unless there's a race where they could make a difference.

Please tell me more.
This would suggest the in-person votes are given priority over mail-in or absentee ballots? I hadn't heard this before.
What if the race looked like it were not close enough to turn to the mail-in and absentee ballots yet there were enough of those to make a difference?
Either way, I do not think this is widely known, so I'm intrigued.

I'll vouch that I've known about this for at least a decade. It was never thought of as ominous. Just practical and standard procedure. Once the math makes it impossible for the underdog to upset the leader, why bother continue counting?

These days may be different.

I've tried to do some research of my own on this. To the best I can tell, the idea that mail-in or absentee ballots are not counted unless they could make a difference, is internet misinformation. Two reference sources:

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/by-ma ... ots-count/ The intro paragraph is helpful - "The law requires all valid votes to be counted in every election regardless of how they are cast."

Here is an interesting table that will show you how the statutes vary state by state regarding both the processing and counting of absentee/mail ballots. In many cases, mail ballot counting starts before election day. In other cases it does not happen until election day polls close. However there seems to be a consistent theme that either way absentee/mail-in results are not released until after polls close. It also seems obvious from the statute summary that mail-in and absentee ballots are clearly not conditional.
The variation between states is interesting. In some cases, it is at the discretion of the registrar.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... begin.aspx

Yes, they have to count all the ballots but that apparently doesn't stop a winner from being declared when there aren't enough to count to make a difference. If that were the case we would have never had a winner declared on election night before.

[Xan]

But that does make his point that it may be possible to (eventually) have an "official" national popular vote tally.

[Tortoise]

Perhaps for elections in which the electoral vote differs from the national popular vote, we should view that as a clear example of the electoral college system doing what it was designed to do?

After all, if the founders of the U.S had wanted a direct democracy, I imagine they wouldn’t have created the electoral college.

[glennds]

Perhaps for elections in which the electoral vote differs from the national popular vote, we should view that as a clear example of the electoral college system doing what it was designed to do?

After all, if the founders of the U.S had wanted a direct democracy, I imagine they wouldn’t have created the electoral college.

Correct. The electoral college was designed precisely to prevent direct democracy, which would have allowed the more populous states to decide every Presidential election.

It's an interesting issue. Technically speaking you are correct, the Presidential election is not democratic. To your comment about the similar irrelevance of a tally of highway miles, you could carry the point to the extreme and say the whole notion of citizens voting is an illusion. An illusion that 99.*% of the population believes to be real, or at least different than it really is.
What if there was no popular vote, and we all simply sat on the edge of our seats awaiting the outcome of a vote among members of the electoral college?

There is no federal law that binds electors to a voting pledge or duty of any kind.
This said, 29 states exert legal control over their electors. As you can imagine there is variance among the state by state statutes in this regard. However a general theme is that most of the state laws assert that the elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidate who won a majority of the state's popular vote or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector. However even these laws carry minor penalties for violation i.e. small fines, usually $1,000. However ignoring the minor violation penalties, I would think there is a presumption if not a legal prerequisite that in these 29 states a popular vote should take place in order for the elector to act... but maybe not.

The bigger issue may be the 21 states that do not bind or exert legal control over their electors in any way. This means the elector can vote (or abstain) as he/she pleases without regard to the popular vote of that state.
Looking at it this way, you might question why there is so much bickering over voting, mail votes, absentee ballots, etc.
As a legal matter, it may all be a tempest in a teapot, and the presidential election may really be in the hands of electors nobody knows, many of whom can vote as they please.

Here is some information supporting what I am describing above, including a list of the 29 states that do exert legal control over electors and their statute references. http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

BTW, New York is discussed in this forum frequently, and it so happens that NYS is one of the 21 states that place no requirements or legal repercussions upon their electors.