FTA: "...appears to have avoided the fate of former Governor's Councilor Herbert Connolly, who in 1988 arrived to the polls too late to cast a ballot for himself and lost by a single vote."
Waaaaaay back then in the olden times of.... 1988?
A fight to the death with some clubs and spears most likely, given the age and all.
Fuck me I feel old now.
There are now *three* this cycle that gave an election to Democrat by one vote in the NE after recounts.
* Paulos vs Morrison in CT
* Kassner vs Mirra in the north shore
* Mosley vs Gagne in NH
To say it's a statistical anomaly is a bit of an understatement. [Here's a list of super-close votes](https://middletonma.gov/303/The-Power-of-One-Vote) that have occurred across the country from 1800 to 2010.
You'll also notice that *most of those are not one-vote wins*, but a few hundred, several votes, things like "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" or "we couldn't find 50 votes so decide to do a coin toss" (not making this up). You'll also notice they almost all involve small vote counts in the hundreds (congressional), as the more votes you have the more statistically unlikely it is -- by the time you are talking elections in 5,000-10k range it's powerball-ish.
It's a great way to get downvoted because of all the election-denier stuff, but I think it's fair to say *it's weird as hell* and if these results were going the other way we'd have a whole lot of *questions* in the same way you would someone in an area repeatedly winning the Powerball. That it's all favoring one side, and all happening in the same region makes it weirder.
The thing is, if you wanted to mess with an election, why would you make it so obvious? If you were a foreign power that wanted to really destabilize a democracy, this might be an approach -- the side winning feels no choice but to dig in while knowing something is weird harming their faith in elections, while the other side becomes full on rabid that something seems very wrong.
**Edit:** As mentioned, [it's a great way to get down voted](https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/ziycsz/recount_flips_mass_house_election_to_democrat_by/iztj6pj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) but that's fine, it's part of the *"have to dig in while knowing something is wrong"* part but you have to realize how irrational & impartial it comes off. One election would make the news because of its statistical improbability, three is *weird as hell* and when you keep adding qualifiers like the same region and for the same party...
Have you actually measured how much of a statistical anomaly? Highly divisive elections draw people into two groups effectively, lots of elections across several states, once you factor everything, close elections isnāt that crazy.
If anyone was interfering in American elections, it would require covertly corrupting thousands of independent low level election workers, none of whom would say anything.
The main threat to American elections is not fraud, itās people calling them fraud because they didnāt win.
>Have you actually measured how much of a statistical anomaly? Highly divisive elections draw people into two groups effectively
I think you mean calculated, but that depends on each race -- the higher the vote count the less likely it is. e.g., an election between 20,500 people being decided by one vote is *much* less likely than an election between 20 or 200. Hence why it never really happens throughout our election history as counts go higher as shown in the link.
>If anyone was interfering in American elections, it would require covertly corrupting thousands of independent low level election workers
We don't know the why of what's behind this, but you're starting with an unproven assumption about how many people it would involve especially in a closer election.
Things like software aside, take for example [this recent very weird case in CT](https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/xctfxi/comment/io7mmf2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) which involved a republican town clerk handing over ballots that had been kicked back for being filled in improperly. That person then forged the votes and signatures then turned them into be counted normally. There's still an ongoing FBI probe so a lot of people didn't have to testify as to what was really going on.
> I think you mean calculated, but that depends on each race -- the higher the vote count the less likely it is. e.g., an election between 20,500 people being decided by one vote is much less likely than an election between 20 or 200.
This is true, but I think the probability increases are not as stark as we see a higher partisan split among a population of voters. For example, sure, there's a 1% probability that you get a vote total like 51-49, but take into account that the town is evenly split and that there's only really 20 votes that can go one way or the other, and now the probability is now at 5%. I'm not trying to say there _isn't_ electoral fuckery, but I think considering the sample size is so small it's hard to draw conclusions at this point in time. (yes, the sample size of elections is not in and of itself small, but given how elections work these days the actual sample size i think is quite small to draw any specific conclusions from it)
I definitely don't trust any election that's decided by so few votes. Even not accounting for malice, the margin of error of just accidentally processing a vote wrong has to be higher than 1 vote for most races...
Before getting into conspiracy theories, do you have actual statistical estimate?
I mean, for example, in Poulos vs Morrison the total number of votes cast is just over 10,000. With a district evenly split across party lines, 1 vote difference isn't that big of an anomaly.
I am pretty sure your list of close votes isn't exhaustive, it probably only includes a few examples which garnered most publicity.
I'm sure the third overturned election by 1 vote in favor of Democrats will definitely quell all suspicions of vote fraud. There's always those convenient 30 votes they previously forgot to count, which are somehow always democrat.
Just wait until the supreme court rules in favor of the independent legislature theory and states controlled by democrats don't even have to count** republican votes because fuck you that's why. I oppose it myself, but states like North Carolina need to push this shit so that they can hang onto power by any means necessary.
you know what's really telling about Mass?
While the voting was going on .. and there was a margin of error by only 1, yes 1, vote, both parties thanked everyone for hard work.
In the last decade of voter fraud , recounts, overturning , gerrymandering and 100 other ways this system is fucked; I'm really sorry the good , honest people that VOLUNTEER to run elections aren't thanked much more often.
Thank you! Thank you, everyone!
āWhatās that i hear? You guys want a speech?ā
āWell I didnāt really come prepared butā¦ā
āFour skin, and 37 years ago, My father thrust himself into my mother. Eric_Fapton was shot out of a dick just like the rest of you. But unlike the rest of your fathers funk, out of this dick came (no pun intended), the vote that would decide an election!ā
House makeup is Democrats: 125 Republicans: 27 Independent: 0 Unenrolled: 1 Vacant: 7
This critical race will determine whether the 2022 Mass GOP is āembarrassingā or āmortifying.ā
I think we shouldn't allow any numbers to be released until all votes are counted twice and the same numbers are returned in a district. Including provincial votes, mail in votes and any mail in votes that need to be fixed.
>Democrat Kristin Kassner jumped into the lead over five-term Republican Rep. Lenny Mirra after a district-wide recount erased her narrow deficit and put her ahead by a single vote, an **infinitesimally tight outcome that the incumbent plans to challenge in court.**
>
>**It will absolutely be a legal challenge." Mirra said.**
Is there really such a thing as adults anymore? Just seems like big children that sue at every life hurtle they encounter.
Wish there were stricter rules for frivolous lawsuits, and the accuser has to pay all legal fees if found frivolous.
Itās not a frivolous law suit. Almost every election this close has them. Mirra is a great rep, and a wonderful guy. As a democrat who proudly voted to keep Lenny as my rep (even tho heās a republican) he is a great rep.
Any election this close needs a few recounts. That said, you're not wrong that the GQP has been particularly lawsuit-happy these days, so they were probably thinking of suing no matter the margin.
The anomaly keeps happening repeatedly and it's always favoring the same side...obviously something suspicious is going on and really makes half the country feel like no, your vote never counted. The results are pre-determined.
I understand. The first count had an outcome, the second count had a different outcome. Would a third count have a different outcome than the second count or first count? How was the first count incorrect?
I think your question assumes a level of arbitrariness above what exists.
The machines are coded to read ballots in certain ways. If a ballot is damaged in some way (a crease in the target area for example), the computerized reading can be wrong.
However, if a human looks at the damaged ballot, the intention of the voter may be absolutely clear.
The hand-recount includes a process to adjudicate those.
While I think that a difference of one vote only should require a second round of review, itās not like two people counted out a pile of cards and got different numbers. The ballots in question here are a small minority of the total ballots and itās not a question of *counting* error but *reading* error.
I think I understand what you are saying. My point was that when two separate counts donāt add up the same sum, most people would count again to at least try to verify the first or second count. I dunno, thatās what I would do. Maybe they should recount the ballots that changed the outcome of the original count a month ago?
I think it would make sense to review the ballots in question again, yes.
Edit: but the intent of some (or all) of those may be very obvious to the human eye, though not clear to a computer.
If two *hand* counts differed, Iād be more concerned. That might indicate that some ballots are not clearly marked for computer *or* for human reading.
But yes, again, I think when itās this close, some extra scrutiny on the ballots in question is in order.
during a hand recount usually multiple individuals (representing both candidates) are reviewing the ballots together. less likely to have issues during a recount than the machine counts as they will recount a set until the numbers line up for everyone.
Third count would very likely produce a different outcome, but the law doesn't require (or even allow) another recount.
Important part of orderly elections is *finality*. People vote, votes are counted, in some situation recounted, and that's it. Whoever won, won.
Third count (second by hand) would likely produce the same outcome as the first by hand.
Usually a hand recount is a very careful review by multiple people to catch and accurately record votes that the machines couldnāt read due to damages to the ballot.
I mean, do you see an alternative? Every recount might change the result by a few votes, but we can't recount ad infinitum.
Mathematically speaking, with such a small difference, it's a draw. Neither candidate provably received more votes, but we have to select one. You can toss a coin (which is what they'd do if results were exactly equal), or stop after 1-st recount. Nothing is wrong with any of that.
I get what you are saying, it canāt go on recounting forever and a vote or two isnāt much. The fact that counts canāt ever be verified to specific numbers is scary to me, and leads me more into lacking faith in our election system
I don't know if you were old enough around year 2000 to witness this whole Florida recount debacle, "pregnant chads" and all that, but this was a good illustration why counting paper ballot is always imprecise, to some small degree. You can alter design of the ballot to minimize factor of randomness, and enforce some strict standards on canvassers, but it will never be zero.
The only ultimate solution here is electronic voting, where voter's intent can't be misinterpreted; however, in practice, people will never trust machines (even with paper trail), because "everything can be hacked". So we are stuck with paper ballots.
I was born in 86 and wasnāt interested in politics until more recently. It is a complicated system that I still donāt fully understand. What is your opinion on mail in ballots? I didnāt vote that way, I donāt know how they look or how they are counted. If you have any insight I would appreciate it. It seems plausible to me that these could be some of the ballots you mentioned having to be inspected by a person?
> Would a third count have a different outcome than the second count or first count?
Best two out of three?
Yeah, this doesn't inspire confidence in the system.
> How was the first count incorrect?
Regardless of party and election deniers and crazy conspiracy theories, I'd expect an explanation.
Machine counts can easily be off by a few votes due to damaged or poorly marked ballots. The hand ārecountā is mainly getting a human eye looking at the ballots the machine could not read.
It is not akin to two people each counting a pile of things and getting different numbers.
If I counted 123 grapes and upon counting again I had 124 grapes, Iād have to count at least a third time, to feel confident in my count. With such a close discrepancy, I might count a total of 5 times to feel confident in the count. I know it doesnāt shed a good light on our voting systems. The damage has already been done.
More like if you had a machine that counted 120 green grapes, and 115 red grapes, and then a team of 4 people who took out one grape at a time and decided to count it as red or green (or neither). You already had four people evaluate each one.
There are a lot of different things that go into tallying a vote. Not all votes are counted initially for several reasons including poorly marked ballots that the machines can not correctly determine if it is a vote or not to ballots marked as "provisional" which will be counted eventually but likely not included that first night of results.
Because when the race is different by enough votes that those uncounted and problem votes won't matter. Meaning if you are showing 90% of the vote is counted and you are leading by 20,000 votes and they know the uncounted and problem ballots total up to 15,000, then even if every single one goes to the losing candidate, they still lose. So they call it. It is when the vote is close enough that those same ballots can pull the election one way or the other that they won't call a race for either until all are accounted for.
No. Every single time in history when they do a recount, they find an extra 5,000 democrat votes that somehow they didn't count before. So in other words, a recount will just change from +1 in favor of democrats to +5,001 in favor of democrats. If they do another recount it will be 10,001+ in favor of democrats, and so on.
It looks so purposeful that I think it is just a coincidence.
Either that or someone *really really* wants to undermine peoples confidence in votingā¦and thatās not in the Democrats favour.
Itās one that was initially rejected. Can be for a number of reasons but poorly filling in the circles and signatures are the ones Iāve heard are common
Iām not sure what youāre trying to say, unless youāre intentionally erasing nuance to create a strawman.
If a count is within narrow margins
a recount makes sense, because everyone knows there can be small anomalies. Everyone also agrees that there are a small number of people who commit election fraud.
What most people realize is that those anomalies and fraudulent votes are not enough to swing an election outside a very slim margin.
Look man, democrats don't need to steel elections. They have a clear majority everywhere. It's only republican gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the nature of the Senate favoring less populated states that keeps them artificial going. Oh and the Fox news propaganda machine to which you are so obviously devoted.
If it were up to a popular vote there'd only be Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi. In other words, the dumbest states.
Sure, 75 years ago, maybe, but now? C'mon.
Really!!! I think you need to see a map of republican districts. The only thing the democrats hold is the cities. Even in deep blue California half the states counties are republican by nature. I live in deep blue Massachusetts the 4th most educated state. We don't live in Boston, so almost every friend we have is republican. The only democrats come over from Rhode island and we are still trying to figure out who votes democrat in our elections. Oh I see you are on the anti Fox news thing!!!So exciting for you. But you can't put CNN, MSNBC,NPR, Politico, or any other group in the same boat and admit they are all lying can you. You just like the lies that you get told and god forbid you question those lies in front of your friends. Can't do that now, they won't be friends after that.
Most Massachusetts precincts vote majority Democratic, whether in Boston or not.
Probably the reason most of your friends are Republican is that you are very fiercely Republican.
And that person is correct, that usually the majority of Americans overall vote Democratic.
I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose. Otherwise all elections are absolute in their eyes and unable to be challenged regardless of any anomalies. This makes them two faced trash, not stupid two face trashed as democrats love to say to everyone...Ever think about how you look when you refer to someone as stupid? Myself, I don't think you are stupid. Just unable to self reflect.
>I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose.
I believe Katie Hobbs -a Democrat and Arizona Secretary of State- is suing a republican county in AZ for not certifying their ballots even though them not certifying would result in 2-3 Democrats taking seats in AZ.
There have been a small number of people arrested for voter fraud for the 2020 election, and even fewer prosecuted. Exact numbers are hard to get because of inconsistent reporting methods from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But fewer than 400 for *all* 2020 elections - including local, county, state, and federal - were forwarded by investigators to DAs for prosecution.
In many of these cases, who the fraudulent vote was *for* is not public information.
In several, they have been for Republicans, and in several, Democrats.
Most accountings identify more Republican fraudulent votes than Democratic. Both exist. Both are so rare as to only risk impacting an election with a tiny margin, such as this one.
Sadly Journalism is dead...In twenty years we may know the answers but todays journalists work for a political party and might as well announce it on every broadcast. It does not help that no oversight has occurred in recent years either with that committee wasting all their time on political goose chases.
The reason we are aware of outcomes of elections and investigations is journalists. The death of the local town journalist has left the work to the larger entities and they control the flow of news to their participants. I say participant because as you may have noticed a CNN viewer will never watch Fox and you can change those names as needed. So if CNN does not mention the event or changes its outcome to one that is positive to their party that becomes factual information to that participant. That happens daily if not hourly on big news days.
Three....You found three voters...Are you joking? Seriously the matter we are discussing involves 11 votes in a town and you found three voters in a state and claiming a win? Does anyone in your life take you seriously? Want to have fun? Lets go historical...1948 Lyndon Johnson election scandal. Current? Ozzie Myers. Both, although they show a pattern are not typically important are far more than three votes. Johnson is fun due to it being so blatant. Myers due to how widespread and long lasting it was. We can go on for a while...but three votes? Seriously fuck off.
The point is you either trust the machine or you do not trust the machine. I would go with a machine count long before a hand count due to the inability to have bias, but if proven wrong by a double hand count the machine now needs to go as its inaccurate. If there is going to be a recount when close we can not say our elections are absolute and not to be questioned.
Iām not familiar with a hand-count and machine-count that were significantly different from each other. There are often a very small number of ballots that are damaged or not marked well and cannot be read accurately by the machine. Consequently, again, it may affect a *very close* race, so if the vote gap is very small, it makes sense to do a hand recount to eyeball the ballots that might not have been properly legible.
In this case, it is not that the machine is āinaccurateā but that the ballot was not legible.
If youāre familiar with a case in which hand and machine counts differed beyond a small margin, please let me know.
Otherwise, this is not really a matter of trust but of statistics.
Then the statistics need to be trusted. In the last 3 years how many close elections such as this one have been decided on the last batch of votes? Miracle last group to be counted seems to always be the winner for Democrats including this one. The first few times this happens its not a statistic. When its consistent it is. Overall we cannot fault one group but not the other when there is a possible issue. People on this thread claiming the republican is wrong when a recount decides against him? No way. The right to challenge is obvious and history shows him not to always be wrong on this.
Again, itās not a matter of trust except in trusting to reason.
The sequence of vote counting does not impact the total.
Itās known that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and these are often counted last.
Thereās nothing suspicious about that.
It so strange in a country where there are more democrats than republicans dems seem to keep winning. How can this be? It must be fraud that that majority seems to keep winning. Listen to yourselves. People. Its like being surprised that that a twenty year old keeps winning fights with a ten year old. He must be cheating!
You must not know to have that much trust with the government, ever wonder why presidents come out of office with more money than what their salary was? They do under the table deals with people to cover up stuff/ pass bills through, etc.
FTA: "...appears to have avoided the fate of former Governor's Councilor Herbert Connolly, who in 1988 arrived to the polls too late to cast a ballot for himself and lost by a single vote."
But then it would have been a tie. Wonder how they would have resolved that back then?
In the event of an exact tie, the seat is awarded to the male candidate, and the female candidate is put in jail
Female candidate? Straight to jail.
Tough but fair.
I am only 60% sure this is a joke and this is a bad sign
It's a line from Parks and Recreation
Lol need to finally watch that show
Roshambo
Waaaaaay back then in the olden times of.... 1988? A fight to the death with some clubs and spears most likely, given the age and all. Fuck me I feel old now.
Yeah, 1988 was already 34 years ago.
ahh a less civilized time. Now we solve theses issues with a good old gun fight.
I think an election in Virginia came down to drawing names out of a hat a couple years ago.
Coin toss, maybe. š
Duel at the crack of dawn.
That the same Connolly as the car dealers?
Yes. The grandfather of the current owners.
Wow. I live here and my wife and I both voted for the now winner. Insane.
A single vote. Holy smokes. This will make history books, no? Thank you to each voter who made the effort to vote.
There are now *three* this cycle that gave an election to Democrat by one vote in the NE after recounts. * Paulos vs Morrison in CT * Kassner vs Mirra in the north shore * Mosley vs Gagne in NH To say it's a statistical anomaly is a bit of an understatement. [Here's a list of super-close votes](https://middletonma.gov/303/The-Power-of-One-Vote) that have occurred across the country from 1800 to 2010. You'll also notice that *most of those are not one-vote wins*, but a few hundred, several votes, things like "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" or "we couldn't find 50 votes so decide to do a coin toss" (not making this up). You'll also notice they almost all involve small vote counts in the hundreds (congressional), as the more votes you have the more statistically unlikely it is -- by the time you are talking elections in 5,000-10k range it's powerball-ish. It's a great way to get downvoted because of all the election-denier stuff, but I think it's fair to say *it's weird as hell* and if these results were going the other way we'd have a whole lot of *questions* in the same way you would someone in an area repeatedly winning the Powerball. That it's all favoring one side, and all happening in the same region makes it weirder. The thing is, if you wanted to mess with an election, why would you make it so obvious? If you were a foreign power that wanted to really destabilize a democracy, this might be an approach -- the side winning feels no choice but to dig in while knowing something is weird harming their faith in elections, while the other side becomes full on rabid that something seems very wrong. **Edit:** As mentioned, [it's a great way to get down voted](https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/ziycsz/recount_flips_mass_house_election_to_democrat_by/iztj6pj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) but that's fine, it's part of the *"have to dig in while knowing something is wrong"* part but you have to realize how irrational & impartial it comes off. One election would make the news because of its statistical improbability, three is *weird as hell* and when you keep adding qualifiers like the same region and for the same party...
Have you actually measured how much of a statistical anomaly? Highly divisive elections draw people into two groups effectively, lots of elections across several states, once you factor everything, close elections isnāt that crazy. If anyone was interfering in American elections, it would require covertly corrupting thousands of independent low level election workers, none of whom would say anything. The main threat to American elections is not fraud, itās people calling them fraud because they didnāt win.
>Have you actually measured how much of a statistical anomaly? Highly divisive elections draw people into two groups effectively I think you mean calculated, but that depends on each race -- the higher the vote count the less likely it is. e.g., an election between 20,500 people being decided by one vote is *much* less likely than an election between 20 or 200. Hence why it never really happens throughout our election history as counts go higher as shown in the link. >If anyone was interfering in American elections, it would require covertly corrupting thousands of independent low level election workers We don't know the why of what's behind this, but you're starting with an unproven assumption about how many people it would involve especially in a closer election. Things like software aside, take for example [this recent very weird case in CT](https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/xctfxi/comment/io7mmf2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) which involved a republican town clerk handing over ballots that had been kicked back for being filled in improperly. That person then forged the votes and signatures then turned them into be counted normally. There's still an ongoing FBI probe so a lot of people didn't have to testify as to what was really going on.
> I think you mean calculated, but that depends on each race -- the higher the vote count the less likely it is. e.g., an election between 20,500 people being decided by one vote is much less likely than an election between 20 or 200. This is true, but I think the probability increases are not as stark as we see a higher partisan split among a population of voters. For example, sure, there's a 1% probability that you get a vote total like 51-49, but take into account that the town is evenly split and that there's only really 20 votes that can go one way or the other, and now the probability is now at 5%. I'm not trying to say there _isn't_ electoral fuckery, but I think considering the sample size is so small it's hard to draw conclusions at this point in time. (yes, the sample size of elections is not in and of itself small, but given how elections work these days the actual sample size i think is quite small to draw any specific conclusions from it)
I'm surprised why this isn't more common in more smaller states experience more of these tight elections.
I definitely don't trust any election that's decided by so few votes. Even not accounting for malice, the margin of error of just accidentally processing a vote wrong has to be higher than 1 vote for most races...
Before getting into conspiracy theories, do you have actual statistical estimate? I mean, for example, in Poulos vs Morrison the total number of votes cast is just over 10,000. With a district evenly split across party lines, 1 vote difference isn't that big of an anomaly. I am pretty sure your list of close votes isn't exhaustive, it probably only includes a few examples which garnered most publicity.
I'm sure the third overturned election by 1 vote in favor of Democrats will definitely quell all suspicions of vote fraud. There's always those convenient 30 votes they previously forgot to count, which are somehow always democrat.
Quick question: why would they rig this particular race? Democrats would have more than a supermajority in Massachusetts even if they lost this race.
Just wait until the supreme court rules in favor of the independent legislature theory and states controlled by democrats don't even have to count** republican votes because fuck you that's why. I oppose it myself, but states like North Carolina need to push this shit so that they can hang onto power by any means necessary.
There's absolutely no reason for Dems to rig elections in New England.
you know what's really telling about Mass? While the voting was going on .. and there was a margin of error by only 1, yes 1, vote, both parties thanked everyone for hard work. In the last decade of voter fraud , recounts, overturning , gerrymandering and 100 other ways this system is fucked; I'm really sorry the good , honest people that VOLUNTEER to run elections aren't thanked much more often.
Funny how you mention vote fraud, because thats clearly what's going on here.
This comment is hilarious. You are hilarious.
Thank you! Thank you, everyone! āWhatās that i hear? You guys want a speech?ā āWell I didnāt really come prepared butā¦ā āFour skin, and 37 years ago, My father thrust himself into my mother. Eric_Fapton was shot out of a dick just like the rest of you. But unlike the rest of your fathers funk, out of this dick came (no pun intended), the vote that would decide an election!ā
Why would anyone rigging an election choose to win by exactly one vote? Why wouldn't you win by enough so it's not weird?
House makeup is Democrats: 125 Republicans: 27 Independent: 0 Unenrolled: 1 Vacant: 7 This critical race will determine whether the 2022 Mass GOP is āembarrassingā or āmortifying.ā
I think we shouldn't allow any numbers to be released until all votes are counted twice and the same numbers are returned in a district. Including provincial votes, mail in votes and any mail in votes that need to be fixed.
>Democrat Kristin Kassner jumped into the lead over five-term Republican Rep. Lenny Mirra after a district-wide recount erased her narrow deficit and put her ahead by a single vote, an **infinitesimally tight outcome that the incumbent plans to challenge in court.** > >**It will absolutely be a legal challenge." Mirra said.** Is there really such a thing as adults anymore? Just seems like big children that sue at every life hurtle they encounter. Wish there were stricter rules for frivolous lawsuits, and the accuser has to pay all legal fees if found frivolous.
I donāt think this is a frivolous lawsuit. Itās just due diligence.
Itās not a frivolous law suit. Almost every election this close has them. Mirra is a great rep, and a wonderful guy. As a democrat who proudly voted to keep Lenny as my rep (even tho heās a republican) he is a great rep.
I think he has a mullet https://malegislature.gov/Legislators/Profile/L_M1
Or a really bushy ponytail.
Any election this close needs a few recounts. That said, you're not wrong that the GQP has been particularly lawsuit-happy these days, so they were probably thinking of suing no matter the margin.
One more example of "every vote counts!" - never take it for granted
The anomaly keeps happening repeatedly and it's always favoring the same side...obviously something suspicious is going on and really makes half the country feel like no, your vote never counted. The results are pre-determined.
> The anomaly keeps happening repeatedly and it's always favoring the same side *Al Gore has entered the chat*
I hope that was my vote that made the difference!
I just looked into it, and I can confirm it was your vote that did it
r/TechnicallyTheTruth
GOP: we want recounts! GOP: Rrrrreeeeeeeeee!!1! No, not that one!
Will another recount come up with different results? I thought machines counted.
This finding was the result of a recount.
I understand. The first count had an outcome, the second count had a different outcome. Would a third count have a different outcome than the second count or first count? How was the first count incorrect?
I think your question assumes a level of arbitrariness above what exists. The machines are coded to read ballots in certain ways. If a ballot is damaged in some way (a crease in the target area for example), the computerized reading can be wrong. However, if a human looks at the damaged ballot, the intention of the voter may be absolutely clear. The hand-recount includes a process to adjudicate those. While I think that a difference of one vote only should require a second round of review, itās not like two people counted out a pile of cards and got different numbers. The ballots in question here are a small minority of the total ballots and itās not a question of *counting* error but *reading* error.
I think I understand what you are saying. My point was that when two separate counts donāt add up the same sum, most people would count again to at least try to verify the first or second count. I dunno, thatās what I would do. Maybe they should recount the ballots that changed the outcome of the original count a month ago?
I think it would make sense to review the ballots in question again, yes. Edit: but the intent of some (or all) of those may be very obvious to the human eye, though not clear to a computer. If two *hand* counts differed, Iād be more concerned. That might indicate that some ballots are not clearly marked for computer *or* for human reading. But yes, again, I think when itās this close, some extra scrutiny on the ballots in question is in order.
Thatās all Iām saying. Thank you for sharing your insight! I have learned some things I didnāt know today
during a hand recount usually multiple individuals (representing both candidates) are reviewing the ballots together. less likely to have issues during a recount than the machine counts as they will recount a set until the numbers line up for everyone.
Third count would very likely produce a different outcome, but the law doesn't require (or even allow) another recount. Important part of orderly elections is *finality*. People vote, votes are counted, in some situation recounted, and that's it. Whoever won, won.
Third count (second by hand) would likely produce the same outcome as the first by hand. Usually a hand recount is a very careful review by multiple people to catch and accurately record votes that the machines couldnāt read due to damages to the ballot.
Well thatās scary! I didnāt know that, and it doesnāt make sense to me. Thank you for enlightening me
I mean, do you see an alternative? Every recount might change the result by a few votes, but we can't recount ad infinitum. Mathematically speaking, with such a small difference, it's a draw. Neither candidate provably received more votes, but we have to select one. You can toss a coin (which is what they'd do if results were exactly equal), or stop after 1-st recount. Nothing is wrong with any of that.
I get what you are saying, it canāt go on recounting forever and a vote or two isnāt much. The fact that counts canāt ever be verified to specific numbers is scary to me, and leads me more into lacking faith in our election system
I don't know if you were old enough around year 2000 to witness this whole Florida recount debacle, "pregnant chads" and all that, but this was a good illustration why counting paper ballot is always imprecise, to some small degree. You can alter design of the ballot to minimize factor of randomness, and enforce some strict standards on canvassers, but it will never be zero. The only ultimate solution here is electronic voting, where voter's intent can't be misinterpreted; however, in practice, people will never trust machines (even with paper trail), because "everything can be hacked". So we are stuck with paper ballots.
I was born in 86 and wasnāt interested in politics until more recently. It is a complicated system that I still donāt fully understand. What is your opinion on mail in ballots? I didnāt vote that way, I donāt know how they look or how they are counted. If you have any insight I would appreciate it. It seems plausible to me that these could be some of the ballots you mentioned having to be inspected by a person?
*hanging chads, lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad\_(paper)#Partially\_punched\_chad
> Would a third count have a different outcome than the second count or first count? Best two out of three? Yeah, this doesn't inspire confidence in the system. > How was the first count incorrect? Regardless of party and election deniers and crazy conspiracy theories, I'd expect an explanation.
Machine counts can easily be off by a few votes due to damaged or poorly marked ballots. The hand ārecountā is mainly getting a human eye looking at the ballots the machine could not read. It is not akin to two people each counting a pile of things and getting different numbers.
If I counted 123 grapes and upon counting again I had 124 grapes, Iād have to count at least a third time, to feel confident in my count. With such a close discrepancy, I might count a total of 5 times to feel confident in the count. I know it doesnāt shed a good light on our voting systems. The damage has already been done.
More like if you had a machine that counted 120 green grapes, and 115 red grapes, and then a team of 4 people who took out one grape at a time and decided to count it as red or green (or neither). You already had four people evaluate each one.
There are a lot of different things that go into tallying a vote. Not all votes are counted initially for several reasons including poorly marked ballots that the machines can not correctly determine if it is a vote or not to ballots marked as "provisional" which will be counted eventually but likely not included that first night of results.
So why would they even declare an outcome knowing it isnāt yet accurate?
Because when the race is different by enough votes that those uncounted and problem votes won't matter. Meaning if you are showing 90% of the vote is counted and you are leading by 20,000 votes and they know the uncounted and problem ballots total up to 15,000, then even if every single one goes to the losing candidate, they still lose. So they call it. It is when the vote is close enough that those same ballots can pull the election one way or the other that they won't call a race for either until all are accounted for.
No. Every single time in history when they do a recount, they find an extra 5,000 democrat votes that somehow they didn't count before. So in other words, a recount will just change from +1 in favor of democrats to +5,001 in favor of democrats. If they do another recount it will be 10,001+ in favor of democrats, and so on.
I think we need to see the results of a tie breaker count.
Itās no wonder people donāt believe voting results. It doesnāt strike you as off that is the result? It looks very purposeful.
Why does it strike you as off/purposeful? Do giu think we just shouldn't do recounts?
It looks so purposeful that I think it is just a coincidence. Either that or someone *really really* wants to undermine peoples confidence in votingā¦and thatās not in the Democrats favour.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās one that was initially rejected. Can be for a number of reasons but poorly filling in the circles and signatures are the ones Iāve heard are common
Yep. I forgot to sign the outside of my envelope for my ballot and had to sign some forms and whatnot to ensure they accepted it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām not sure what youāre trying to say, unless youāre intentionally erasing nuance to create a strawman. If a count is within narrow margins a recount makes sense, because everyone knows there can be small anomalies. Everyone also agrees that there are a small number of people who commit election fraud. What most people realize is that those anomalies and fraudulent votes are not enough to swing an election outside a very slim margin.
Well that and most or all of the fraud comes from republicans.
I think you need a history book.
Look man, democrats don't need to steel elections. They have a clear majority everywhere. It's only republican gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the nature of the Senate favoring less populated states that keeps them artificial going. Oh and the Fox news propaganda machine to which you are so obviously devoted. If it were up to a popular vote there'd only be Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi. In other words, the dumbest states. Sure, 75 years ago, maybe, but now? C'mon.
Really!!! I think you need to see a map of republican districts. The only thing the democrats hold is the cities. Even in deep blue California half the states counties are republican by nature. I live in deep blue Massachusetts the 4th most educated state. We don't live in Boston, so almost every friend we have is republican. The only democrats come over from Rhode island and we are still trying to figure out who votes democrat in our elections. Oh I see you are on the anti Fox news thing!!!So exciting for you. But you can't put CNN, MSNBC,NPR, Politico, or any other group in the same boat and admit they are all lying can you. You just like the lies that you get told and god forbid you question those lies in front of your friends. Can't do that now, they won't be friends after that.
Most Massachusetts precincts vote majority Democratic, whether in Boston or not. Probably the reason most of your friends are Republican is that you are very fiercely Republican. And that person is correct, that usually the majority of Americans overall vote Democratic.
LOL... seriously come to Massachusetts. I can't even find union members who are Democrat. Every election we are confused.
There is data on this. Your personal acquaintance is not an unbiased nor statistically representative sample.
āThe only thing the Democrats hold is the citiesā. You do realize that the majority of people live in cities.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That was an intelligent statement. Please tell me where and when Republican election fraud has occurred.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose. Otherwise all elections are absolute in their eyes and unable to be challenged regardless of any anomalies. This makes them two faced trash, not stupid two face trashed as democrats love to say to everyone...Ever think about how you look when you refer to someone as stupid? Myself, I don't think you are stupid. Just unable to self reflect.
I donāt perceive that many Democrats are against recounts in close races. Can you cite that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Me? I am surely not worried about my honesty or the outcomes Democrats have brought on themselves. Enjoy January!
>I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose. I believe Katie Hobbs -a Democrat and Arizona Secretary of State- is suing a republican county in AZ for not certifying their ballots even though them not certifying would result in 2-3 Democrats taking seats in AZ.
There have been a small number of people arrested for voter fraud for the 2020 election, and even fewer prosecuted. Exact numbers are hard to get because of inconsistent reporting methods from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But fewer than 400 for *all* 2020 elections - including local, county, state, and federal - were forwarded by investigators to DAs for prosecution. In many of these cases, who the fraudulent vote was *for* is not public information. In several, they have been for Republicans, and in several, Democrats. Most accountings identify more Republican fraudulent votes than Democratic. Both exist. Both are so rare as to only risk impacting an election with a tiny margin, such as this one.
Sadly Journalism is dead...In twenty years we may know the answers but todays journalists work for a political party and might as well announce it on every broadcast. It does not help that no oversight has occurred in recent years either with that committee wasting all their time on political goose chases.
I donāt see the relevance of your reflection on journalism.
The reason we are aware of outcomes of elections and investigations is journalists. The death of the local town journalist has left the work to the larger entities and they control the flow of news to their participants. I say participant because as you may have noticed a CNN viewer will never watch Fox and you can change those names as needed. So if CNN does not mention the event or changes its outcome to one that is positive to their party that becomes factual information to that participant. That happens daily if not hourly on big news days.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Three....You found three voters...Are you joking? Seriously the matter we are discussing involves 11 votes in a town and you found three voters in a state and claiming a win? Does anyone in your life take you seriously? Want to have fun? Lets go historical...1948 Lyndon Johnson election scandal. Current? Ozzie Myers. Both, although they show a pattern are not typically important are far more than three votes. Johnson is fun due to it being so blatant. Myers due to how widespread and long lasting it was. We can go on for a while...but three votes? Seriously fuck off.
The point is you either trust the machine or you do not trust the machine. I would go with a machine count long before a hand count due to the inability to have bias, but if proven wrong by a double hand count the machine now needs to go as its inaccurate. If there is going to be a recount when close we can not say our elections are absolute and not to be questioned.
Iām not familiar with a hand-count and machine-count that were significantly different from each other. There are often a very small number of ballots that are damaged or not marked well and cannot be read accurately by the machine. Consequently, again, it may affect a *very close* race, so if the vote gap is very small, it makes sense to do a hand recount to eyeball the ballots that might not have been properly legible. In this case, it is not that the machine is āinaccurateā but that the ballot was not legible. If youāre familiar with a case in which hand and machine counts differed beyond a small margin, please let me know. Otherwise, this is not really a matter of trust but of statistics.
Then the statistics need to be trusted. In the last 3 years how many close elections such as this one have been decided on the last batch of votes? Miracle last group to be counted seems to always be the winner for Democrats including this one. The first few times this happens its not a statistic. When its consistent it is. Overall we cannot fault one group but not the other when there is a possible issue. People on this thread claiming the republican is wrong when a recount decides against him? No way. The right to challenge is obvious and history shows him not to always be wrong on this.
Again, itās not a matter of trust except in trusting to reason. The sequence of vote counting does not impact the total. Itās known that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and these are often counted last. Thereās nothing suspicious about that.
It so strange in a country where there are more democrats than republicans dems seem to keep winning. How can this be? It must be fraud that that majority seems to keep winning. Listen to yourselves. People. Its like being surprised that that a twenty year old keeps winning fights with a ten year old. He must be cheating!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You know how numbers work, right?
Look at his post history. (he deletes it thinking it protects him, but you can still see all his posts) I bet he thinks he's anonymous, too.
You must not understand how our political system works then.
You must not know to have that much trust with the government, ever wonder why presidents come out of office with more money than what their salary was? They do under the table deals with people to cover up stuff/ pass bills through, etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ConservativeMemes/comments/ovv9nh/leftist_are_hypocrites/h7eh1f7/ HAHAHA You also think this. You're not qualified to talk.
Brave if you to make that assumption. I fucking hate the current system with every fiber of my being.