OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
I've never understood why you can't have separate ballot papers so you can count something of national importance like the presidential election immediately and then take a week or two to figure out the down ballot stuff (no disrespect to the City of Seattle bus service).
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
In these grim times, you have to take your amusements where you can find them. Today we've been treated to several. I particularly enjoyed seeing those who had previously criticised the government for ruling by diktat on local lockdowns, without consulting local leaders, now criticising them for not imposing strong enough mandatory restrictions on particular areas, but relying on local councils' choices. Also delightful was the about-turn by those who previously had criticised the government for blindly following the scientific advice without considering the wider picture, and who are now criticising the government for not blindly following the scientific advice and instead considering the wider picture.
Poor Boris. This being PM business isn't as easy as he thought it would be, is it? And, crucially, not as easy as Dave made it look. How that must hurt.
"moving all uni teaching online - hasn’t been adopted."
Unbelievable that this is the case, it can't be done with lab based work but tutorials could and should have been done through Zoom/teams or w/e. My course (Maths) could be delivered online for instance. This isn't school where deprived kids are going to suffer through a lack of tech/motivated parents.
Uni teaching is not the problem. It's idiot students ignoring all the Covid guidance.
But who's going to pay 10k a year and get into a lifetime of debt in exchange for a few ted talks and a weekly zoom call?
And if its completely online then why not pay considerably less for an online course originating in a different country.
This is the death of the university, as we know it, I fear.
A few very strong brands will survive as traditional unis. Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial, LSE in the UK. Harvard, MIT, Yale in the USA, etc. And others elsewhere
But any universities weaker than that will collapse due to the competition from good cheaper online teaching. Why not?
Because it won't be online for ever, and also it is all funded on loans that most will never repay.
It is the new Sub Prime Scandal, and will be quite a problem for some government when the music stops.
It will also be a problem for the taxpayers at that point - who will be the current students in their 40s and 50s.
Oh, yes certainly so. The talleyman always catches up in the end.
Since the 15th of September we have seen two doublings as of the 5th of October, so approximately a doubling ever 10 days rather than 7.
Given people were trying to claim there was no exponential increase at all Whitty and Valence have done alright with their not a projection.
There was a slow increase followed by a jump from the student infections and pretty stable during the last week.
None of which were predicted by the graph.
It doubled twice in exactly 20 days with the first double happening after 10. That didn't happen with a single sudden jump.
Are you really trying to say that the student infections had no effect on the numbers ?
The graph predicted 45k today, we had under 14k - about 30%.
Now if Vallance and Whitty had used a sensible R such as 1.5 the graph would have looked accurate and scary.
I'm going to shock you but students are real people too and count as actual cases. There is no single anomalous jump from student cases in the by specimen date graph.
Also, we have no idea the number of cases we had today, we need to wait several days before we find out today's numbers.
And thirdly the Whitty and Vallance number was for the 13th. Who knows, maybe and extra 30k positives will turn up tomorrow.
The Dutch are presumably worried. Over 6000 cases a day and rising sharply, that's in a country with a quarter the population of the UK.
The Dutch would have been fine, until 30 September they weren't recommending masks, but then they chose to recommend masks on 30 September and look where we are now less than 2 weeks later. They should have stuck without masks as that clearly worked and masks clearly have failed . . . /nervys
I shall retell a story I have told before on pb. I was once tasked with disposing with postal ballots received after election day. Probably a couple of thousand. The head of electoral services at the council was not happy for them to be put in the secure bin as they had arrived and instead insisted that I shred them all individually. As you can imagine this took some time and involved a lot of noise. Eventually there was a change of plan and I stopped shredding them but I always wondered why she was insistent that I do that anyway.
Even if they have come in post election day l would have thought they would have wanted to keep them (but seperate from the valid votes) in case there was a court case.
For those following the drama of the NC senate race Cunningham the Dem challenger who admitted to sexting and having an affair has seen his poll numbers rise driven by more younger people and men overall .
In the last Survey USA poll he was up by 7 points , he’s increased that to 10 points leading Tillis 49 to 39 !
"moving all uni teaching online - hasn’t been adopted."
Unbelievable that this is the case, it can't be done with lab based work but tutorials could and should have been done through Zoom/teams or w/e. My course (Maths) could be delivered online for instance. This isn't school where deprived kids are going to suffer through a lack of tech/motivated parents.
Uni teaching is not the problem. It's idiot students ignoring all the Covid guidance.
But who's going to pay 10k a year and get into a lifetime of debt in exchange for a few ted talks and a weekly zoom call?
And if its completely online then why not pay considerably less for an online course originating in a different country.
This is the death of the university, as we know it, I fear.
A few very strong brands will survive as traditional unis. Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial, LSE in the UK. Harvard, MIT, Yale in the USA, etc. And others elsewhere
But any universities weaker than that will collapse due to the competition from good cheaper online teaching. Why not?
I assume the biggest growth will be in courses on management studies for Amazon, scriptwriting for Netflix and virology?
I shall retell a story I have told before on pb. I was once tasked with disposing with postal ballots received after election day. Probably a couple of thousand. The head of electoral services at the council was not happy for them to be put in the secure bin as they had arrived and instead insisted that I shred them all individually. As you can imagine this took some time and involved a lot of noise. Eventually there was a change of plan and I stopped shredding them but I always wondered why she was insistent that I do that anyway.
Even if they have come in post election day l would have thought they would have wanted to keep them (but seperate from the valid votes) in case there was a court case.
They had kept them for about 3-4 months. I'd been temping during the registration period over the summer and they were from the local elections in May.
The YouGov model is based on a popular vote lead for Biden of just 8.7%. Likewise 538's forecast is for a popular vote lead on election day of just 8.2%.
Yet 538 currently have Biden 10.5% ahead in their polling average.
If the actual popular vote lead for Biden were 10.5% and there were a uniform variation of +1.8% for each state within a YouGov model that otherwise proved correct, then Biden would pick up a further 56 seats to add to the 363 in the YouGov model (Texas and Ohio).
Yes, I know there are big margins of error in the individual YouGov state forecasts. Nonetheless, there is on current polling significantly more of an upside than a downside if the spreads are still around the range of 315-321. Biden must have at least as much of a shot at over 400 as Trump does of squeeking home by the narrowest of margins, when actual polls are pointing to the former and people are well into the process of voting.
Anyway, have been busy all day, finding loopholes, obstructing the will of the people, acting for people wholly undeserving of help, generally being a pedantic bore and so forth, as we lawyers do. All pro bono as well.
So no idea what has been announced. But as am feeling (a) exhausted and (b) not at all well, will retreat to my bedroom and come out in 6 months or whenever we’re allowed.
Human hibernation - just like hedgehogs. Still, there’s bugger all else to do.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Anyway, have been busy all day, finding loopholes, obstructing the will of the people, acting for people wholly undeserving of help, generally being a pedantic bore and so forth, as we lawyers do. All pro bono as well.
So no idea what has been announced. But as am feeling (a) exhausted and (b) not at all well, will retreat to my bedroom and come out in 6 months or whenever we’re allowed.
Human hibernation - just like hedgehogs. Still, there’s bugger all else to do.
Sky showing a report saying that Biden is polling 62% of FL Senior Citizens.
Wow.
Methinks the Crud catching the Crud (and visa versa) followed by Trumpsky's miracle "cure" is NOT a confidence builder for geezers.
Just part and parcel of our Fearless Leader's criminal nincompoopery re: COVID. Which of course is chief reason WHY he's trailing in polls and trending downward.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Absolutely. Lots of times, over many years.
To be honest I am not finding your quoting rather peculiar rules to justify an obviously flawed system to be very convincing.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Gosh I wouldn't know where to start. At a guess (admittedly out of thin air) I suspect that at least 50% on here have been candidates, agents or simply observers at the count going form the posts. I must have done dozens as an observer and one as an agent.
The problem with a short circuit breaker is - and the clue is in the name to some extent - that once it's over the circuit is complete again.
Unless you break the circuit for long enough to really squash cases back down to low levels, then all you are really doing is putting a short pause in.
When the Scottish Government were talking about this a couple of weeks ago they said that a 2 week breaker would get you 28 days of "respite" - including, as far as I understood it (I may be wrong) the 2 week lockdown. So it wasn't like they were saying that it'd buy you e.g. several months - just a few extra weeks.
Given how long winter is, this doesn't really help, unless you do it repeatedly.
Do universities rely on residential property for a lot of their income? Are they just another part of the UK economy kept going by such means?
Here in Cardiff we've had a couple blocks of student flats go up in the city centre. Presumably they needed to make sure all the kids were in attendance before moving studies online.
Yes, exactly. Significant source of income for unis nowadays (rents have shot up hugely in recent years). They made sure students were in attendance before announcing the shift to online, a Russell Group lecturer acquaintance of mine confirmed this was the plan back in August.
While some politicians bang on about the outrageous 9k fees (which for 99% of home students is just a capped graduate tax), accommodation fees have exploded far in excess of inflation.
In many places you could rent a whole house for the cost of a room in halls.
My uni charged me £7 a week back in 1980s. Admittedly a room in a row of terraced houses near the uni (which they owned) rather than a hall.
This was before universities became fully fledged businesses.
Just checked my alma matter (West Mids Glass Plate). My (self catered, non-ensuite) halls have gone up from £40/week to £100 in 15 years. Not as horrific as I expected to be fair. Feel old now though.
Mine was self-catered ensuite (height of plushness) at turn of century. £42 a week i think. Now £180.
Your making me feel very old! My self catering fee from 1980 of £14 pw, has risen to £116 pw. This is at an ancient scottish!!
I shall retell a story I have told before on pb. I was once tasked with disposing with postal ballots received after election day. Probably a couple of thousand. The head of electoral services at the council was not happy for them to be put in the secure bin as they had arrived and instead insisted that I shred them all individually. As you can imagine this took some time and involved a lot of noise. Eventually there was a change of plan and I stopped shredding them but I always wondered why she was insistent that I do that anyway.
When it comes to Federal elections, Congress has wide latitude, and could require something like that, for example separate Federal ballot for President, US Senate and US House.
Note that there is a Federal military ballot, which can be used by active duty service women & men who do NOT get a ballot issued by state or local officials in time to vote. Includes only President & Congress (voter can give party preference or state chose candidates) though sometimes votes will be indicated for state or local races, and sometimes these get counted (depending on state laws and clarity of voter intent).
In 14 days you won't have the data to know if it has worked or not. It isn't the first time SAGE have proposed stupid things, remember masks not needed, lets just test hospital admissions...
If they had said a month, then you might then be able to say they would at least be getting data to work out where it has been effective and where it hasn't.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Gosh I wouldn't know where to start. At a guess (admittedly out of thin air) I suspect that at least 50% on here have been candidates, agents or simply observers at the count going form the posts. I must have done dozens as an observer and one as an agent.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
I used to attend the Trafford counts in George Carnell Leisure Centre in Davyhulme. Each time I kept bumping into Graham Brady on the counting floor and we had a few chats - I guess because he was a "constant" and his challengers kept changing from election to election. He also had a habit of showing up for the locals as well as Westminster. Amazingly he remembered me from year to year - a useful talent for a politician...
Anyway, have been busy all day, finding loopholes, obstructing the will of the people, acting for people wholly undeserving of help, generally being a pedantic bore and so forth, as we lawyers do. All pro bono as well.
So no idea what has been announced. But as am feeling (a) exhausted and (b) not at all well, will retreat to my bedroom and come out in 6 months or whenever we’re allowed.
Human hibernation - just like hedgehogs. Still, there’s bugger all else to do.
Stay well, chaps.
Ten second summary:
Boris has had a very bad day, his weakness exposed for all to see.
The scientists told him he needed tighter restrictions but Sunak vetoed a big part of it and Burnham vetoed another big part of it. Unless you live in Liverpool, what was left to be announced is mostly no change at all or in places even a slight relaxation. The Labour mayor of Liverpool was shocked to find himself isolated and attacked the PM for ‘falsely’ citing his support, and the Tory Mayor of Birmingham did the same. Despite failing to actually deliver any meaningful tightening Boris is now being attacked by his own backbenchers for tightening too far. Along the way he delivered grovelling thanks to the LibDems for not making his unhappy existence even more difficult.
Sky showing a report saying that Biden is polling 62% of FL Senior Citizens.
Wow.
That would be unremarkable for a candidate running on the right rather than the (very centrist) left of his opponent.
Starmer would give his arm's length for half that percentage. He's currently got 23% of over 65s with YouGov.
Miliband polled at 34% with over 60s in Jan 2013 at a time when Labour was 13% ahead in the polls but hadn't yet come out against a Brexit referendum. Things went downhill from there for Labour's elderly vote.
I shall retell a story I have told before on pb. I was once tasked with disposing with postal ballots received after election day. Probably a couple of thousand. The head of electoral services at the council was not happy for them to be put in the secure bin as they had arrived and instead insisted that I shred them all individually. As you can imagine this took some time and involved a lot of noise. Eventually there was a change of plan and I stopped shredding them but I always wondered why she was insistent that I do that anyway.
When it comes to Federal elections, Congress has wide latitude, and could require something like that, for example separate Federal ballot for President, US Senate and US House.
Note that there is a Federal military ballot, which can be used by active duty service women & men who do NOT get a ballot issued by state or local officials in time to vote. Includes only President & Congress (voter can give party preference or state chose candidates) though sometimes votes will be indicated for state or local races, and sometimes these get counted (depending on state laws and clarity of voter intent).
Somehow ended up with my sage commentary on wrong post - mea culpa.
Re the situation in FB post above, rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction re: retention of ballots and other voting records/materials after EDay.
However, IIRC there is a federal requirement to hang on to stuff after federal general election for six months or so. IF that's right, they destroying any ballot with a federal race on it, even if rejected and not counted, would be a BIG no no.
Though NOT evidence of fraud. More likely they did NOT want these too-late rejects to get counted, or for someone to think they SHOULD have been counted. OR maybe they needed the space for something else, or something equally mundane.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Every year (apart from this when elections were cancelled). Particularly nerve-wracking if you're the candidate as I shall be next May!
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
I have been to many counts for general elections, sitting opposite a counting agent, verifying votes, tallying, waiting for the declaration and sometimes celebrating.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Absolutely. Lots of times, over many years.
To be honest I am not finding your quoting rather peculiar rules to justify an obviously flawed system to be very convincing.
Just trying to add a few factoids and sage observations to the conversation. IF you are NOT convinced, that's your business. IF you've got some relevant knowledge or (even better) experience, I'm all ears.
I shall retell a story I have told before on pb. I was once tasked with disposing with postal ballots received after election day. Probably a couple of thousand. The head of electoral services at the council was not happy for them to be put in the secure bin as they had arrived and instead insisted that I shred them all individually. As you can imagine this took some time and involved a lot of noise. Eventually there was a change of plan and I stopped shredding them but I always wondered why she was insistent that I do that anyway.
Even if they have come in post election day l would have thought they would have wanted to keep them (but seperate from the valid votes) in case there was a court case.
They had kept them for about 3-4 months. I'd been temping during the registration period over the summer and they were from the local elections in May.
If no federal races, and no outstanding election contests or other issues, then sounds like disposal was appropriate. Whether shredding was necessary or not another matter..
Anyway, have been busy all day, finding loopholes, obstructing the will of the people, acting for people wholly undeserving of help, generally being a pedantic bore and so forth, as we lawyers do. All pro bono as well.
So no idea what has been announced. But as am feeling (a) exhausted and (b) not at all well, will retreat to my bedroom and come out in 6 months or whenever we’re allowed.
Human hibernation - just like hedgehogs. Still, there’s bugger all else to do.
Stay well, chaps.
Ten second summary:
Boris has had a very bad day, his weakness exposed for all to see.
The scientists told him he needed tighter restrictions but Sunak vetoed a big part of it and Burnham vetoed another big part of it. Unless you live in Liverpool, what was left to be announced is mostly no change at all or in places even a slight relaxation. The Labour mayor of Liverpool was shocked to find himself isolated and attacked the PM for ‘falsely’ citing his support, and the Tory Mayor of Birmingham did the same. Despite failing to actually deliver any meaningful tightening Boris is now being attacked by his own backbenchers for tightening too far. Along the way he delivered grovelling thanks to the LibDems for not making his unhappy existence even more difficult.
The Tories are in effect shutting down the hospitality industries of most urban areas in the North and Midlands, where you allowed only to go out for a drink with your wife in the freezing cold outside. Why bother to go out at all? Yet they're doing so in a very devious way that means that Sunak only has to foot the bill to compensate those in Liverpool which are required to shut by law, and then only to a scale of 2/3rds of wages. The Liverpool mayor should be grateful that his city is being singled out for financial support in a way that say Birmingham isn't.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Every year (apart from this when elections were cancelled). Particularly nerve-wracking if you're the candidate as I shall be next May!
You will be one of relatively few candidates with much if any face time observing election machinery,
In my experience, average candidate would prefer NOT to know too much about how the sausage gets made.
I have never been a candidate, attended a count, or even been a member of a political party. In some ways I wish parties didn’t exist.
Even an anarchist (and NOT saying you're one of them) could observe an election with some interest.
Typically, folks find that many of the things they thought were problematic really are not. BUT also that things they never knew or thought about turn out to be potential if not actual problems.
A nice dive into the polling numbers and what they mean for the viability of Trump's reelection strategy by Amy from the Cook Report. In short, Trump only meeting 1 of the 4 conditions for his strategy to succeed:
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Every year (apart from this when elections were cancelled). Particularly nerve-wracking if you're the candidate as I shall be next May!
You will be one of relatively few candidates with much if any face time observing election machinery,
In my experience, average candidate would prefer NOT to know too much about how the sausage gets made.
Winchester byelection was the best one. Too many stories to tell. I was knocking up with David Laws. Great party after with Screaming Lord Such providing the entertainment after the declaration. Decided not to canvas the house the firemen were putting out. And it goes on.
I have never been a candidate, attended a count, or even been a member of a political party. In some ways I wish parties didn’t exist.
Without parties elections would be dominated by wealthy independent candidates
Pembrokeshire county council is full of "Independents", and as such it is moribund. Nothing gets done, no drive, no plans for improving the local economy. That's why my county will always have high unemployment and low salaries!
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Gosh I wouldn't know where to start. At a guess (admittedly out of thin air) I suspect that at least 50% on here have been candidates, agents or simply observers at the count going form the posts.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Gosh I wouldn't know where to start. At a guess (admittedly out of thin air) I suspect that at least 50% on here have been candidates, agents or simply observers at the count going form the posts.
And count staff.
Good point. Without them the whole process, well just wouldn't exist.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Every year (apart from this when elections were cancelled). Particularly nerve-wracking if you're the candidate as I shall be next May!
You will be one of relatively few candidates with much if any face time observing election machinery,
In my experience, average candidate would prefer NOT to know too much about how the sausage gets made.
In my experience local councillors candidates stick it out admirably even when it is clear they have lost, to the point it was noteworthy when one left before the end (and most were there from the start, or as close as could reasonably be managed). Even at the GE in the deep shires the Labour candidate round my way was present for a pretty lengthy chunk. I was not among the agent/candidate side of things, but the various parties have always seemed well staffed by thei volunteers and candidates, with good stamina to boot.
I have never been a candidate, attended a count, or even been a member of a political party. In some ways I wish parties didn’t exist.
Without parties elections would be dominated by wealthy independent candidates
Pembrokeshire county council is full of "Independents", and as such it is moribund. Nothing gets done, no drive, no plans for improving the local economy. That's why my county will always have high unemployment and low salaries!
A few parish councils in Epping Forest are all independent too, tend to be made up of the retired with time on their hands, even more so than the district council
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
I have never been a candidate, attended a count, or even been a member of a political party. In some ways I wish parties didn’t exist.
The balance has probably tilted too far when it comes to power parties hold, but they do exist for pretty good reason once you get to a certain level at least. Too many Independents can cause problems in getting things done if they are the kind of Independents who are just bloody minded and impossible to work with. It can be done, but parties serve a purpose.
And frankly in some areas it's not as though the parties would act differently to one another anyway, and only national issues separate them.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
We get a different ballot paper for each race rather than trying to cram them all onto the same piece of paper. Then they can all be counted reasonably rather than messing around.
That was common practice in parts of US in 19th century. BUT with more than say two or three ballots, led to a LOT of confusion, including fertile opportunities for miscounting, sometimes on purpose.
Would be interesting to know, how many PBers have actually observed their (or any) election process (as opposed to analyzing polling & results) at all closely.
About the one one I can recall on here (besides yours truly) was John Looney. Though am sure they are a few other PBers out there with some face time observing the election process.
Yes. Lots. There will be lots on here that have done so.
Names?
Every year (apart from this when elections were cancelled). Particularly nerve-wracking if you're the candidate as I shall be next May!
You will be one of relatively few candidates with much if any face time observing election machinery,
In my experience, average candidate would prefer NOT to know too much about how the sausage gets made.
Winchester byelection was the best one. Too many stories to tell. I was knocking up with David Laws. Great party after with Screaming Lord Such providing the entertainment after the declaration. Decided not to canvas the house the firemen were putting out. And it goes on.
And oh what a close result!
According to Wiki you are a man of rare irony!
Certainly envy you getting to hang with His Lordship, and at his last by-election.
Only too bad it WAS his last. Still hold a grudge against British Establishment for NOT granting him the peerage he'd earned, as UK's longest-serving party leader.
But then he didn't need it - David Sutch was one of nature's noblemen.
Since the 15th of September we have seen two doublings as of the 5th of October, so approximately a doubling ever 10 days rather than 7.
Given people were trying to claim there was no exponential increase at all Whitty and Valence have done alright with their not a projection.
There was a slow increase followed by a jump from the student infections and pretty stable during the last week.
None of which were predicted by the graph.
It doubled twice in exactly 20 days with the first double happening after 10. That didn't happen with a single sudden jump.
Are you really trying to say that the student infections had no effect on the numbers ?
The graph predicted 45k today, we had under 14k - about 30%.
Now if Vallance and Whitty had used a sensible R such as 1.5 the graph would have looked accurate and scary.
Of course that R was if we did nothing and since then we have had weeks of talk of needing to take this seriously, the rule of 6, the curfew etc, etc, etc so of course R should have come down since then. If it had followed their graph I'd be wondering why the rule of 6 etc, etc had not had any impact at all on transmission.
Certainly.
But that illustrates the problem with a graph with 'extrapolated to infinity' in a short period.
More realism showing worst cases and best cases and lines of tolerance and danger would have been better at illustrating what was happening and what needed to be done.
OF COURSE the whole notion that election results must be declared immediately (if not sooner) is a journalist ramp. Which political partisans jump upon depending on how the votes appear to be stacking up.
In my own misspent youth remember well how I went to bed on ENight 1968 hopeful that Hubert Humphrey could still pull it out - only to find the morning after that 'twas NOT to be.
In 1916 the result was still in doubt on Thursday morning, when California result went to Wilson (by margin of 3.8k out of 1m cast); CA GOP conceded that evening.
Note that in both these cases, communications were almost as speedy (via telegraph & telephone) as today; also that almost all voting in 1916 was via paper ballots with multiple races to count, while in 1968 the percentage of votes cast via paper ballot was much less but still substantial, esp in rural states and counties.
In most European countries 99.9% of votes are counted within a few hours of the polls closing. I don't know why the United States can't do the same thing.
Because we are NOT voting on just one thing, we have MULTIPLE races on our election ballots.
For example, here in Seattle in addition to Presidential race, there is race for US House, total of NINE statewide elected officials starting with Governor and ending with Insurance Commissioner, then two separate positions for state House of Reps (in some districts also race for state Senate), then four races for state Supreme Court Justice, then number of other judicial races.
Oh, and forgot to mention that candidate races are (mostly) proceeded by number of ballot measures, including one statewide referendum, one statewide constitutional amendment, four statewide advisory votes, followed by seven King County Charter amendments, one countywide bond measure, and (last but not least) City of Seattle proposition for sales tax to help finance local bus service,
Does this help answer your question?
I've never understood why you can't have separate ballot papers so you can count something of national importance like the presidential election immediately and then take a week or two to figure out the down ballot stuff (no disrespect to the City of Seattle bus service).
Indeed.
And especially so as it can be months before those elected take office.
There was a piece I posted a link to the other day about the most important man in America on election night: Fox News voting data analyst.
If I can find it again I will be repost. From memory it was reassuring, he has no intention of calling anything too soon and he wont be lent on by Fox's owners and so on.
Its crazy to call a state if the result is not certificated by their equivalent of the Returning Officer.
In most of US this is state Secretary of State, and locally county/town clerk or auditor or whatever who is directly responsible for administering & conducting elections.
NOTE that official certification of results typically occurs weeks after EDay.
Since waiting that long is both a drag AND unnecessary unless some races are very close (or lots of votes still outstanding) the practice developed (in 19th century) of newspapers recording and collating local results in their publication area. Fairly early on journalists began using (at first) rudimentary analysis to calculate how votes from late-reporting jurisdictions were likely to affect the final outcome.
In 20th century national news services, most notably Associated Press (AP) took over this function. Up until early this century their practice was to have someone in just about every county (or town) election office to get the results throughout ENight and report to AP.
Yes, I understand that is why the press call states on the night, but it is a daft system, and particularly so in this strange year.
A "call" from the networks has no legal force, though, does it? If the actual count in a state ultimately differs that takes precedence, surely.
Of course not. But if the election is close, it might on occasion persuade candidates to concede when they should not. (And could conceivably give Trump excuses to attempt to sabotage the result this time.)
In reality, all that counts constitutionally is the electoral college votes formally cast in each state in December, and ratified by Congress in January. There is no reason to rush the count, and indeed constitutional originalists, as the Republicans claim to be, ought to deprecate any such thing.
A concession also has no legal force were it to be contradicted by later results.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ScotlandTonight/status/1315751101812088832
Poor Boris. This being PM business isn't as easy as he thought it would be, is it? And, crucially, not as easy as Dave made it look. How that must hurt.
Also, we have no idea the number of cases we had today, we need to wait several days before we find out today's numbers.
And thirdly the Whitty and Vallance number was for the 13th. Who knows, maybe and extra 30k positives will turn up tomorrow.
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1315763516805177345
Wow.
Yet 538 currently have Biden 10.5% ahead in their polling average.
If the actual popular vote lead for Biden were 10.5% and there were a uniform variation of +1.8% for each state within a YouGov model that otherwise proved correct, then Biden would pick up a further 56 seats to add to the 363 in the YouGov model (Texas and Ohio).
Yes, I know there are big margins of error in the individual YouGov state forecasts. Nonetheless, there is on current polling significantly more of an upside than a downside if the spreads are still around the range of 315-321. Biden must have at least as much of a shot at over 400 as Trump does of squeeking home by the narrowest of margins, when actual polls are pointing to the former and people are well into the process of voting.
So no idea what has been announced. But as am feeling (a) exhausted and (b) not at all well, will retreat to my bedroom and come out in 6 months or whenever we’re allowed.
Human hibernation - just like hedgehogs. Still, there’s bugger all else to do.
Stay well, chaps.
Just part and parcel of our Fearless Leader's criminal nincompoopery re: COVID. Which of course is chief reason WHY he's trailing in polls and trending downward.
The odds aren’t fantastic, but it just feels right (which is a pretty stupid reason for a bet, but still).
To be honest I am not finding your quoting rather peculiar rules to justify an obviously flawed system to be very convincing.
https://insideradvantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FLAPREZOCT6_7.pdf
Unless you break the circuit for long enough to really squash cases back down to low levels, then all you are really doing is putting a short pause in.
When the Scottish Government were talking about this a couple of weeks ago they said that a 2 week breaker would get you 28 days of "respite" - including, as far as I understood it (I may be wrong) the 2 week lockdown. So it wasn't like they were saying that it'd buy you e.g. several months - just a few extra weeks.
Given how long winter is, this doesn't really help, unless you do it repeatedly.
Note that there is a Federal military ballot, which can be used by active duty service women & men who do NOT get a ballot issued by state or local officials in time to vote. Includes only President & Congress (voter can give party preference or state chose candidates) though sometimes votes will be indicated for state or local races, and sometimes these get counted (depending on state laws and clarity of voter intent).
If they had said a month, then you might then be able to say they would at least be getting data to work out where it has been effective and where it hasn't.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1315756410135871488?s=20
Boris has had a very bad day, his weakness exposed for all to see.
The scientists told him he needed tighter restrictions but Sunak vetoed a big part of it and Burnham vetoed another big part of it. Unless you live in Liverpool, what was left to be announced is mostly no change at all or in places even a slight relaxation. The Labour mayor of Liverpool was shocked to find himself isolated and attacked the PM for ‘falsely’ citing his support, and the Tory Mayor of Birmingham did the same. Despite failing to actually deliver any meaningful tightening Boris is now being attacked by his own backbenchers for tightening too far. Along the way he delivered grovelling thanks to the LibDems for not making his unhappy existence even more difficult.
Starmer would give his arm's length for half that percentage. He's currently got 23% of over 65s with YouGov.
Miliband polled at 34% with over 60s in Jan 2013 at a time when Labour was 13% ahead in the polls but hadn't yet come out against a Brexit referendum. Things went downhill from there for Labour's elderly vote.
Corbyn managed 13% of over 65s in Feb 2020.
Vs the not a projection 7 day doubling
Re the situation in FB post above, rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction re: retention of ballots and other voting records/materials after EDay.
However, IIRC there is a federal requirement to hang on to stuff after federal general election for six months or so. IF that's right, they destroying any ballot with a federal race on it, even if rejected and not counted, would be a BIG no no.
Though NOT evidence of fraud. More likely they did NOT want these too-late rejects to get counted, or for someone to think they SHOULD have been counted. OR maybe they needed the space for something else, or something equally mundane.
Anyway, thanks muchly Frank for your report!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1315769883318124544
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1315769883318124544?s=20
Anyway, thanks again - very interesting!
In my experience, average candidate would prefer NOT to know too much about how the sausage gets made.
Typically, folks find that many of the things they thought were problematic really are not. BUT also that things they never knew or thought about turn out to be potential if not actual problems.
https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/gamble
And oh what a close result!
And frankly in some areas it's not as though the parties would act differently to one another anyway, and only national issues separate them.
Certainly envy you getting to hang with His Lordship, and at his last by-election.
Only too bad it WAS his last. Still hold a grudge against British Establishment for NOT granting him the peerage he'd earned, as UK's longest-serving party leader.
But then he didn't need it - David Sutch was one of nature's noblemen.
But that illustrates the problem with a graph with 'extrapolated to infinity' in a short period.
More realism showing worst cases and best cases and lines of tolerance and danger would have been better at illustrating what was happening and what needed to be done.
And especially so as it can be months before those elected take office.
It bends to my whim.