VOTE! Election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

What will be the results of todays vote?

  • Trump wins big

    Votes: 11 14.1%
  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 15.4%
  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 29 37.2%
  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 17 21.8%
  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 9 11.5%

  • Total voters
    78

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,672
4,703
1,743
33
Keller, Texas
It does go both ways, but the dude at Twitter who's really radically left having such a large say in what they censored is at least concerning, imo. I believe they changed the policy after it was put out there, but it was like a one man editorial 'board' at a newspaper.

I don't care what side of the aisle one falls on, but FB & Twitter have such vast influence that there needs to be some balance in their viewpoints of what's okay & what's not.

Further, I'm pretty conservative on government intervention, but we're clearly seeing some very negative effects these huge entities can have on the country, & the world. I think I'm getting on board with more regulation of big tech.
Balance was provided by Mewe and Parler as social media platforms. Parler, however, has already been banned on here though for example.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,292
17,930
1,743
If Trump doesn't concede soon it is going to start hurting American Company plans which will in turn start affecting the stock market

https://twitter.com/tulsaworld/status/1327318839235895296
Al 'my feet are hot' Gore says he has until December 13.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,292
17,930
1,743
Tom Vilsack was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. So looks like everyone agreed he was a good pick. He was an elected official in Iowa for 20+ years.

Seems like Sonny Perdue is also a good choice.
Tom Vilsack I'll give some credit to.

He was on the right side of the "pink slime" issue when he defended the product against idiot critics of finely textured beef.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,592
3,759
1,743
The words "little" and "irrational" show where you are coming from. The rates I have found for past elections vary around a little less than 1% to about 2%.
More than that and any election should be looking at what is making the vote so difficult so that they are rejected to avoid the appearance suppression. Certainly, you could make a ballot that 50% of the population would screw up. That doesn't mean you should.

In a society wanting free elections, 3.5% is the irrational one to me. 3% of voters should not be removed by the government.
Georgia had a 0.3% rejection rate in the presidential election. They had a 1.2% rejection rate earlier this year during the primaries. Both fall below the national mean, but 0.3% seems irrationally low. Do you have a rational explanation as to why their rejection rate would be 4X higher just months earlier?

A 3.5% rejection rate could be irrational as well if the rates were quite a bit lower in 2018. I've never studied those statistics though.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,251
31,992
1,743
oklahoma city
Georgia had a 0.3% rejection rate in the presidential election. They had a 1.2% rejection rate earlier this year during the primaries. Both fall below the national mean, but 0.3% seems irrationally low. Do you have a rational explanation as to why their rejection rate would be 4X higher just months earlier?

A 3.5% rejection rate could be irrational as well if the rates were quite a bit lower in 2018. I've never studied those statistics though.
Because this is the tightest and most important vote in Georgia history and the state allows for ballot correction. If you were told your ballot was in error but the winner was named and the concession had occurred, you would not bother. Given the current situation, I am sure many did bother to fix them.
Irrational is the idea that the vote of a certain number of citizens should be banished for clerical errors as a standard. The closer to zero that number gets the more rational it is, IMO. Irrational is the desire to win by excluding others.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vo...k-to-cure-their-ballots-if-initially-rejected
 
Jul 25, 2018
4,209
1,147
243
49
Boulder, CO
Because this is the tightest and most important vote in Georgia history and the state allows for ballot correction. If you were told your ballot was in error but the winner was named and the concession had occurred, you would not bother. Given the current situation, I am sure many did bother to fix them.
Irrational is the idea that the vote of a certain number of citizens should be banished for clerical errors as a standard. The closer to zero that number gets the more rational it is, IMO. Irrational is the desire to win by excluding others.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vo...k-to-cure-their-ballots-if-initially-rejected
I don't disagree at all.

What I do question is where's the end point? I mean, unless I've missed something on the PA Supreme Court ruling, at what point has someone just missed their opportunity to vote? How long do you spend on clerical errors? At what point is it just someone's personal responsibility for properly filling out a ballot & doing it on time?
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,592
3,759
1,743
Because this is the tightest and most important vote in Georgia history and the state allows for ballot correction. If you were told your ballot was in error but the winner was named and the concession had occurred, you would not bother. Given the current situation, I am sure many did bother to fix them.
Irrational is the idea that the vote of a certain number of citizens should be banished for clerical errors as a standard. The closer to zero that number gets the more rational it is, IMO. Irrational is the desire to win by excluding others.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vo...k-to-cure-their-ballots-if-initially-rejected
Georgia and many other states had ballot curing in the primaries as well. It doesn't explain the discrepancy.
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
17,431
10,518
1,743
40
Fairmont, MN
Georgia and many other states had ballot curing in the primaries as well. It doesn't explain the discrepancy.
People don't care as much about primaries so there probably wasn't much of a push to make sure their ballot counted.

Also, I'm guessing a lot of the absentee voting in the general was in person. That's going to reduce more error versus just mailing one in.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,251
31,992
1,743
oklahoma city
I don't disagree at all.

What I do question is where's the end point? I mean, unless I've missed something on the PA Supreme Court ruling, at what point has someone just missed their opportunity to vote? How long do you spend on clerical errors? At what point is it just someone's personal responsibility for properly filling out a ballot & doing it on time?
I admit I have never been a poll volunteer or involved in elections so I am not the best to answer that. But, seems to me if the state either strictly warns on the ballot that you get one chance and has a simple ballot or the state has a mechanism to give one timely chance at correction each is fair. My concern is the potential for making ballots complicated with no error correction to increase the rate of rejection.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,251
31,992
1,743
oklahoma city
Georgia and many other states had ballot curing in the primaries as well. It doesn't explain the discrepancy.
I thought I explained why this is different pretty well. When has a presidential race been this close and nobody conceding? You don't think that situation would increase the correction rate over a primary?