Florida Recount in Senate Race?

[carpedm9587]

Source: Florida Dems planned to use altered forms to fix mail ballots across state after deadline

A day after Florida's election left top state races too close to call, a Democratic party leader directed staffers and volunteers to share altered election forms with voters to fix signature problems on absentee ballots after the state's deadline.

The altered forms surfaced in Broward, Santa Rosa, Citrus and Okaloosa counties and were reported to federal prosecutors to review for possible election fraud as Florida counties complete a required recount in three top races.

But an email obtained by the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida shows that Florida Democrats were organizing a broader statewide effort beyond those counties to give voters the altered forms to fix improper absentee ballots after the Nov. 5 deadline. Democratic party leaders provided staffers with copies of a form, known as a "cure affidavit," that had been modified to include an inaccurate Nov. 8 deadline.

One Palm Beach Democrat said in an interview the idea was to have voters fix and submit as many absentee ballots as possible with the altered forms in hopes of later including them in vote totals if a judge ruled such ballots were allowed.

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/new...ts/2009178002/

© Copyright Original Source

Are there any liberals here who want to argue that this isn't a blatant attempt at voter fraud?

I'm not exactly a "liberal," but...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judg...ry?id=59214194

...it appears the court disagrees with you.

[carpedm9587]

Source: Far-Left Politico, CNN Say Democrat Bill Nelson Can’t Win FL Recount

Politico and CNN have done the math and report that incumbent U.S. Senator Bill Nelson cannot win the Florida recount — barring a miracle.

To have both of these far-left outlets, two enthusiastic cheerleaders for Democrats, finally report this painfully obvious truth, is a major blow to Nelson’s ongoing litigation and public relations efforts.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...in-fl-recount/

© Copyright Original Source

"Barring a miracle" ... as you can see in my previous post, Democrats are quite good at manufacturing "miracles" at the ballot box.

Right!

Those nasty Dems. They did it in 2000.... umm... wait...the Republicans won that one.

Never mind... they did it in 2012! Umm... wait...Republicans won all but the presidency...

Never mind... they did it in 2016! Umm.... wait... Republicans won that one

Hmmm..

[Mountain Man]

I'm not exactly a "liberal," but...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judg...ry?id=59214194

...it appears the court disagrees with you.

You are exactly a liberal.

And that ruling is not relevant to the story I posted.

[carpedm9587]

You are exactly a liberal.

If you say so, MM...

As I say to my good friend from Seattle, "when you are as far right as you are - everything else looks left."

And that ruling is not relevant to the story I posted.

Try again...


(wrong association...)

[Starlight]

So the Florida automated recount has now finished... and... the results are basically no different to those the first time around. Unsurprising as the process is mainly feeding the same voting papers through the same machines and getting the machines to tally up the votes in each race.

The only thing mildly interesting is that 3 counties didn't submit recount numbers because they either didn't finish the recount in time or their machines broke. So their numbers from the first count were used instead.

Unsurprisingly repeating the same process resulted in largely the same numbers coming out the other end. One article I saw said the change is 46 votes across the entire state. By contrast the races being recounted are 12k and 33k votes apart.

Now it's on to the more interesting step of the process - pulling the ballots out of the pile that the machine couldn't read and manually having a look over them. These are ballots where the automated scanner thought someone had voted for two candidates in a race (likely because they'd voted for the wrong person and crossed it out and then voted for the right person), or the machine failed to record any valid vote in the race (either the person left it blank or the machine for whatever reason couldn't read it). Florida law says so long as the voter's intention is clear, the vote counts. So it's now on to the fun part of arguing over whether a given ballot is clear or not.

Meanwhile nutso-Trump is coming up with even more crazy conspiracies about how illegal voting happens:

"Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again."

I, for one, favor a fake mustache and a peacock feather hat.

[Terraceth]

Source: Far-Left Politico, CNN Say Democrat Bill Nelson Can’t Win FL Recount

Politico and CNN have done the math and report that incumbent U.S. Senator Bill Nelson cannot win the Florida recount — barring a miracle.

To have both of these far-left outlets, two enthusiastic cheerleaders for Democrats, finally report this painfully obvious truth, is a major blow to Nelson’s ongoing litigation and public relations efforts.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...in-fl-recount/

© Copyright Original Source

"Barring a miracle" ... as you can see in my previous post, Democrats are quite good at manufacturing "miracles" at the ballot box.

By what definition are Politico and CNN "far-left"? I'm not going to say they don't have a liberal bias, but to use the phrase "far-left" is just goofy.

[Starlight]

Right!

Those nasty Dems. They did it in 2000.... umm... wait...the Republicans won that one.

Never mind... they did it in 2012! Umm... wait...Republicans won all but the presidency...

Never mind... they did it in 2016! Umm.... wait... Republicans won that one

Hmmm..

All that praying to Allah the Dems do gives them the wrong type of miracles.

[rogue06]

Right!

Those nasty Dems. They did it in 2000.... umm... wait...the Republicans won that one.

Never mind... they did it in 2012! Umm... wait...Republicans won all but the presidency...

Never mind... they did it in 2016! Umm.... wait... Republicans won that one

Hmmm..

Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud for one

[carpedm9587]

Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud for one

So a conservative "watchdog" group that would not have wanted Franken seated is complaining about possible voter fraud. Color me surprised. By law, Rogue, "convicted felons" in Minnesota CAN vote - so long as they have served their sentence and completed any parole. The article fails to mention the status of these felons with respect to that - and I cannot find any other confirming piece that these felons were explicitly ineligible - and you linked to an "opinion" piece - not exactly an authoritative source. So I cannot say "voter fraud didn't happen" You, likewise, have failed to show it did.

The article, BTW, is about a principle that I actually like: the need to renew voter registration periodically. Although I am not particularly concerned about the "cleanliness" of voter list because no one has shown that it produces the kind of voter fraud so many on the right rail about - I still think it is a good idea in general and would help clean the lists. It would have to be done in a way that does NOT disenfranchise people. I can, for example, renew my driver's license, passport, and vehicle registration online or by mail.

[Cow Poke]

Now it's on to the more interesting step of the process - pulling the ballots out of the pile that the machine couldn't read and manually having a look over them. These are ballots where the automated scanner thought someone had voted for two candidates in a race (likely because they'd voted for the wrong person and crossed it out and then voted for the right person), or the machine failed to record any valid vote in the race (either the person left it blank or the machine for whatever reason couldn't read it). Florida law says so long as the voter's intention is clear, the vote counts. ....

And here's where it gets ugly, because it will be "very clear" for one candidate to somebody it favors their candidate, but "very clear" for the other candidate to the person who favors the other candidate. This is what's known as "divining the intent" of the voter, which can get really messy.

[Cow Poke]

The article, BTW, is about a principle that I actually like: the need to renew voter registration periodically. Although I am not particularly concerned about the "cleanliness" of voter list because no one has shown that it produces the kind of voter fraud so many on the right rail about - I still think it is a good idea in general and would help clean the lists. It would have to be done in a way that does NOT disenfranchise people. I can, for example, renew my driver's license, passport, and vehicle registration online or by mail.

This!

[Mountain Man]

Try again...


(wrong association...)

Try what again? I posted a story about Democrat officials deceptively altering forms in order to give the false appearance that they had been submitted by the deadline and then sending those forms across the state in the hopes of ginning up additional fraudulent Democrat votes that could potentially swing the election in their candidate's favor (and isn't it funny how they didn't extend this same courtesy to Republican voters? ). The story you posted was about a judge ruling in favor of the general legality of accepting "cure ballots" but said nothing about the fraud that was being perpetrated by Democrat poll workers.

[Mountain Man]

By what definition are Politico and CNN "far-left"?

By what definition are they not?

[Starlight]

And here's where it gets ugly, because it will be "very clear" for one candidate to somebody it favors their candidate, but "very clear" for the other candidate to the person who favors the other candidate. This is what's known as "divining the intent" of the voter, which can get really messy.

Well there'll be hundreds of cases where a ballot paper ends up in front of a judge, with lawyers from both sides arguing over it. Sure. There are processes for deciding such things, and this is routine. But it's not that tiny set of ballots that will be deciding the outcome of the race.

What will be relevant is the total set of ballots that didn't scan properly. The vast vast majority of those ballots will be obvious as to what the vote (if any) was intended to be, once human eyes are laid on them. e.g. the person has checked the wrong box, crossed it out and then checked the right box, and then the machine scanning it simply notes that two boxes are checked so flags that as a problem and doesn't count it as a vote either way in the initial automated count or automated recount that was just done. So now humans are going through the ballots that the machines have flagged as having two or zero boxes checked in the race and looking at them with human eyes to see if it's obvious what the voter meant to vote. Representatives of both candidates will be there to ensure this process goes smoothly and the ballots being counted are indeed unambiguous. It's these thousands of ballots that might or might not change the outcome of the race.

A relative tiny fraction of them (~1% or so) will actually be truly ambiguous and then the lawyers can bicker over them and take them before judges etc. But the tiny ambiguous fraction that ends up before judges will almost certainly not be relevant in terms of it won't be large enough in number to change the outcome of the race. It's the thousands of unambiguous ballots that haven't scanned properly that will or won't change the race outcome when counted. So, for the most part, this is not really an exercise in ambiguity or in mind-reading, it's simply that the scanning machines are pretty limited in what they look at, and a human glancing at a ballot paper can spot an unambiguous intention to vote for a particular candidate far better than an automated scanner that's only looking for check marks in particular boxes.

[Cow Poke]

Florida Elections: Accelerated retirement plan for attorneys.