politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Per the article
So, because in Tennessee, a QR Code error created a mismatch between the number of physical ballots vs tabulated ones, and they found the same code error in 64 out of 66 counties in Georgia's tabulators, they are going to hand count the number of ballots to make sure it matches the number the tabulators counted. Especially, since they apparently found a bunch of additional ballots in some counties, as well...
I mean, this seems reasonable on the surface. But, considering the situation, it seems like it could all go really sideways.
Isn't there another way they could count just the number of paper ballots? Like, as they come in, instead of later on, by hand? I'm not sure of the way thier system / machines work, or of a way that would convince everyone of privacy, but...like a laser counter that counts every time its broken, or something...Idk, there just seems like there has to be a better way.
Edit: so really, objectively speaking, this is an issue. One that wouldnt be caught unless they ordered a hand recount after the fact. I mean, obviously, this isnt an objective source, but, unless theyre just straight up making this up (which I suppose is a possibility), how is not having every ballot counted OK? Isnt there a better suggestion than breaking the seal immediately, counting everything by hand, and inviting all the issues that come with that? Something that could even be presented to the court or something as an alternative, that everybody could agree with. At least people could say they tried to solve the issue another way. If it gets rejected, then it would be plainly obvious there were ulterior motives. At this point, it sounds as if theres some plausible deniability behind the reasoning for hand counting.