3 ms·

That’s because the election isn’t over... predictit actually has the odds of trump winning increasing https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-wi

That’s because the election isn’t over... predictit actually has the odds of trump winning increasing https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-t... Reasons (regardless of whether you agree): there about 6 more weeks of the election. Pennsylvania’s process is currently being requested for review by multiple states, because of the following: “Pennsylvana's high court ruled Thursday that election officials cannot discard mail ballots solely because of questions about the authenticity of a voter's signature; that ballots postmarked by Election Day and received by Friday, Nov. 6 at 5 p.m. will be counted; that third parties cannot deliver people's ballots; and that counties can use dropboxes or other official addresses for voters to return ballots to, among other decisions." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1240367#blogHeader https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-pr... Multiple Attorney Generals: https://www.dailywire.com/news/multiple-republican-ags-join-lawsuit-challenging-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballots https://www.dailywire.com/news/multiple-republican-ags-join-... Basic argument is the house sets the rules. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court had no right to extend the deadline. Barr also authorized local governments to investigate voting irregularities BEFORE validation/certification ends: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/2020-11-09-biden-trump-2020-election-n1247064/ncrd1247205#blogHeader https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/202... Such as statistical abnormalities: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1325592112428163072.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1325592112428163072.html Or Michigan’s mail in ballots: https://austingwalters.com/the-dead-vote-in-michigan/ https://austingwalters.com/the-dead-vote-in-michigan/

gruez 6y ago
>Or Michigan’s mail in ballots: https://austingwalters.com/the-dead-vote-in-michigan/ https://austingwalters.com/the-dead-vote-in-michigan/ So the author turned up a grand total of... 5 "dead" voters, in a state where biden has a lead of 148,635 votes. That's unlikely to make a difference. The comments to that post also said it was likely a data-entry/clerical error, which makes the story even worse. >Basic argument is the house sets the rules. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court had not right to extend the deadline. I find this argument unconvincing. Laws set by the state legislature is normally bound by the courts. If we go with the literal interpretation, it would also mean that the legislature can enact a law saying "only white men can vote" and the courts wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
- lettergram 6y ago
  I’m not arguing one way or another, just stating what is going on. It’s amazing how much heat I’ve been getting for sharing the news. The issue is the PA house didn’t break any laws with their voting laws. The PA Supreme Court did however change the intent of a law. Again, not arguing. Before the election the Supreme Court Requested separating the ballots so they could later reverse if necessary. They were split 4-4 on the issue last time, presumably it could be 5-4 this time. Hence betting markets are still up in the air. Regarding “convincing” the Michigan data. point is it doesn’t need to be convincing to overturn an election, but should be reviewed. And it likely will.

gruez 6y ago

>Or Michigan’s mail in ballots: https://austingwalters.com/the-dead-vote-in-michigan/ https://austingwalters.com/the-dead-vote-in-michigan/ So the author turned up a grand total of... 5 "dead" voters, in a state where biden has a lead of 148,635 votes. That's unlikely to make a difference. The comments to that post also said it was likely a data-entry/clerical error, which makes the story even worse. >Basic argument is the house sets the rules. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court had not right to extend the deadline. I find this argument unconvincing. Laws set by the state legislature is normally bound by the courts. If we go with the literal interpretation, it would also mean that the legislature can enact a law saying "only white men can vote" and the courts wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

lettergram 6y ago
I’m not arguing one way or another, just stating what is going on. It’s amazing how much heat I’ve been getting for sharing the news. The issue is the PA house didn’t break any laws with their voting laws. The PA Supreme Court did however change the intent of a law. Again, not arguing. Before the election the Supreme Court Requested separating the ballots so they could later reverse if necessary. They were split 4-4 on the issue last time, presumably it could be 5-4 this time. Hence betting markets are still up in the air. Regarding “convincing” the Michigan data. point is it doesn’t need to be convincing to overturn an election, but should be reviewed. And it likely will.