3 ms·

> have a Court in Pennsylvania throw out 10,000 ballots * The Constitution says that the state legislatures set the election mechanism. * The Secretary of the

> have a Court in Pennsylvania throw out 10,000 ballots * The Constitution says that the state legislatures set the election mechanism. * The Secretary of the State decided to change the rules on her own without the state legislature's approval. * The Court ruled that the ballots that were accepted by the Secretary's adjusted rules but that would not be accepted by the legislature's approved rules can not be considered legal ballots and should not be counted. The court didn't "throw out ballots". The court ruled that the Secretary of the State overstepped her authority and that ballots must be processed according the the rules established by the legislature. This seems utterly straightforward to me but it is entirely possible I'm missing some important detail. If you disagree with that chain of reasoning, what is your disagreement? My understanding is that the ballots in question are not part of the current vote count in PA and so this ruling changes nothing with regard to the electoral votes from PA. At best this was sloppy and careless behavior by the election bureaucracy, at worst it was an unjustifiable power grab.

shripadk 6y ago
> If you disagree with that chain of reasoning, what is your disagreement? I don't disagree with this at all. I never said I disagree with the ruling anywhere. I am happy the Courts did their job. I am talking about the electoral system not the Courts. I am saying that if it needed a Court to rule that the ballots needed to be discarded then the electoral system, by itself, is not robust enough. Court must be the last resort. Imagine if the Trump legal team hadn't challenged this in the Courts. What would have happened to the ballots? Would have been counted right? The crux of the matter is the subject line: "November 3rd election was the most secure in US election history". Not secure at all if you are changing the rules illegally. The Secretary of State's decision to change rules should have been overturned by the Electoral system itself. It should never have gone to the Courts. It went to the Courts because there was a failure to overturn the decision when it mattered. And think of it this way: It not only doesn't favour Trump but also doesn't favour Biden. Many might have not sent in their ballots on time thinking there is still time (till November 6th). Now have those voters been disenfranchised? > My understanding is that the ballots in question are not part of the current vote count in PA and so this ruling changes nothing with regard to the electoral votes from PA. Yes because those ballots were "not allowed" to be counted. If the Trump legal team hadn't challenged it in courts, it would have been counted inflating the numbers even more. This is just one instance. The more lawsuits are filed the more the mess gets uncovered.
- gwright 6y ago
  OK, well I guess we agree, but your post certainly didn't read as though you agreed with the court's decision. It would be helpful if the press didn't show so much favoritism in its treatment of politicians. Everyone in a position of power should have their actions viewed critically and subject to regular scrutiny regardless of their party affiliation.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > It would be helpful if the press didn't show so much favoritism in its treatment of politicians. Everyone in a position of power should have their actions viewed critically and subject to regular scrutiny regardless of their party affiliation. Completely agree!

shripadk 6y ago

> If you disagree with that chain of reasoning, what is your disagreement? I don't disagree with this at all. I never said I disagree with the ruling anywhere. I am happy the Courts did their job. I am talking about the electoral system not the Courts. I am saying that if it needed a Court to rule that the ballots needed to be discarded then the electoral system, by itself, is not robust enough. Court must be the last resort. Imagine if the Trump legal team hadn't challenged this in the Courts. What would have happened to the ballots? Would have been counted right? The crux of the matter is the subject line: "November 3rd election was the most secure in US election history". Not secure at all if you are changing the rules illegally. The Secretary of State's decision to change rules should have been overturned by the Electoral system itself. It should never have gone to the Courts. It went to the Courts because there was a failure to overturn the decision when it mattered. And think of it this way: It not only doesn't favour Trump but also doesn't favour Biden. Many might have not sent in their ballots on time thinking there is still time (till November 6th). Now have those voters been disenfranchised? > My understanding is that the ballots in question are not part of the current vote count in PA and so this ruling changes nothing with regard to the electoral votes from PA. Yes because those ballots were "not allowed" to be counted. If the Trump legal team hadn't challenged it in courts, it would have been counted inflating the numbers even more. This is just one instance. The more lawsuits are filed the more the mess gets uncovered.

gwright 6y ago
OK, well I guess we agree, but your post certainly didn't read as though you agreed with the court's decision. It would be helpful if the press didn't show so much favoritism in its treatment of politicians. Everyone in a position of power should have their actions viewed critically and subject to regular scrutiny regardless of their party affiliation.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > It would be helpful if the press didn't show so much favoritism in its treatment of politicians. Everyone in a position of power should have their actions viewed critically and subject to regular scrutiny regardless of their party affiliation. Completely agree!