4 ms·

So...why weren't all the votes counted???

by bmer 3y ago

matt-attack 3y ago
Two words: hanging chads
- usefulcat 3y ago
  That was part of it. Another part was that some Floridian voters were illegally denied the right to vote because their names happened to be the same or similar to names on a (poorly maintained, IIRC) list of convicted felons. The privately owned company in charge of maintaining said list was aligned with the Republican party, and most of the felons were African American. Edit: that may sound like a small number of votes, but in such a close election even a small number can make a huge difference.
  - bmer 3y ago
    Why is a private company in charge of maintaining this list, versus the state police, or a federal agency in charge of census keeping?
    - usefulcat 3y ago
      Most likely it's basically a corporate handout. It can also be a way to invite reciprocity. I don't know if that was part of the original intent here, but given the raft of voter ID laws that the US has seen in recent years (which prevent such an infinitesimal amount of actual voter fraud, yet coincidentally happen to adversely affect voters of one party much more than the other) it doesn't seem at all far fetched. Naturally it's never described that way. It's typically framed as something like 'we should delegate this task to the private sector because they're more efficient'.
      - specialist 3y ago
        Yes and: Since corporations are not subject to public records requests, privatization (outsourcing) is a terrific way to transmute even banal administrative functions into black boxes.
- bmer 3y ago
  Okay, so I looked this up on Wikipedia. And I suppose my next questions would be: * "why were those managing the recount so inflexible about when the re-count had to be completed by?" * "why wasn't there any middle ground that could have been achieved by those (ostensibly) asking for 'openness' and those wanting to do the recount?" --- for example, by this, I am imagining something like the police maintaining order amongst the viewing public, so that they do not physically harm or otherwise distract the re-counting officials, and having professional observers from both parties available to make rounds as the process is being executed?
- specialist 3y ago
  The most ridiculous detail about that botched election is the hanging chads were caused by those election administrators not clearing the chads from the prior elections. Just turn each unit over and shake it. (Like a three hole punch.) Not following procedures. One of the many consequences of conducting elections on the cheap. So dumb.
cool_dude85 3y ago
Literally, direct action from Republican operatives. It's called the Brooks Brothers Riot. The list of currently high-profile consultants/etc. That were there is quite enlightening.
- bmer 3y ago
  I'm not sure if I can blame the BBR, when it seems that 1) those doing the recount were remarkably inflexible about the deadline (what matters more? the deadline, or the recount, especially when it is being disrupted?) and 2) those who supplied the deadline were also being remarkably inflexible about the deadline. The fact that BBR worked is only because those two points were true?

So...why weren't all the votes counted???

by bmer 3y ago

So...why weren't all the votes counted???

matt-attack 3y ago

Two words: hanging chads

usefulcat 3y ago
That was part of it. Another part was that some Floridian voters were illegally denied the right to vote because their names happened to be the same or similar to names on a (poorly maintained, IIRC) list of convicted felons. The privately owned company in charge of maintaining said list was aligned with the Republican party, and most of the felons were African American. Edit: that may sound like a small number of votes, but in such a close election even a small number can make a huge difference.
- bmer 3y ago
  Why is a private company in charge of maintaining this list, versus the state police, or a federal agency in charge of census keeping?
  - usefulcat 3y ago
    Most likely it's basically a corporate handout. It can also be a way to invite reciprocity. I don't know if that was part of the original intent here, but given the raft of voter ID laws that the US has seen in recent years (which prevent such an infinitesimal amount of actual voter fraud, yet coincidentally happen to adversely affect voters of one party much more than the other) it doesn't seem at all far fetched. Naturally it's never described that way. It's typically framed as something like 'we should delegate this task to the private sector because they're more efficient'.
    - specialist 3y ago
      Yes and: Since corporations are not subject to public records requests, privatization (outsourcing) is a terrific way to transmute even banal administrative functions into black boxes.
bmer 3y ago
Okay, so I looked this up on Wikipedia. And I suppose my next questions would be: * "why were those managing the recount so inflexible about when the re-count had to be completed by?" * "why wasn't there any middle ground that could have been achieved by those (ostensibly) asking for 'openness' and those wanting to do the recount?" --- for example, by this, I am imagining something like the police maintaining order amongst the viewing public, so that they do not physically harm or otherwise distract the re-counting officials, and having professional observers from both parties available to make rounds as the process is being executed?
specialist 3y ago
The most ridiculous detail about that botched election is the hanging chads were caused by those election administrators not clearing the chads from the prior elections. Just turn each unit over and shake it. (Like a three hole punch.) Not following procedures. One of the many consequences of conducting elections on the cheap. So dumb.

cool_dude85 3y ago

Literally, direct action from Republican operatives. It's called the Brooks Brothers Riot. The list of currently high-profile consultants/etc. That were there is quite enlightening.

bmer 3y ago
I'm not sure if I can blame the BBR, when it seems that 1) those doing the recount were remarkably inflexible about the deadline (what matters more? the deadline, or the recount, especially when it is being disrupted?) and 2) those who supplied the deadline were also being remarkably inflexible about the deadline. The fact that BBR worked is only because those two points were true?