4 ms·
Right, I think you're basically highlighting what I'm trying to say. The fact that election results are not official until potentially a month later, is a probl
by proc0 2y ago
Right, I think you're basically highlighting what I'm trying to say. The fact that election results are not official until potentially a month later, is a problem.
> These ballots are always counted during the official canvass period in the 30 days after Election Day.
How is this not an issue when it comes to trusting an election? If elections come down to a few thousand votes (per swing state), then even a small margin of error has a chance of casting huge amounts of doubt on who the real winner is. This already happened in 2000, and again in 2020, yet somehow it doesn't seem like a priority issue.
We can talk about all the technicalities but at the end of the day it's about reassuring the entire population that the votes are legitimate and valid. This is more than just having a process. That process has to be efficient, and extending the official results for weeks and months does not accomplish that. You don't have to be cynical to see that the more inefficient the counting is, the less trust there is in the election results, and it all contributes to political turmoil and civil unrest.
- SllX 2y agoIt’s better to be accurate than fast. Fast would be nice too, but Federal, State and local elections occur simultaneously with all their various offices and ballot initiatives. Elections occur a full two months before the soonest anyone new is sworn into office, so we have the luxury of time if any serious discrepancies occur, as in 2000. Note that after 2000, Florida got really really good at managing their elections, so it’s not been a recurring issue there either. But hey, if we were to massively cut down on the number of elected positions, force political parties to spend their own money running their own primaries and eliminate ballot initiatives, that would also make elections more efficient. I’d like that.