I hope Ossoff does not concede if Handel is declared "winner"

[diva77]

because if she is declared "winner" it won't be because she won the election fair and square

I hope that Ossoff will put paperless DRES, machine tabulated, and other forms of voter suppression on trial once and for all

-- and even if he IS declared the winner, I hope he will fight for election integrity

[CatWoman]

1. i'm real concerned about this election

I remember literally seeing the votes flip on the Georgia SOS page when Max Cleland lost his seat.

Handel is a sleazy, lying, unethical POS and I'm sure she will pull out all the stops.

[diva77]

2. I get the feeling there's an obvious reason repugs ran a former repug SOS for that seat

[Not Ruth]

3. Why wouldn't he do this right now?

[diva77]

4. it seems that discussing election integrity whether you're a candidate or in office is 3rd rail

it's untouchable

[Not Ruth]

5. Why?

[diva77]

6. There is an "x" factor -- I wonder why as well - why did Clinton and Kerry concede?

Why didn't they fight for legitimate recounts? Why did others who lost in "close" elections concede?

I want to know "why" as well

[karynnj]

13. In both cases, recounts of votes cast would not have helped

A recount simply retallies the legitimately cast votes. In Kerry's case, there were shenanigans in Ohio. Democratic cities had fewer voting machines than they had in the primaries, where voting is always lower especially as Kerry already was the de facto nominee. This meant 4 hour lines. That suppression alone like stole the votes he needed to win - and there were other problems.

Kerry spoke of why he conceded. He could not PROVE that more people who actually voted, voted for him. You can not count votes not cast. He spoke of the country being at war. Not said, was that he definitely would not have had the support of many powers in the party.

Similarly, even now there is not proof that Trump did not get the most votes cast in those three states. So far, there is no proof of votes being changed. Like in 2004, there might have been significant voter suppression. Like in 2004. You can not count votes not cast.

In addition, many votes might have been lost to very targeted spreading of lies. However, there were lies employed by Adams and Jefferson.

Neither claimed they won, because they both believed in the process as did Gore.

[brooklynite]

26. ...maybe because it's unproven?

Since people started yelling "vote hacking" in 2004, no candidate, campaign manager or Party leader (you know, the people who should know best) has claimed they lost due to vote flipping.

[Hoyt]

7. Hate to say it, but if Handel wins, it's because we didn't get enough voters out in a

District that has voted for white wingers for decades, including New Gingrich and Tommy Price. While Clinton lost by a percent or two in 2016, Tommy Price beat the Democrat (not a strong candidate) by 23%.

If there is reason to complain about vote tabulation, fine. But if Ossoff loses, the first think I'm going to think of is we lost in a district that would have been a major upset for Democrats to take, and we lost because our voters didn't turn out in excess of white wingers. That's pretty much the case in elections nowadays.

[diva77]

8. the polls have been showing Ossoff with a comfortable lead

[Hoyt]

9. You obviously haven't looked at the most recent polls, and overconfidence costs elections.

[diva77]

12. my bad -- I read some numbers yesterday (?) -- showed larger spread than the 3% motown posted

Do you have link to polls you are referring to -- for my own benefit? thanks

[Hoyt]

19. This is latest. GOPer PACs are hammering Ossoff with BS that try to tie him to shooting last week.

They've been spreading crud, we laugh at, but the white wingers in the District have been accepting for decades. Hope voters change this time.


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/338365-ossoff-handel-nearly-deadlocked-in-georgia-house-race

[diva77]

20. Thanks. Not great news.

and the thing about early voting with DREs - theoretically, or not, it's like a statistical gift to those who have access to that info -- if you can access info. prior to election day, you can extrapolate to better know how to tweak the totals without being obvious

[Ms. Toad]

30. As a general rule no one has access to vote totals ahead of time.

In most jurisdictions, the votes are stored but not tabulated until the close of the polls.

In addition virtually all jurisdictions control access ahead of time by requiring bipartisan presence when anyone is near the machines.

The information that is available ahead of time is generally limited to numbers of votes cast, party affiliation, sometimes names, and is public information (so it is accessible to everyone). GOTV efforts often rely on it to target voters who have not yet voted.

I don't recall any quirks that would make Georgia different - but I don't have that information at my fingertips anymore.

[Motownman78]

10. Not really, 3% lead

is really a toss-up. Plus you probably have people not truthfully letting on who they will vote for like what happened in 2016.

[diva77]

16. thanks for info -- would appreciate link for my benefit

I can't remember where I read that there was a larger spread, but a 3% lead is too close - definitely not comfortable!

[Motownman78]

22. Here you go, now his "lead" is 1.7%

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/poll-jon-ossoff-leads-karen-handel-georgia-special-election

[Motownman78]

23. Sorry, didn't read before I posted n/t

[edhopper]

14. I hate that Dems have to get %55

to win.

And that everybody thinks it's normal.

[diva77]

17. Elections should be so transparent that you can believe that someone is truly the winner

with even a sliver of a lead...but they're not, unfortunately

[YCHDT]

15. I no longer trust that because of Donald Trump

[ProudLib72]

11. I said exactly the same thing not two hours ago

So, hell yes, I hope he doesn't concede. I could not care less if it "makes Dems look bad". Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and hacking make the rethugs look a hell of a lot worse.

[diva77]

18. how would not conceding make dems look bad? not sure I understand

[Motownman78]

25. By looking like sore losers

Most people don't pay attention, and all they would see are "Democrats barely lose GA-06 race, Ossoff refusing to concede" breaking news banners.

[ProudLib72]

28. Exactly

It would be national news. It would give Faux Nooze something to rant about for a week at least.

[Lee-Lee]

21. This kind of crap is why people don't take vote fraud accusations seriously

The polls have not even opened, much less closed, all the recent polling data shows it within the margin of error, and people are screaming that if we lose it has to be fraud with nothing that rises to a level even close to being considered evedince in this case there on the table to back them up.

[brooklynite]

24. Since no other losing candidates say they've lost due to vote flipping, I'm not worried.

[diva77]

33. People with "clean diesel" VW's drove them around thinking they were clean

while, in fact, this was happening:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/26/volkswagen-scandal-emissions-tests-john-german-research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

snip...The Volkswagen emissions scandal (also called "emissionsgate" or "dieselgate&quot started on 18 September 2015, when the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act to German automaker Volkswagen Group. The agency had found that Volkswagen had intentionally programmed turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engines to activate some emissions controls only during laboratory emissions testing. The programming caused the vehicles' NOx output to meet US standards during regulatory testing but emit up to 40 times more NOx in real-world driving.[15] Volkswagen deployed this programming in about eleven million cars worldwide, and 500,000 in the United States, during model years 2009 through 2015.[16][17][18][19]...snip

------------
I use the above info. as an analogy for computerized "voting" machines - whether DREs, Central tabulators, optiscans, etc. have many vulnerabilities that are undetectable by just looking at them. The burden of proof needs to be on the machines to prove that they are not vulnerable to malicious code or other modes of impairing the voting process. They are simply not transparent and until the burden of proof is met, the most efficient, transparent way to conduct our elections is with hand counted paper ballots at the precinct level with public oversight. An election is a one day event and to depend on all IT to function 100% even if it were transparent, is an unrealistic expectation.

[brooklynite]

34. The average car owner is not an expert in car mechanics...

Last edited Tue Jun 27, 2017, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

The averge candidate, campaign manager or Party Chair is an expert in political mechanics...

[diva77]

35. are they IT experts? nt

[brooklynite]

36. No, but they're generally good statisticians and know what their vote totals should be.

[diva77]

37. "know what their vote totals should be" - interesting phrase

I'm done with this thread for now...there are so many things I disagree with you about...

Good luck to you.

[Chipper Chat]

27. I really hate being a wet blanket but......

Ossoff will be in the lead all day and early evening let,s say 52 to 48 then around 11 pm a sudden surge of miraculously found republican votes from the "rural areas" wii flip the vote to 51 Handel to 49 ossoff. Same old shit. God I hope I'm wrong.

[CatWoman]

29. just like Max Cleland

[Chipper Chat]

31. Didn't the polls going in favor Max like 60 to 40?

I remember how stunned I was at that result.

[Not Ruth]

32. Will Ossoff fight it?