Seriously - how would you know?Bogus! California could have mail in ballots and still be able to promptly tally the results. Other states do.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Seriously - how would you know?Bogus! California could have mail in ballots and still be able to promptly tally the results. Other states do.
Other states of comparable population do it. California could too. Indeed, it used to do so.
It should be understood it's not all of California. And it should be understood that moving to universal mailed ballots is seriously contributory.No, it isn't "normal". Nor should it be tolerated.
Bogus! California could have mail in ballots and still be able to promptly tally the results. Other states do.
There is no fraud. You shouldn't believe there is.No, it isn't "normal". Nor should it be tolerated.
Nobody has said anything about fraud.There is no fraud. You shouldn't believe there is.
I guess you didn't bother to read the posts in this thread. I haven't suggested counting unreceived ballots. What I have written is that ballot verification of those turned in on election day can reduce post election day tally times. Try to keep up.How do you count mail in ballots you haven't received in the mail yet?
We're also the most populous state in the nation. And our number of mail in ballots has skyrocketed since COVID. That Wyoming counts their ballots more quickly does not impress me.
Though I do like @sun rise 's idea of making mail in ballots priority mail so they'd be returned faster. That might help speed things up. None of this is "incompetence," though. It makes no difference how quickly the ballots are counted as long as they're certified within, what, a month? It's just something we like to know because we're accustomed to instant information now.
Those are?Other states of comparable population do it. California could too. Indeed, it used to do so.
I guess you didn't bother to read the posts in this thread. I haven't suggested counting unreceived ballots. What I have written is that ballot verification of those turned in on election day can reduce post election day tally times. Try to keep up.
I do not see what is the hurry about. The new House and Senate will come only after the new year correct? Why should the counting process be dictated by the needs of instant gratification promoted by the 24-7 news cycle?It has been a week since Election day in the U.S. Most states have completed all their tallies. But California has yet to finalize nine Congressional district elections. Those running the elections there are incompetent and unworthy to hold their positions. They are a disgrace.
That sounds a bit extreme.No, it isn't "normal". Nor should it be tolerated.
Rats! Beat me to it.I do not see what is the hurry about. The new House and Senate will come only after the new year correct? Why should the counting process be dictated by the needs of instant gratification promoted by the 24-7 news cycle?
It has been a week since Election day in the U.S. Most states have completed all their tallies. But California has yet to finalize nine Congressional district elections. Those running the elections there are incompetent and unworthy to hold their positions. They are a disgrace.
Notice that he didn't answer. Maybe because he's just venting because his Pubs didn't do as well as expected?Seriously - how would [Shaul] know?
Notice that he didn't answer. Maybe because he's just venting because his Pubs didn't do as well as expected?
Which state would you accept as having a comparable population? Every other of the ten most populous states, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan, have all completed their results days ago.Those are?
And States' responsibilities.State rights!!! You are an authoritarian federalist, who trample on state rights.
You mean States like Alaska, Colorado, and Maine?And States' responsibilities.
Nobody is saying there has to be instantaneous results. Nor does the reason for wanting prompt results depend on the 24/7 news cycle. But your mentioning the 24/7 cycles raises the fact that we aren't living in the Dark Ages. In this day and age we have the capabilities to tally votes quickly and accurately. There is no logistical reason vote counting couldn't be done faster. We have proof of this since many other elections are done both accurately and promptly. So the question is not why should the results be done faster. Since there is no good reason for them being done slower, the better question is; "Why should we accept them taking longer than necessary?" The answer is we should not.I do not see what is the hurry about. The new House and Senate will come only after the new year correct? Why should the counting process be dictated by the needs of instant gratification promoted by the 24-7 news cycle?
So you don't think the vote tally needs to be done promptly but you think I must respond instantaneously to questions. That is hilarious!Notice that he didn't answer. Maybe because he's just venting because his Pubs didn't do as well as expected?
IMO, as long as a state does it legally and carefully, they can take all the time they need. Our constitution leaves this up to the states, thus there's no "one size fits all" approach.