Election Battleground State Changes(alex.github.io)
alex.github.io
Election Battleground State Changes
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html
92 comments
The one thing that the table does not account for is the estimated partisan lean of the remaining votes (it sort of accounts for it by using the rolling mean of the previous reports, but that has issues).
Based on what I am seeing (reading twitter feeds of various analysts), AZ is leaning towards Biden because there are a few blocks of votes left that should lean much more towards Biden, which would prevent Trump from clawing back.
And Georgia is going to be so close that that it will go to re-count, so that one is probably best characterized as a coin flip.
Alaska is also a bit of a wildcard. From my understanding, none of the mail-in ballots have been counted and counting won't start till next week. So no one has any clue what the breakdown of those votes look like. But probably safe to assume Trump gets AK.
Based on what I am seeing (reading twitter feeds of various analysts), AZ is leaning towards Biden because there are a few blocks of votes left that should lean much more towards Biden, which would prevent Trump from clawing back.
And Georgia is going to be so close that that it will go to re-count, so that one is probably best characterized as a coin flip.
Alaska is also a bit of a wildcard. From my understanding, none of the mail-in ballots have been counted and counting won't start till next week. So no one has any clue what the breakdown of those votes look like. But probably safe to assume Trump gets AK.
I doubt it will flip but the NYT map reports NC accepts mail in ballots till the 12th as long as they were postmarked by election day. It seems the counting will last quite a while.
This show how our brain, despite being inaccurate can concious / subconsciously estimate those calculation. Our brain is amazing.
Quick calculation puts the final score at 295/243 for Biden.
To put that into perspective, less convincing than Trump's win in 2016, slightly more convincing than George W. Bush's re-election.
To put that into perspective, less convincing than Trump's win in 2016, slightly more convincing than George W. Bush's re-election.
Using the word "convincing" in association with the Electoral College is a bit of a stretch (some would say ridiculous).
In 2016 Clinton was +2.9M votes, but 77K were in the "wrong" places (MI 10K; PA 44K; WI 23K) and so the minority candidate took the prize. Gore was +500K, but Bush got Florida by 537 votes, and that was the ball game.
Biden is +3.5M and things are still up in the air?
What a cockamamie system.
In 2016 Clinton was +2.9M votes, but 77K were in the "wrong" places (MI 10K; PA 44K; WI 23K) and so the minority candidate took the prize. Gore was +500K, but Bush got Florida by 537 votes, and that was the ball game.
Biden is +3.5M and things are still up in the air?
What a cockamamie system.
You shouldn't be looking at the popular vote if nobody is try to win the popular vote. It's like judging a basketball game by whichever team makes more passes.
It’s more like judging a basketball game by points but ignoring the three point line.
Well done. NC looks like something might be wonky; it's reporting all the blocks as 50.0% Trump and 50.0% Biden. Which is possible I guess, but it seems more likely that there's a bug somewhere.
A likely possibility I suppose is that perhaps the outstanding vote total was updated but no votes were recorded either way.
I've been looking for something exactly like this. Thanks so much!
This is really useful. Nice work.
The description for the "Block trend" column could perhaps be a little clearer. It currently reads:
>How has the trailing candidate's share of recent blocks trended? Computed using a moving average of previous 30k or more votes (or as many as available).
To me that says "We compute the moving average using the last 30k votes, except when we use more or less than that.".
The description for the "Block trend" column could perhaps be a little clearer. It currently reads:
>How has the trailing candidate's share of recent blocks trended? Computed using a moving average of previous 30k or more votes (or as many as available).
To me that says "We compute the moving average using the last 30k votes, except when we use more or less than that.".
To me it reads “We aim for 30k but take what we can get.” You can see that the update sizes from the nytimes source vary greatly.
That's over-simplifying by leaving out the "or more" part (which presumably exists because they only want to count full blocks). I do understand the gist of what they are saying but there's got to be a better way to word it.
I also wonder if theres a good statistical reason for only counting full blocks. Why not just stop at 30k?
I also wonder if theres a good statistical reason for only counting full blocks. Why not just stop at 30k?
probably dont have access to individual vote data?
Right, but you could use a fraction of the final block (using the known vote percentages for that block). Then it would be "a moving average of the last 30k votes" and not "a moving average of the last 30k or more votes".
yea that’s a good point. make a pull request!
though for me just wanting a rough idea of what’s rolling in vs what’s needed it’s sufficient enough.
though for me just wanting a rough idea of what’s rolling in vs what’s needed it’s sufficient enough.
This is helpful. Would be nice to have this be a large table with all the active states mixed together. I could just visit this page and look for changes since I last looked.
Amazingly simple and clear. Thank you.
Keep in mind that these numbers may not be current. For example, as of right now (5:40pm EST), the estimated number of remaining votes in Pennslyania listed on the site is 431,723, but the PA Secretary of State put the number remaining as 326,000 an hour ago[1]. The NYT API may be using modeled numbers.
[1] https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/decision-2020/...
[1] https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/decision-2020/...
Not sure why everyone is still looking at the Secretary of State numbers when they have been clearly outdated throughout the count.
You can get a more accurate number by subtracting the mail-in votes counted (under PA results) from the total ballots cast. This gives 269888 ballots uncounted right now.
I've also taken these numbers and extrapolated the mail vote in each county. Under this model Biden is currently shown as winning the state by 92k votes (1.35%)
You can get a more accurate number by subtracting the mail-in votes counted (under PA results) from the total ballots cast. This gives 269888 ballots uncounted right now.
I've also taken these numbers and extrapolated the mail vote in each county. Under this model Biden is currently shown as winning the state by 92k votes (1.35%)
Love the tech here. A periodically generated html page / json file committed to a repo through github actions.
There’s a row in PA listing Biden with 104.3% of the vote in a block with 1285 votes (the differential increased by more than the total number of votes). Data error?
I also see 3 blocks in PA of 25k+ votes with 90%+ Biden (one is 97%) - can someone better at statistics tell me how likely that is due to chance given the other values (assuming the data is reporting accurately)?
Some districts in Philadelphia are extremely blue. 59 districts there had 0 votes for Romney in 2012: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/20121112_In_59...
Expected. Last time round, Clinton got 82% in Philadelphia. And mail-in voting was majority Democratic in most places this year.
You'll see similar, on the face of it absurd numbers in the other direction in very red areas for the in-person vote, where the few Democrats available mostly voted by mail, so virtually everyone voting in person voted for Trump.
You'll see similar, on the face of it absurd numbers in the other direction in very red areas for the in-person vote, where the few Democrats available mostly voted by mail, so virtually everyone voting in person voted for Trump.
Philadelphia normally goes for the Democratic candidate by around 80%, and mail-in voters this year are disproportionately Democratic, so it is not unusual that some blocks of main-in ballots in Philadelphia county would be 90% Biden. Note that the total vote (mail-in + election day) in Philadelphia county for Biden is exactly 80%, so there doesn't seem to be anything anomalous here.
Nice
Who's up for adding simple graphs to this?
Who's up for adding simple graphs to this?
nytimes.com already publishes those graphs
Why do the estimated vote counts keep going up? Why has this process dragged on for days. Where do they keep losing ballots? Why isn't there a deadline? Why are only these states still counting?
Great resource BTW!
Great resource BTW!
> Why do the estimated vote counts keep going up?
The same reason they are estimated counts in the first place, there's not hard counts of ballots before the, um, count of ballots.
> Why has this process dragged on for days.
Because its a manual process that normally takes days.
> Where do they keep losing ballots?
They don't, that's why the estimated numbers go up, not down.
> Why isn't there a deadline?
There is, both in federal and, usually sooner, in state law.
> Why are only these states still counting?
Only those states are still getting national attention, many states are still counting but once the result of the races of national interest were clear, no one outside of people interested in state races that might still be in doubt was paying attention.
The same reason they are estimated counts in the first place, there's not hard counts of ballots before the, um, count of ballots.
> Why has this process dragged on for days.
Because its a manual process that normally takes days.
> Where do they keep losing ballots?
They don't, that's why the estimated numbers go up, not down.
> Why isn't there a deadline?
There is, both in federal and, usually sooner, in state law.
> Why are only these states still counting?
Only those states are still getting national attention, many states are still counting but once the result of the races of national interest were clear, no one outside of people interested in state races that might still be in doubt was paying attention.
So I understand all this but I'm wondering if you can explain to me how I as a lay person am expected to differentiate your supposed chain of events from what the news tells me are tell tale signs of voter fraud.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190
In my home state of Oregon, ballot results are released pretty much immediately, because the ballot deadline for receipt is 8 pm on election day. The same was true of California when I lived there. Why are the rules suddenly changed? Did no one foresee that this would cause one of the worst elections in American history?
> In my home state of Oregon, ballot results are released pretty much immediately, because the ballot deadline for receipt is 8 pm on election day.
Oregon is still counting, with a little under 90% of ballots counted by the latest numbers I can find.
> The same was true of California when I lived there.
It hasn't been in the 40+ years I've lived here, so I don't know what you're on about. Yes, since California did a quick flip between being a Republican lock and a Democratic lock in Presidential elections, you usually have a projected Presidential winner immediately. But the actual vote count usually takes quite a few days.
That's just California being noncompetitive in Presidential elections, not especially fast at vote counting.
> Why are the rules suddenly changed?
To the extent rules were changed for this election, it was because of a major public health emergency that raised concerns about the danger to both individual voters and the wider community from the usual level of in-person voting in places that don't already have predominantly mail-in elections.
> Did no one foresee that this would cause one of the worst elections in American history?
Nothing about the actual election itself, other than the abuse of the Postal Service in an attempt to prevent delivery of lawful votes, has been particularly bad. Yes, the fact that results are close in a number of states means that there isn't a projected electoral college winner yet. That's not a big deal.
Oregon is still counting, with a little under 90% of ballots counted by the latest numbers I can find.
> The same was true of California when I lived there.
It hasn't been in the 40+ years I've lived here, so I don't know what you're on about. Yes, since California did a quick flip between being a Republican lock and a Democratic lock in Presidential elections, you usually have a projected Presidential winner immediately. But the actual vote count usually takes quite a few days.
That's just California being noncompetitive in Presidential elections, not especially fast at vote counting.
> Why are the rules suddenly changed?
To the extent rules were changed for this election, it was because of a major public health emergency that raised concerns about the danger to both individual voters and the wider community from the usual level of in-person voting in places that don't already have predominantly mail-in elections.
> Did no one foresee that this would cause one of the worst elections in American history?
Nothing about the actual election itself, other than the abuse of the Postal Service in an attempt to prevent delivery of lawful votes, has been particularly bad. Yes, the fact that results are close in a number of states means that there isn't a projected electoral college winner yet. That's not a big deal.
Rules are decided by each state on its own. You can blame the constitution for deferring election procedures to each state.
In PA, for example, the legislature (which is GOP I might add) forbid counting mail-in ballots until election day. That basically guarantees delays.
Have you been around for Gore vs Bush? I'm not sure why you're claiming this is one of the worst elections. Most close elections aren't called on election day. Almost every state continues counting past election day. It's just you're only hearing about the ones that are close.
In PA, for example, the legislature (which is GOP I might add) forbid counting mail-in ballots until election day. That basically guarantees delays.
Have you been around for Gore vs Bush? I'm not sure why you're claiming this is one of the worst elections. Most close elections aren't called on election day. Almost every state continues counting past election day. It's just you're only hearing about the ones that are close.
Why is it causing one of the worst elections in American history? I’ve heard that the votes received after the day, but postmarked on time, only number in the hundreds. If that’s true, they may not be consequential. States are still processing ballots which were received on time, like you say. So that’s not even a factor in why it’s taking so long yet.
The difference between PA and OR is that PA could not begin processing its mail-in ballots earlier than Election Day. Additionally, Oregon has had decades to perfect its mail-in system. Other states are processing the most mail-in ballots they’ve ever gotten, so we should expect that it won’t be very fast or smooth yet.
Additionally, if CA was a swing state, we’d be in the same position here. It’s still counting ballots and still releasing updates. It just doesn’t have a razor thin margin like the rest of the states, so it was projected to go blue very early.
What we’re seeing is expected given how tight the races are in each state, as well as how many more people voted by mail this year!
The difference between PA and OR is that PA could not begin processing its mail-in ballots earlier than Election Day. Additionally, Oregon has had decades to perfect its mail-in system. Other states are processing the most mail-in ballots they’ve ever gotten, so we should expect that it won’t be very fast or smooth yet.
Additionally, if CA was a swing state, we’d be in the same position here. It’s still counting ballots and still releasing updates. It just doesn’t have a razor thin margin like the rest of the states, so it was projected to go blue very early.
What we’re seeing is expected given how tight the races are in each state, as well as how many more people voted by mail this year!
> Did no one foresee that this would cause one of the worst elections in American history?
Did you sleep through 2000?
This really isn't anything all _that_ unusual; the previous one was over quickly because the electoral college happened to fall that way (though the count went on for ages afterwards, and IIRC it took a day or so for the popular vote to flip), and the two before that weren't close enough for it to be an issue. It's still by any reasonable measure a lot less of a fiasco than 2000; it's pretty unlikely to rest on a couple of hundred votes or anything like that.
Did you sleep through 2000?
This really isn't anything all _that_ unusual; the previous one was over quickly because the electoral college happened to fall that way (though the count went on for ages afterwards, and IIRC it took a day or so for the popular vote to flip), and the two before that weren't close enough for it to be an issue. It's still by any reasonable measure a lot less of a fiasco than 2000; it's pretty unlikely to rest on a couple of hundred votes or anything like that.
Many of these rules haven't changed at all, but there's a pandemic happening, so many, many, many more people have taken advantage of mail ballots than in years past.
Additionally, there were some lawsuits to prevent states from counting received ballots before Election Day, so some of this "confusion" is the direct result of efforts by the people filing those lawsuits to create it.
Additionally, there were some lawsuits to prevent states from counting received ballots before Election Day, so some of this "confusion" is the direct result of efforts by the people filing those lawsuits to create it.
California is still counting its votes too. It's just not a close enough race for us to have to wait to find out what the results are.
Election laws are set by states, and they're all different.
Outstanding ballot counts are almost always estimates. Many states allow mail-in ballots as long as they have been postmarked by election day, which means there can be a week or more lag before the precinct receives the ballot. Additionally, provisional ballots are usually counted last, and the number of those isn't known until they start counting them.
The process is dragged on for days because Republicans prevented the States from passing legislation that would allow them to start counting the mail-in ballots early, among other reasons.
The deadline is December 8th.
A ton of states are still counting, see California for example. People are only interested in the swing states though.
The process is dragged on for days because Republicans prevented the States from passing legislation that would allow them to start counting the mail-in ballots early, among other reasons.
The deadline is December 8th.
A ton of states are still counting, see California for example. People are only interested in the swing states though.
> The deadline is December 8th.
Indeed. The process is outlined here:
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/roles#meeting
EDIT - it should be made clear that this is when the electors vote. Each individual state must finish their counting before that so they know which electors are voting on December 8. Each state is free to decide when they stop counting - and they each have their own laws regarding that. The Federal government has no say - the US constitution prohibits the Federal government from getting involved.
Indeed. The process is outlined here:
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/roles#meeting
EDIT - it should be made clear that this is when the electors vote. Each individual state must finish their counting before that so they know which electors are voting on December 8. Each state is free to decide when they stop counting - and they each have their own laws regarding that. The Federal government has no say - the US constitution prohibits the Federal government from getting involved.
>Why has this process dragged on for days
>Where do they keep losing ballots?
Because a process that had never been trialed in many places was used at the national scale.
>Why isn't there a deadline?
There is for the ballots being mailed (varies by states). There isn't any practical deadline on counting as long as a good faith effort is being made. Realistically we're probably looking at recounts in several of the key states.
>Where do they keep losing ballots?
Because a process that had never been trialed in many places was used at the national scale.
>Why isn't there a deadline?
There is for the ballots being mailed (varies by states). There isn't any practical deadline on counting as long as a good faith effort is being made. Realistically we're probably looking at recounts in several of the key states.
I believe there is a deadline for states to certify the results (which is generally weeks out, I think), and the electoral college votes in December so that also imposes a hard national deadline.
> Because a process that had never been trialed in many places was used at the national scale.
Sure, I get that, but didn't anyone foresee that this will call into question the legitimacy of the election.
To recap, both candidates have claimed victory at this point, despite no major media outlet calling enough electoral votes.
This could have been prevented by simply not changing things at the last minute. Instead, we've set the stage for an extremely contested, ugly election. There is no landslide, as everyone expected. This is the worst possible outcome.
Sure, I get that, but didn't anyone foresee that this will call into question the legitimacy of the election.
To recap, both candidates have claimed victory at this point, despite no major media outlet calling enough electoral votes.
This could have been prevented by simply not changing things at the last minute. Instead, we've set the stage for an extremely contested, ugly election. There is no landslide, as everyone expected. This is the worst possible outcome.
The process was changed, in the states where it changed, to prevent voters --- who tend to be significantly older than the general population --- from dying alone in isolated hospital rooms.
> but didn't anyone foresee that this will call into question the legitimacy of the election.
Those people were derided for questioning the legitimacy of the election.
Also some of the states were monumentally stupid in the way they designed their vote counting schemes regarding mail-in.
>There is no landslide, as everyone expected. This is the worst possible outcome.
I agree. A landslide in either direction leaves no doubts. Even if it was a mail-in landslide. An election of questionable legitimacy is how wars start. But that would be very in character for 2020.
Those people were derided for questioning the legitimacy of the election.
Also some of the states were monumentally stupid in the way they designed their vote counting schemes regarding mail-in.
>There is no landslide, as everyone expected. This is the worst possible outcome.
I agree. A landslide in either direction leaves no doubts. Even if it was a mail-in landslide. An election of questionable legitimacy is how wars start. But that would be very in character for 2020.
> To recap, both candidates have claimed victory at this point,
No, they haven't. Only one has. The other has expressed confidence that they will win. but candidates do that all the time before votes are counted, or even cast, its not the same thing as claiming victory.
> This could have been prevented by simply not changing things at the last minute.
There's almost no evidence that that is the case.
> Instead, we've set the stage for an extremely contested, ugly election.
What set the stage from that is the fact that its extremely close in lots of swing states. Short of abolishing the electoral college or disregarding the will of voters (depending on whether you prefer the more or less democratic approach, compared to the status quo), I'm not sure what you think can be done about that.
No, they haven't. Only one has. The other has expressed confidence that they will win. but candidates do that all the time before votes are counted, or even cast, its not the same thing as claiming victory.
> This could have been prevented by simply not changing things at the last minute.
There's almost no evidence that that is the case.
> Instead, we've set the stage for an extremely contested, ugly election.
What set the stage from that is the fact that its extremely close in lots of swing states. Short of abolishing the electoral college or disregarding the will of voters (depending on whether you prefer the more or less democratic approach, compared to the status quo), I'm not sure what you think can be done about that.
Biden has a transition website: buildbackbetter.com
That isn't a declaration of victory?
That isn't a declaration of victory?
The very first paragraph of that page says "The American people will determine who will serve as the next President of the United States".
Doesn't sound like declaration of victory to me.
Doesn't sound like declaration of victory to me.
> This could have been prevented by simply not changing things at the last minute.
No. For all the coverage that late arriving pre Election Day postmarked ballots are getting, they're a pretty minor factor; probably in the hundreds, not thousands, in PA so far, say. PA already had a rule that they couldn't start counting mail in ballots until polls closed; that's not new, and that's essentially what's causing the delay here, along with similar rules elsewhere. States which didn't have rules like this finished quicker, but these rules aren't new.
No. For all the coverage that late arriving pre Election Day postmarked ballots are getting, they're a pretty minor factor; probably in the hundreds, not thousands, in PA so far, say. PA already had a rule that they couldn't start counting mail in ballots until polls closed; that's not new, and that's essentially what's causing the delay here, along with similar rules elsewhere. States which didn't have rules like this finished quicker, but these rules aren't new.
A very important thing to remember - The only thing that can "call into question the legitimacy of the election" is evidence of wrongdoing. None has surfaced.
If someone tries to tell you otherwise, demand evidence. And no, Twitter and Facebook conspiracy theories are NOT evidence.
BTW "both candidates" have NOT declared victory. Only Trump has.
If someone tries to tell you otherwise, demand evidence. And no, Twitter and Facebook conspiracy theories are NOT evidence.
BTW "both candidates" have NOT declared victory. Only Trump has.
> this could have been prevented by simply not changing things at the last minute
I don’t think this is true, though. The main change is that more people voted via mail. That isn’t a last minute thing. More people want to vote by mail this year, and many states allowed them to already. The problem is that states just aren’t used to processing this many mail ballots. One could argue that there weren’t enough last minute changes! For example, if PA had made a last minute change to begin processing mail ballots earlier than Tuesday, then they’d have finished much more quickly.
> didn’t anyone foresee that this will call into question the legitimacy of the election
In my opinion, the only reason we’re seeing so many people question it is because Trump has been baselessly claiming for months that the election would be stolen from him and that mail in voting is fraudulent. So yes, everyone was aware that Trump would call its legitimacy into question, but I haven’t seen a shred of evidence for it. In fact, two of his lawsuits were thrown out because there was no evidence onto back up his claims.
And to be completely fair, Biden hasn’t called the election, he just said that the path to victory seems clear. And that much is very obvious, since Biden does have more options for winning than trump does at this point, just because Trump’s only path to victory is by winning every state left, and Biden only needs one or two.
I don’t think this is true, though. The main change is that more people voted via mail. That isn’t a last minute thing. More people want to vote by mail this year, and many states allowed them to already. The problem is that states just aren’t used to processing this many mail ballots. One could argue that there weren’t enough last minute changes! For example, if PA had made a last minute change to begin processing mail ballots earlier than Tuesday, then they’d have finished much more quickly.
> didn’t anyone foresee that this will call into question the legitimacy of the election
In my opinion, the only reason we’re seeing so many people question it is because Trump has been baselessly claiming for months that the election would be stolen from him and that mail in voting is fraudulent. So yes, everyone was aware that Trump would call its legitimacy into question, but I haven’t seen a shred of evidence for it. In fact, two of his lawsuits were thrown out because there was no evidence onto back up his claims.
And to be completely fair, Biden hasn’t called the election, he just said that the path to victory seems clear. And that much is very obvious, since Biden does have more options for winning than trump does at this point, just because Trump’s only path to victory is by winning every state left, and Biden only needs one or two.
It's hard to count ballots before you've counted them. I'd imagine the way the estimates work is "here's a 80 pound sack of ballots, each ballot weighs x ounces so we have about 80*16/x ballots. Plus more ballots are still coming in
> Why isn't there a deadline?
How could there be? Voting is a state business. Each state is responsible for how it chooses the electors, via what procedures, on what timetable, etc.
Here's what the Constitution has to say on this matter (Article 2, Section 1): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress".
How could there be? Voting is a state business. Each state is responsible for how it chooses the electors, via what procedures, on what timetable, etc.
Here's what the Constitution has to say on this matter (Article 2, Section 1): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress".
> How could there be?
Well, Article II of the Constituion might have included language something like "The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
The first clause absolutely gives Congress the power to set a deadline by which electors must be chosen. And it has; the choice of electors, to be within the Electoral Count Act safe harbor, must be finalized six days before the Electoral College votes (so, Dec. 8, as the EC votes on Dec. 14.)
Well, Article II of the Constituion might have included language something like "The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
The first clause absolutely gives Congress the power to set a deadline by which electors must be chosen. And it has; the choice of electors, to be within the Electoral Count Act safe harbor, must be finalized six days before the Electoral College votes (so, Dec. 8, as the EC votes on Dec. 14.)
Yeah, but what that definitely doesnt say is "Congress shall make no law requiring that the electors be chosen on a specific timetable"
Actually the Constitution says exactly that in the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
A deadline obviously exists: the day the electors cast their votes, which the Constitution stipulates to be "the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December", and which this year is December 14th. Other than that, as long as a state properly sends its designated number of electors to vote, how it chooses those electors is nobody's business but the state's alone. If the state is not able to decide, or sends the wrong number of electors, then it creates a problem for the Federal Government, so the Congress can pass a law to clarify what to do in such a case, and since this was the case in 1873, it passed the Electoral Count Act, which essentially sets a deadline for such troublesome states 6 days ahead of the 14th December date [1].
[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641
A deadline obviously exists: the day the electors cast their votes, which the Constitution stipulates to be "the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December", and which this year is December 14th. Other than that, as long as a state properly sends its designated number of electors to vote, how it chooses those electors is nobody's business but the state's alone. If the state is not able to decide, or sends the wrong number of electors, then it creates a problem for the Federal Government, so the Congress can pass a law to clarify what to do in such a case, and since this was the case in 1873, it passed the Electoral Count Act, which essentially sets a deadline for such troublesome states 6 days ahead of the 14th December date [1].
[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641
> Why isn't there a deadline?
there's a balance to be struck between counting every last mail-in ballot and concluding the election in a reasonable amount of time. it's probably worth erring in favor of counting everyone's constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, even if it means a week or two of nail biting over the outcome.
there's a balance to be struck between counting every last mail-in ballot and concluding the election in a reasonable amount of time. it's probably worth erring in favor of counting everyone's constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, even if it means a week or two of nail biting over the outcome.
Why? This constant finding of ballots, along with the allegations of not being allowed to observe the counting by international election watching groups, and the withholding of counts (see AZ and NV), makes the process seem extremely opaque. This is what I expect of a 3rd world country, not America. It was not difficult to get your ballot in on time. They've been out for weeks.
I knew the republicans in certain districts were making complaints about being denied access in ways that stretch what is plausible under incompetence alone but I didn't know any international groups were complaining. Can you provide a link?
I would have posted sooner, but Hacker News bars me from posting too often. Here is the report, with an e-mail image:
https://www.rebelnews.com/international_elecion_observers_ba...
https://www.rebelnews.com/international_elecion_observers_ba...
there have been substantial delays in the mail (possibly by design). if a ballot is postmarked before the deadline, authorities are obligated to make every effort to count it.
I'm not sure what the deal is regarding the withholding of counts. seems unnecessary now that the polls are closed.
I'm not sure what the deal is regarding the withholding of counts. seems unnecessary now that the polls are closed.
The people who need to speak to reporters to release counts are the same people overseeing the counting itself. So if hourly updates mean counting goes on until Sunday, while daily updates means we get final numbers Friday or Saturday, I'll take the daily updates.
> The people who need to speak to reporters to release counts
No one needs to speak to reporters to release counts.
No one needs to speak to reporters to release counts.
Only thing I can find on international observers is about North Carolina excluding them [0], and this:
CBS News: Trump's attempt to stop vote counting "a gross abuse of office," international observers say. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-international-observers-...
[0] Raleigh News & Observer: North Carolina says no to international observers at election polling sites. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/electi...
CBS News: Trump's attempt to stop vote counting "a gross abuse of office," international observers say. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-international-observers-...
[0] Raleigh News & Observer: North Carolina says no to international observers at election polling sites. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/electi...
I would have posted sooner, but Hacker News bars me from posting too often. Here is the report, with an e-mail image:
https://www.rebelnews.com/international_elecion_observers_ba...
https://www.rebelnews.com/international_elecion_observers_ba...
I suspect most states are still counting, but no one is watching. California for example has 2-3 million to count!
> Why isn't there a deadline?
There is, in effect. However, it's in December.
Note that last time round, it dragged out for days as well; it's just that most of the slow count wasn't in states that were consequential for the electoral college.
There is, in effect. However, it's in December.
Note that last time round, it dragged out for days as well; it's just that most of the slow count wasn't in states that were consequential for the electoral college.
Why does Electoral Fraud only exists in countries like Russia, Venezuela and Bolivia?
> Why are only these states still counting?
They aren't the only states still counting. They're just the only states where the further count can possibly change the winner.
They aren't the only states still counting. They're just the only states where the further count can possibly change the winner.
Votes can arrive by mail later without being opened. Also counties may misreport how many ballots they originally had.
Why do the misreport them? Why don't we know?
And I also don't really understand how mail can arrive later. In my state of Oregon which has mail-in only voting, ballots must arrive by 8PM on election day. That's it. Why do other states allow it to go past that? This is crazy. It's election day, not week.
And I also don't really understand how mail can arrive later. In my state of Oregon which has mail-in only voting, ballots must arrive by 8PM on election day. That's it. Why do other states allow it to go past that? This is crazy. It's election day, not week.
"It's election day" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Absentee and other mail ballots have always been allowed to arrive late in the majority of states. There just aren't normally enough of them to make the difference in a close race like this one.
When I lived in California, it was common for military ballots to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day. That never mattered for the presidential race, but other races weren't officially records until everything was counted.
When I lived in California, it was common for military ballots to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day. That never mattered for the presidential race, but other races weren't officially records until everything was counted.
Because states have the right to choose their voting process as long as it complies with the 14th Amendment, and the process has worked for them as long as it has.
There's plenty of time between Election Day and when the votes actually have to be in, and it's actually unusual for all the votes to have been counted entirely by the end of Election Day even in a normal year from what I recall.
The votes aren't due for another little while anyway. So who cares whether Election Day is postmarked-by day or received-by day?
There's plenty of time between Election Day and when the votes actually have to be in, and it's actually unusual for all the votes to have been counted entirely by the end of Election Day even in a normal year from what I recall.
The votes aren't due for another little while anyway. So who cares whether Election Day is postmarked-by day or received-by day?
Each state's legislature decides that, so naturally states will differ on deadlines for when mail can arrive. Also, the count dragging on is because counting hasn't finished on the sheer quantity of mail-in ballots received before election day, not after (which are insignificant in number).
Can someone explain why 400k+ vote still being counted but Arizona result is called. No I am not want to dispute or argue. Just number. Thanks.
Most organizations have not called Arizona's result yet:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/upshot/networ...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/upshot/networ...
AP and Fox made a mistake and don’t want to walk it back. The other news agencies haven’t called it yet.
I bet Fox walks it back if they call NV so they don't have to announce a Biden win.
I agree they'll walk it back as soon as it makes sense to do so, but not because they don't want to call a Biden win... but because it's their chance to get back on the fence in general, which is where any news organization should be at this stage. Overall, they have been calling states for Biden (and Trump) much sooner than most of the other news organizations, so they haven't shown any reluctance to calling it the way they see it. I wouldn't be surprised if they call a Biden win first -- it seems like they want to be breaking these calls and getting the traffic/views.
Brian Stelter (CNN Chief Media Correspondent/Anchor of Reliable Sources) said on Monday night that although the Fox Editorial department is a dumpster fire (not his exact words), the AP/Fox election desk is trustworthy and usually does a trustworthy job (it's not just Fox News alone, they're working alongside the AP).
I've been flipping through the networks and other than Fox News calling Arizona a little before they probably should have, they haven't shown any bias toward either candidate in the numbers. I can't say the same for the guests they have chosen to have on.
Brian Stelter (CNN Chief Media Correspondent/Anchor of Reliable Sources) said on Monday night that although the Fox Editorial department is a dumpster fire (not his exact words), the AP/Fox election desk is trustworthy and usually does a trustworthy job (it's not just Fox News alone, they're working alongside the AP).
I've been flipping through the networks and other than Fox News calling Arizona a little before they probably should have, they haven't shown any bias toward either candidate in the numbers. I can't say the same for the guests they have chosen to have on.
I bet Fox just holds back on calling NV for Biden (no need if something radical happens and it can be called for Trump) until both NV and either AZ is certain (and can either also be called for Biden or flipped for Trump without going in to an indeterminant state) or one of GA or PA (for Biden) is clear and can be safely called as well.
This is very likely what is occurring.
NV is trending farther apart and AZ is trending closer. NV is probably OK to call.
NV is trending farther apart and AZ is trending closer. NV is probably OK to call.
I also think other orgs are probably holding back on calling NV because AP and Fox have called AZ, and there is a psychological effe t of having major orgs having called 270 EVs when overlayed, even if no one org has called 270.
Twitter’s rule-of-two on election results may play a role here, too.
Twitter’s rule-of-two on election results may play a role here, too.
[deleted]
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21535103/when-will-w...
tl;dr is that many of the remaining votes are in parts of the state that are more liberal than the parts of the state that have already been counted. If Biden wins a county that is 50/50 D/R, then they're assuming that he will also win a county that is 60/40 D/R (oversimplifying a bit because turnout can very from county to county and mail-in ballots might have different demographics than in person voters). However it was a bit controversial that Fox called AZ as early as they did, I don't think any of the other TV channels have followed suit
tl;dr is that many of the remaining votes are in parts of the state that are more liberal than the parts of the state that have already been counted. If Biden wins a county that is 50/50 D/R, then they're assuming that he will also win a county that is 60/40 D/R (oversimplifying a bit because turnout can very from county to county and mail-in ballots might have different demographics than in person voters). However it was a bit controversial that Fox called AZ as early as they did, I don't think any of the other TV channels have followed suit
> However it was a bit controversial that Fox called AZ as early as they did, I don't think any of the other TV channels have followed suit
I think this is technically correct in that the other TV channels didn't; AP, however, also called AZ.
I think this is technically correct in that the other TV channels didn't; AP, however, also called AZ.
Networks will attempt to project ("call") winners based on how the data is trending. It has nothing to do with the official results. For instance, I understand that Fox "called" Arizona for Biden already, but I know that CNN and ABC have not.
Also, according to the trends here:
Alaska - Trump (3 votes)
Arizona - Trump (11 votes)
Georgia - Biden (16 votes)
North Carolina - Trump (15 votes)
Nevada - Biden (6 votes)
Pennsylvania - Biden (20 votes)
Winner would be Biden.