We know what Musk will probably dress up as this year: A victim Elon Musk has been ordered to attend a Halloween hearing on the legality of his election petition lottery, but a last-minute removal request may have given the billionaire a reprieve to spend the day enjoying quality holiday time with his family or more relentless campaigning to help elect Donald Trump. Musk and his America …
"It just proves once again (if proof was still required) that the US have the best justice system money can buy"
So far, Elon's Teflon® coating for lawsuits is still holding up and he has the money to cover his bets. The statutory punishment for running a lottery that violates the rules might be far less than what he can get out of it. If the max fine is $500,000, Elon might just factor that in and go ahead anyway since by the time it sees a courtroom, it will have done its job. If the penalty was $500k/day AND up to 5 years in prison, maybe he would stop and consult his thinking brain dog, Gaspode. The justice system may work just fine, but the rules haven't been set up properly.
American healthcare is still very expensive even if you're not poor and have good insurance.
I just did "annual enrollment" for benefits with my employer a couple weeks ago (still open). We need the best health/dental/vision plans due to plenty of chronic conditions, particularly my wife (internal) and son (derma/allergy), plus orthodontia for 2 out of 3 kids (oldest has "graduated" from it), eyeglasses for most / contacts for the missus, etc. Either guarantee to pay high premiums biweekly with low co-pays, or high deductible for arbitrary number of weeks/months with low premiums. Either way, we're nigh guaranteed to spend the same by year's end, but likely more with the "classic" high-premium plan, especially if something truly goes wrong (including any kind of emergency or surgery). I'm just thankful I've never had to pay an ambulance bill!
Either way, we're nigh guaranteed to spend the same by year's end, but likely more with the "classic" high-premium plan, especially if something truly goes wrong (including any kind of emergency or surgery). I'm just thankful I've never had to pay an ambulance bill!
Yep. I don't envy Americans who are unfortunate enough to get ill or have an accident. A friend is a T1 diabetic and it's shocking how much they have to pay for essentials like insulin that are free in the UK. American friends and colleagues also warned me about ambulances. Get involved in an RTA, and if you're offered an ambulance, say "No!" if you could call an Uber to the hospital instead. I think last time I checked an ambulance would cost around $1,000 plus expenses. I think it was also something like $50 per ECG electrode, plus procedure costs so a 'quick check of your heart' with a 12-lead ECG could mean they deliver you to the hospital complete with a $5k invoice.
As a Brit, the whole system is shockingly unfair. Our NHS isn't perfect, but at least it isn't going to bankrupt me and foreclose on my house if I get ill or injured.
You have to remember that all the middlemen that are helping the patient get the best deal for their meds need to be paid!
The monopolistic cronyism that happens in the US is just bonkers. This goes down as far as the ambulances as in a lot of places the existing provider can veto any new service.
Let's not even get started on the middlemen!
At the point of delivery for those of us with insurance the US system is this: get your treatment. Receive a statement from your insurer something like "Your provider said you'd just spent $198,000 on a procedure! We at your super insurance company bargained them down to $2,500! Subtracting what we cover, you now owe us $98.50."
If uninsured it goes more like: "You just spent $198,000 on a procedure, please pay."
As far as I can make out there's a feedback system whereby the insurers end up revealing their hands on the maximum they'll permit list prices to be, the providers inevitably move up towards the top permitted list price, the insurers spot the trend and move the limit up a little, etc, etc.
If uninsured it goes more like: "You just spent $198,000 on a procedure, please pay."
Yep. I had an American doctor friend try to explain this to me once. Like if you're intubated and insured, it's $1,900 for the tube. If you're not, it's $50. And no, you can't buy your own at Walgreens and bring it to the operation. Then she explained that at a lot of hospitals, doctors are often essentially self-employed and rent operating rooms etc with the money split between the doctor and the hospital. Which then lead to situations lack a lack of nerosurgeons because the cost of their liability/malpractice insurance has rocketed. Which leads to odd informed consent decisions. Patient may understand and accept the risk, surgeon may decline the procedure because they don't want to risk getting sued.
"Which then lead to situations lack a lack of nerosurgeons because the cost of their liability/malpractice insurance has rocketed."
An even bigger issue is a lack of OB/GYN doctors. Insurance for that is halfway from Mars to the asteroid belt. Some years ago a family friend was paying $60k/year as an OB/GYN that didn't deliver babies or it would have been much more. He wanted to retire, but he sucked at golf. He would rather have worked part-time, but there's no PT insurance. His wife didn't want him at home FT as he was used to being waited on when he was while working. They worked something out when he did finally stop working.
Though someone did point out that if you for example had no assets - rented home, leased vehicle (where I need the vehicle to get to work) etc and were uninsured then you have no assets to pursue and the hospital would have to write it off as if they did pursue you then you are bankrupt and they still get nothing...
You're a little low on the ambulance costs.
A few years back I started having sporadic bouts of vertigo - not neurological, something to do with the crystals in my ears. Two years ago it made me fall over as I was getting ready for work. Managed to drag myself to the bedroom and bang on the door until I woke my wife. I just wanted help getting into a chair or bed, but she freaked out and called an ambulance, afraid that I'd had a stroke (fair enough).
The bill was $1730 for a ten minute ride, with no extras. Insurance haggled them down to $1085. Fortunately it happened at the very end of the year and all my co-pays had already kicked in, so nothing out of pocket. At least for the ride...
"I think last time I checked an ambulance would cost around $1,000 plus expenses. I think it was also something like $50 per ECG electrode, plus procedure costs so a 'quick check of your heart' with a 12-lead ECG could mean they deliver you to the hospital complete with a $5k invoice."
You won't be able to sue the Uber driver for medical issues since they don't provide medical services, but the ambulance company likely gets sued 4-5 time each week and it costs them a fortune in ambulance chasers and insurance to fight off the suits. Now, if juries couldn't award a million bucks for a bumpy ambulance ride, prices might come down.
"thats the point where it might be smart to consult a financial advisor / accountant - the few hundred it might cost you to rearrange your finances might be enough to result in you falling into the lower category"
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to figure out on your own. You may get odds looks going to HR for a reduction in pay even if you'd come out ahead through reduced or free health insurance.
"thats the point where it might be smart to consult a financial advisor / accountant - the few hundred it might cost you to rearrange your finances might be enough to result in you falling into the lower category"
They look at gross rather than net so no need to pay a financial consultant. Just take a reduction in pay. Although, that might mean having to up stakes and move to someplace with a lower cost of living.
He should do so as a CLOWN!
The image that came to mind was Stephen King's clown Pennnywise (with red balloon on a string) but definitely not a victim.
I hasten to add that from early childhood I could not and can not abide clowns in any way, shape or form.
I think traditionally a clown's face is unique to the clown and doesn't change but I noticed looking for an image of Pennywise's clown face that it was quite varied - so possibly even more appropriate considering Space Karen's buffoonery.
Let me get this right. To get round this as not being electoral interference he presents it as a prize draw. On that basis he's prosecuted by a state as running an illegal lottery. As soon as that happens he's presenting it as electoral interference to take it out of the state courts.
Which is it? Perhaps both and he can do jail time on both counts.
The goal is to delay long enough to run the scheme thru the election and then wave it away with a simple "no longer relevant." The goal for the state would be to pause it immediately and then see if they can establish some useful precedent to keep this from happening again (and if not then drop it after the election as no longer relevant.)
Because there are laws that say you can't pay people to vote. It doesn't actually matter whether you are paying them to vote one way, or another, or whether they actually go through with it, the line is drawn at the point of paying them at all, because doing so balances the needs for preventing interference in free and fair elections with personal freedoms to do what you want with your money.
There are similar reasons for not allowing photography at all in polling stations (in most places) and for it to be illegal to photograph your ballot, because such photography can be used as a form of coercion ("you must provide photographic evidence that you voted for me, or the kid gets it" kind of thing).
Can someone explain to me exactly how this is electoral interference. If someone gave me a million dollars (or its UK equivalent) then unless they were allowed to follow me into the polling booth I would simply vote how I was going to anyway.
It's all a conspiracy to sell more popcorn. But the reality is it isn't election interference until a court says it is. The PA DA has pulled the trigger* on that one so the legal process has started, but the court of public opinion doesn't really count for anything other than making money from adverts.
*See also-
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/30/sheriff-concludes-shooting-range-injury-of-tv-reporter-at-lucas-kunce-event-was-an-accident/
Sheriff concludes shooting-range injury of TV reporter at Lucas Kunce event was an accident
The metal targets were only ‘10 paces, approximately 10 yards’ from where Kunce was shooting an AR-15 rifle, according to the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office.
For why some Democrats shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a trigger. Might have been an accident, but it was a result of gross negligence. Also amusing because Kunce's AR-15 was equipped with an unfeasibly large scope for shooting at 10yds, his safety glasses were perched on the top of his head, and any responsible shooter knows that shooting steel creates a high risk of ricochets and fragmentation. More on that here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpoa35uJfTQ
OK, but now your choice is between the People Giving You A Million Dollars Party and their opponents, who are saying that not only will they not give you a million dollars but that the PGYAMDP aren't allowed to give it to you either. Whether or not you can be bought for that sum, it's still an attempt to influence your vote with a financial incentive.
On that basis he's prosecuted by a state as running an illegal lottery. As soon as that happens he's presenting it as electoral interference to take it out of the state courts.
The DA is butthurt that he couldn't get Musk to appear at his circus. Or may have gotten himself into deeper waters. As I understand it (and kinda predicted) the state DA has decided to charge this as running an illegal lottery, which the state can do cos they make the rules for lotteries in their state. What he can't do is shades of NYC v Trump and turn an illegal lottery into a bigger charge because election interference is a federal matter. So the DA may try to spin it as election interference, but can't prosecute it that way.
And if Musk is represented in court, or his representatives try to get the charges dismissed or moved, I doubt there's much the DA can do about it other than shout at the clouds. I doubt any judge not looking to retire soon will compel Musk to appear when there's no real reason for him to testify in person. The DA may want to raise their media profile, Musk doesn't really need any help with his.
> The DA is butthurt
Some quality discourse there, assuming you're a wannabe-edgy 14-year-old troll.
Let's remember that this is the same Jellied Eel who wanted their opponents to "try and debate like an adult" when it suited them to pretend they were taking the high road.
Let's remember that this is the same Jellied Eel who wanted their opponents to "try and debate like an adult"
I realised why the Pepe meme came to be. Dems really are dumber than a box of frogs. This DA has demonstrated why you don't try to polish a turd and gild it, and tell your guv'nor it's a sweet smelling lily. But I can imagine how it went, DA, sleep with the right people and next thing you know, the Whitehouse. Stranger things have happened. Or DA, win a big case, claim a big scalp and wait for the headhunters at the top white-shoe law firms to come calling.
Slight snag. Musk can already afford the best and brightest lawyers to make his problems go away. So instead of simply filing for an emergency injunction because Musk has violated PA lottery laws, they had to embiggen the case. No need to buy a new suit, hair & makeup for a grand press conference, just file for the injunction. Musk responds, or doesn't. Judge grants the injunction and then lottery could be stopped in time to grab a cheese steak. Only in PA though, but good enough for government work. Instead, DA just had to go large and try to add 'election interference' in a Federal election where the DA has no standing.
Musk's lawyers, once they've stopped laughing file their response, giving the DA a lot more work to do to file their counter response, amend their special pleading or withdraw the request. Assuming Musk actually wants to keep the lottery going, he's only got to stall the legal process for a few more days. Then maybe deal with any future lottery or federal charges, by which point the election is over.
...is the actual criticism it was allegedly replying to.
I don't recall seeing any actual criticism. Or anything relevant to the clown show topic at hand. But I have seen an update-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0en401330jo
Elon Musk can continue to give away cash to registered voters - for now, a Pennsylvania state judge has said.
Again if the DA had gone with a simpler, more defined claim regarding an illegal lottery, perhaps he would have had his injunction by now. Plus one of the arguments used in court by the DA's crew was that because 4 of the winners came from PA, it can't have been a lottery. Doh!
It is shaping up to be a real popcorn moment. Democrat DA arguing with Musk about who's interfering with an election the hardest. Plus Musk's team pointing out that it's the PAC running the lottery, not Musk.
"Elon Musk can continue to give away cash to registered voters - for now, a Pennsylvania state judge has said."
I wonder if this judge drives a Tesla. Elon could pull his ability to use the Superchargers and get updates. If the cars weren't so connected back to the maker, it wouldn't be an issue.
Even if the election is over, Musk will still face charges, and even if Trump wins,
Or the PAC will face charges. Musk can argue he's just the cheerleader and then it'd be whether the PAC could be charged with running an illegal lottery, or Musk charged with promoting that lottery. That may be all the state can do, and the DA may not win his case. There's been plenty of legal opinion suggesting that although rather shady, it might not be an illegal lottery or election interference. Then the state may try to impeach the DA again for wasting resources on a show trial. The DoJ may decline the case for any federal charges. Oh, and then the Governor might change, and they can of course pardon any state convictions.
...a fact that Trump knows because of the whole 34 count guilty verdict thing in New York...
Trump also knows he has a right to appeal those 34 charges, and is doing so. With much the same challenges as the PA DA has. So the NYC DA argued that hush money was election inteference, elevating his '34 counts' to felonies. But he doesn't have standing to prosecute election interference because that's a Federal matter, and the DoJ had previously declined charging. So the appeals might result in the felony charges being ruled out, which then leaves the 34 charges of book keeping errors, which are misdemeanors and statute barred anyway due to the passage of time. So still a long way to go and a lot of legal wrangling before Trump actually becomes a 'convicted felon'.
Then maybe Trump will sic his lawyers on the media and individuals who've defamed him by calling him a convicted felon, as he has been doing already with media companies that have referred to him as a 'convicted rapist'. He was neither charged nor convicted of rape.
More gibberish from the Jellied Idiot...
1. Musk _and_ the PAC are facing charges. Both, one or neither may be convicted of those charges, but the charges remain and have been bounced back from Federal Court (today).
2. Doesn't matter if "the state" impeaches the DA, the important thing is whether he is convicted. JI must remember... his idol Trump was twice impeached.
3. Trump _is_ a convicted felon. The conviction may be overturned on appeal, or it may not. But today Trump is a convicted felon.
4. If Trump tried to sue people for stating a fact (i.e. Trump being a convicted felon), Trump will get spanked by the First Amendment.
3. Trump _is_ a convicted felon. The conviction may be overturned on appeal, or it may not. But today Trump is a convicted felon.
No, Trump is not yet a convicted felon. He's been found guilty by a jury, and sentencing is due for Nov 26th. Until then, his trial is not complete and he has not been convicted.
4. If Trump tried to sue people for stating a fact (i.e. Trump being a convicted felon), Trump will get spanked by the First Amendment.
You really don't understand how defamation works, do you? State a falsehood, get sued, and if the statement is found to be false, you lose. If you can prove the claim true, you win.. But then Trump hasn't been convicted yet. The First Amendment doesn't protect you from making false or defamatory claims. But see also-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/01/trump-cbs-harris-interview-lawsuit
Donald Trump has sued CBS News for $10bn, alleging an interview with Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes was doctored to cast her in a positive light and amounted to “election interference”.
Somehow, I doubt that one will fly, even though CBS did doctor their interview.
Some quality discourse there, assuming you're a wannabe-edgy 14-year-old troll.
I'll leave that to the anonymous crowd.
Let's remember that this is the same Jellied Eel who wanted their opponents to "try and debate like an adult"
El Reg appears to have stepped in and memory holed a bunch of posts on that point. It would be nice for a moderators note explaining why, and why (hopefully) calling people hitler or ethinc slurs is not OK, which it shouldn't be, but sadly those terms are getting thrown around a lot.
This post has been deleted by its author
So "ethnic" slurs and calling people names is only ok when you do it. Nice to know...
Actually I'm hoping El Reg has woken up to the fact that your (and others) usage of ethnic slurs is not OK. Again it would be nice to have that confirmed.
It could maybe be because the constant lies from right wing and russian propanda posters like you that the remove posts...
I do quite like pandas, but I have no idea who reported any posts. But 'lies' are often a matter of opinion. And it turns out that claims of an 'illegal lottery' were lies because the judge has ruled that the 'lottery' can continue. Reasoning was a little bizarre to me given the defence seems to have been that the winners were pre-selected and it wasn't a lottery. Or it was a rigged lottery. So maybe the DA can try again, but the PAC and Musk won this round.
"And if Musk is represented in court, or his representatives try to get the charges dismissed or moved, I doubt there's much the DA can do about it other than shout at the clouds. I doubt any judge not looking to retire soon will compel Musk to appear when there's no real reason for him to testify in person"
Most courts require both sides to appear in person during the main part of a trial even when motions and other things don't require them to be there. I don't see how a judge would move the venue if the DA didn't agree with it and it would still be in the state since it's "The State vs Elon Musk, et al".
I haven't seen any good reporting on the specific law that's being used. Some states don't bother with contests/lotteries under a certain amount but will require a registration and review if the prize amount is over so much. In the middle it can be down to abiding by the state laws with maybe a review or not.
Most courts require both sides to appear in person during the main part of a trial even when motions and other things don't require them to be there. I don't see how a judge would move the venue if the DA didn't agree with it and it would still be in the state since it's "The State vs Elon Musk, et al".
Not really. El Reg has helpfully provided a link to the filing, which I figured I should take a gander at. So State vs Musk, is a law firm acting on behalf of the State making a civil claim against the PAC and Musk. The first part of the claim says-
NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you.
So Musk can elect to be represented by his attorneys.. Then the claims-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, for the following: a. Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants America PAC and Musk from creating, maintaining, operating, or participating in the creation, maintenance, operation of their lottery;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, for the following: a. Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants America PAC and Musk from engaging in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with their lottery;
And.. that's it. An injunction, not so much a trial, and as the filing says, no need for Musk to attend. The Feds don't seem very interested in trying to make it an election interference case (yet), and if they later do, there'll be depositions to collect and all the usual stuff that goes along with a regular trial. So seems to be a bit of grandstanding and presumably the PA courts are a bit backwards and don't allow defendents or witnesses to appear via video link. But the request for injunction is back in court on Monday, Musk might not be and the lottery ends on the 5th.
"after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you."
Yes, but. That's just answering the summons/complaint, not a trial. Certain motions and maneuvering can be done at that point. If it's a criminal complaint, the defendant might be required to appear to enter a plea and/or there might be a bond hearing. It's often the point where the court will set a date as they wait until everybody has been notified and acknowledged to do that. If somebody is a no-show, a judge might agree to a trial with the defendant in absentia. If the plaintiff fails to appear, a judge might dismiss the case.
If the case is brought against the PAC, that has to be represented by an attorney and Elon won't be required to appear except as a witness. That doesn't mean Elon is free and clear, but the defendant is the PAC if Elon isn't specifically named.
Yes, but. That's just answering the summons/complaint, not a trial. Certain motions and maneuvering can be done at that point. If it's a criminal complaint, the defendant might be required to appear to enter a plea and/or there might be a bond hearing.
Yes, but.. It isn't a criminal trial..ish. The filing is a civil complaint requesting an injunction. The first part of the filing explains the civil procedure the complaint is being filed as, and that individuals don't have to attend personally. So they can be represented, or even not show up. If they don't, then the judge can make a default judgement and stop the lottery-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, for the following: a. Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants America PAC and Musk from creating, maintaining, operating, or participating in the creation, maintenance, operation of their lottery;
If the case is brought against the PAC, that has to be represented by an attorney and Elon won't be required to appear except as a witness. That doesn't mean Elon is free and clear, but the defendant is the PAC if Elon isn't specifically named.
Musk has been named individually, but still doesn't have to appear per the filing. It sounds like the judge has summoned Musk, but his representatives seem to be arguing there's no need for him to attend in person because he's got legal representation to do that. As it's just an injunction, there doesn't seem to be any real need for witnesses. The judge can hear the arguments from the lawyers and decide if it's an illegal lottery or not, and the second claim that it may be harvesting personal information, or not. If so, the judge can grant the injunction and the lottery has to stop.
To me, the second claim is the more interesting part given elections involve a lot of data harvesting. Harris staged an event at a Californian(?) college, and the students all got an email blast telling them about the event. So some students asked how her campaign got all the email addresses. That seems a common complaint for Americans who get spammed or robocalled by campaigns. Harvesting PII seems too common, but I doubt this injunction will be precedential if it wins. It might still get referenced by campaigns looking to restrict harvesting PII though.
"Which is it? Perhaps both and he can do jail time on both counts."
From a Federal election law standpoint, it's one thing and from a State lottery law, it's something else since each state has regulations about lotteries and contests. I wonder how it would work out if he was convicted by both since there are different prison systems for Federal and State criminals. Let's just hope it's both and the sentences run consecutively.
Nothing will happen. 2008 proved you can be "too rich to fail." Putin talked the bros into giving this criminal thug 250 billion. He's untouchable and he knows it. That is the attack putin and his cronies unleashed on America. They established pro russian oligarchs in the heart off the tech industry, who were all too willing to take the cash.
It's actually kinda unlikely, because his lawyers were arguing that the case should be removed to Federal Court. Once that filing to remove is made, until the Federal Court rules on the matter, the State court is legally preempted. Fortunately, the Feds have rejected the attempt to remove, returned it to the State court, and the saga continues on Monday... when Musk really should appear...
"According to the Beeb, he didn't show. Hopefully as he was ordered to, he could be charged with contempt of court (though doubt that will bother him)"
He has not shown up for a bunch of things. One of the recent ones was when SpaceX launched Crew 8 and Elon "had to be there". Elon didn't ask for continuance, he just decided it wasn't important.
This is great. Next time I have a traffic court date, I'm filing a motion to move it to federal court one hour before!
Anyways, I'll eagerly await on hearing how being a federally registered election PAC means states don't get to enforce non-election rules against you in state court. This should be an interesting argument, if the lawyers can keep a straight face while presented it to the judge.
I think you would have to specify with evidence what federal crime you committed and why being found guilty of that crime allows you to break state traffic laws. The step after that is to delay until you can buy a pardon from the president. Probably cheaper to lose you license and hire a chauffeur for your Rolls.
Unfortunately, thanks to the Citizens United decision, Musk will probably walk. Money is now speech, protected by the First Amendment, so any laws preventing election inference by bribery will probably be struck down by the Roberts court.
IANAL, and I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Hmmm.... even with Citizens United, it's only the _spending_ of money that's speech. Buying votes is still illegal (e.g. 18 USC 597, which is likely not directly implicated because Musk was allegedly promoting non-partisan positions, like Apple Pie, although that might be an expensive fight for his lawyers). But I do agree that the Roberts court has shown itself perfectly willing to declare black is white, which leads me to hope they cross the road on a zebra crossing soon....
I think the electors have a ceremonial role, similar to a returning officer in the UK, and are elected separately. As I understand it (and I stand to be corrected), their role is to present the result of the ballot, which is run at the state level, but is for the president, not the electors themselves.
If elections were statewide, then different states would get different presidents depending on the results of those ballots. That might not be altogether a worse system than the one the US currently has, because you'd end up with two presidents who have to work together in cooperation for the good of the country, rather than an elected dictator. However, adversarial politics is baked into the US (and also the UK) system, so government is always for the good of the one elected, and their party, and any benefit for the people who elected them is purely coincidental.
WRT the slate of electors (who present the state's result of the federal election), one of the issues around the January 5th insurrection was that several states had appointed "alternate" slates of electors who were attempting to present the result that Trump had "won" in those states despite the voted not showing that. Mike Pence was in the process of adjourning to decide their validity when the rioting happened. Once it was over, he rejected them as not being properly appointed, but if the rioting had not taken place, who know whether the same opinion would have been reached? This is part of the problem of having "ceremonial" or "traditional" positions like this, where people can try to subvert the ceremonial aspect of it to break with tradition and take a more concrete role.
I think the electors have a ceremonial role, similar to a returning officer in the UK, and are elected separately. As I understand it (and I stand to be corrected), their role is to present the result of the ballot, which is run at the state level, but is for the president, not the electors themselves.
The electors actually have a very important constitutional role given they actually elect the President, not the voters. Theory goes that the electors are supposed to vote with the state's results, but that doesn't have to happen, although it would be entertaining if they didn't. It's a bit like the nomination process for the Democrats candidate. The population didn't vote for Harris, but the DNC's delegates elected her.
But as a non-American, the Electoral College system seems rather confusing and antiquated. So timings being based on giving the electors enough time to ride to Washington and cast their votes. But then changing the system to something like majority/popular vote would be horrendously complicated given state, federal and constitutional legal changes. Would make constitutional lawyers very rich though.
"Theory goes that the electors are supposed to vote with the state's results, but that doesn't have to happen, although it would be entertaining if they didn't. It's a bit like the nomination process for the Democrats candidate. The population didn't vote for Harris, but the DNC's delegates elected her."
Let the revolution commence! Yes, the electors could elect a different candidate than what the voters choose, but that would very bad. The electors couldn't be prosecuted, but that might not save them from a load of tar and pillows full of feathers. I haven't seen anybody propose a better system to elect a President at the top level, but lower down in the process, there's a lot that can be done. The whole elector segment can be wiped out and money saved. There was a point to it in bygone days, but not so much in modern times. I see it as the same as Executive Orders. That was instituted at a time when contacting members of Congress to convene a quorum to vote on an urgent matter, like declaring war, could take too much time. With modern communications and jet aircraft, enough of Congress can sit within hours to make important decisions. That should place severe limits on Presidential Executive Orders.
"think less tar and pillows and more rope and lamp posts or a similar fate to Nicolae Ceausescu"
I'm just being careful what I wish for. They won't put it on TV anyway so if those people dance the hemp fandango or gain a few outer layers, I'll only read about it.
"I think the electors have a ceremonial role, similar to a returning officer in the UK, and are elected separately."
That's very much not my understanding (again, willing to be corrected).
It is, I believe, entirely possible to have different presidential candidates on different state ballots - it's just not very common for what ought to be really obvious reasons.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selection
"When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren’t actually voting for President. You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors."
This is kind of what I was getting at - the electors' role is entirely to report the state's results, and act as a proxy. I believe the point of having several of them, rather than just a single person, is so that if one goes rogue and decides that they will report a different candidate as the winner of the state's ballot, then the others rein them in. This works out, unless, somehow, a bad actor manages to corrupt a majority of the electors, or eve manages to install a fake slate of electors, like the 2020 conspiracy.
The electors themselves shouldn't technically have any choice in who they deliver the result in favour of, and it's a throwback to the times when results couldn't be reported in real time. It's an anachronism that really should have been reformed at the point where telecommunications became practical in the 19th century.
It's an anachronism that really should have been reformed at the point where telecommunications became practical in the 19th century.
There's a lot of that about, which leads to a lot of nonsense. So electors could phone in results, those could maybe be impersonated, but we could give electors digital signatures to sign the results. Same is true for a lot of other aspects around elections. Voter ID is becoming a thing. UK has photo ID requirements, US doesn't, yet. That also links to issues around ID cards in general and maybe countries should just issue ID cards with a photo and signature. Use those to sign anything official and call it good. But UK went overboard and wanted something like 70+ bits of data to link to a card that just needs to 'prove' that I'm me.
But I think there's something like over 200 lawsuits currently flying over the current election. Some seem a little weird, ie party observers being banned from observing counts. That's back to elections being seen to be fair, ie if they're banning observers, what are they trying to hide? Which is probably nothing, but creates doubt. Same with 'proving' machines vs humans. I've been an observer/scrutineer at a couple of UK elections, which was interesting. Official observers could maybe point at ballot boxes and say "Test that one!" to compare machine vs human. From memory, UK ballot boxes weren't labelled with where they came from so a pseudo-random check. Give the observers say, 5 picks each and there'd be a reasonably representative sample. If results match, fewer people might grumble about the results.
Well the EC was designed partly with the concept of "not knowing the last two weeks of news" in mind.
But I also don't think it requires states to be "all or nothing" with a 1% swing, and it would surely make more sense for each state to return a number of electors from each party based on the popular vote.
The US already has what looks to many abroad to be wierd voting mechanisms... with electronic counting being commonplace, and "hanging chads".
One key advantage to pen(cil)/paper voting and manual counting is that any potential attacks are really hard to scale.
The fact that the US publishes data about who has voted early... that's also completely bizarre to me - nothing about voting behaviour should be published until after the last poll has closed.
I think technically, it's a state election for the contents of the bit of paper that the electors of the electoral college read out in Congress, and that bit is the actual federal election for the president. So, a kind of federal election by proxy. In this day and age, the whole electoral college thing should be done away with, and it should be a straight vote count across the nation. The electoral college only exists because it was a bodge to make elections across a large nation in a time before widespread telecommunications practical.
Like FPTP for constituency elections here in the UK, it's a system put in place for the needs of bygone times, and which doesn't suit the needs of today. It artificially amplifies the votes of sometimes as few as a couple of hundred people to swing the results of an election that affects 350 million people. Good luck getting people to agree to change it, however, when the system can be exploited to benefit rich and powerful people who can easily influence public opinion on the matter.
Also in Pennsylvania in Bucks County a judge has overrode local officials who closed down early in person voting early on the final day and used local law enforcement to try to stop voters. They now have until Friday as the long lines were not serviced by the election office that seemed unprepared.
There is tomfoolery afoot in Pennsylvania. In addition to the incident in Bucks County (which resulted in a lawsuit by the Republican party, and hence the judicial override), we have:
-- Duplicate mail-in ballots sent to 300 voters in Erie County, and an additional 700 mail-in ballots delivered to the wrong local post offices, rendering them undeliverable until re-sorted;
-- Erie County clerk says they believe that even more ballots have probably been "misplaced" (her word), no other details given;
-- Hours-long lines at the Elections office in Erie County, full of people who didn't get their ballots, likely as a result of the above. The Democratic Party is suing the Erie County elections board to get more information about the overall situation (the chairman of the county elections board is a career politician, a Democrat);
-- 250 duplicate ballots sent to voters in Tioga County;
-- County election worker in Wilkes-Barre "discarded" at least 9 overseas military ballots (the worker has since been fired); 7 of the 9 had been opened and all 7 of them were Trump ballots;
-- Approximately 2,500 recent voter registrations (not ballots) in Lancaster County have been declared invalid; Lancaster County says that two other counties (which they did not name) have also seen numbers of suspicious registrations, which have also been invalidated.
These events have all been reported in mainstream local media, and are all based on information from the various county elections offices. I have to wonder how many other incidents have gone unreported.
These events have all been reported in mainstream local media, and are all based on information from the various county elections offices. I have to wonder how many other incidents have gone unreported.
Much the same happened after the last US elections. Many small election problems and discrepancies reported but largely glossed over in the name of Democratcy. Also being pretty much mirrored in the other Georgia. Their President claims their were voting irregularities, but refuses to present any evidence. That Georgia is doing a recount on random votes from districts representing around 14% of the total votes cast. When the other Georgia suggested hand counting a random sample of electronically tallied votes to prove democracy wasn't being rigged, the Democrats refused. The thing the Democrats don't seem to understand is that elections have to be fair, and seen to be fair.
This post has been deleted by its author
"The thing the Democrats don't seem to understand is that elections have to be fair, and seen to be fair."
As opposed to the other side who, having lost the democratic election, screamed about it being "stolen", fired off a bunch of lawsuits of which not a single one stuck, incited gullible followers into attempting an insurrection, and are still going around talking about how the election result wasn't real...
...and the worst part of this is that the country is so fucked up now that not only is the orange-skinned guy still walking as a free man after all of that, but he has also been blessed with kingship presidential immunity - god help you all if you're dumb enough to put him back in the White House.
Democrats understand that. Which is why Al Gore conceded to George Bush in exactly the way Donold Trump didn't concede when he lost by more than 7 million votes...
Democrats also show they understand that by being better at (although not perfect) opposing gerrymandering leading to more fairness, while the Republicans do "exotic" things like wording a ballot initiative to block their shady tactic so that it appears the opposite of what it really does (specifically, the ballot reads something like "Do you want to appoint a gerrymandering commission?" when what it actually would achieve is appointing a redistricting commission to prevent gerrymandering).
Wanna go on?
Dems are some of the worst gerrymanderers out there. Look at the NY districts.
Al Gore has bleated on about 2000 ever since. Remember he RETRACTED his concession before requesting hand recounts. And lets not forget that Hillary has been moaning about having the election stolen from her at every opportunity.
In 2020 several high ranking dems were talking about the danger posed by insecure voting systems yet this very quickly pivoted to 'the most secure election in history' once they won.
Democrats understand that. Which is why Al Gore conceded to George Bush in exactly the way Donold Trump didn't concede when he lost by more than 7 million votes...
Gore conceded eventually, then kept whining about hanging chads costing him his seat in the White House.
...when what it actually would achieve is appointing a redistricting commission to prevent gerrymandering).
Redistricting is sometimes necessary though given the general idea is that districts are based on population. So each district having roughly the same population number and thus reasonably representative. But populations change over time, so district boundaries might need to be redrawn.. and then both sides argue the lines, and try playing their own gerrymandering games.
But the whole 'hanging chad' thing continued to rumble on for years-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Lingering_controversies
with assorted arguments between Dems and Republicans over election fairness, much as it has with Trump v Biden. Which is really the problem with democracy meeting technology, along with the complexity of US elections where multiple elections may be happening simultaneously. So lots of arguments over things like Florida's 'butterfly vote' and whether the layout or instructions were confusing, intentionally or unintentionally. And voting technology has moved on, creating new potential problems-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/it-did-occur-kentucky-county-clerk-confirms-voting-booth-glitch-shifted-trump-votes
Earlier in the day, a video went viral of voters in Kentucky having 'issues' with an electronic voting machine that selected "Kamala Harris" when the voter had pressed on "Donald Trump"...
One machine, issue identified and resolved, but enables a new raft of conspiracy theories-
So, the initial reaction was:
There is no vote rigging here. It's just a vast right wing conspiracy.
Then, 3 hours later...
Ok, the voting machine was busted, but it really was just a "ballot marking device" and as long as you triple checked everything, you must have caught the error
Which has obvious IT angles. At a guess, the touchscreen either wasn't calibrated or drifted out of calibration. But then recalibrating is 'tampering' although there's hopefully audit logs to record any changes. But there are also issues around process and layout, which might be confusing and run afoul of the US ADA. So whether the "ballot marking device" is fair to Americans with disabilities. On the layout side, calibration problems could easily be avoided by just changing the layout so it's harder to fat-finger and select the wrong candidate. Especially as that machine/voting system only allows 2 retries.
Or just go back to paper ballots. The US loves bingo, there are jumbo markers to blot boxes. Simple, and a simpler audit trail that doesn't end up with years of IT experts and lawyers arguing over whether vendor X's machine was rigged, hacked, potentiall hacked etc etc. Which is back to for Democracy working, elections have to be fair, and be seen to be fair. IT can just make that a whole lot harder. Touchscreens might be good enough for ordering burgers, but not reliable or secure enough for ordering up a President.
"So whether the "ballot marking device" is fair to Americans with disabilities."
If you have trouble marking a ballot, you can bring somebody with you to help. The poll workers can't help you and it has to be somebody you've chosen and trust. It's really a tiny number of voters anyway so spending loads of money when a simple solution is to hand is silly. People with disabilities can easily request a mail-in ballot and are one group of people that should be allowed with others having to come up with a good reason. As a nurse, my mom might not be able to get the time off to go vote and others in similar types of jobs so she would get a mail-in ballot. Now she's retired and votes in person as do I. I'm not booked on the day currently, but I can vote early or late if I do get work in that takes me into the field. If a client wants me for a job that would be all day, Tuesday would be out of the question. Anybody that doesn't take the responsibility as seriously can just not vote and perhaps shouldn't.
> Their President claims their were voting irregularities, but refuses to present any evidence.
Other than oddly high vote proportions for the ruling party in opposition strongholds, footage of vote stuffing, journalists covering the election getting beaten up, observers begin intimidated, and recordings of people being paid to vote..?
"elections have to be fair, and seen to be fair."
The latter part might even be more important.
That makes paper ballots filled out on the day and counted under supervised/secure conditions the most transparent way to do an election. Could that be rigged? yes. Is it easier to do that than change thousands of digital votes? Probably not. It would be more costly too.
That makes paper ballots filled out on the day and counted under supervised/secure conditions the most transparent way to do an election. Could that be rigged? yes. Is it easier to do that than change thousands of digital votes? Probably not. It would be more costly too.
But what price should we put on democracy? There are already a tonne of complaints and conspiracy theories floating around, and opportunities to knock a lot of those on the head. There were suggestions to prove digital counting systems by taking random samples of ballots and checking those by hand. Sure, that would be more labour intensive, but might stop people complaining about rigged voting machines. But if machines and humans agree, the systems might be good enough for government work.
But reality is it probably won't stop people complaining, eg Hilary Clinton is still whining many years later about how she was robbed. Or the tale of two Georgias-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce314y70lnpo
The results of last week's election in Georgia cannot be explained, two US pollsters commissioned to carry out exit polls for opposition TV channels have said.
.. The EU, US and Nato have called for a transparent inquiry into widespread examples of irregularities.
Exit polls are notoriously unreliable, especially when the politics are so bitter and divisive. So someone might not want to admit they voted GD or Republican for fear of being outed as a fascist, nazi, far-right or just garbage. Statisticians also made similar complaints about voting irregularities in the Trump v Biden election, but the EU and NATO didn't attempt to interfere in those elections. The US Democrats didn't order a transparent inquiry into US irregularities either, just went to great lengths to prevent them, or dismiss them as 'conspiracy theories'. Perhaps if Trump wins on Tuesday, the EU & NATO will shift target to the US elections.
But only a couple of days to go, and hopefully the US won't have to deal with all those 'fiery, but mostly peaceful protests' that happened the last time Trump won.
"There were suggestions to prove digital counting systems by taking random samples of ballots and checking those by hand. Sure, that would be more labour intensive, but might stop people complaining about rigged voting machines. But if machines and humans agree, the systems might be good enough for government work."
My favorite method is a hybrid. Voters fill in paper ballots that are counted by machine just like tests we had in school. Counting is also a "tell me three times" method where each stack is counted 3x on three different counters operated by three different people at random. Any stack that has more than a very tiny deviance is pulled and examined to make sure there isn't stray marks or debris causing errors. If machine number X always counts different, it's retired for the duration.
All of this could be done very quickly, but I have no problem with a count taking a couple of days to make sure it's done correctly and in a way that will catch/foil somebody trying to manipulate the results. I see it just like delivery pizza. Getting it in 30 minutes or less is great, but not if it has the wrong stuff on it and isn't properly cooked. If that takes 40-60 minutes on a busy night, I'm good with that.
Sounds like Pennsylvania has an election system with checks in place. I.e., things working not optimally (what does?), but working out the kinks.
Democracy is a long game and should be built to work even with some adversity. The fact that so many USAsians obsess about fringe cases of voter fraud or some delayed ballots doesn't tell us much about problems with the election, but tells us a lot about the US citizens. Democracy only works if the majority of people want it to work. In the US, a growing minority seems to care more about winning than about having a functional democracy and that is the root cause of their problems, not some misplaced ballots.
"a growing minority seems to care more about winning"
Yes, the ones who are bleating on about 'our democracy' and who admitted to forcing through changes to laws to 'fortify' the 2020 election to install their preferred candidate.
Brexit was democratic and of my word the screeching and screaming that came after that! Someone on these forums actually claimed that the brexit result was 'accepted by everyone'. LOL!
To the activist class 'democracy' means 'I get my way every time'.
The Republican party has just joined the Democrats as plaintiff in the lawsuit about the shenanigans in Erie County. Both parties suing the county board of elections five days before the election, in a swing county in a swing state, is *not* a sign that the system is working as intended.
The county clerk is blaming the problems on the out-of-state contractor who was hired to print and distribute the ballots, so it may be simple incompetence on the part of the low bidder for a government contract. But it's still very messed up, and both parties will have clear and obvious grounds for challenging the results of any close race in this county. (The county is pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans in terms of voter registration, with Democrats having a slim majority.)
"The thing about elections in the US is we don't have one election, we have thousands of them, with each county administering their own. Not all of them are equally good at it."
So there should be a state agency regularizing how it's done. In days gone past, there were larger newspapers that sent copies to local newspapers with space for local stories/content to be added. The same should be the norm for ballots. The counties/cities can send in the information for local voting that gets added to State and Federal items. Rather than sending ballots with blank spaces, all of the checking and printing would be done in a central location (like a prison vocational print shop). I'm not even opposed to a Federal ballot standard although I do have a few reservations about it.
Also in Pennsylvania in Bucks County a judge has overrode local officials who closed down early in person voting early on the final day and used local law enforcement to try to stop voters.
Also in PA-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Krasner#Impeachment
In August 2022, Krasner was subpoenaed by the committee but said that his office would not comply with the subpoena which he claimed was "wholly illegitimate".
I thought I remembered reading something about him before.
This post has been deleted by its author
.. he did not design, or envision Tesla, he just poured his foul SA monies into it.
.. he is not the brains behind Space-X, but takes credit for others work ..
.. he Xat all over Twitter, and is turning it into Pravda ..
.. and now he's teaming up with the Oranga-Tard; hoping his new daddy will let him do what his family did in SA..
No thank you ..
as in Donald 'I don't know her, I did nothing wrong' Trump who plays the victim 24/7
He'll be whining about how he's had more investigations into his companies than Al Capone
Everything will be about me.
His America PAC might be running a human trafficking scam with people being coerced into canvassing for DJT.
nice upstanding citizen (not)
Well if in another weeks time - god help the world - the orange one gets back in, then Elon 'pedo guy' Musk won't have to worry about any state or federal charges for his voter buying, as it will just get appealed all the way to the supreme court where Trump appointed judges can declare it was perfectly legal.
If we had a real justice system and/or any sense of fairness, pedo guy would be denaturalized and put back on a plane to his shithole country-of-origin.
Took a job while on a student visa? ILLEGAL!
Lied about it on your citizenship application? DENATURALIZED!
“Illegal immigrant” spending money on an election? DEPORTED!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
