Florida's Election Officials Questionable Behavior During the Recount is Harming Rick Scott

[Final-Fan]

NightlyPoe said:

Final-Fan said:

1.  If you would think "an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening" when the question is the relative priority level of a house on fire and a trash can on fire, then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

I don't see a logical point in ignoring either.  If there's a fire, you put your best effort forward to put it out.

2.  Isn't the "no action between the agent and the government" a possible area of improvement?

I don't think you understand.  There is no government there at your house, nor should there be for obvious reasons.  So when a person knocks on your door and asks for your ballot, if the person succeeds in obtaining it, there's nothing the government can do.  The government isn't there to check the person's ID or tell the citizen that this person is not authorized.

I mean surely there could be closer tracking of how many ballots people are collecting from voters than what happened.

Going around collecting ballots is illegal in North Carolina.  So, no, there is no way to track it closer because no one is authorized to do it in the first place.

3.  When five people's opinion is enough to determine whether millions of fetuses are people or not, yeah I think it makes a difference.  

I'm not really sure where you're going with this numbers game.

4.  You sounded like you were saying that the 4th circuit court is packed full of partisan hacks that rule based on politics and no one does anything about it because ___. 

Actually, I was making a callback to the other thread about both parties using obstruction to keep seats open so they can fill them.

1.  And were all the blocked forms of ID not "usual"?  Unless this is the case I'm not seeing any reason to think it was coincidence.  

They were certainly rarer forms of ID and not uniform government issue.

2.  I wasn't aware that popular opinion decided court cases.

If a judge subscribes to the opinion that voting fraud never happens and there's only one reason these laws exist, then that would alter the way they rule.

1.  And if they were passing laws mandating everyone must hose down their trash cans in case they were at risk of catching fire, while doing nothing about electrical problems that caused several known house fires?  I'm talking about priorities and enforcement costs here.  And people are prevented from casting votes they would have otherwise cast with these voter ID laws.  I don't have reason to believe there are tens of thousands of such blockages for every fraud prevention, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was somewhere in the low thousands, and I am sure it's in the hundreds.  If true, would that be worth it?  If you had to make a wild guess, where would you put the ratio of voters discouraged from voting to fraudsters discouraged from frauding? 

2.  The ballots have to show up somewhere.  Why can't they more closely monitor these collection points for hundreds of ballots coming from the same place?  Good catch on the ballot harvesting being illegal, but it doesn't invalidate my point that the system didn't itself catch the fact that so many mail-in ballots went missing.  Perhaps it would have done so in time, but that's not the impression I had.  If that impression is correct that's an area of improvement. 

3.  We're even then. 

1-2.  I'll look into that. 

2-2.  "Voting fraud never happens" is a pretty gross oversimplification that I doubt any judges believe, even if some members of the public do.  Similarly there are member of the public that believe the trade deficit means we literally hand piles of cash to other countries, but I doubt that even the most partisan of policymakers take this view.