Should SCOTUS order sample auditing ballots in toss up states at question?

[joko104]

Specifically, with all the allegations of fake ballots and voter fraud, there is an easy way to assure the world that the USA is still a democratic republic, rather than a corporate plutocracy. Given the non-stop accusations of being liars and cheaters, Putin operatives, etc by both sets of partisans, it is a fact most on this forum believe partisans on the other side would lie and cheat to get their way. If so, then definitely partisan election officials would since they are not only partisans, but their jobs in government depend upon their party winning re-election within their jurisdiction.

SCOTUS would order that a large scale sample audit be done in counties in highly disputed states - each party allowed to pick 3 or 4 counties/wards for such sampling in each state - at least 5,000 voters - specifically to determine the two following requirements to have a legitimate ballot:

1. The voter lives where the voter is registered to vote
2. The voter acknowledges they voted

The US Marshall's office could supervise the auditing.

This would absolutely prove or disprove the legitimacy of the election. If done, and the audit shows at least 99% accuracy - allowing up to 50 false ballots in each , then the outcome could not be legitimately disputed. If not, then it known the voting and/or vote counting was too fraudulent or erroneous to constitute an actual election - meaning holding a new election. The SCOTUS has the power ultimately to order anything and they at least CLAIM to be the last firewall protecting American democracy and the legitimacy of elections.

The only reason to oppose this is because you think you side cheated and you want to win by cheating if that's what it takes.

Multiple choice public poll - and you can change your vote later.

 

[Moon]

Maybe, if there’s evidence of illegality beyond mere accusations.

 

[GolfingChef]

They do not have the power for such a thing. They would have to rule state by state based upon the evidence brought by the campaigns, after the suits have made it through the lower courts.

 

[Moderate Right]

Specifically, with all the allegations of fake ballots and voter fraud, there is an easy way to assure the world that the USA is still a democratic republic, rather than a corporate plutocracy. Given the non-stop accusations of being liars and cheaters, Putin operatives, etc by both sets of partisans, it is a fact most on this forum believe partisans on the other side would lie and cheat to get their way. If so, then definitely partisan election officials would since they are not only partisans, but their jobs in government depend upon their party winning re-election within their jurisdiction.

SCOTUS would order that a large scale sample audit be done in counties in highly disputed states - each party allowed to pick 3 or 4 counties/wards for such sampling in each state - at least 5,000 voters - specifically to determine the two following requirements to have a legitimate ballot:

1. The voter lives where the voter is registered to vote
2. The voter acknowledges they voted

The US Marshall's office could supervise the auditing.

This would absolutely prove or disprove the legitimacy of the election. If done, and the audit shows at least 99% accuracy - allowing up to 50 false ballots in each , then the outcome could not be legitimately disputed. If not, then it known the voting and/or vote counting was too fraudulent or erroneous to constitute an actual election - meaning holding a new election. The SCOTUS has the power ultimately to order anything and they at least CLAIM to be the last firewall protecting American democracy and the legitimacy of elections.

The only reason to oppose this is because you think you side cheated and you want to win by cheating if that's what it takes.

Multiple choice public poll - and you can change your vote later.

I might be wrong but as far as I know the Supreme Court can't decide to do anything on it's own. They have to be patitioned and then make a decision on the matter, either for or against or to refuse hearing it at all.

 

[GolfingChef]

The only reason to oppose this is because you think you side cheated and you want to win by cheating if that's what it takes.

The only reason to oppose this is that the SCOTUS does not have the power to order such a thing. The only reason to support this is because you think the Constitution should be used to wipe your ass

 

[joko104]

They do not have the power for such a thing. They would have to rule state by state based upon the evidence brought by the campaigns, after the suits have made it through the lower courts.

The SCOTUS has absolute total power over everything and everyone.

 

[GolfingChef]

The SCOTUS has absolute total power over everything and everyone.

you are one dumb son of a gun.

no wonder you are Trump worshiper.

 

[joko104]

I might be wrong but as far as I know the Supreme Court can't decide to do anything on it's own. They have to be patitioned and then make a decision on the matter, either for or against or to refuse hearing it at all.

Trump and/or any Republican official in such toss up states should file for such a mandatory mandamus order - and unless admitting to be involved in election fraud the Democratic officials would agree wanting everyone to know they actually did win legitimately at least in terms of a legitimate election.

 

[Guyzilla]

Trump and/or any Republican official in such toss up states should file for such a mandatory mandamus order - and unless admitting to be involved in election fraud the Democratic officials would agree wanting everyone to know they actually did win legitimately at least in terms of a legitimate election.

States determine the voting rules, you right wingers want to come in here, and change all the rules, NOPE.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

They do not have the power for such a thing. They would have to rule state by state based upon the evidence brought by the campaigns, after the suits have made it through the lower courts.

Well considering they legalized abortion and gay marriage over the will of the people, it seems there is no legal limit on the Supreme Courts power actually

 

[joko104]

States determine the voting rules, you right wingers want to come in here, and change all the rules, NOPE.

The presidency and Congressional races are federal elections, not state elections. I understate white racist Confederates disagree, but your side lost the Civil War. I guess you forgot that.

 

[joko104]

Well considering they legalized abortion and gay marriage over the will of the people, it seems there is no legal limit on the Supreme Courts power actually

Back in the late 1700s the SCOTUS declared they have absolute power over the elected government - literally 100% control over it - and over everything and everyone else too.

 

[Helix]

How about we just count the votes and then evict Tweety without theatrics? Sounds good to me. I hope that he didnt plaster the WH with a bunch of tacky gilding that will be difficult to remove.

 

[nota bene]

Specifically, with all the allegations of fake ballots and voter fraud, there is an easy way to assure the world that the USA is still a democratic republic, rather than a corporate plutocracy. Given the non-stop accusations of being liars and cheaters, Putin operatives, etc by both sets of partisans, it is a fact most on this forum believe partisans on the other side would lie and cheat to get their way. If so, then definitely partisan election officials would since they are not only partisans, but their jobs in government depend upon their party winning re-election within their jurisdiction.

SCOTUS would order that a large scale sample audit be done in counties in highly disputed states - each party allowed to pick 3 or 4 counties/wards for such sampling in each state - at least 5,000 voters - specifically to determine the two following requirements to have a legitimate ballot:

1. The voter lives where the voter is registered to vote
2. The voter acknowledges they voted

The US Marshall's office could supervise the auditing.

This would absolutely prove or disprove the legitimacy of the election. If done, and the audit shows at least 99% accuracy - allowing up to 50 false ballots in each , then the outcome could not be legitimately disputed. If not, then it known the voting and/or vote counting was too fraudulent or erroneous to constitute an actual election - meaning holding a new election. The SCOTUS has the power ultimately to order anything and they at least CLAIM to be the last firewall protecting American democracy and the legitimacy of elections.

The only reason to oppose this is because you think you side cheated and you want to win by cheating if that's what it takes.

Multiple choice public poll - and you can change your vote later.

Very interesting question, but I can't participate in a poll that has already concluded that there is only one reason to oppose this.

I did text someone early yesterday morning that my bet was that each justice woke up screaming "Nooooo--don't make us do this!"

 

[BlueTex]

Trump and/or any Republican official in such toss up states should file for such a mandatory mandamus order - and unless admitting to be involved in election fraud the Democratic officials would agree wanting everyone to know they actually did win legitimately at least in terms of a legitimate election.

LMAO... Someone has been watching too much TV...

 

[BlueTex]

Well considering they legalized abortion and gay marriage over the will of the people, it seems there is no legal limit on the Supreme Courts power actually

Actually, they took the power away from the states to impose their will on individual rights...

 

[Montgomery]

I chose 'other' because it's all good, and it's going to get better when Biden finally wins the count.
The count, not the election because that will likely be won on the streets when Trump's people turn to the only solution for what's left of a dying democracy.

It's all good from a Canadian POV!

 

[Atomic Kid]

The SCOTUS has absolute total power over everything and everyone.

Jesus Christ! That is really some kind messed up thinking there.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Actually, they took the power away from the states to impose their will on individual rights...

No, they denied the people their right to resolve political issues through the political process

 

[joko104]

Did I predict correctly that no Democrat favors proving the election was legitimate or what?

 

[Montgomery]

Curious that the results have been stopped from coming out. Is this to give the police and militias the time they need to establish their front lines on the streets throughout the country?
The authorities aren't going to stand with no cover against the artillery the gungoons have in their arsenals.

 

[joko104]

Very interesting question, but I can't participate in a poll that has already concluded that there is only one reason to oppose this.

I did text someone early yesterday morning that my bet was that each justice woke up screaming "Nooooo--don't make us do this!"

I already posted these are matters the SCOTUS justices do NOT want to deal with. I think they'll ultimately punt on it for that reason. I seem to remember I posted their internal response to the President saying he was going to the Supreme Court was "Dammit, I don't want to do this!" Seems we are on the same page about that. LOL

 

[Montgomery]

Did I predict correctly that no Democrat favors proving the election was legitimate or what?

You knew that a loss would need to be turned into a win. Either way, it's all good!

 

[AJG]

I'd be perfectly fine with this if the SCOTUS actually had this power, although it doesn't seem like they do.

 

[American]

Specifically, with all the allegations of fake ballots and voter fraud, there is an easy way to assure the world that the USA is still a democratic republic, rather than a corporate plutocracy. Given the non-stop accusations of being liars and cheaters, Putin operatives, etc by both sets of partisans, it is a fact most on this forum believe partisans on the other side would lie and cheat to get their way. If so, then definitely partisan election officials would since they are not only partisans, but their jobs in government depend upon their party winning re-election within their jurisdiction.

SCOTUS would order that a large scale sample audit be done in counties in highly disputed states - each party allowed to pick 3 or 4 counties/wards for such sampling in each state - at least 5,000 voters - specifically to determine the two following requirements to have a legitimate ballot:

1. The voter lives where the voter is registered to vote
2. The voter acknowledges they voted

The US Marshall's office could supervise the auditing.

This would absolutely prove or disprove the legitimacy of the election. If done, and the audit shows at least 99% accuracy - allowing up to 50 false ballots in each , then the outcome could not be legitimately disputed. If not, then it known the voting and/or vote counting was too fraudulent or erroneous to constitute an actual election - meaning holding a new election. The SCOTUS has the power ultimately to order anything and they at least CLAIM to be the last firewall protecting American democracy and the legitimacy of elections.

The only reason to oppose this is because you think you side cheated and you want to win by cheating if that's what it takes.

Multiple choice public poll - and you can change your vote later.

You should've made it multiple choice.