[Discussion] 2022 Midterm Election Catch-All

Anything related to the midterms.

Via @MattGertz:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fhymu18XoAIhQ9y?format=jpg&name=small)

And as Adam Serwer pointed out:

It’s not just that this phenomenon can be documented, is that Fox’s agenda setting power is so significant that “objective” outlets scramble to launder the same narrative in less overtly partisan terms for less ideological audiences
polypusher wrote:

As part of this year's midterm election ballot, there was a measure in Seattle to switch to Ranked Choice Voting for mayoral and council elections, which passed. This was part of a number of other victories for the system nationwide. It's a snowballing trickle, like marijuana legalization I think.

https://fairvoteaction.org/results-f...

What's fun is that after years of effort the measure only appeared on ballots because tech billionaires managed to cram a different system (approval voting) into the ballot, so city council members proposed RCV as an alternative

Portland also passed rank choice voting for city elections this midterm, as part of a larger bill meant to reshape and reform our city government.

Also, unsurprisingly, Kari Lake isn't conceding.

Oh well. Let her eat cake.

Makeup!

Thank jebus. She is absolutely among the best representatives. If not the best current representative.

Looks like Boebert won (or at least, her challenger has conceded) so swings and roundabouts.

What kind of dumbf*ck concedes when the vote difference is less than 600 and within the margin of error that triggers a mandatory recount?

Just on principal alone you make Boebert sweat that sh*t out and then demand another recount. Have Dems really learned nothing from 2000?

f*ck it. Just claim you won. Seems to be all the rage these days.

@HeerJeet wrote:

The Republicans looked at the election results and said, "we need to double down on Hunter Biden & defending Jan. 6." The Dems looked at the election results and said, "we need to elevate New York city machine pols even more." Amazing.

OG_slinger wrote:

What kind of dumbf*ck concedes when the vote difference is less than 600 and within the margin of error that triggers a mandatory recount?

Just on principal alone you make Boebert sweat that sh*t out and then demand another recount. Have Dems really learned nothing from 2000?

+10000. I don't understand this at all.

The Boebert race is close enough to trigger a mandatory recount anyways, so the concession doesn't eliminate the recount. That said, it still doesn't make a lot of sense. Here's the justification, which... I guess I don't understand? Mandatory recounts don't require fundraising...??

Adam Frisch wrote:

The likelihood of this recount changing more than a handful of votes is very small. Very, very small. It’d be disingenuous and unethical for us or any other group to continue to raise false hope and encourage fundraising for a recount. Colorado elections are safe, accurate, and secure. Please save your money for your groceries, your rent, your children, and for other important causes and organizations.

I dunno man, that's a rational response that equates to "recounts almost never result in a correction large enough for me to win, so let's not bother with this election denial bullsh*t"

Which seems like something a principaled person would say, no?

Jonman wrote:

I dunno man, that's a rational response that equates to "recounts almost never result in a correction large enough for me to win, so let's not bother with this election denial bullsh*t"

Which seems like something a principaled person would say, no?

It's not election denial to stick through a mandatory recount instead of immediately folding out of, I don't know what, politeness or wanting to somehow show you believe in the validity of the election process.

It's a f*cking mandatory recount prescribed by law to ensure the election results are valid. Take it.

At least show your supporters that you went the minimum extra amount to ensure that your political opponent actually won instead of immediately surrendering.

The threshold to trigger a mandatory recount should be MUCH higher than the margin of error.

That's the entire point of it, to conservatively bound any error.

I don't see a problem with recognizing how much of long-shot a changed result would be. As you say, the recount is mandatory and any concession at this point doesn't change that fact, nor bar Frisch from taking office in the unlikely event that a recount DOES change the result.

Aren't mandatory recounts paid for by the state? There should be no fundraising needed at all for it, so why act like it'd be unethical to wait for the recount results.

There are multiple factors at play, here, too. For one, there have been three total times that a recount has actually reversed the original count. That sounds small, but literally all three have been in margins this close.

Second, Colorado voters who voted by mail but their ballots were marked as invalid for some reason had the chance to correct those ballots, so new votes, which would be counted in the recount, could be coming his way.

Regardless, concessions don't hold any legal power. They're traditions. The only thing that matters is that the difference between them is within the range where a mandatory recount is triggered. He can say whatever he wants. If the vote flips in his favor after this, the concession goes on record as an act of grace in contrast to the screeching of election deniers. It's pure PR, and it won't influence the election deniers at all, but it might raise moderate eyebrows.

A cynical side of me says it's also a great way to maybe pause the slew of death threats that the past few elections have normalized.