Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law and Crime)   North Dakota decides transparency is for suckers and we don't need to see any vote totals before the Electoral College meets. Do they think we don't already know they're going to pick the Republican?   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, President of the United States, Washington, D.C., United States Senate, North Dakota, actual votes, United States presidential election, state's vote count, Alaska  
•       •       •

2978 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2021 at 1:53 PM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



118 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-02-27 9:34:57 AM  
They just want to be sure the totals are "accurate", like drumpf tried to do in Ga.
 
2021-02-27 9:48:45 AM  
It's not the votes that count...
 
2021-02-27 10:28:13 AM  
They really aren't thinking this through very well.
 
2021-02-27 10:29:59 AM  
If the National Popular Vote Compact does get enabled how ND assigns their electoral votes probably matter, and they don't have enough votes there to nove the national vote total at all. That's the joys of being a small non-battleground state I guess.

This law probably violates a raft of federal election law and will be tied up in court at great cost to the state for a long time. But evil stupid futile gestures are all the GOP has these days.
 
2021-02-27 11:13:12 AM  
You bury the lede subby.

The whole point is to prevent other states from bypassing the EC and creating a compact to award their EC votes to the winner of the popular election.

By only releasing the percentages and not vote totals, they prevent a direct calculation of the popular vote totals. They thereby imagine that they can  confound the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa​l​_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
 
2021-02-27 11:31:12 AM  

IgG4: If the National Popular Vote Compact does get enabled how ND assigns their electoral votes probably matter, and they don't have enough votes there to nove the national vote total at all. That's the joys of being a small non-battleground state I guess.

This law probably violates a raft of federal election law and will be tied up in court at great cost to the state for a long time. But evil stupid futile gestures are all the GOP has these days.


I don't think it violates many laws. They are authorized to run their elections as they see fit provided they don't commit certain acts of discrimination violating equal protection. It would be a big stretch to expand that meaning of equal protection beyond their own citizens. Some of the Trump lawsuits tried that angle, that the way people voted in Pennsylvania somehow interfered with the rights of Texas voters, and that was laughed out of court.

No. In this case the problem is that the NPVIC is an ad hoc attempt to work around the EC but it turns out that a small State like ND can readily confound that with a simple trick. Of course Congress could pass a law refusing Federal Highway funds to States that don't release vote totals by the Safe Harbor deadline but such a law would be challenged all the way to SCOTUS and probably be thrown out because of the interference with ND's right to run their own elections and a lack of clear and compelling connection between highway funding and elections.

Essentially, the NPVIC may just be to clever for its own good and easily confounded.

As to your other point, if you look at 2020 where Biden won by over 7 million votes, and ND cast fewer than half a million, you would still have a problem. You would know with an effective certitude that Biden won the popular vote but until you get the official vote totals from ND you'd have a problem. Sensible people can calculate some ranges from the published voting percentages and an approximation of the total number of voters, say 440,000 +/- 30,000, and so generate a solution. But you'll have to write some pretty fancy language into the NPVIC to describe the exact method to calculate a result, and a method to evaluate the result. In doing so, you'll find you've got something that looks like gibberish compared to "win the popular vote."  It won't fly.
 
2021-02-27 11:41:23 AM  

edmo: They really aren't thinking this through very well.


Seems like some is begging to get sued.
 
2021-02-27 11:43:03 AM  
To be fair, you can't have a kleptocracy if you don't steal a few elections first
 
2021-02-27 11:59:31 AM  
Trump 65.1% 235,595Biden 31.8% 114,9022020 Eligible voters: 581,379, 62.65% turnout.The total vote is precariously close to flipping the state.
 
2021-02-27 12:01:25 PM  

wademh: IgG4: If the National Popular Vote Compact does get enabled how ND assigns their electoral votes probably matter, and they don't have enough votes there to nove the national vote total at all. That's the joys of being a small non-battleground state I guess.

This law probably violates a raft of federal election law and will be tied up in court at great cost to the state for a long time. But evil stupid futile gestures are all the GOP has these days.

I don't think it violates many laws. They are authorized to run their elections as they see fit provided they don't commit certain acts of discrimination violating equal protection. It would be a big stretch to expand that meaning of equal protection beyond their own citizens. Some of the Trump lawsuits tried that angle, that the way people voted in Pennsylvania somehow interfered with the rights of Texas voters, and that was laughed out of court.

No. In this case the problem is that the NPVIC is an ad hoc attempt to work around the EC but it turns out that a small State like ND can readily confound that with a simple trick. Of course Congress could pass a law refusing Federal Highway funds to States that don't release vote totals by the Safe Harbor deadline but such a law would be challenged all the way to SCOTUS and probably be thrown out because of the interference with ND's right to run their own elections and a lack of clear and compelling connection between highway funding and elections.

Essentially, the NPVIC may just be to clever for its own good and easily confounded.

As to your other point, if you look at 2020 where Biden won by over 7 million votes, and ND cast fewer than half a million, you would still have a problem. You would know with an effective certitude that Biden won the popular vote but until you get the official vote totals from ND you'd have a problem. Sensible people can calculate some ranges from the published voting percentages and an approximation of the total number of voters, say 440,000 ...


A simpler approach would be to just go with the winner of the known popular vote, excluding states that don't report vote totals. That way ND would effectively be disenfranchising their own voters.
 
2021-02-27 12:02:15 PM  
/Try posting that again
Trump 65.1% 235,595.
Biden 31.8% 114,902.
2020 Eligible voters: 581,379, 62.65% turnout.
The total vote is precariously close to flipping the state.
 
2021-02-27 12:31:02 PM  
Uhhhhh what? How is that remotely legal?
 
2021-02-27 1:41:33 PM  

Walker: Uhhhhh what? How is that remotely legal?


The law is for Democrats, poor people, and non-whites in states like North Dakota.
 
2021-02-27 1:56:12 PM  

Walker: Uhhhhh what? How is that remotely legal?


There is no individual right to vote for president in the United States. Bush v Gore out front should have told ya.
 
2021-02-27 1:57:14 PM  
Considering they havent voted blue since 1964 we are all going to be on pins and needles to guess where your shiathole state sends it's electoral votes.

If 9/11 had happened in North Dakota no one would have even noticed it through today.
 
2021-02-27 2:01:06 PM  

revrendjim: wademh: IgG4: If the National Popular Vote Compact does get enabled how ND assigns their electoral votes probably matter, and they don't have enough votes there to nove the national vote total at all. That's the joys of being a small non-battleground state I guess.

This law probably violates a raft of federal election law and will be tied up in court at great cost to the state for a long time. But evil stupid futile gestures are all the GOP has these days.

I don't think it violates many laws. They are authorized to run their elections as they see fit provided they don't commit certain acts of discrimination violating equal protection. It would be a big stretch to expand that meaning of equal protection beyond their own citizens. Some of the Trump lawsuits tried that angle, that the way people voted in Pennsylvania somehow interfered with the rights of Texas voters, and that was laughed out of court.

No. In this case the problem is that the NPVIC is an ad hoc attempt to work around the EC but it turns out that a small State like ND can readily confound that with a simple trick. Of course Congress could pass a law refusing Federal Highway funds to States that don't release vote totals by the Safe Harbor deadline but such a law would be challenged all the way to SCOTUS and probably be thrown out because of the interference with ND's right to run their own elections and a lack of clear and compelling connection between highway funding and elections.

Essentially, the NPVIC may just be to clever for its own good and easily confounded.

As to your other point, if you look at 2020 where Biden won by over 7 million votes, and ND cast fewer than half a million, you would still have a problem. You would know with an effective certitude that Biden won the popular vote but until you get the official vote totals from ND you'd have a problem. Sensible people can calculate some ranges from the published voting percentages and an approximation of the total number of voters, say 440,000 ...

A simpler approach would be to just go with the winner of the known popular vote, excluding states that don't report vote totals. That way ND would effectively be disenfranchising their own voters.


Expect them to then criticize the NPVIC because it doesn't represent North Dakotans.

Their supporters will believe it was a Democratic plot to steal the elections from the will of the people.
 
2021-02-27 2:01:12 PM  

lilplatinum: Considering they havent voted blue since 1964 we are all going to be on pins and needles to guess where your shiathole state sends it's electoral votes.

If 9/11 had happened in North Dakota no one would have even noticed it through today.


It's one of the places I've been that I find I never want to go back to. It's very bleak...
 
2021-02-27 2:02:00 PM  

lilplatinum: If 9/11 had happened in North Dakota no one would have even noticed it through today.


Near half that dead to covid in the state so far.

People noticed. They just don't care.
 
2021-02-27 2:02:05 PM  
The three democrats who voted for this need to be cast out of the party today.
 
2021-02-27 2:02:39 PM  
These dipshiats will screw all the other contests on the ballot.  As soon as it impacts a critical Senate race so their chosen fascist can go to DC to vote for the Presidential certification, they'll change their mind.
 
2021-02-27 2:03:37 PM  
Every day they get more fascist. I know it's not likely to happen, but in theory it'd only take an influx of about 250k Dems to flip that state. ...But now, if it ever flipped, who would even know? Without transparency, how can the result be trusted?
 
2021-02-27 2:04:59 PM  
Can they legally do that? It sounds like something that should be overruled in a court.
 
2021-02-27 2:05:23 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Unless you're from a different state and you got stuck living in North Dakota. Being surrounded by North Dakotans is truly hellish.
 
2021-02-27 2:05:29 PM  
The fascist party is casting off the pretense of being legitimate participants in democracy at an accelerating rate...
 
2021-02-27 2:05:30 PM  

IgG4: This law probably violates a raft of federal election law and will be tied up in court at great cost to the state for a long time


You just listed the requirements for something to be made law in ND.
 
2021-02-27 2:06:42 PM  
Ah Republicans, always looking for ways to increase transparency and make voting easier.
 
2021-02-27 2:08:23 PM  
Explain to me again why we have two Dakotas?
 
2021-02-27 2:08:45 PM  

erik-k: The fascist party is casting off the pretense of being legitimate participants in democracy at an accelerating rate...


Well yeah, the bath they took in November, even with all the obstructing the vote they did, was an eye opener for them. They now know they have to triple down on limiting access to voting in order to keep their minority in office.
 
2021-02-27 2:11:57 PM  

wademh: You bury the lede subby.

The whole point is to prevent other states from bypassing the EC and creating a compact to award their EC votes to the winner of the popular election.

By only releasing the percentages and not vote totals, they prevent a direct calculation of the popular vote totals. They thereby imagine that they can  confound the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National​_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact


North Dakota's population totals out at 20 people who's family tree has no branches.

I don't think their efforts are going to matter much.
 
2021-02-27 2:13:20 PM  

revrendjim: wademh: IgG4: If the National Popular Vote Compact does get enabled how ND assigns their electoral votes probably matter, and they don't have enough votes there to nove the national vote total at all. That's the joys of being a small non-battleground state I guess.

This law probably violates a raft of federal election law and will be tied up in court at great cost to the state for a long time. But evil stupid futile gestures are all the GOP has these days.

I don't think it violates many laws. They are authorized to run their elections as they see fit provided they don't commit certain acts of discrimination violating equal protection. It would be a big stretch to expand that meaning of equal protection beyond their own citizens. Some of the Trump lawsuits tried that angle, that the way people voted in Pennsylvania somehow interfered with the rights of Texas voters, and that was laughed out of court.

No. In this case the problem is that the NPVIC is an ad hoc attempt to work around the EC but it turns out that a small State like ND can readily confound that with a simple trick. Of course Congress could pass a law refusing Federal Highway funds to States that don't release vote totals by the Safe Harbor deadline but such a law would be challenged all the way to SCOTUS and probably be thrown out because of the interference with ND's right to run their own elections and a lack of clear and compelling connection between highway funding and elections.

Essentially, the NPVIC may just be to clever for its own good and easily confounded.

As to your other point, if you look at 2020 where Biden won by over 7 million votes, and ND cast fewer than half a million, you would still have a problem. You would know with an effective certitude that Biden won the popular vote but until you get the official vote totals from ND you'd have a problem. Sensible people can calculate some ranges from the published voting percentages and an approximation of the total number of voters, say 440,000 ...

A simpler approach would be to just go with the winner of the known popular vote, excluding states that don't report vote totals. That way ND would effectively be disenfranchising their own voters.


"The known popular vote" as reported by who?
 
2021-02-27 2:13:44 PM  
Vote totals shouldnt be announced until every poll location is closed and all the votes counted.
 
2021-02-27 2:14:12 PM  
What the hell happened to the Dakotas. Didn't they give us George McGovern and Tom Daschle. Now they've gone the way of Kansas. You can throw Missouri and Iowa in there now. What the hell happened to these places, other than a few filthy rich asshole like the Uhlines and I suppose others. And the Born Agins
 
2021-02-27 2:14:51 PM  

Walker: Uhhhhh what? How is that remotely legal?


You have it backwards. How is it illegal? What, specifically, requires a State to publish vote totals before it certifies its EC results? Do note that they will be publishing the percentages and thus permit recounts for close elections. I'm not saying it's not a dirty trick, but there's no legal principle that laws have to be full of honey and sweetness.
 
2021-02-27 2:16:10 PM  

qorkfiend: "The known popular vote" as reported by who?


By the states that do report their vote totals.

Koodz: The three democrats who voted for this need to be cast out of the party today.


You could argue that this helps preserve North Dakota's oversized influence over elections so they're just putting their state over their party.
 
2021-02-27 2:16:33 PM  

revrendjim: A simpler approach would be to just go with the winner of the known popular vote, excluding states that don't report vote totals. That way ND would effectively be disenfranchising their own voters.


Depends how the current compact is written. If it says something about the total of the known vote (which they might do in general in case there are real irregularities, or might do in an effort to prevent exactly this sort of thing), it will sail right on. If not, then the compact will run into trouble.
 
2021-02-27 2:17:51 PM  

shpritz: qorkfiend: "The known popular vote" as reported by who?

By the states that do report their vote totals.

Koodz: The three democrats who voted for this need to be cast out of the party today.

You could argue that this helps preserve North Dakota's oversized influence over elections so they're just putting their state over their party.


Who aggregates them? What checks are in place to ensure another state isn't falsifying their totals?
 
2021-02-27 2:19:00 PM  

wademh: You bury the lede subby.

The whole point is to prevent other states from bypassing the EC and creating a compact to award their EC votes to the winner of the popular election.

By only releasing the percentages and not vote totals, they prevent a direct calculation of the popular vote totals. They thereby imagine that they can  confound the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National​_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact


This is why, no matter how much Farkers don't want to hear it, the only way to fix the Electoral College mess is for the excess populations of liberals concentrated in blue states need to move to red states and turn them blue. The Compact will never work.
 
2021-02-27 2:19:54 PM  
Where do Democrats get off thinking in a democracy the candidate with the most votes should win?
 
2021-02-27 2:20:33 PM  
This is the most unamerica  shiat i have seen.
 
2021-02-27 2:20:38 PM  

FlippityFlap: lilplatinum: Considering they havent voted blue since 1964 we are all going to be on pins and needles to guess where your shiathole state sends it's electoral votes.

If 9/11 had happened in North Dakota no one would have even noticed it through today.

It's one of the places I've been that I find I never want to go back to. It's very bleak...


Well statistically they are likely mostly Trump supporters so, a good start.
 
2021-02-27 2:21:04 PM  

wademh: You bury the lede subby.

The whole point is to prevent other states from bypassing the EC and creating a compact to award their EC votes to the winner of the popular election.

By only releasing the percentages and not vote totals, they prevent a direct calculation of the popular vote totals. They thereby imagine that they can  confound the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National​_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact


If one candidate is up by a few million votes and ND only has 500k voters total, then it doesn't matter.

If one candidate was up by fewer than a few million votes, then they would need to look much closer at each state's results anyway.
 
2021-02-27 2:23:05 PM  

RogermcAllen: wademh: You bury the lede subby.

The whole point is to prevent other states from bypassing the EC and creating a compact to award their EC votes to the winner of the popular election.

By only releasing the percentages and not vote totals, they prevent a direct calculation of the popular vote totals. They thereby imagine that they can  confound the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National​_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

If one candidate is up by a few million votes and ND only has 500k voters total, then it doesn't matter.

If one candidate was up by fewer than a few million votes, then they would need to look much closer at each state's results anyway.


Who is "they"?
 
2021-02-27 2:23:49 PM  
Really stretching the definition of "republican government", aren't we now.
 
2021-02-27 2:24:40 PM  
qorkfiend:

What checks are in place to ensure another state isn't falsifying their totals?

Conservative handwringing to the contrary, vote fraud is both rare, and unimpactful.
 
2021-02-27 2:25:16 PM  

qorkfiend: shpritz: qorkfiend: "The known popular vote" as reported by who?

By the states that do report their vote totals.

Koodz: The three democrats who voted for this need to be cast out of the party today.

You could argue that this helps preserve North Dakota's oversized influence over elections so they're just putting their state over their party.

Who aggregates them?


Anyone with a calculator. It's simple addition, you know?

What checks are in place to ensure another state isn't falsifying their totals?

The same checks that are in place currently. How does the existence of a Popular Vote Compact affect this issue?
 
2021-02-27 2:25:21 PM  

Corn_Fed: wademh: You bury the lede subby.

The whole point is to prevent other states from bypassing the EC and creating a compact to award their EC votes to the winner of the popular election.

By only releasing the percentages and not vote totals, they prevent a direct calculation of the popular vote totals. They thereby imagine that they can  confound the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National​_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

This is why, no matter how much Farkers don't want to hear it, the only way to fix the Electoral College mess is for the excess populations of liberals concentrated in blue states need to move to red states and turn them blue. The Compact will never work.


If that's the only fix, our constitution is fundamentally broken.

/since we can't pass any amendments of consequence, the amendment process is broken too
//our idiotic overlapping sovereignty is the bane of functionality
///population distribution should make zero difference to a national vote. but it does. shiat's broken.
 
2021-02-27 2:27:02 PM  

wademh: No. In this case the problem is that the NPVIC is an ad hoc attempt to work around the EC but it turns out that a small State like ND can readily confound that with a simple trick. Of course Congress could pass a law refusing Federal Highway funds to States that don't release vote totals by the Safe Harbor deadline but such a law would be challenged all the way to SCOTUS and probably be thrown out because of the interference with ND's right to run their own elections and a lack of clear and compelling connection between highway funding and elections.


I always thought the NPVIC really should've been written so that once the EC threshold is reached, only votes in NPVIC compact states should be counted, specifically in order to force other states to join as well as preventing non-joined states from throwing a wrench into the works.
 
2021-02-27 2:28:33 PM  
States control their means for election.  Is there anything stopping a state from issuing several presidential selections on the ballot counting each legally as a vote?  You are federally restricted from multiple ballots but this might squeak by
 
2021-02-27 2:29:33 PM  

Murkanen: qorkfiend:

What checks are in place to ensure another state isn't falsifying their totals?

Conservative handwringing to the contrary, vote fraud is both rare, and unimpactful.


And almost always Republicans.
 
2021-02-27 2:29:38 PM  

Corn_Fed: excess populations of liberals concentrated in blue states need to move to red states and turn them blue.


Part of what's happened is that the creative, intelligent, and adventurous spawn of these places up and leave as soon as they reach 18. They either go far away to colleges on the costs, or at least in the big cities, and then they don't return to settle in their "Conservative" hometowns.

My daughter, who grew up in rural NH went along for the ride with a friend out to the Bay Area, then stayed with no plan. But ended up at Berkeley getting her Masters. She did come home and is teaching in a beleaguered. Most of her students are sp poverty stricken that they don't know, or even want to know about the"outside" world.

Then there are a few who, like my daughter have their eyes set on distant horizons. They'll leave and most won't look back.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.