[greenduck]

Regardless of what party you support, you've got to be impressed by the level of turnout this year. If we are judging by early voting alone, this is going to be a historic election.

I hope that media outlets are careful on election day given the amount of mail in ballots that will be cast. The vote may not be certified for weeks after election day and I hope the media understands the responsibility they have in not bowing into claims that it somehow says something about the legitimacy of the results.

[black3r]

considering 61M ballots were requested in the reporting states.. and there were 128M votes in the last election, this may look like almost half of the voters plan to vote by mail ballot.

[derekp7]

I plan on voting by remote ballot, but dropping it off at a ballot drop box.

[spacephysics]

Unfortunately, on both sides of the media aisle, that is a far-fetched fantasy.

I too would hope, but in reality, the delay will only add to the turmoil. Regardless who leads on Election Day (or night, when the physical polls are counted), we’ll see civil strife.

Hunker down, avoid certain cities with a propensity for non-peaceful civil unrest, and wait.

[ed25519FUUU]

Why should it take weeks to certify the election? Isn’t a drawn out election a serious issue?

I don’t see why it should have to take longer than a few days to count ballots.

[greenduck]

> I don’t see why it should have to take longer than a few days to count ballots.

To snap back with an equally uniformed answer, I don't see why anyone could think something as complicated as certifying the vote of a country the size of the USA could only take a few days!

But, in seriousness, this is how the system has always worked and just saying that you, an outsider, doesn't understand it and wants to make demands on the timescale doesn't invalidate it. There's like a bazillion moving parts behind the scenes and stuff like waiting on mail in ballots takes time. That's the cost of having an election with integrity. Read more on it here [1].

[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/6/18066350/midterm-elections-201...

[pc86]

Because you don't certify the vote of the USA. You certify votes in precincts that get a couple hundred, maybe a couple thousand votes. Then you aggregate up and up to each state and start assigning electoral votes. I was a poll watcher for many years, for both the state party and individual candidates. Our polls closed at 8PM local and by 8:10 we had certified counts sent to the county office, unofficial results taped to the door and we were headed home.

There is honestly very little reason to have election counting take days unless there are irregularities and the vote tally is very close.

[specialist]

Poll sites, yes. Though adding provisional ballots, which are adjudicated later, did create a spike in problems.

Central count for postal ballots, however, absolutely will take days. Please see my other comment.

Many jurisdictions have automatic recounts at certain thresholds. Another delay.

And IIRC there's 3m overseas voters. Those ballots trickle in.

Also IIRC, most jurisdictions certify their elections 3 weeks after the election day.

Given all that:

Most candidates will concede prior to certification when defeat is obvious.

And corporate media will do whatever to boost ratings.

And everyone will whine about bias, coverage, not getting enough ice cream.

[specialist]

Please contact your local election administrator and observe the central count. It's open and public and absolutely needs to more independent eyeballs.

For a start, postal ballot processing is way more complicated. Your jurisdiction should have an explainer online for local rules and procedures. Something like this: https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/education-and-out...

Just from memory, quickly, but YMMV:

  receive ballots in bins (1-400 per)
  sort ballots by precinct (hopefully)
  verify signatures (huge task)
  open outer envelope
  remove ballots
  archive outer envelopes
  scan ballots
  archive ballots

Each and every step has numerous error conditions which must be handled. Adds a lot of overhead.

Plus training of legions of workers. Plus care and feeding of the gear (it breaks). Plus normal workplace safety and security.

Ad nauseam.

Again, please tour your jurisdiction's central count, and bonus points for observing during the actual election. Legendary points for attending the election canvasing board meetings, which adjudicate all the problems that arise and eventually certify the results.

Happy hunting.

[me_me_me]

I would like to hire you/your company to do vote counting. How fast can you count the votes?

And no mistakes are allowed or there will be serious repercussions, and you have to prepare to be inspected by 3rd parties that ensure count is legal and correct.

[blacksqr]

It's not the counting that takes a long time necessarily, but adjudicating the legal challenges in close elections over what ballots are valid.

Also, there are the inevitable delays caused by malfunctions in poorly designed and maintained equipment being handled by non-technical officials not competent to deal with them.

[tephra]

Not to say anything about your point about drawing out an election is perhaps not optimal. But this is standard for the U.S is it not?

States have until before December 14th to certify and choose electors. Then congress will make the final certification and make the result official in January.

[HhE3334R7hf1lLF]

Having recently moved from a northern blue state to a southern red state, I have one foot in a very liberal social circle up north, and another in a very conservative social circle in the south. My friends in the north have already made up their minds that they won't accept a Trump-Pence victory. My friends in the south have likewise made up their minds that they won't accept a Biden-Harris victory. The two sides talk and think very similarly to each other, and they're making similar plans.

This will definitely be a popcorn.gif kind of election.

[zepto]

I am guessing that this is downvoted because it makes both sides look equally bad, and ‘bothsidesism’ is often considered problematic.

Can anyone comment on whether my guess is accurate?

[greenduck]

Didn't downvote, but outside of the internet this just doesn't correspond to my reality. Combine that with the perception of pushing a "both sides are bad" narrative makes it seem like a partisan statement used to justify any hatred towards the other side of the aisle.

[zepto]

Thanks - helps to confirm my guess.

[greenduck]

Maybe you're in a bubble? I work at one of the "liberal elite universities" if you believe the media rhetoric and nobody around me is just straight up ready to deny the election if their favorite team doesn't win.

Everybody I have contact with understands that it's a close race and isn't sure who is going to win. They understand that it is possible for Trump to win and not even that unlikely.

[HhE3334R7hf1lLF]

You:

> Maybe you're in a bubble?

Also you: > I work at one of the "liberal elite universities"

Well, there you go. There's your bubble.

[zepto]

We’re all in some kind of bubble. One way of mitigating that is to assume it to be true, and then take other people’s reports as if they are samples from other bubbles. You can then use these samples to expand your own view.

I have a friend who has one foot in very liberal circles and one in very conservative circles. In his experience people on both sides are going to accept the election result if their side loses.

I have another friend who works at an elite liberal university. The people around them understand it’s close race, and that Trump might actually win.

I personally know a democratic media strategist who disbelieves the polls and is expecting Trump to win.

People close to me who are centrist independents are going to vote for Biden, because they are worried about Trump undermining institutions and think the US needs allies, but are worried that the Democrats domestic policies might be so harmful that this. Ugh this end up being a mistake.