Different tack. There’s a website showing Californian unprocessed ballots totals by County. As of right now it’s showing 46k ballots to be counted and nearly 100k awaiting cure.
The deadline for county reports for the Presidential count is two days away and for other counts 5 days away. Progress has been funereal for the last week.
Some of the Counties have a massive amount of work to do in these final few days. Is this typical?
Yes, since we've moved to mailing every voter a mail-in ballot and accepting ballots up to a week later providing they're dated by Election Day. So the counting people didn't even get all the ballots till November 12. Mail-in ballots are a huge pain to process, and the vast majority of us vote by mail now. Also, state law requires that county voting officials notify people if the signature on their mail-in ballot doesn't match the signature on file and gives them until December 1 to turn in a signed form that "cures" their ballot.
Thanks Ruth. California District 13 shows Gray with a lead of 231 but could still be flipped by cured ballots. There are something like 10,000 in the five Counties involved. And I appreciate they are time consuming to count. Given a deadline of 6 December for the Counties to report, that 1 December deadline for cured votes looks far too tight.
I appreciate the idealism behind the allowance of a cure. But the effect of the two cut off dates hardly seems fair on officials.
PS. I forgot that the deadline for the Presidential vote report is 3 December. Which suggests the officials may have to count the presidential votes first to meet that very tight deadline, then go through the ballots again to complete the count for other categories.
It also looks as though District 13 may have to cater for a recount for that important House seat, regardless of the initial result! Who’d be an election official!!?
This may be a stupid question, but why doesn't California hire (or second) more staff to do the counts in a shorter time? This must be one area that is actually amenable to the laws of inverse proportion.
Part of the answer must be in that December 1st deadline date for curing ballots. And as Ruth also observed, because of the rule for receiving postal ballots, the Counties don’t get all of them until 12 November.
It looks as though California is quite happy to take all the time it has to confirm results. I read a comment by one of the County (Lake) Administrators. “What’s the hurry”.
In financial cost terms, that’s probably OK.
Ruth will certainly know more than me whether there are political concerns in California about how long counts take. I guess we live in an impatient and suspicious age. MAGA supporters do use the long slow counts as fuel for their interminable accusations of “steal”. That’s going on right now about District 13, which is very very close.
Part of the answer must be in that December 1st deadline date for curing ballots. And as Ruth also observed, because of the rule for receiving postal ballots, the Counties don’t get all of them until 12 November.
It looks as though California is quite happy to take all the time it has to confirm results. I read a comment by one of the County (Lake) Administrators. “What’s the hurry”.
The "safe harbor" deadline is December 11 this year. That's the date by which states have to certify their election results. Presidential electors meet and cast their ballots on December 17. The new Congress takes office on January 2 and certifies the electoral vote on January 6. The presidential inauguration is on January 20. All of this gives a fair amount of leeway when it comes to counting ballots.
It’s probably the same elsewhere, but the California Counties are given earlier deadlines for their return to the State authority. Presumably there are some State verification processes to be done before State certification. I think it’s the Counties’ deadlines which look tight in California, given the amount of work still to be done.
All of this gives a fair amount of leeway when it comes to counting ballots.
There are other elections involving bodies operating on a different schedule. California State Assembly District 58 has not yet been called, but the leader in the election was sworn in with the rest of the new California legislature on Monday. Leticia Castillo (R) is currently 588 votes ahead of Clarissa Cervantes (D); her win, if it holds, is an upset victory. Democrats will hold a supermajority in Sacramento either way, but it matters if Republicans can elect a Latina to the legislature in California.
This may be a stupid question, but why doesn't California hire (or second) more staff to do the counts in a shorter time? This must be one area that is actually amenable to the laws of inverse proportion.
Not a stupid question IMO. First, this isn't paid for by the state. Counties conduct our elections and counties pay for them. They buy the tabulating machines (and store them and maintain them), they hire, train and pay the workers and they pay for the space workers and ballots occupy during the counting (Los Angeles County counts ballots in a building the size of a small warehouse). So one answer is money; county officials have other priorities for their finite funds.
Another reason is that this seems urgent to some people for a few weeks every two years, and then it fades from view. There are political concerns in some quarters; there are a few MAGA Republicans saying Derek Tran has stolen Michelle Steele's Congressional seat in a close race in Orange County, for instance. Similar noises were heard after the 2022 elections, but they subsided quickly enough that I couldn't tell you about them off the top of my head. A third reason is that it doesn't seem urgent to the people in charge; county election officials generally think the important things are voting access and accuracy in tabulating, and their position tends to be taht both widespread access and accuracy could be hindered by efforts to speed things up.
But things might get better. The Assemblymember who brought the bill making vote-by-mail permanent for everyone is talking to county election officials in preparation for bringing legislation that would speed up the counting, possibly by allocating state funds for it. Getting more people to take their ballots to voting centers in the election period would help a lot; at voting centers your ballot goes straight into the machine.
I read that Adam Gray has won the final House seat (California District 13) by 187 votes and John Duarte has conceded. Therefore no recount. The smallest vote margin in the House.
Just the certification to go now. Trump is on about 77.3m votes. Harris may just creep over 75m votes. Difference in the popular vote will be about 2.3 million votes or 1.5%. And Trump will get less than 50% of the popular vote. The gaos closed slightly with the late-counted votes.
Presidential (and vice presidential) electors are typically party loyalists who hold no elected or appointed federal office. They're also typically selected for their lack of imagination, so breaking with their state's (or district's) election results as a "faithless elector" is a fairly rare event. The 2016 election was a high water mark for faithless electors. There were six and a half that year. (One Republican elector from Texas voted for Ron Paul for president but faithfully voted for Mike Pence for vice president, which I calculate as half a faithless elector.)
Presidential (and vice presidential) electors are typically party loyalists who hold no elected or appointed federal office.
In some states, prohibitions against dual-office holding (holding more than one elected or appointed office) ensures they won’t currently hold elected or appointed office.
They're also typically selected for their lack of imagination, so breaking with their state's (or district's) election results as a "faithless elector" is a fairly rare event.
The laws in some states make it even more rare. In my state, voting for anyone other than the candidate to whom they are committed as a result of the state’s election results constitutes resignation from office. The vote is not counted, and the faithless elector is replaced by an alternate.
While the legal justification for electors is that they are supposed to be there to exercise their judgement and override the vote if they think the vote was misinformed, in practice if they did that they really would be stealing the election. Sadly.
While the legal justification for electors is that they are supposed to be there to exercise their judgement and override the vote if they think the vote was misinformed, in practice if they did that they really would be stealing the election. Sadly.
In a remarkable moment of clarity, Chris Cillizza is now admitting that as a CNN reporter he should have asked more questions about Biden's rather obvious decline.
In a remarkable moment of clarity, Chris Cillizza is now admitting that as a CNN reporter he should have asked more questions about Biden's rather obvious decline.
Wow, the guy who wrote an article titled "Why I've written 50 posts on Hillary Clinton's emails" and did a "comedy" sketch with Dana Milbank about why Hillary Clinton should drink "Mad Bitch" beer (the supposedly funny bit is that it's hilarious to call Hillary Clinton a bitch) is now saying he should have done more to attack and undermine a Democratic presidential candidate? Stop the presses for this scoop!
In a remarkable moment of clarity, Chris Cillizza is now admitting that as a CNN reporter he should have asked more questions about Biden's rather obvious decline.
And yet he still isn't asking more questions about Trump's rather obvious decline. But that's okay. President-Elect Musk will take care of it all.
Someone pointed out an interesting problem that may face Donald Trump's electoral certification. The Republicans will have a very narrow majority in the House of Representatives and demonstrated in January and October of 2023 that they seem to have trouble electing a Speaker. They also clearly demonstrated that under House rules the House can conduct no business without a Speaker except electing a Speaker. Elections for Speaker are scheduled for January 3, 2025. Certification of the electoral vote by a joint session of the House and Senate is scheduled for January 6, 2025. It's possible that certification may be delayed if House Republicans can't agree on a Speaker.
Someone pointed out an interesting problem that may face Donald Trump's electoral certification. The Republicans will have a very narrow majority in the House of Representatives and demonstrated in January and October of 2023 that they seem to have trouble electing a Speaker. They also clearly demonstrated that under House rules the House can conduct no business without a Speaker except electing a Speaker. Elections for Speaker are scheduled for January 3, 2025. Certification of the electoral vote by a joint session of the House and Senate is scheduled for January 6, 2025. It's possible that certification may be delayed if House Republicans can't agree on a Speaker.
The Democrats have said they will not prop up Speaker Johnson either, and I think there will be one open seat (Gaetz is not coming back even though he was re-elected).
The Democrats have said they will not prop up Speaker Johnson either, and I think there will be one open seat (Gaetz is not coming back even though he was re-elected).
Trump has also picked a couple of House Republicans for positions in his administration. They’re not likely to resign before Trump’s inauguration, but going forward from January 20 it will cut down the Republican House majority, at least temporarily.
Comments
The deadline for county reports for the Presidential count is two days away and for other counts 5 days away. Progress has been funereal for the last week.
Some of the Counties have a massive amount of work to do in these final few days. Is this typical?
I appreciate the idealism behind the allowance of a cure. But the effect of the two cut off dates hardly seems fair on officials.
It also looks as though District 13 may have to cater for a recount for that important House seat, regardless of the initial result! Who’d be an election official!!?
It looks as though California is quite happy to take all the time it has to confirm results. I read a comment by one of the County (Lake) Administrators. “What’s the hurry”.
In financial cost terms, that’s probably OK.
Ruth will certainly know more than me whether there are political concerns in California about how long counts take. I guess we live in an impatient and suspicious age. MAGA supporters do use the long slow counts as fuel for their interminable accusations of “steal”. That’s going on right now about District 13, which is very very close.
The "safe harbor" deadline is December 11 this year. That's the date by which states have to certify their election results. Presidential electors meet and cast their ballots on December 17. The new Congress takes office on January 2 and certifies the electoral vote on January 6. The presidential inauguration is on January 20. All of this gives a fair amount of leeway when it comes to counting ballots.
Not a stupid question IMO. First, this isn't paid for by the state. Counties conduct our elections and counties pay for them. They buy the tabulating machines (and store them and maintain them), they hire, train and pay the workers and they pay for the space workers and ballots occupy during the counting (Los Angeles County counts ballots in a building the size of a small warehouse). So one answer is money; county officials have other priorities for their finite funds.
Another reason is that this seems urgent to some people for a few weeks every two years, and then it fades from view. There are political concerns in some quarters; there are a few MAGA Republicans saying Derek Tran has stolen Michelle Steele's Congressional seat in a close race in Orange County, for instance. Similar noises were heard after the 2022 elections, but they subsided quickly enough that I couldn't tell you about them off the top of my head. A third reason is that it doesn't seem urgent to the people in charge; county election officials generally think the important things are voting access and accuracy in tabulating, and their position tends to be taht both widespread access and accuracy could be hindered by efforts to speed things up.
But things might get better. The Assemblymember who brought the bill making vote-by-mail permanent for everyone is talking to county election officials in preparation for bringing legislation that would speed up the counting, possibly by allocating state funds for it. Getting more people to take their ballots to voting centers in the election period would help a lot; at voting centers your ballot goes straight into the machine.
Here’s the link about Lake County which I referred to earlier. It’s very much in support of your line re the Counties’ views.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-11-22/lake-county-california-slowest-elections-department-in-the-world-2024-ballot-counting
The electors meet this coming Tuesday (Dec. 17) to cast their votes.
Is there the tiniest chance they'll look at the situation and any of them will cast the vote for Harris?
But no, I’ll be very surprised if the final vote is anything other than Trump 312–Harris 216.
The laws in some states make it even more rare. In my state, voting for anyone other than the candidate to whom they are committed as a result of the state’s election results constitutes resignation from office. The vote is not counted, and the faithless elector is replaced by an alternate.
It would be exciting, though.
Wow, the guy who wrote an article titled "Why I've written 50 posts on Hillary Clinton's emails" and did a "comedy" sketch with Dana Milbank about why Hillary Clinton should drink "Mad Bitch" beer (the supposedly funny bit is that it's hilarious to call Hillary Clinton a bitch) is now saying he should have done more to attack and undermine a Democratic presidential candidate? Stop the presses for this scoop!
Cillizza's got to Cillizza, I guess.
And yet he still isn't asking more questions about Trump's rather obvious decline. But that's okay. President-Elect Musk will take care of it all.
I wonder what the verdict of history will be?
We will get a taste in the next four years.
The Democrats have said they will not prop up Speaker Johnson either, and I think there will be one open seat (Gaetz is not coming back even though he was re-elected).
Trump has also picked a couple of House Republicans for positions in his administration. They’re not likely to resign before Trump’s inauguration, but going forward from January 20 it will cut down the Republican House majority, at least temporarily.
The year 2024 and the presidential election are both over, so it's time to close this thread.
You are of course welcome to open new ones on US politics.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host