On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 22:00:40 +0000, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, at 06:48:40, Peter T. Daniels posted:
>>On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 9:44:24 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 11:01:08 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>>> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> >>> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 12:17:19 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>>> >>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> >>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 10:33:48 AM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>> >>>>>> I had googled for "election returns" that had been mentioned as being
>>> >>>>>> used in the US, and it's basically a synonym for "official result".
>>> >>>>>> e.g. <https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/election-returns>
>>> >>>>> Not really, because the official results don't come in until
>>> >>>>>weeks later,
>>> >>>>> after every ballot has been counted, and sometimes recounted, and
>>> >>>>> certified.
>>> >>>> Then I guess it's what's called "preliminary official result" in
>>> >>>> Germany.
>>> >>> But they're not official, they're gathered by the press from whatever
>>> >>> sources they may have. In old movies you sometimes see crowds
>>> >>> gathered around a newspaper building to see the increasing tallies.
>>> >> Then it's not what the above source said it is:
>>> >>| election returns means all certificates of the precinct board,
>>> >>| including the certificate showing the total number of votes cast for
>>> >>| each candidate, if any, and for or against each question, if any, and
>>> >>| shall include statements of canvass, signature rosters, registered
>>> >>| voter lists, machine-printed returns, paper ballots used in lieu of
>>> >>| voting machines, absentee ballots, absentee ballot registers and
>>> >>| absentee voter lists or absent voter machine-printed returns;
>>> > Sorry, but the word 'result(s)" occurs nowhere in that paragraph.
>>> > Do I have to say to you, as I do to bebe..., English ain't German?
>>>
>>> If you don't recognize "total number of votes cast for each candidate"
>>> etc. as describing election "results", you may need some classes, either
>>> in English or in civics.
>>
>>If you don't recognize that there is a difference between "returns" and
>>"results," then you need a better bilingual dictionary.
>>
>>The RESULTS are not known for sure until some time (maybe a day,
>>if it wasn't close; maybe almost months if it was, as in Bush v. Gore
>>in 2000.
>>
>>Right now, it's pretty sure that Warnock has prevailed over Walker,
>>by 51% to 49%, but there may well be mail-in ballots from outlying
>>areas that haven't been fully counted yet, etc. Only after all the votes
>>are fully certified do we actually have the official results.
>
>It's a curiosity that you don't count mail-in votes until after the
>election, whereas we count them on election day. In our system, a
>recount can be requested and begun immediately, while in yours it seems
>likely that a recount request would have to wait a very long time.

There is no "you don't" or "you do" in the US when it comes to
elections.

In all states, the protocol is determined by the local system. In my
state - and in many others - it is determined by the county election
board. In Florida, there are 67 counties and each determines their
own protocols.

Mail-in ballots are counted before the actual election day when
received early, on the election day, and in the days after the
election. Some continue to arrive after the election day, but are
valid if they are postmarked by the date the election board decrees as
the cut-off. Military votes can arrive many days after the actual
election.

In some districts, there isn't enough personnel available to count all
maill-in votes immediately. In some districts, there are requirements
that slow down the counting. For example, the envelope containing the
mail-in ballot has to be signed in a specific way and the first step
is just validating if the contents will be accepted.

There was a run-off election in my city yesterday. A winner was
declared that day. There may have been yet-to-be-received mail-in
ballots, or uncounted mail-in ballots, but the winner had enough
counted in-person and mail-in votes that it was statistically
impossible for the other person to win.

Incidently, I voted for the other person. In-person.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 08/12/22 09:00, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, at 06:48:40, Peter T. Daniels posted:

>> Right now, it's pretty sure that Warnock has prevailed over Walker,
>> by 51% to 49%, but there may well be mail-in ballots from outlying
>> areas that haven't been fully counted yet, etc. Only after all the
>> votes are fully certified do we actually have the official
>> results.
>
> It's a curiosity that you don't count mail-in votes until after the
> election, whereas we count them on election day. In our system, a
> recount can be requested and begun immediately, while in yours it
> seems likely that a recount request would have to wait a very long
> time.

Australia also has that rule, and I don't understand why. The best
answer I have found in a web search is the Electoral Commissioner (the
head of the public service organisation that runs elections) saying
"Legislatively we have got to wait for that 13 day period". That's how
long the law allows for mail delays, but I don't entirely know the logic
behind the rule that the postal votes cannot be counted until then.

I can certainly understand a rule saying that votes must not be counted
until close of voting. If the counting started earlier, the early
results would probably leak, and that could influence later voters.

(We do allow counting to start in the eastern states, even though the
polling booths are still open in later time zones; but I think there's a
law that prevents the news media in the west from reporting the eastern
results until voting in the west has also closed.)

There is one possible reason for the delay. Unless one candidate gets
over 50% of the primary vote (which is unusual), an essential part of
vote-counting is the distribution of preferences, and that can't happen
until all first-preference votes have been counted. (Second preferences
are distributed by eliminating the candidate with fewest votes, and a
fewest-vote decision can be easily changed by a small number of
last-minute votes.) Still, there should be no barrier to doing the
counting up to the point where a wait has been determined to be essential.)

Of course, "probable winner" announcements are made by the analysts long
before that, but in very close races that call can't be made until well
after election day.

The issue is complicated by the growing popularity of pre-poll and
postal voting. By now something like a third of the electorate has
already voted before election day - covid had a lot to do with that -
and some predictions say that that will grow to 50%.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 08/12/22 11:45, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> There is one possible reason for the delay. Unless one candidate
> gets over 50% of the primary vote (which is unusual), an essential
> part of vote-counting is the distribution of preferences, and that
> can't happen until all first-preference votes have been counted.
> (Second preferences are distributed by eliminating the candidate with
> fewest votes, and a fewest-vote decision can be easily changed by a
> small number of last-minute votes.) Still, there should be no barrier
> to doing the counting up to the point where a wait has been
> determined to be essential.)

With the right software, you can even project multiple "what if?"
scenarios, with branches of the prediction tree eliminated as more votes
come in. But that would require all votes to be entered into a computer,
which would probably be slower than manual counting. And probably more
error-prone.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 5:03:49 PM UTC-5, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, at 06:48:40, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> >On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 9:44:24 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >> > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 11:01:08 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> >> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >> >>> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 12:17:19 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> >> >>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >> >>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 10:33:48 AM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:

> >> >>>>>> I had googled for "election returns" that had been mentioned as being
> >> >>>>>> used in the US, and it's basically a synonym for "official result".
> >> >>>>>> e.g. <https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/election-returns>
> >> >>>>> Not really, because the official results don't come in until
> >> >>>>>weeks later,
> >> >>>>> after every ballot has been counted, and sometimes recounted, and
> >> >>>>> certified.
> >> >>>> Then I guess it's what's called "preliminary official result" in
> >> >>>> Germany.
> >> >>> But they're not official, they're gathered by the press from whatever
> >> >>> sources they may have. In old movies you sometimes see crowds
> >> >>> gathered around a newspaper building to see the increasing tallies.
> >> >> Then it's not what the above source said it is:
> >> >>| election returns means all certificates of the precinct board,
> >> >>| including the certificate showing the total number of votes cast for
> >> >>| each candidate, if any, and for or against each question, if any, and
> >> >>| shall include statements of canvass, signature rosters, registered
> >> >>| voter lists, machine-printed returns, paper ballots used in lieu of
> >> >>| voting machines, absentee ballots, absentee ballot registers and
> >> >>| absentee voter lists or absent voter machine-printed returns;
> >> > Sorry, but the word 'result(s)" occurs nowhere in that paragraph.
> >> > Do I have to say to you, as I do to bebe..., English ain't German?
> >> If you don't recognize "total number of votes cast for each candidate"
> >> etc. as describing election "results", you may need some classes, either
> >> in English or in civics.
> >If you don't recognize that there is a difference between "returns" and
> >"results," then you need a better bilingual dictionary.
> >The RESULTS are not known for sure until some time (maybe a day,
> >if it wasn't close; maybe almost months if it was, as in Bush v. Gore
> >in 2000.
> >Right now, it's pretty sure that Warnock has prevailed over Walker,
> >by 51% to 49%, but there may well be mail-in ballots from outlying
> >areas that haven't been fully counted yet, etc. Only after all the votes
> >are fully certified do we actually have the official results.
>
> It's a curiosity that you don't count mail-in votes until after the
> election, whereas we count them on election day. In our system, a

That depends entirely on the state. In some states, everything but
the tallying is done ahead of time and the counting begins when the
polls open. In others, they can't even begin opening the envelopes
until the polls have closed.

> recount can be requested and begun immediately, while in yours it seems
> likely that a recount request would have to wait a very long time.

Some states have an automatic recount if the margin is under, say,
0.5%; in some states anyone who requests a recount has to pay
for the cost (takes a lot of employees to do it); etc.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:45:11 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Australia also has that rule, and I don't understand why. The best
> answer I have found in a web search is the Electoral Commissioner (the
> head of the public service organisation that runs elections) saying
> "Legislatively we have got to wait for that 13 day period". That's how
> long the law allows for mail delays, but I don't entirely know the logic
> behind the rule that the postal votes cannot be counted until then.

Early numbers might leak out (especially back when it was all done
by hand) and influence wavering voters to go to the polls and change
the projected results.

It's the same reason that exit polls are no longer cited -- since 2000-.
(Bush v. Gore) -- befrore the polls close.

On 09/12/22 00:00, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:45:11 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
> wrote:
>
>> Australia also has that rule, and I don't understand why. The best
>> answer I have found in a web search is the Electoral Commissioner
>> (the head of the public service organisation that runs elections)
>> saying "Legislatively we have got to wait for that 13 day period".
>> That's how long the law allows for mail delays, but I don't
>> entirely know the logic behind the rule that the postal votes
>> cannot be counted until then.
>
> Early numbers might leak out (especially back when it was all done by
> hand) and influence wavering voters to go to the polls and change the
> projected results.
>
> It's the same reason that exit polls are no longer cited -- since
> 2000-. (Bush v. Gore) -- befrore the polls close.

Yes, but I was referring to the time period (13 days after the election)
after voting has closed, and when it's too late to apply for a postal
vote. The only people who can be influenced are those who have applied
for a postal vote and then procrastinated, gambling that their vote will
still arrive on time. Those people have already heard about the results
on polling day, and probably even know who will form the new government.

Most postal voters mail their vote /before/ polling day. That 13-day
margin is only to cover extreme cases, like people who live 500 km away
from the nearest post office and only drive into town once a month.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 7:39:40 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 09/12/22 00:00, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:45:11 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
> > wrote:

> >> Australia also has that rule, and I don't understand why. The best
> >> answer I have found in a web search is the Electoral Commissioner
> >> (the head of the public service organisation that runs elections)
> >> saying "Legislatively we have got to wait for that 13 day period".
> >> That's how long the law allows for mail delays, but I don't
> >> entirely know the logic behind the rule that the postal votes
> >> cannot be counted until then.
> > Early numbers might leak out (especially back when it was all done by
> > hand) and influence wavering voters to go to the polls and change the
> > projected results.
> > It's the same reason that exit polls are no longer cited -- since
> > 2000-. (Bush v. Gore) -- befrore the polls close.
>
> Yes, but I was referring to the time period (13 days after the election)
> after voting has closed, and when it's too late to apply for a postal
> vote. The only people who can be influenced are those who have applied
> for a postal vote and then procrastinated, gambling that their vote will
> still arrive on time. Those people have already heard about the results
> on polling day, and probably even know who will form the new government.

Postal votes here have to be _postmarked_ before midnight on Election
Day. Since in the olden days (when the rules were drawn up) most
mailed votes came from servicepeople overseas, they had to allow
time for them to be delivered -- your folk get two weeks.

Nowadays T**** made the Postal Service unreliable, and most states
allow a week for the stragglers to reach the county's Board of Elections.

These ballots, too, have to go through the verification process --
meaning checking the signatures against those in the record,
for instance. In the states that try to restrict voting, the process
may involve more steps.

> Most postal voters mail their vote /before/ polling day. That 13-day
> margin is only to cover extreme cases, like people who live 500 km away
> from the nearest post office and only drive into town once a month.

That sounds like an Australian problem ...