martes, 8 de noviembre de 2016

MercatorNet: On the eve of the election | MercatorNet

On the eve of the election

On the eve of the election

Talk is bubbling up about potential legal challenges over results.
Sheila Liaugminas | Nov 7 2016 | comment 

However...
This sort of thing came to mind when I heard Donald Trump’s response to Fox News moderator Chris Wallace in the final debate with Hillary Clinton, when asked if he would accept the outcome of the election. Given what happened in both of George W. Bush’s elections (recalled in the article), and the many and assorted charges of ballot mishandling and reports of glitches in all the elections of modern times, this one in particular seems destined for extra scrutiny.
Yet Trump’s response about a ‘wait and see’ attitude became the one headline of a 90 minute debate about so much else. Media made it scandalous (in quite a season of scandal). The New York Times called it “a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy”. The Washington Post noted that Clinton called his response “horrifying” and added that he was “talking down our democracy”.
Now NRO has this simply factual piece suggesting that a close finish would likely trigger legal challenges, of the sort we’ve seen before.
We almost went into a Bush v. Gore–like election overtime in 2004 because of provisional ballots. Voters in every state must be given a provisional, or conditional, ballot if for any reason they are unable to cast a regular ballot (if, for instance their name is not on the voter rolls or they lack voter ID, or if an election official brings a challenge). The provisional ballot is then cross-checked with public records to see if it’s valid.
How times have changed even on these basic requirements. My sister in Ohio cast an early-voting ballot and was not asked for any identification. Which should astound those of us who have, rightly, gone to the polls and after being found on the roster of registered voters, been asked for some ID to prove who we are as the correct voter assigned that ballot.
However, John Fund states in the NRO piece,
This year, the election could be close enough in one or more states to bring one or both sides into court. “The risk of that happening is higher than it used to be — and higher than most of us realize,” Edward B. Foley, the director of an election law center at Ohio State, and Charles Stewart III wrote in the Washington Post today. They note that votes counted after Election Day can easily determine the outcome of a close election.
So why the shock and horror over Trump’s ‘wait and see’ response about the election outcome?
Especially since…
In addition to the issue of provisional ballots, our local election systems use a patchwork of inconsistent rules, operate often antiquated machines, and can turn a blind eye to voter fraud. There are also jurisdictions that harbor incompetent bureaucrats. During the infamous recounts of the 2004 governor’s race in Washington State, Seattle’s King County mysteriously managed to “find” uncounted ballots on 18 separate occasions. America’s voting system is “a bit like trying to measure bacteria with a yardstick,” and we often can’t figure out who really won ultra-close races, mathematician John Allen Paulos mournfully noted after assessing the 2000 presidential results in Florida.
So, Fund concludes,
It’s said that the fervent wish of every election official is “Lord, please don’t make the election super close.” But if several of Tuesday’s races are tight, we could enter a quagmire of recounts, lawsuits, and protests outside government offices. If you thought the election campaign was ugly, just wait in case there is a post-election legal contest.
All of which is why I don’t put stock (especially this year) in political pundits, pollsters and political analysts. They really don’t know what will happen on Tuesday, but have to fill time with commentary. It could be a landslide one way or the other. It could be very close and then followed by the drama of the above scenarios of legal challenges.
We have to stay calm and clear minded about this election. After the June Brexit referendum, my friend and radio show guest Austen Ivereigh shared how contentious and divisive that campaign had been, hot it even pitted neighbor against neighbor, husband against wife, families unable to talk with each other anymore.
And meanwhile, none of the polls and predictions really got it right.
Something similar has happened here in the U.S. during this long, trying election season. It will play out as it will, come Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, or whenever it comes to a conclusion. But in the remaining hours, we have the time to be level headed about what’s at stake, and what we’re about to do to determine America’s future, and how we define ourselves.
Sheila Liaugminas is an Emmy Award winning journalist with extensive experience in both secular and religious journalism. Based in Chicago, she is the host of “A Closer Look” on Relevant Radio.

MercatorNet
Tuesday is almost over in Sydney, but in the United States it has barely begun. Voters in the tiny New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch sent encouraging news to Hillary Clinton. Four of its eight voters backed her; two backed Donald Trump, one the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, and one Mitt Romney (a write-in). But there are many hours to go before the polls close in Hawaii. 
Two years ago, most of us thought that this would be an expensive but lacklustre contest between Mrs Clinton (who else?) and a conventional GOP stalwart. But voters ignored the professional politicians and chose the extraordinary figure of Trump. Why? Journalists, historians and sociologists will be asking that question for years to come. Has the United States really changed or was this bitter, spiteful, emotion-driven campaign an anomaly?
In a very insightful analysis, MercatorNet's deputy editor, Carolyn Moynihan says No. The election reflects the dynamics of the changing American family, she argues. How could one possibly think that shrinking the basic cell of society and trashing marriage would leave politics unaffected? 

Michael Cook 
Editor 
MERCATORNET

After the family, what?
By Carolyn Moynihan
Why we have a political crisis and how to solve it.
Read the full article
It’s almost all over!
By Marcus Roberts
This blog can't escape that election...
Read the full article
The hand on the button
By William Stearman
Why a conservative Republican is voting for Hillary Clinton
Read the full article
On the eve of the election
By Sheila Liaugminas
Talk is bubbling up about potential legal challenges over results.
Read the full article
Christian racism? Election years bring dangerous creatures from the shadows
By Denyse O'Leary
The alt-right is peddling some bizarre theories
Read the full article
The myth of the disappearing book
By Andrea Ballatore and Simone Natale
E-book sales are beginning to fall.
Read the full article
The overwhelming power of small things
By Karl D. Stephan
Household devices connected to the internet are responsible for a gigantic attack on major websites
Read the full article
The overlooked fatherless: one donor-conceived woman’s story
By Alana S. Newman
Children need to know and be known by their natural mother and father.
Read the full article
Powerful financial interests involved in UK pre-natal testing
By Peter Saunders
90% of Down syndrome babies are aborted. A new test will increase this.
Read the full article
Conversations unplugged
By Juliana Weber
We have to learn again how to talk to one another, says Sherry Turkle.
Read the full article
Births outside marriage decline in U.S.
By Shannon Roberts
The trend is largely due to higher immigrant births.
Read the full article

MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation 
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia 

Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605

No hay comentarios: