It's relatively party based (where parties have better access).
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/polici...
It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there.
"The Trump campaign said it is calling for a temporary halt in the counting in Michigan and Pennsylvania until it is given “meaningful” access in numerous locations and allowed to review ballots that already have been opened and processed." - https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-seeks-voting-stop-25...
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/...
As was the PA case:
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/07/trump-campaign-pa...
Has the Trump campaign taken further action beyond what is discussed in your link?
I know they had a press conference at the Four Seasons in Pennsylvania, did anything come of that?
------------------------------------
Thor Hearne, an attorney for the Trump campaign, said he wanted an order directing Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to require "meaningful access" for campaign poll watchers to the counting of state ballots, plus access to videotaped surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed around the state after Oct. 1.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens said the ballot counting in Michigan, which shows Democrat Joe Biden receiving about 150,000 more votes than Republican Donald Trump, was completed Thursday morning.
That made the access request moot, but Stephens said Benson already issued a directive for meaningful access for poll watchers at local ballot counting places. That directive arose from a separate recent lawsuit related to ensuring proper access during the coronavirus pandemic, with the associated social distancing requirements, she said.
As for the videotapes, Stephens said there is no legal basis for Benson to provide — or be expected to provide — access to video surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed by local officials.
A recent law passed by the Michigan Legislature requires video surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed after Oct. 1. But assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast said the law does not require Benson or her agency to track which boxes were installed after Oct. 1, let alone provide access to video. The ballot drop boxes are primarily a local function.
------------------------------------
Well that's reassuring.
> As was the PA case
------------------------------------
The president’s campaign argued that his supporters weren’t being allowed to monitor the tallying of mail-in ballots, but U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond instead argued the two sides to come to an agreement.
He suggested each party be allowed 60 observers inside a hall in the downtown Philadelphia convention center where the final ballots are being counted.
In Georgia, a judge dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump Campaign on Wednesday.
That case from the campaign claimed that a witness said that late-arriving ballots in one county had not been stored properly and may have been mixed in with timely ballots.
------------------------------------
Similarly reassuring.
Yes indeed, this is rock solid proof that nothing improper occurred.
The point of my links is that there are not cases in court in Michigan or PA.
You also said:
"It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there."
But this being 2020 and the topic politics, he who makes the first assertion wins.
Not that it matters really. Perception is reality, and the media has more control of the perception of Americans than any other entity. Welcome to a brave new world - enjoy your stay, citizen.
Just a note on this; (part of?) the reason Judge Diamond asked the two sides to come to an agreement is because the plaintiffs admitted they already had observers in the room [0]:
> During the hearing, a lawyer for the campaign admitted that “they had several representatives in the room,” according to a statement by the bipartisan board. In fact, the Republicans had at least 19 observers in the room during the afternoon, according to the statement.
From a Twitter thread with quotes from the hearing livestream [1]:
> Diamond: "I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this court: are people representing the Donald J Trump for president, representing the plaintiffs, in that room?"
> Trump campaign lawyer: "Yes."
> Diamond: "I'm sorry, then what's your problem?"
[0]: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt...
I swear, it's like a significant portion of the media is designed to sow dissent and outrage in society. If the links provided were questionable looking you might think twoice, but Detroit Free Press and CBSLocal at least sound like mainstream publications to me. Although considering the quality of their stories I guess that's not saying much.
I honestly think it's highly questionable whether the unique combination of variables the USA has going on is sustainable much longer in this age, I think something's gotta give.
Hence why the judge ruled to allow observers closer.
So assuming the motion linked at the top of the Twitter thread is the one the hearing is about, what you say does not appear to be completely correct.
The complaint in the original motion is that the County Board of Elections is "intentionally refusing to allow any representatives and poll watchers for President Trump and the Republican Party," and that "It has been studying the Order [to allow representatives/poll watchers to observe canvassing] for over an hour and a half, while counting continues with no Republicans present."
Assuming the Twitter thread is correct, the bits of the conversation I quoted show that the problems in the original motion do not, in fact, exist (as of the time of the hearing, at least), and that observation distance was a separate issue brought up during the hearing.
> Hence why the judge ruled to allow observers closer.
This is actually a ruling from a different case (emphasis mine):
> Earlier on Thursday, a Pennsylvania state court judge ruled that observers could stand as close as 6 feet (2 meters) away while election officials counted mail-in and absentee ballots.
The case the article/Twitter thread I linked was in a US District Court.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/four-seasons-...
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-announcement-las-vegas...
Yeah, funny thing about that...
On paper, interested parties are supposed to observe the process. What actually happens in physical reality does not always match the guidelines laid out on paper.
> It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there.
I read assurances about what happens in physical reality on a regular basis. Often, these assurances are not actually correct (in no small part because the person providing the assurances was not actually physically present).
I am not asserting that something improper has occurred here, but when journalists are asserting unequivocally and in unison that nothing improper has happened, because the US election system is non-exploitable (while providing zero evidence of this), after having just finished telling me in unison for the last 4 years that Russia "hacked" the 2016 election, I hope you can pardon me if I'm not too keen on taking evidence-free assurances on pure faith.
There was a lot going on across a huge number of voting stations that evening, the notion that not one single thing went wrong is a bit of an extraordinary claim, especially coming from a group of people who don't exactly have a pristine track record of bias or accuracy.
I doubt we'll ever find the truth, or even exert any significant effort in discovering it - that's just the way it is and I can accept that. But it's frustrating that the public is so accepting of this state of affairs.
Yeah, this in particular has been very weird.
I think you are overstating other stuff also, but meh.
- that which occured in reality
- our measurements (best possible effort, or not, often with unknown(!) accuracy) of that which occured in reality
- what the media (and individual persons) say has occurred in reality (sometimes based on measurements (accurately, or not), sometimes completely made up)
These are almost always not equal, especially in complex situations like this. That the media and intelligent people cannot acknowledge this without resistance is rather alarming, to me. Mainstream thinking is increasingly starting to resemble that which is usually attributed only to conspiracy theorists.
There is a difference between disinformation before the election and actually changing ballots, as you well know.