Who do you think will win the GA runoff (and US Senate)?

[aygart]

A runoff election is a second election held to determine a winner when no candidate in the first election met the required threshold for victory.
https://ballotpedia.org/Runoff_election
Not as if Election Day is one long two-part yoma arichta.

THE COURTS HAVE RULED!!

[ExGingi]

THE COURTS HAVE RULED!!

?

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/danielstrauss4/status/1346314441537839106?s=21

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1347042668564664320?s=21

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1347042668564664320?s=21

This is what happens when you think you control the malotov cocktail.

[ExGingi]

A runoff election is a second election held to determine a winner when no candidate in the first election met the required threshold for victory.
https://ballotpedia.org/Runoff_election
Not as if Election Day is one long two-part yoma arichta.

Based on your logic, a new candidate could be introduced in the runoff (for example if there were 3 candidates on the November ballot, none got 50% and two died in a car crash before the runoff).

[biobook]

Based on your logic, a new candidate could be introduced in the runoff (for example if there were 3 candidates on the November ballot, none got 50% and two died in a car crash before the runoff).

Huh?  I don't see how that follows. 
The regular election and runoff election are two chances for the people to make their choice known.  Why should those who missed voting in the first election, for whatever reason, be blocked from voting in the runoff?  Any more than you'd compel those who voted in the first to return for the runoff.  Each is an independent event.

[ExGingi]

Huh?  I don't see how that follows. 
The regular election and runoff election are two chances for the people to make their choice known.  Why should those who missed voting in the first election, for whatever reason, be blocked from voting in the runoff?  Any more than you'd compel those who voted in the first to return for the runoff.  Each is an independent event.

Missing voting in an election ≠ not being registered to vote in an election.

If the second event is independent, then candidates wouldn't have had to be on the ballot the first time around.

[skyguy918]

This is such a silly discussion. All of this is dependent on Georgia election law, and was litigated previously, which is probably why we haven't seen it litigated in this instance.

https://allongeorgia.com/georgia-state-politics/is-the-ga-constitution-being-violated-with-new-voter-registrations-for-january-runoff/

[biobook]

TBH, the one thing that irks me the most about the Georgia runoff election is the fact that they allow people to register after the November election to participate in the runoff. It's almost like a call to participate in fraud.

This is such a silly discussion. All of this is dependent on Georgia election law, and was litigated previously, which is probably why we haven't seen it litigated in this instance.

https://allongeorgia.com/georgia-state-politics/is-the-ga-constitution-being-violated-with-new-voter-registrations-for-january-runoff/

Here I thought that ExGingi came up with that argument, but it seems it originated with the Trump campaign.  So the bottom line is that someone could vote in the runoff, as long as they were registered by December 7 (30 days in advance), whether or not they had voted in the November election - Is that right?

I would say our discussion was uninformed, not necessarily silly.

[skyguy918]

Here I thought that ExGingi came up with that argument, but it seems it originated with the Trump campaign.  So the bottom line is that someone could vote in the runoff, as long as they were registered by December 7 (30 days in advance), whether or not they had voted in the November election - Is that right?

I would say our discussion was uninformed, not necessarily silly.

It's silly to try to apply logic and reasoning to arrive at a single answer to this question when the reality is that the only single answer is whatever the law in Georgia says it is. It's reasonable to assume that the state administered the runoff per the state's laws, and that any objection based on law would be brought to court.

As far as the 'bottom line', who knows what will happen, but if the R's were gonna challenge this, I'd think they'd have done it already.

[biobook]

It's silly to try to apply logic and reasoning to arrive at a single answer to this question when the reality is that the only single answer is whatever the law in Georgia says it is. It's reasonable to assume that the state administered the runoff per the state's laws, and that any objection based on law would be brought to court.

As far as the 'bottom line', who knows what will happen, but if the R's were gonna challenge this, I'd think they'd have done it already.

I admit to total ignorance about the law in Georgia, and appreciate your finding this article to explain it.

In asking about the "bottom line" I wasn't referring to what might happen, but asking whether I correctly the understood how the Georgia law applies to this particular situation.  Did I get it right? 

I have found it useful to post a one or two sentence synthesis or extract of a linked article, since many are unable or unwilling to read them, and a brief summary can keep them in the conversation.

[skyguy918]

I admit to total ignorance about the law in Georgia, and appreciate your finding this article to explain it.

In asking about the "bottom line" I wasn't referring to what might happen, but asking whether I correctly the understood how the Georgia law applies to this particular situation.  Did I get it right? 

I have found it useful to post a one or two sentence synthesis or extract of a linked article, since many are unable or unwilling to read them, and a brief summary can keep them in the conversation.

As best as I can tell from the article, there is (at the very least an interpretation of) a line in the portion of the Georgia constitution that provides for runoffs that was used to not allow registrations between the election and the runoff. In 2017, this was challenged by some legal group as violating the federal Voter Registration Act when applied to federal elections. The court ruled against the state, and Kemp (now governor but then Georgia SoS) signed the order, which is why registrations were allowed between the election and the runoff. The article also mentions that this likely doesn't apply to state (and lower) level runoffs, but enforcing separate registrations for simultaneous runoffs (such as the senate races and the public service commission race this time around) would be too costly, so they didn't bother.

[biobook]

As best as I can tell from the article, there is (at the very least an interpretation of) a line in the portion of the Georgia constitution that provides for runoffs that was used to not allow registrations between the election and the runoff. In 2017, this was challenged by some legal group as violating the federal Voter Registration Act when applied to federal elections. The court ruled against the state, and Kemp (now governor but then Georgia SoS) signed the order, which is why registrations were allowed between the election and the runoff. The article also mentions that this likely doesn't apply to state (and lower) level runoffs, but enforcing separate registrations for simultaneous runoffs (such as the senate races and the public service commission race this time around) would be too costly, so they didn't bother.

So applying that to our discussion of the current GA runoff, was I correct to summarize this as:

So the bottom line is that someone could vote in the runoff, as long as they were registered by December 7 (30 days in advance), whether or not they had voted in the November election - Is that right?

[ExGingi]

Here I thought that ExGingi came up with that argument, but it seems it originated with the Trump campaign.  So the bottom line is that someone could vote in the runoff, as long as they were registered by December 7 (30 days in advance), whether or not they had voted in the November election - Is that right?

I would say our discussion was uninformed, not necessarily silly.

Therein lies your mistake. All I said was:

TBH, the one thing that irks me the most about the Georgia runoff election is the fact that they allow people to register after the November election to participate in the runoff. It's almost like a call to participate in fraud.

While I didn't have the quote at hand, I didn't think for a second that this would be against the law. Now that @skyguy918 posted the link to the article, it seems like the GA law and constitution agree with my logic, but that this was superseded by a Federal Court. And the culprits here again were the "liberal" Plaintiffs – The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – claimed victory, as did the Georgia NAACP.

בכיה לדורות.

Unfortunately, the left-wing knows how to manipulate the laws and the courts much better than the right.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/actoraaronbooth/status/1347313847758168074?s=21

Unfortunately, the left-wing knows how to manipulate the laws and the courts much better than the right.

Thats because most lawyers (and educated people in general) lean left

[ExGingi]

Thats because most lawyers

Correlation ≠ causation

(and educated people in general) lean left

Who was it that said: "a young capitalist has no heart, an old socialist has no brain"?

[S209]

It's reasonable to assume that the state administered the runoff per the state's laws, and that any objection based on law would be brought to court.

FRAUD and SWORN AFFIDAVITZ

[aygart]

Correlation ≠ causation
Who was it that said: "a young capitalist has no heart, an old socialist has no brain"?

Probably someone heartless, brainless, or both.

[ExGingi]

Probably someone heartless, brainless, or both.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

[aygart]

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

Not sure what I am supposed to be seeing there, but anyone who at any point thinks that morality means to forcefully take honestly earned money from the person who earned it and give it to the one who did not is both heartless and brainless.