Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ScienceWasLove t1_j3gmuoq wrote

This info is in the article. 1,000,000 dem and 187,0000 rep mail in ballots.

1% of dem and 1.8% of rep mail in ballots were discarded.

3

AmbiguousMessages t1_j3gpqet wrote

If the election was based on the number of mail in ballots that would matter. But it wasn’t. In the overall count more democratic votes were negated.

3

MetaGoldenfist t1_j3iid9u wrote

It says 1,000,000 mail in ballots were for Shapiro and 187,000 mail in were for Mastriano. In terms of which party’s ballots were more likely to be discarded it says this: “Democrats had 10,920 votes thrown out, about half for lacking secrecy envelopes. Republicans saw 3,503 ballots forfeited. Independents and third parties amounted to 1,731 votes that did not count in the fall election.”

1

ScienceWasLove t1_j3ij7el wrote

Yes.

10,920 votes from 1,000,000 is 1%.

3,503 from 187,000 is 1.8%.

0

MetaGoldenfist t1_j3ijnq0 wrote

Who cares about the percentage. The article doesn’t mention percentage but you keep mentioning it. That doesn’t change the actual fact that more Democrats had their mail in ballots discarded. It also doesn’t change the fact that the envelope and date law that the state Supreme Court upheld is straight up voter suppression.

2

ScienceWasLove t1_j3ik0mz wrote

More democrats did because more people voted democratic. Not because they were targeted.

If as many republicans voted, the numbers would be reverse.

Percentage of a whole is important because it allows you to make comparisons.

Make things proportional.

0

MetaGoldenfist t1_j3ikfb8 wrote

Your missing the important piece which is that more people voted democratic by mail so of course statistically more dems would have their mail in ballots be wrong but ALSO the Supreme Court upholding the stupid law making casting mail in ballots more complicated bc of the date/signature/envelope law is blatant voter suppression bc they know dems are more likely to vote by mail. Either way it didn’t work.

2

ScienceWasLove t1_j3j0edy wrote

Do you think I am missing those points, I am one of the few people who read the article.

1