For example if candidate A leads candidate B by 100,000 votes after the election-day votes are counted, and if there are 50,000 mail-in ballots yet uncounted, the powers-that-be don’t need to spend the taxpayers’ funds in counting the mail-in ballots — since the outcome can’t possibly be changed.
+++++++++++++++
It may be worth it for us to start voting at the polling places - for that reason alone. i.e. we have to trust those counts, and they just throw out our ballots.
Even margin of victory is important to things like a perceived ‘mandate’ and such.
Does *math* really decide if they shouldn’t count the absentees?
Does *math* really decide if they shouldn’t count the absentees?
I agree with you. I wasn't trying to defend the policy of not counting mail-in ballots, but merely trying to explain what often happens.
And perhaps to illustrate your point, I believe it's within the realm of theoretical possibility that if New York and California had counted all of their absentee ballots for the 2000 POTUS election, then Bush might have actually carried the nationwide popular vote. Or at least the nationwide popular vote would have been closer than what has always been reported.