A - Austria

It feels like all the major players are going to dig in their heels and lobby hard here. They’re terrified that if the conservative candidate wins—even by a tiny margin—it’ll be branded as some massive "catastrophe" for Europe.

It’s honestly wild how much the mainstream media goes out of its way to trash anyone on the right, or how quickly they reach for labels like "extreme right-wing" just to discredit them.

Nathan Morris3 said:Yeah, just the second round, I think. The voter turnout might shift a bit since some people might skip it and others might show up, so maybe it isn't a true "repeat" exactly, but I guess it's the least messy way to handle it. It'll be interesting to see if the number of Mail-in voters goes up or down, though I'm already making jokes about it. It feels kind of silly that Mail-in voting itself has become such a huge talking point, almost like people want us to go back to the Stone Age or something.

Let's go, my friend, I'm waiting...☕
It makes me happy to think there might still be some hope left for Austria.

btw.
Please don't derail the conversation by bringing up the Dark Ages or other similar nonsense.

Nathan Morris3 said:Actually, I think things were pretty clean, honestly. There just isn't any proof of vote tampering. The Republican Party just lost, and I suppose the only way to really settle it would be a rerun with the same result. Otherwise, people are just going to act like toddlers who dropped their lollipop on the floor.

By what logic does one become a "poor loser" simply by pointing out irregularities or manipulations during an election—irregularities that were quite clearly present, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria, and were undeniably significant enough to warrant a complete redo of the entire electoral process?

Gerald Palmer66 said:Let's go, my friend, I'm waiting...☕
It makes me happy to think there might still be some hope left for Austria.

btw.
Please don't derail the conversation by bringing up the Dark Ages or other similar nonsense.

Mail-in voting isn't "nonsense," it's just how democracy works. I guess I don't know anyone sane who'd be against it.

Brenda Johnson65 said:By what logic does one become a "poor loser" simply by pointing out irregularities or manipulations during an election—irregularities that were quite clearly present, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria, and were undeniably significant enough to warrant a complete redo of the entire electoral process?

Hmm, I get the feeling you came here to vent without actually reading the court's reasoning. There isn't any proof of manipulation, so maybe don't throw terms around just because it suits you.

A loser because they couldn't find any evidence of fraud—actually, they even signed protocols saying everything was fine. I guess everyone should point out mistakes; that's not really up for debate. There were major issues, and it's honestly shameful. But elections aren't rerun because of "obvious manipulation" (like you're claiming), but rather because it was judged necessary for the democratic order. So, I'm with the ruling.
As for the irregularities, nothing happened that hasn't happened in previous elections, but I suppose someone decided to weaponize the process this time, so here we are.

Nathan Morris3 said:Hmm, I get the feeling you came here to vent without actually reading the court's reasoning. There isn't any proof of manipulation, so maybe don't throw terms around just because it suits you.

A loser because they couldn't find any evidence of fraud—actually, they even signed protocols saying everything was fine. I guess everyone should point out mistakes; that's not really up for debate. There were major issues, and it's honestly shameful. But elections aren't rerun because of "obvious manipulation" (like you're claiming), but rather because it was judged necessary for the democratic order. So, I'm with the ruling.
As for the irregularities, nothing happened that hasn't happened in previous elections, but I suppose someone decided to weaponize the process this time, so here we are.

My dear fellow, had you bothered to read my response with any degree of scrutiny, you would have noticed I specifically wrote "irregularities or manipulations." It appears, however, that you might be letting your emotions cloud your judgment in this debate. While a distinction between the two concepts certainly exists, the line becomes quite blurred when determining at what point a mere irregularity morphs into deliberate manipulation—especially when proving intent is such a Herculean task. Furthermore, the fact that the court officially stated there was no evidence of manipulation does not mean manipulation didn't occur, particularly when you consider such a suspiciously high volume of "irregularities" paired with such a razor-thin margin. There is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.

So, are you making the responsible assertion that the court has been instrumentalized? Those are some rather heavy accusations to toss around.
Likewise, it is somewhat unrealistic to expect a court to issue a verdict publicly declaring that an election was riddled with errors. Various nations and their institutions are protective of their reputations; it is perfectly logical for the ruling to be framed pragmatically "in the interest of the democratic order" rather than "due to numerous irregularities."
To dismiss irregularities occurring in 94 out of 117 voting districts as "minor" is a stretch. This is a substantial matter, and within the context of the Supreme Court of Austria, it was sufficient to alter the election result:
"While the court emphasised that there was no evidence of the outcome of the election having been actively manipulated, the confirmed irregularities had affected a total of 77,926 votes that could have gone to either Hofer or van der Bellen – enough, in theory, to change the outcome of the election."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...van-der-bellen

Therefore, it seems a bit audacious to claim that a rerun election will inevitably yield the exact same victor.

The real question remains: are we looking at a sore loser, or a fraudulent winner?...

Brenda Johnson65 said:My dear fellow, had you bothered to read my response with any degree of scrutiny, you would have noticed I specifically wrote "irregularities or manipulations." It appears, however, that you might be letting your emotions cloud your judgment in this debate. While a distinction between the two concepts certainly exists, the line becomes quite blurred when determining at what point a mere irregularity morphs into deliberate manipulation—especially when proving intent is such a Herculean task. Furthermore, the fact that the court officially stated there was no evidence of manipulation does not mean manipulation didn't occur, particularly when you consider such a suspiciously high volume of "irregularities" paired with such a razor-thin margin. There is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.

So, are you making the responsible assertion that the court has been instrumentalized? Those are some rather heavy accusations to toss around.
Likewise, it is somewhat unrealistic to expect a court to issue a verdict publicly declaring that an election was riddled with errors. Various nations and their institutions are protective of their reputations; it is perfectly logical for the ruling to be framed pragmatically "in the interest of the democratic order" rather than "due to numerous irregularities."
To dismiss irregularities occurring in 94 out of 117 voting districts as "minor" is a stretch. This is a substantial matter, and within the context of the Supreme Court of Austria, it was sufficient to alter the election result:
"While the court emphasised that there was no evidence of the outcome of the election having been actively manipulated, the confirmed irregularities had affected a total of 77,926 votes that could have gone to either Hofer or van der Bellen – enough, in theory, to change the outcome of the election."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...van-der-bellen

Therefore, it seems a bit audacious to claim that a rerun election will inevitably yield the exact same victor.

The real question remains: are we looking at a sore loser, or a fraudulent winner?...

Whether you mean it or not, I think you're being a bit dishonest there. You mentioned "irregularities or manipulations during the election that clearly existed (confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria)." So, I guess it's not quite right... the court confirmed there were irregularities, but using the word "manipulation" feels a little biased to me. The court didn't actually confirm that part, so maybe we shouldn't make things up.

There’s definitely a distinction between the two, though it’s tough to say exactly when an error turns into actual manipulation—especially since proving intent is such a headache. Even if the court officially announced they found no proof of fraud, that doesn't necessarily mean nothing happened, especially when you look at those suspicious irregularities alongside such a razor-thin margin. I guess there’s enough there to warrant some doubt.

I guess you're just making excuses now. What kind of conspiracy theories are you even talking about? The court ruled based on the evidence provided, and since there’s zero proof of any tampering, the verdict isn't about manipulation at all—you might just have to accept that. Manipulation and unfairness are two totally different things in legal terms, especially when we're discussing the judiciary. I don't really get why you're trying to overcomplicate things like this.

So, are you really saying the court is being used as a political tool? That's a pretty heavy accusation, I guess.

Man, please read what you’re responding to. I didn't say the court was being instrumentalized. And even if I had, what's the big deal? I mean, Sanders instrumentalized the court too (and his own trial) just to score political points. Maybe you're overreacting a bit with all this talk about "serious accusations"?

I guess it's also pretty tough to expect a court to just come out and say an election was full of irregularities. Some countries and their institutions really care about their reputation, so they'll probably just use some pragmatic excuse about acting "in the interest of democratic stability" instead of actually admitting there were issues.

Maybe we could just move all the conspiracy theories over to a different thread? I guess.

I mean, having irregularities in 94 out of 117 precincts... that's actually a pretty big deal, I guess. It feels serious enough that even the Supreme Court of Austria could potentially flip the whole election result.

Of course, that's why they made their ruling, and I think it's fine. An irregularity would be something like counting ballots at 11:00 PM instead of 9:00 AM just because people didn't want to wait around anymore. There could be 500 little things like that where the procedure wasn't strictly followed, even if there's zero proof that the timing actually changed the election results. But I guess the court just wants everything to be spotless, which is okay. You're spinning these conspiracy theories and throwing around words like "manipulation," but come on.

So, I guess it might be a bit bold to say that a runoff election would definitely end with the exact same winner.

The real question is whether we're looking at a bad loser or just the wrong winner...

I mentioned before that it's tough to call, but if there isn't any proven manipulation, then maybe the result stays the same if everyone votes just like they did last time. It’s hard to know how people who change their minds or new voters might act, though. I guess since no candidate has really messed up big time yet, and you have someone like Kern coming out and effectively chipping away at the Republican Party, it's tricky. Plus, I'm not really sure what kind of impact Brexit might actually have here.

Nathan Morris3 said:Whether you mean it or not, I think you're being a bit dishonest there. You mentioned "irregularities or manipulations during the election that clearly existed (confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria)." So, I guess it's not quite right... the court confirmed there were irregularities, but using the word "manipulation" feels a little biased to me. The court didn't actually confirm that part, so maybe we shouldn't make things up.

There’s definitely a distinction between the two, though it’s tough to say exactly when an error turns into actual manipulation—especially since proving intent is such a headache. Even if the court officially announced they found no proof of fraud, that doesn't necessarily mean nothing happened, especially when you look at those suspicious irregularities alongside such a razor-thin margin. I guess there’s enough there to warrant some doubt.

I guess you're just making excuses now. What kind of conspiracy theories are you even talking about? The court ruled based on the evidence provided, and since there’s zero proof of any tampering, the verdict isn't about manipulation at all—you might just have to accept that. Manipulation and unfairness are two totally different things in legal terms, especially when we're discussing the judiciary. I don't really get why you're trying to overcomplicate things like this.

So, are you really saying the court is being used as a political tool? That's a pretty heavy accusation, I guess.

Man, please read what you’re responding to. I didn't say the court was being instrumentalized. And even if I had, what's the big deal? I mean, Sanders instrumentalized the court too (and his own trial) just to score political points. Maybe you're overreacting a bit with all this talk about "serious accusations"?

I guess it's also pretty tough to expect a court to just come out and say an election was full of irregularities. Some countries and their institutions really care about their reputation, so they'll probably just use some pragmatic excuse about acting "in the interest of democratic stability" instead of actually admitting there were issues.

Maybe we could just move all the conspiracy theories over to a different thread? I guess.

I mean, having irregularities in 94 out of 117 precincts... that's actually a pretty big deal, I guess. It feels serious enough that even the Supreme Court of Austria could potentially flip the whole election result.

Of course, that's why they made their ruling, and I think it's fine. An irregularity would be something like counting ballots at 11:00 PM instead of 9:00 AM just because people didn't want to wait around anymore. There could be 500 little things like that where the procedure wasn't strictly followed, even if there's zero proof that the timing actually changed the election results. But I guess the court just wants everything to be spotless, which is okay. You're spinning these conspiracy theories and throwing around words like "manipulation," but come on.

So, I guess it might be a bit bold to say that a runoff election would definitely end with the exact same winner.

The real question is whether we're looking at a bad loser or just the wrong winner...

I mentioned before that it's tough to call, but if there isn't any proven manipulation, then maybe the result stays the same if everyone votes just like they did last time. It’s hard to know how people who change their minds or new voters might act, though. I guess since no candidate has really messed up big time yet, and you have someone like Kern coming out and effectively chipping away at the Republican Party, it's tricky. Plus, I'm not really sure what kind of impact Brexit might actually have here.

It is quite fascinating, really. Previously, driven by your own visceral distaste for one particular candidate, you and your cohort spent the entire election cycle—before, during, and after the vote—insisting that any irregularities were non-existent, or at most, trivialities that couldn't possibly sway the results; you even argued they were so minuscule they fell under the umbrella of "normal procedure." Yet, now that the Supreme Court of Austria has issued a ruling—one that clearly deems these irregularities significant enough to necessitate a complete rerun of the election—you have pivoted entirely. Suddenly, the Republican Party are "sore losers," the election was "instrumentalized," the ruling is "unfair" to the Republican Party (who act like weeping children), and you are grasping at every linguistic straw available...
But please, continue; while I am busy philosophizing, dodging questions, and performing verbal acrobatics, the Republican Party remains nothing more than sore losers. 🙄

Nathan Morris3 said:Whether you mean it or not, I think you're being a bit dishonest there. You mentioned "irregularities or manipulations during the election that clearly existed (confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria)." So, I guess it's not quite right... the court confirmed there were irregularities, but using the word "manipulation" feels a little biased to me. The court didn't actually confirm that part, so maybe we shouldn't make things up.

There’s definitely a distinction between the two, though it’s tough to say exactly when an error turns into actual manipulation—especially since proving intent is such a headache. Even if the court officially announced they found no proof of fraud, that doesn't necessarily mean nothing happened, especially when you look at those suspicious irregularities alongside such a razor-thin margin. I guess there’s enough there to warrant some doubt.

I guess you're just making excuses now. What kind of conspiracy theories are you even talking about? The court ruled based on the evidence provided, and since there’s zero proof of any tampering, the verdict isn't about manipulation at all—you might just have to accept that. Manipulation and unfairness are two totally different things in legal terms, especially when we're discussing the judiciary. I don't really get why you're trying to overcomplicate things like this.

So, are you really saying the court is being used as a political tool? That's a pretty heavy accusation, I guess.

Man, please read what you’re responding to. I didn't say the court was being instrumentalized. And even if I had, what's the big deal? I mean, Sanders instrumentalized the court too (and his own trial) just to score political points. Maybe you're overreacting a bit with all this talk about "serious accusations"?

I guess it's also pretty tough to expect a court to just come out and say an election was full of irregularities. Some countries and their institutions really care about their reputation, so they'll probably just use some pragmatic excuse about acting "in the interest of democratic stability" instead of actually admitting there were issues.

Maybe we could just move all the conspiracy theories over to a different thread? I guess.

I mean, having irregularities in 94 out of 117 precincts... that's actually a pretty big deal, I guess. It feels serious enough that even the Supreme Court of Austria could potentially flip the whole election result.

Of course, that's why they made their ruling, and I think it's fine. An irregularity would be something like counting ballots at 11:00 PM instead of 9:00 AM just because people didn't want to wait around anymore. There could be 500 little things like that where the procedure wasn't strictly followed, even if there's zero proof that the timing actually changed the election results. But I guess the court just wants everything to be spotless, which is okay. You're spinning these conspiracy theories and throwing around words like "manipulation," but come on.

So, I guess it might be a bit bold to say that a runoff election would definitely end with the exact same winner.

The real question is whether we're looking at a bad loser or just the wrong winner...

I mentioned before that it's tough to call, but if there isn't any proven manipulation, then maybe the result stays the same if everyone votes just like they did last time. It’s hard to know how people who change their minds or new voters might act, though. I guess since no candidate has really messed up big time yet, and you have someone like Kern coming out and effectively chipping away at the Republican Party, it's tricky. Plus, I'm not really sure what kind of impact Brexit might actually have here.

"While the court emphasised that there was no evidence of the outcome of the election having been actively manipulated, the confirmed irregularities had affected a total of 77,926 votes that could have gone to either Hofer or Van der Bellen – enough, in theory, to change the outcome of the election."

There is no evidence of manipulation, yet the established irregularities could have impacted 77,926 votes. Do you still truly believe that Hoffer's appeal is without merit?

Let me rephrase what I posted on the other forum:

- I honestly doubt the Supreme Court of Austria would have handed down a ruling like this if Brexit hadn't happened—it’s that much of a catalyst for euroskepticism. And let's be real, there wouldn't even be a Brexit if it weren't for the migrant crisis. That crisis wouldn't exist if we weren't dealing with years of the Syrian drama—which has essentially become a playground for warring superpowers. Then again, that whole Syrian mess wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the pyromaniac policies of the USA in Africa and the Middle East.

- This brings me right back to my thesis from early 2012: "Syria as a catalyst for regional and global processes."

In that sense, Syria is effectively "choosing" the Austrian president, just as Syria "voted" for Brexit. Indirectly, Syria is determining elections and political decisions.

Simply put, we are witnessing the "Syrianization" of the Old Continent—and God help us, the entire planet.

Brenda Johnson65 said:It is quite fascinating, really. Previously, driven by your own visceral distaste for one particular candidate, you and your cohort spent the entire election cycle—before, during, and after the vote—insisting that any irregularities were non-existent, or at most, trivialities that couldn't possibly sway the results; you even argued they were so minuscule they fell under the umbrella of "normal procedure." Yet, now that the Supreme Court of Austria has issued a ruling—one that clearly deems these irregularities significant enough to necessitate a complete rerun of the election—you have pivoted entirely. Suddenly, the Republican Party are "sore losers," the election was "instrumentalized," the ruling is "unfair" to the Republican Party (who act like weeping children), and you are grasping at every linguistic straw available...
But please, continue; while I am busy philosophizing, dodging questions, and performing verbal acrobatics, the Republican Party remains nothing more than sore losers. 🙄

"While the court emphasised that there was no evidence of the outcome of the election having been actively manipulated, the confirmed irregularities had affected a total of 77,926 votes that could have gone to either Hofer or Van der Bellen – enough, in theory, to change the outcome of the election."

There is no evidence of manipulation, yet the established irregularities could have impacted 77,926 votes. Do you still truly believe that Hoffer's appeal is without merit?

I guess I still think Hofer is pretty bad news for the United States of America, just like maybe Van der Bellen might feel he's harmful, so what? I wrote what I wrote and laid out my points. You can try to lie and claim I said there weren't any irregularities—which is a huge stretch since I actually said there were—but for the sake of a decent debate, could you please just quote me if you disagree? It’s kind of tough having to defend myself against things I never even said. Whatever. Yeah, the Republican Party are losers, and I suppose it was fine that they reported issues, but I think it was a mistake to try and overturn the election when they knew there wasn't any proof of fraud. But oh well, the Supreme Court made the right call. We'll just have another round and everyone will be happy, which is probably what matters most.

Quincy:

The Supreme Court made sure to point out that they didn't find any proof that anyone actually rigged the election results, I guess. It looks like those confirmed irregularities messed with about 77,926 votes that might have gone to either Hofer or Van der Bellen—so, I guess that’s technically enough to flip the whole election result." There isn't any hard evidence yet, but I guess some irregularities have been flagged... maybe? Maybe, I guess. So, that’s about 77,000 votes at stake. I guess you still think Hoffer's appeal doesn't have any merit? Maybe.

Like I said—there’s just no proof of any manipulation. Then you get some smart aleck on the forum starting up all these conspiracy theories about rigged systems. I mean, it was pretty obvious there would be repeats if they found that many issues at the polling stations; I think I even mentioned that before. It feels like the same sloppy mistakes happening every election cycle. The Republican Party and everyone else should definitely report those errors, and I’m all for that. But calling for entirely new elections because of those slip-ups? I guess that might be a bit much. Still, if they already pushed to void the results, I think the Supreme Court made the right call.
Someone’s always going to nitpick over small stuff just to score some points, I guess. It’s nothing new. The issue is that since the margin was so thin, they're pushing for another round. So, I think you're looking at it the wrong way; the appeal isn't baseless. I mentioned there were irregularities, and after the Supreme Court looked into the number of precincts involved, they made the right call. But asking for a total redo of the election feels a bit like a Spaniard demanding a rematch against Germany just because the game kicked off 30 seconds late. If it had started on time, maybe the result would have changed, or maybe not—we don't really have proof either way—but hey, rules are rules. You don't rerun a ballgame over formalities, but elections are a much bigger deal. In a democracy, I suppose deciding to hold them again is probably the right move.

mistypanther81 said:Let me rephrase what I posted on the other forum:

- I honestly doubt the Supreme Court of Austria would have handed down a ruling like this if Brexit hadn't happened—it’s that much of a catalyst for euroskepticism. And let's be real, there wouldn't even be a Brexit if it weren't for the migrant crisis. That crisis wouldn't exist if we weren't dealing with years of the Syrian drama—which has essentially become a playground for warring superpowers. Then again, that whole Syrian mess wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the pyromaniac policies of the USA in Africa and the Middle East.

- This brings me right back to my thesis from early 2012: "Syria as a catalyst for regional and global processes."

In that sense, Syria is effectively "choosing" the Austrian president, just as Syria "voted" for Brexit. Indirectly, Syria is determining elections and political decisions.

Simply put, we are witnessing the "Syrianization" of the Old Continent—and God help us, the entire planet.

What a load of nonsense.🤣 🤣 🤣

The real issue was just some long-standing incompetence with the mail-in ballot counts—specifically regarding 77,000 votes. Since the gap between the two candidates was 31,000, they have to hold a redo. If the margin had been smaller than 31,000, there wouldn't be a recount at all. There was no vote manipulation going on, and even the Republican Party didn't claim that happened.

I'm always amused by how the right-wing tries to spin these things; they'll go to any lengths with their wild theories.😁

I was watching the news tonight—it's quite unsettling, really—as they reported on incompetent officials miscounting provisional ballots, and even made claims about minors or non-citizens casting votes... I suppose if they are going to peddle falsehoods, then maybe I am justified in doing the same.

Paul Kern12 said:I was watching the news tonight—it's quite unsettling, really—as they reported on incompetent officials miscounting provisional ballots, and even made claims about minors or non-citizens casting votes... I suppose if they are going to peddle falsehoods, then maybe I am justified in doing the same.

Non-citizens didn't vote, but there were three minors. Apparently, because of some clerk's blunder in one local precinct, a couple of 14 and 15-year-olds stayed on the voter rolls by mistake.

Austrians are basically trying to flex how wealthy they are—showing off that they've got a rich nation and plenty of deep-pocketed taxpayers to foot the bill, plus the candidates themselves have enough cash to bankroll yet another campaign! 😁

It’s pretty obvious that we need some kind of international oversight for the election process.

And I don't mean from the side of a biased European Union—I mean, it's blindingly clear who they're rooting for—but rather oversight led by the United Nations.

Some guy from Canada robbed a grocery store in Vienna today and even hurt two cops.
http://derstandard.at/2000040287125/...insatz-in-Wien
The hate speech coming from the Republican Party on all these forums has honestly gone too far.🙂

We just have to accept that Van der Bellen's chances are basically zero now.

coastalbison6 said:Some guy from Canada robbed a grocery store in Vienna today and even hurt two cops.
http://derstandard.at/2000040287125/...insatz-in-Wien
The hate speech coming from the Republican Party on all these forums has honestly gone too far.🙂

We just have to accept that Van der Bellen's chances are basically zero now.

Yeah, yeah... and there they go again, those immigrants causing trouble...☕

Van der Bellen is going to win again, no question about it.

In case anyone is looking for this, here’s a decent summary regarding the decision to rerun the elections:
https://www.facebook.com/arminwolf.j...81502795194920

It’s in German, but I guess Google can probably handle the translation. Basically:
- The Constitution says elections should be rerun if it's proven that irregularities actually changed the outcome (which wasn't really the case here).
- The Supreme Court ruled that since those mistakes *could* theoretically have swayed the result, they had to step in. It's a stricter interpretation than what's in the Constitution, mostly because they feel democracy is so vital that everything needs to be 100% spotless.
- There were issues in 14 districts (my take: mostly where Hofer won).
- They have to redo the whole thing across the entire United States of America, not just the affected areas, because mail-in ballots from the second round could have come from different districts or something like that, I think.
- The biggest issue—which the Supreme Court said is enough reason on its own to restart—was that the Department of Homeland Security sent results from closed precincts to the media before 5:00 PM. If someone still waiting to vote hears those numbers, it might influence them. Sending info early has always been the standard practice, but the Supreme Court hadn't weighed in on it before because nobody had officially asked them to.
- The voter registration lists stay exactly the same as last time (so, if someone turned 16 in the meantime, I guess they still don't get to vote).
- Trivia: If one of the two candidates drops out less than 31 days before the election, the whole thing gets redone.

My thoughts are still pretty much the same:
- People should definitely report any irregularities.
- But I guess the Republican Party looks like a bad loser for demanding a rerun when there isn't actually proof of manipulation.
- The Supreme Court didn't really have much of a choice, I suppose.
- United States of America: It's kind of a shame how sloppily these big things are handled, especially knowing how close the race would be.

Nathan Morris3 said:In case anyone is looking for this, here’s a decent summary regarding the decision to rerun the elections:
https://www.facebook.com/arminwolf.j...81502795194920

It’s in German, but I guess Google can probably handle the translation. Basically:
- The Constitution says elections should be rerun if it's proven that irregularities actually changed the outcome (which wasn't really the case here).
- The Supreme Court ruled that since those mistakes *could* theoretically have swayed the result, they had to step in. It's a stricter interpretation than what's in the Constitution, mostly because they feel democracy is so vital that everything needs to be 100% spotless.
- There were issues in 14 districts (my take: mostly where Hofer won).
- They have to redo the whole thing across the entire United States of America, not just the affected areas, because mail-in ballots from the second round could have come from different districts or something like that, I think.
- The biggest issue—which the Supreme Court said is enough reason on its own to restart—was that the Department of Homeland Security sent results from closed precincts to the media before 5:00 PM. If someone still waiting to vote hears those numbers, it might influence them. Sending info early has always been the standard practice, but the Supreme Court hadn't weighed in on it before because nobody had officially asked them to.
- The voter registration lists stay exactly the same as last time (so, if someone turned 16 in the meantime, I guess they still don't get to vote).
- Trivia: If one of the two candidates drops out less than 31 days before the election, the whole thing gets redone.

My thoughts are still pretty much the same:
- People should definitely report any irregularities.
- But I guess the Republican Party looks like a bad loser for demanding a rerun when there isn't actually proof of manipulation.
- The Supreme Court didn't really have much of a choice, I suppose.
- United States of America: It's kind of a shame how sloppily these big things are handled, especially knowing how close the race would be.

You know there was no fraud, but the Supreme Court still found "irregularities."
Oh, so the Supreme Court was biased? By who? The Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, at least in "democratic" countries. According to your "sources," the errors happened in Hofer's districts? Really? Show us the proof. 👏
🤦
In Germany, they also MANIPULATE elections in Bremen, but that wasn't the Right wing.
But you rarely see people writing about that.☕
The Left wing is losing. They're weak, limp, and useless. People are fed up with their empty slogans.
The new Right wing in Europe is coming. Legally. Hopefully soon.

Lawrence Cook said:You know there was no fraud, but the Supreme Court still found "irregularities."
Oh, so the Supreme Court was biased? By who? The Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, at least in "democratic" countries. According to your "sources," the errors happened in Hofer's districts? Really? Show us the proof. 👏
🤦
In Germany, they also MANIPULATE elections in Bremen, but that wasn't the Right wing.
But you rarely see people writing about that.☕
The Left wing is losing. They're weak, limp, and useless. People are fed up with their empty slogans.
The new Right wing in Europe is coming. Legally. Hopefully soon.

Maybe just take a breath, read what I actually wrote, and stop trying to force this whole left vs. right argument.

Look, the Constitutional Court didn't find any fraud, but they did find procedural errors.

What am I supposed to show you? You can probably find everything on Google in ten seconds:
http://www.oe24.at/oesterreich/politic...iten/241755725
Basically, we're talking about the districts where Hofer mostly won, and where his own observers signed off on things before later retracting those signatures.

I mentioned that the Supreme Court basically had its hands tied. Let me try an analogy: imagine police search a suspect's house and find illegal weapons, but the search happened two hours before the warrant was even valid. Instead of proving innocence, the defense attacks the validity of the search itself to toss out the evidence. The court has to rule that the search was irregular, which could theoretically change the outcome, even if no one actually rigged anything. So, because of those irregularities, the search is voided, the evidence is tossed, and the suspect goes free. In the Austrian case, the Constitution says elections don't necessarily have to be rerun unless the errors actually changed the result, but since the political pressure was so high, the Constitutional Court decided to play it safe.

Some experts are even coming out and saying the Supreme Court should have prioritized the voters' will over technicalities, suggesting the decision to redo the vote should be overturned:
http://diepresse.com/home/recht/rech...-achten-mussen

And of course, they'll probably just strike those rules from the books—like the part about not counting votes on the same day—along with any other nonsense that gives someone a way to contest an election whenever they lose😁.