Do the Republican's have a mail-in ballot problem? They used to be among the biggest beneficiaries as many older voters that lean Republican used them. Then along came Trump and his habitual lying and his sycophants reflexive acceptance and repetition of whatever he claimed. And now many hard core MAGA pols tell their supporters to not trust it and to only go in person to vote. Which has created disadvantages for Republican's in several states. Georgia being the prime example this last election.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto ... s-94839771

Now I don't really like mail-in, not because of fraud organized at the receiving end as is claimed, but because of the risk of influence over the voter as the ballot is filled out. Whether by "helpers" at the assisted living facility, or oppressive people at home, or a spouse voting for their disabled partner, I think the best thing really is in person voting, with witnessed private voting spaces. But that is beside the point.

Is it really an issue? If so, will, and how will Republicans address the problem they have created?

Tugg

There was no conversation about fraud regarding postal ballots until the Big Lie.
Why? It's a remarkably safe and secure system. There isn't any evidence of some mass manipulation campaign to farm blue votes out of nursing homes, there just isn't any evidence that undue influence is happening at any appreciable scale.

It's a nothing burger. There's just no there there. I get it if you're not used to living in a postal voting state, but I have for 6 years now, and until 2020, I'd say there was universal support for our voting method. It's easy, and it means more people vote, because they don't have to take time off from work and go to a polling place. It's the closest thing we have to true universal suffrage.

In-person only voting, however, is a form of wealth voting. Employer doesn't give time off for you to go to the polling station in Alabama? Too bad, you're not voting then - the law gives you no protections for time off to vote. Maybe if you can afford to take the day off without pay you'll vote, or maybe not, because "it doesn't matter," right?

Witnessed private voting spaces would disenfranchise more than postal voting - how many people already do not have the means to get to the polling place? Should their vote now not count?

Mass adoption of postal voting in this country would only tick us a little further toward a functional democracy with decent turnouts every cycle, but don't stop that from getting in the way of a good right wing conspiracy narrative.

It depends on whether the GOP accepts the true motivation for the MAGA's opposition to mail-in voting.

The first motivation was their belief that mailed ballots would generally work against them, in the aggregate tally. Republicans historically do better with smaller turnouts, because their base votes more reliably. That is nothing new, and has been a long standing theme of conservatives. It's what drives the voter-ID and other vote-limiting strategies.

The second motivation was a Trump innovation, in laying the groundwork for subsequent claims of fraud, for the event of a loss. More than a year before the election, Trump linked mailed ballots to fraud, which had been only a fringe theory before. And hammered that point relentlessly with his base, throughout the campaign. Even utilizing his understanding that results would swing early in his favor, then swing away, as evidence of fraud.

After his election loss, he tried to capitalize on that investment, but failed due to the lack of any substantive basis.

Trump's campaign manager Bill Stepien had advised him these strategies were wrong, and that the opposite approach would be better, to maximize Republican turnout. His view was to encourage mail-in voting rather than suppress it. But Trump preferred the power he enjoyed by leveraging suspicion and fear among his base, via the mechanism of fraud. As we saw on Jan 6.

Stepian described himself and others in the campaign as "Team Normal", but were marginalized.

Former Trump campaign chief Bill Stepien told the committee that he and others met with Trump to convince him that mail-in ballots weren’t at a high risk of fraud as the former commander-in-chief discouraged voters from using them.

“We made our case for why we believed mail-in balloting, mail-in voting, not to be a bad thing for his campaign but, you know, the president’s mind was made up,” Stepien said in new testimony presented at the hearing.

The meeting with Trump took place in the summer of 2020 as the president publicly ripped the idea of mail-in ballots being used to vote during the coronavirus pandemic.

“Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they’re cheaters,” Trump said at a White House briefing that year.

So to address this, the GOP would have to reject both premises. First that suppression of mailed ballots is a good thing for them, and second that mailed ballots are linked in any way to fraud.

It's notable that Kevin McCarthy was one of those who, along with Stepien, privately advised Trump to drop the mail-in fraud rhetoric before the election. But then publicly endorsed it afterwards. Which is the exact opposite of the rejection that is needed. He is basically the face of the GOP problem, and why it won't be solved anytime soon.

Tugger wrote:

Do the Republican's have a mail-in ballot problem?

Yes, they have a problem with mail-in ballots. A problem you already identified, namely:

Tugger wrote:

They used to be among the biggest beneficiaries

They used to be the biggest beneficiaries, past tense.
Now the democrats have a larger benefit, and all of sudden mail-in ballots have become unreliable. Sure…

After midterms, GOP reconsidering antipathy to mail ballots

Source: Associated Press via MSN

It's only convenient for the GOP to "reassess" mail-in voting after the pitiful midterm performance.

Back in some of the first days of all mail in balloting in Washington State I lived in a rural 'red' area. Someone called into the talk show radio host and said he made sure everyone in his household voted as he did. I was thinking, 'lady, be sure and keep notes. When you divorce that terrorist bum (threatening voters is a crime) your attorney is going to have a lot of fun with that.'

Tugger wrote:

Do the Republican's have a mail-in ballot problem? They used to be among the biggest beneficiaries as many older voters that lean Republican used them. Then along came Trump and his habitual lying and his sycophants reflexive acceptance and repetition of whatever he claimed. And now many hard core MAGA pols tell their supporters to not trust it and to only go in person to vote. Which has created disadvantages for Republican's in several states. Georgia being the prime example this last election.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto ... s-94839771

Now I don't really like mail-in, not because of fraud organized at the receiving end as is claimed, but because of the risk of influence over the voter as the ballot is filled out. Whether by "helpers" at the assisted living facility, or oppressive people at home, or a spouse voting for their disabled partner, I think the best thing really is in person voting, with witnessed private voting spaces. But that is beside the point.

Is it really an issue? If so, will, and how will Republicans address the problem they have created?

Tugg

Clearly the solution to this is that all potential voters over 65 must pass the assessment for a driving license otherwise they are considered ineligible to vote on grounds of being gaga. Lets face it, after a certain point people are incapable of making a valid considered decision.
Perhaps the age limit for election to the presidency must be set at 60 to prevent senile candidates.

PhilBy wrote:

Clearly the solution to this is that all potential voters over 65 must pass the assessment for a driving license otherwise they are considered ineligible to vote on grounds of being gaga. Lets face it, after a certain point people are incapable of making a valid considered decision.
Perhaps the age limit for election to the presidency must be set at 60 to prevent senile candidates.

WTF, man, plenty of people of all ages are showing they are incapable of critical thinking.

The popularity of the orange man proves that point.

Like it or not, we're stuck with 'one person one vote', no matter how dumb/senile said voters are.

Welp:

" Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) found that officials identified just 372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people out of about 14.6 million votes cast by mail in the 2016 and 2018 general elections, or 0.0025 percent."

.0025 percent..... negligible by any standard. The only fraud is trump.

Its funny to watch how some of the Republican's are now saying that the lack of mail in voting may be one of the factors as to why they performed so poorly during the mid-terms and they're not sure why so many Republican's have a distrust in the mail in system. I mean really? That was literally their whole platform over the last few years.

Revelation wrote:

PhilBy wrote:

Clearly the solution to this is that all potential voters over 65 must pass the assessment for a driving license otherwise they are considered ineligible to vote on grounds of being gaga. Lets face it, after a certain point people are incapable of making a valid considered decision.
Perhaps the age limit for election to the presidency must be set at 60 to prevent senile candidates.

WTF, man, plenty of people of all ages are showing they are incapable of critical thinking.

The popularity of the orange man proves that point.

Like it or not, we're stuck with 'one person one vote', no matter how dumb/senile said voters are.

Me guess was that comment was just a tad cheeky, but only my read.

Tugger wrote:

Is it really an issue? If so, will, and how will Republicans address the problem they have created?

Tugg

Is there any evidence that mail-in vs. in-person or early vs. same day voting potentially changed the outcome of any race? If not, then it’s not an issue.

What is an issue is putting up candidates people don’t want to vote for, regardless of which form of voting they use.

QF7 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Is it really an issue? If so, will, and how will Republicans address the problem they have created?

Tugg

Is there any evidence that mail-in vs. in-person or early vs. same day voting potentially changed the outcome of any race? If not, then it’s not an issue.

What is an issue is putting up candidates people don’t want to vote for, regardless of which form of voting they use.

For Republicans, if there is no mail in or early voting, they can close as many polling places as they want in states they control and make voting impossible in heavily Democratic areas. Over the past elections, voters in those areas complain of long lines and long wait times while those voters in rural and suburban areas have multiple polling places and are in and out in just a few minutes.

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/def ... lained.pdf
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysi ... t-turnout/
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/92452767 ... polling-pl
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/ ... n-barriers

In their minds, no matter how bad the Republican candidate is, as long as there are barriers to Democrats voting, Republicans are winners. Unfortunately, even in states with mail in only voting, there are still cries of voter fraud from Republicans.

Aaron747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

PhilBy wrote:

Clearly the solution to this is that all potential voters over 65 must pass the assessment for a driving license otherwise they are considered ineligible to vote on grounds of being gaga. Lets face it, after a certain point people are incapable of making a valid considered decision.
Perhaps the age limit for election to the presidency must be set at 60 to prevent senile candidates.

WTF, man, plenty of people of all ages are showing they are incapable of critical thinking.

The popularity of the orange man proves that point.

Like it or not, we're stuck with 'one person one vote', no matter how dumb/senile said voters are.

Me guess was that comment was just a tad cheeky, but only my read.

My blazing hot take on voting: Al Gore should have taken that hanging chad thing to the Supreme Court. I realize there was no guarantee he would win the case, and no guarantee that he'd have won a re-vote, but IMO it would have caused an all-out examination of how we do voting in the US and presumably dragged us out of the stone ages and mandated some baseline technologies and policies country-wide so we wouldn't have ended up in the place we now find ourselves. The timing would have been great, since the tech of the time was simple and robust, not hackable the way modern stuff is. If he had won a re-vote in Florida, then we would have avoided the whole GWB administration, probably stayed out of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. It would have been worth a few months of turbulence for the long-term gains IMO. Oh well, it's all water under the bridge now, we're stuck with the sh!tty time line we now find ourselves on, sigh.

Revelation wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

WTF, man, plenty of people of all ages are showing they are incapable of critical thinking.

The popularity of the orange man proves that point.

Like it or not, we're stuck with 'one person one vote', no matter how dumb/senile said voters are.

Me guess was that comment was just a tad cheeky, but only my read.

My blazing hot take on voting: Al Gore should have taken that hanging chad thing to the Supreme Court. I realize there was no guarantee he would win the case, and no guarantee that he'd have won a re-vote, but IMO it would have caused an all-out examination of how we do voting in the US and presumably dragged us out of the stone ages and mandated some baseline technologies and policies country-wide so we wouldn't have ended up in the place we now find ourselves. The timing would have been great, since the tech of the time was simple and robust, not hackable the way modern stuff is. If he had won a re-vote in Florida, then we would have avoided the whole GWB administration, probably stayed out of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. It would have been worth a few months of turbulence for the long-term gains IMO. Oh well, it's all water under the bridge now, we're stuck with the sh!tty time line we now find ourselves on, sigh.

That and shitcanning the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 pretty much created the hyperpartisan media landscape of today. All-around gross.

Aaron747 wrote:

That and shitcanning the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 pretty much created the hyperpartisan media landscape of today. All-around gross.

That, and shitcanning the super-majority while the Dems had the majority in the Obama years instead of waiting for the MAGAs to do it just a few years later. Principals in the Senate, my arse! It was 100% predictable that the right wing would pack the Court as soon as they got the chance. There's a time for principled stands, this just wasn't one of them.

Aaron747 wrote:

That and shitcanning the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 pretty much created the hyperpartisan media landscape of today. All-around gross.

I think the show CNN "crossfire" and hyper partisan MSM pundits and their hateful rhetoric have more to do with that then the fairness doctrine. it needed to be shitcanned it was a terrible FCC policy.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

That and shitcanning the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 pretty much created the hyperpartisan media landscape of today. All-around gross.

I think the show CNN "crossfire" and hyper partisan MSM pundits and their hateful rhetoric have more to do with that then the fairness doctrine. it needed to be shitcanned it was a terrible FCC policy.

Forcing media outlets to present both sides was a terrible policy? Okay, how?

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

Several problems with your idea:

1. Less than 40% of Americans have a valid passport

https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/ ... s-passport

2. There are many situations other than military where people may be unable to show up at their local precinct for Election Day - work assignment out of state, business trip out of state, family emergency visit out of state, etc. Are you saying life circumstances negate the right to vote?

3. Um hello, the Constitution gives broad powers to states to determine elections processes.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00013577/

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

The Constitution is already being followed properly. Article Two of the Constitution relates only to the executive branch, federal government and it is already the case that there is only one day which the electors of electoral college are chosen.
Per our friend Wikipedia:

Clause 4: Election day

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_T ... ection_day

And while I have my misgivings about mail-in ballots, as others have pointed out here, my fears of the "meddling factor" and spouses voting for partners appears to be incredibly low and negligible at best. So while I prefer in person voting at polling stations, I understand that it is important to have options to that.

The key is to keep it as simple as possible with provable tracking processes to keep them secure. Oh and get as many people registered and able to vote as possible. Changes to the process requiring support and outreach years ahead of being implemented to ensure this.

Tugg

seb146 wrote:

Forcing media outlets to present both sides was a terrible policy? Okay, how?

While it is good to have different points of view, these should be reported honestly and fairly.

If 99% of scientists and professionals say one thing (say: vaccines help or elections are fair), and 1% say something else, then that could certainly be reported. But to be fair, it should not be a 50/50 split. Otherwise you get what we have now: two groups of people, each with their own set of contradictory “facts”.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

I thought of another serious issue with multiple ID requirements: have you ever met a truly long-term homeless person? No fixed address, perhaps lost their ID or have only partial records. Should they lose the right to vote purely because they are indigent? Kind of an around-the-horn poll tax.

petertenthije wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Forcing media outlets to present both sides was a terrible policy? Okay, how?

While it is good to have different points of view, these should be reported honestly and fairly.

If 99% of scientists and professionals say one thing (say: vaccines help or elections are fair), and 1% say something else, then that could certainly be reported. But to be fair, it should not be a 50/50 split. Otherwise you get what we have now: two groups of people, each with their own set of contradictory “facts”.

Nope. Not even the same. Vaccines work should not be presented with vaccines are mind control devices because vaccines are not mind control devices. Not even close to the same thing. Giving one political side 10 minuets and giving the other political side 10 minutes is completely different than vaccines.

No, my bad... it is the same.

One side screaming "HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP TO SAVE AMERICA!!!" nonstop versus "corporations claiming profits while raising prices because of inflation" we really need to see that, no? We The People need to compare the two parties side-by-side, don't we?

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

Right. The Constitution (Republicans love to say they support this but fight like everythign to undermine it) only says election day, Nothing says HOW but THAT

The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States is the actual text. So, those of us in mail only ballot states must have our ballots in by that date. Nothing about waiting in horrible weather or having no polling places or having armed militias demanding to see our papers. Just that elections have to be this date.

Washington State considers mail in ballots to have met that if they are post marked on that date. Hence military ballots post marked on far off isolated places are considered valid. It slows down the count, I think we should figure out ways of getting those votes in earlier, but the 'mind' of the state is to be very inclusive and encourage voting. The State does demand that signatures match those on record. About 20,000 votes are rejected because of not matching. If a person has voted early enough they are sent a letter, or if they gave a phone number they are called, and can come into the auditor's office and confirm their identity. Some of those 20,000 are challenging the law. I think they will handily lose their case, and think they should.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

So you want to make it harder to exercise our rights? If you want to follow the Constitution, like you said, what's this "photo ID" and "passport" thing? They didn't have those back then.

Aaron747 wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

I thought of another serious issue with multiple ID requirements: have you ever met a truly long-term homeless person? No fixed address, perhaps lost their ID or have only partial records. Should they lose the right to vote purely because they are indigent? Kind of an around-the-horn poll tax.

You really think the priority of a long time homeless people is voting in an election? Most likely they are looking for their next fix not who is running for office.. Democrats will pull out all the stops to get a vote and this one is really grabbing at straws. Most all countries around the world require an ID to vote. There are no reasons not to have one. If they don't have one the government should be supplying it at no cost, My state (Mississippi) has no early voting you are required to vote in person with an approved ID. The only mail in ballots allowed have very strict procedures on their use. That is the way it should be nationwide. Also mail in ballot white not maybe been proven to be fraudulent it still has it's issues. I mailed a birthday card with a check in it from North Mississippi to Memphis in October and she still hasn't received it. If you think mail in voting is so reliable get a few hundred dollar bills and put them in an envelope and mail it to your self.

stratosphere wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

I thought of another serious issue with multiple ID requirements: have you ever met a truly long-term homeless person? No fixed address, perhaps lost their ID or have only partial records. Should they lose the right to vote purely because they are indigent? Kind of an around-the-horn poll tax.

You really think the priority of a long time homeless people is voting in an election? Most likely they are looking for their next fix not who is running for office.. Democrats will pull out all the stops to get a vote and this one is really grabbing at straws. Most all countries around the world require an ID to vote. There are no reasons not to have one. If they don't have one the government should be supplying it at no cost, My state (Mississippi) has no early voting you are required to vote in person with an approved ID. The only mail in ballots allowed have very strict procedures on their use. That is the way it should be nationwide. Also mail in ballot white not maybe been proven to be fraudulent it still has it's issues. I mailed a birthday card with a check in it from North Mississippi to Memphis in October and she still hasn't received it. If you think mail in voting is so reliable get a few hundred dollar bills and put them in an envelope and mail it to your self.

Do you have a guaranteed time off work to vote?.

stratosphere wrote:

You really think the priority of a long time homeless people is voting in an election? Most likely they are looking for their next fix not who is running for office.. Democrats will pull out all the stops to get a vote and this one is really grabbing at straws. Most all countries around the world require an ID to vote. There are no reasons not to have one. If they don't have one the government should be supplying it at no cost, My state (Mississippi) has no early voting you are required to vote in person with an approved ID. The only mail in ballots allowed have very strict procedures on their use. That is the way it should be nationwide. Also mail in ballot white not maybe been proven to be fraudulent it still has it's issues. I mailed a birthday card with a check in it from North Mississippi to Memphis in October and she still hasn't received it. If you think mail in voting is so reliable get a few hundred dollar bills and put them in an envelope and mail it to your self.

So you just assume all homeless people are drug addicts.

Besides, didn't Mississippi close many DMVs so it would be harder and cost more for non-drivers to get "free" ID cards that would be approved for voting? Maybe now Republicans have control of the House, they can find the money to fix the Postal Service they broke so mail-in voting for all Americans can happen and you can get your birthday card.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

Why? The Constitution makes no mention of needing ID OR how votes are to be cast. If you want to get technical, if you have a mortgage, and do not own your land free and clear, you could not vote. And women?? Faggedabout it.

stratosphere wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

I thought of another serious issue with multiple ID requirements: have you ever met a truly long-term homeless person? No fixed address, perhaps lost their ID or have only partial records. Should they lose the right to vote purely because they are indigent? Kind of an around-the-horn poll tax.

My state (Mississippi)

And it all makes perfect sense now.

I'm old enough to remember when the California Republican Party would literally send an absentee ballot to every registered Republican in the state as soon as they were printed. It encouraged Republican voter turnout and was a massive factor in the elections of clowns like George Dukemajian and the particularly repugnant bigot Pete Wilson.

I chuckled more than a little when a few of my old classmates were feigning fear that their vote wouldn't be counted because it was by mail.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

Why should the military have an exception? That definitely isn't in the constitution. Can't make up rules as you go along, chief.

Oh, and the term used for federal general elections is "Election Day," not "Voting Day." You could easily have a different day when votes are collected and then tabulated on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November.

bluecrew wrote:

In-person only voting, however, is a form of wealth voting. Employer doesn't give time off for you to go to the polling station in Alabama? Too bad, you're not voting then - the law gives you no protections for time off to vote. Maybe if you can afford to take the day off without pay you'll vote, or maybe not, because "it doesn't matter," right?

I understand the US is big but there should be a federal election standard and states should have an identical standard for their own elections.
It should mandate a given amount of paid time off to exercise their civic right to vote. Also all registration and ID requirements should be the same regardless where you live in the country.

In Canada you get 3 paid hours to vote and this is similar in other countries.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Washington State considers mail in ballots to have met that if they are post marked on that date. Hence military ballots post marked on far off isolated places are considered valid. It slows down the count, I think we should figure out ways of getting those votes in earlier, but the 'mind' of the state is to be very inclusive and encourage voting.

There should be an online option to vote. In today's world its only the very old people and some others that don't have the technical capability to vote online securely. Hacking is a problem but with the capabilities of the US government. Doing this with a strong degree of encryption shouldn't be that expensive.

StarAC17 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

In-person only voting, however, is a form of wealth voting. Employer doesn't give time off for you to go to the polling station in Alabama? Too bad, you're not voting then - the law gives you no protections for time off to vote. Maybe if you can afford to take the day off without pay you'll vote, or maybe not, because "it doesn't matter," right?

I understand the US is big but there should be a federal election standard and states should have an identical standard for their own elections.
It should mandate a given amount of paid time off to exercise their civic right to vote. Also all registration and ID requirements should be the same regardless where you live in the country.

In Canada you get 3 paid hours to vote and this is similar in other countries.

Just like minimum wage, there is the federal standard but states can, on their own, go above that. Nothing in the Constitution says a state can not have mail in ballots only. Just like nothing in the Constitution says states must have a minimum minimum wage. Strictly speaking, there is nothing in the Constitution about a minimum wage, so I am surprised Texas and Florida and Kansas (and others) have not abolished minimum wage.

But, we are talking about voting. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about in person voting. Just that federal election day is Tuesday after the first whatever. Additionally, each state has their own voting days through the year for various things. Oregon (my state) has four different voting days in one year. The one federal standard and three other set by the state legislature. Kansas had a specific vote for an abortion ban and literally nothing else.

The vote to choose representatives to the Electoral College to select a president and representatives to Congress must be the first Tuesday after the so on but everything else, governor, mayor, dog catcher, ballot measures, etc. can be any time. They are all done that same day to save the individual state money.

.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

The US Constitution allows for "election day" not election week. Voting should ONLY be in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship with an item such as a passport. The only ones that should be allowed to vote by mail is US Military.

This is a very unpopular proposition (except for voter ID). I can do all of the above, so this isn’t about me.

It should be as easy for people to vote for politicians in as it is easy for politicians to rule over them. Otherwise, that contract must be broken…. And it won’t be.

I don’t understand why people think people should have less opportunities to vote within a reasonable time frame (a week) when there’s negligible extra cost, and negligible extra hassle to do so. We have to deal with politicians for 2, 4, or even 6 years, but we can’t put up with having a reasonable time frame to vote them in?

StarAC17 wrote:

There should be an online option to vote.

That is one thing I hope NEVER happens.

Sadly I won't be surprised if it is someday but that open the door to the capability for mass fraud events.

It is very hard to be fraudulent right now (much to the chagrin of "stop the steal" believers).

Ballots must be signed physically and verifiable physically, traceable to a registered voter with a matching signature card. So to cast a fraudulent vote one must create a physical artifact to do so, and it must match to a registered voter. And do such for each and every fraudulent vote.

Online is electronic and so millions of actions could be created near instantaneously and performed and sent in from around the world.

I hope to god such a process is never offered or implemented.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

There should be an online option to vote.

That is one thing I hope NEVER happens.

Sadly I won't be surprised if it is someday but that open the door to the capability for mass fraud events.

It is very hard to be fraudulent right now (much to the chagrin of "stop the steal" believers).

Ballots must be signed physically and verifiable physically, traceable to a registered voter with a matching signature card. So to cast a fraudulent vote one must create a physical artifact to do so, and it must match to a registered voter. And do such for each and every fraudulent vote.

Online is electronic and so millions of actions could be created near instantaneously and performed and sent in from around the world.

I hope to god such a process is never offered or implemented.

Tugg

Washington State does it this way. We also vote on an 8 by 11 inch piece of paper. The votes are inside a security envelope inside the mailing envelope. The signature is on the outside (or mailing) envelope. The signature must match before the envelope is opened. If it isn't, then the voter is notified and can, if there is time, come in and verify the signature.

The voter is then listed on the precinct book as 'voted'. Then the mailing envelope is opened. Henceforth votes are only identified as to precinct. Election judges, usually county officials and outside observers, open the security envelope, take out the voter page, look it over to ensure all votes are proper (two votes for the same race or issue, smudged votes, color of ink the computer cannot read etc) If the intent of the voter can be determined it is corrected). Only then is the paper vote run through the scanner which tallies the votes. All of this is saved for I don't know how long.

Recounts are required if the vote is close. Recounts can either be by running the precinct vote through the scanner once again, or they can be hand counted. Races where the vote has been about 100 votes apart have never been changed by the recount. There is an occasional change of winners, it has been a small city or voting area where the vote differed by 2-3 votes. Typically when there is a required or requested recount the vote changes by 2 or 3 votes out of a quarter of a million votes.

I used to volunteer as a precinct voter person, actually would get 'paid' about $35 for being there from 6am to 8pm plus an hour or so. It was exhausting but fun and enjoyed seeing people I knew.

Voting electronically over a network such as the Internet, is not feasible at present, due to security concerns. I don't see that changing in the near future.

The existing modern systems have sufficient number of safeguards to ensure that mass fraud cannot occur. There can be instances of individual fraud. The many false claims of mass fraud in the last few election cycles, are due to misunderstanding of how these systems work.

The only mass claim that had a factual basis, was Stacey Abrams in 2018. She rightly noted that many thousands of people were wrongfully removed from the registration rolls, and that was true.

However the courts found that the removal criteria did not discriminate by race or party or area or any other demographic, and thus affected all campaigns equally. In addition, Georgia offered any removed person the opportunity to vote at any polling place, with valid ID. So the burden of proof of intent to disenfranchise, which is a high bar, was not met.

Abram's actions did have an important result, in that Georgia amended their laws & procedures, and cleaned up their voter registration problems, before the 2020 election. That gave them high confidence that the very close election results were valid.

She also was able to mobilize vast voter registration drives, and turn out the vote in 2020, which couldn't be challenged.

Tugger wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

There should be an online option to vote.

That is one thing I hope NEVER happens.

Sadly I won't be surprised if it is someday but that open the door to the capability for mass fraud events.

It is very hard to be fraudulent right now (much to the chagrin of "stop the steal" believers).

Ballots must be signed physically and verifiable physically, traceable to a registered voter with a matching signature card. So to cast a fraudulent vote one must create a physical artifact to do so, and it must match to a registered voter. And do such for each and every fraudulent vote.

Online is electronic and so millions of actions could be created near instantaneously and performed and sent in from around the world.

I hope to god such a process is never offered or implemented.

Tugg

Online should never happen, ever.

I was seriously injured this year and still voted in my elections, by mail in postal vote. I could have possibly got to a voting centre but it would have been difficult.

The idea of online is just open to hacks and exploits. My job deals with big online systems and I would recommend against this. On that note, feel free to delete this post.