The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (5 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    2,387
    Reaction score
    2,153
    Age
    62
    Location
    Alabama
    Offline
    There is a lot of push-back from Trump on voting by mail, but most states allow it, and 1/3 allow it without any excuse. His rationale is that it will lead to vast fraud, but of course that isn't his real reason. His real reason is that he thinks it will be worse for conservatives, but studies have shown that states that have instituted much broader voting by mail haven't had any statistical changes in party voting.



    Although, normally voting by mail doesn't affect party votes, I bet it might this year if we have another resurgence of Covid, because I think the right is much more apt to discount the virus than the left. I know that is why Trump is against it.

    Whether you're left or right wing, expanding mail in votes is the right thing to do to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus, to expand voter participation, and to make it easier for those that do show up to stay distant. It will also allow any people with susceptibilities to remain safer. I think voting by mail could be made extremely secure by having people vote using traditional postal mail, coupled with requiring a confirmation either by phone, email or text. If done by phone, then voters can provide confirmation that can include confirming their form number. If done by email or text, it can include a picture of their form, and then confirmation that that was their form. Rather than staffers individually calling people, this can be automated by having voters call the number, text the number, or email the address provided to them on their form. A website can even be created with a database of those that have voted, and perhaps a link to allow people to confirm their vote was correctly registered. For people without computers, a site can include a means to access the database over the phone with some confirmation information. These types of systems are used extensively by banks and other sites that need security, so I think they are mature enough to use. We could even use such a site for people to confirm their vote on the day of the election.
     
    Pennsylvania sure isn't pulling any punches in their response to the Texas suit.



    You can go big when you're right on everything. Right on procedure. Right on the legal merits. Right on the evidence. Right on the policy. Right on the implications.

    fork 'em. Blast them back to their caves where they belong.
     
    You just cannot make this stuff up. 🤦‍♀️






    I dont live in Georgia, but I’m donating to the campaigns of Ossoff and Warnock anyway.. i reeeaaallly hope the Republicans who live there believe that ’it’s all rigged’ and the Democratic candidates win so that Biden & Harris can enact real change.. I’m also asking anyone in my family/friends who normally buys a Christmas present for me to, instead, donate $25 each to the Ossoff & Warnock campaigns.. or for the ones who would never spend that much on me, just give what you can. :hihi:
     
    The US court system is arguably the institution that held up the best against authoritarian attacks over the past 4 years. The near-universal rejection of Trump-backed litigation over the election by judges on all sides is just one example of that. Trump thought packing SCOTUS would give him a legal safety net if he lost the election because he's an idiot who doesn't understand the court system and who thinks everyone is as corrupt as he is.

    Fox-watching Rs will continue to discredit any judge who rules against them, and will praise any judge who rules in their favor. Who cares. Trump-installed judges can and will do a great deal of harm, but the system is huge, and there's no cohesive view among these judges to undermine the very system they're a part of. And not all of the Trump-installed judges are even bad judges -- in the Western District of Louisiana (US), for example, my experience with the new judges is that they're fair and value the rule of law. Surely there are plenty of other decent ones in a system with hundreds of judges from many points of view.

    I share your concerns about the damage Fox and others have done to shared notions of truth, etc., but the court system has been a great indication of the potential strength of (small d) democratic institutions, and I'm not sure the task you're describing is a simple one for the would-be authoritarians. It doesn't mean our work is done now that Biden's president, it just means that we can take a deep breath and appreciate that the system appears to still be intact. The post-election turmoil will end with Biden's inauguration despite the efforts of nearly all of the party that's been in power for 4 years -- as democracies go, that's impressive.

    I agree with you on all this, but I was trying to say that since all these frivolous lawsuits have been dismissed, how long until trump starts trying to undermine with stuff like "crooked courts" etc? And trying to turn public opinion against them, and, like how you see with faux news, essentially a not insignificant portion of the population now does not trust voting. Who is to say trump doesn't next start going after the courts/judges (which ironically many were appointed by republicans). I feel like it is only a matter of time. Or maybe he has already tweeted about it by now, how "untrustworthy" the judges are or something along those lines
     
    Nothing says "this is a political question that the Supreme Court has no business weighing in on" more than every single grandstanding GOP office holder rushing in all at once to win the love and attention of their big guy's propaganda machine.

    I'm so absolutely delighted that both my attorney general and my congressional representative are fighting for me against the nefarious forces of people who voted by mail in other states during a forking pandemic.
     
    Can one of the legal gurus explain what laches are?
    Wrong guy, just good at google.

    .

    It's like a statue of limitations.
     
    I thought I already said what it was. Basically a common law doctrine of you snooze you lose. Statues of limitations are (duh) codified time periods whereas laches is based on unreasonable delay that prejudices the other party or interests. You can’t wait an unreasonable amount of time and then come in expecting relief that harms others. That’s about all I can say with my thumbs.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom