The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (8 Viewers)

[Lapaz]

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.

Stanford study: Mail voting doesn't benefit one party over another

Coronavirus-spurred limits have intensified a push to allow more mail balloting in November.

www.politico.com

Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options

Most states offer at least one method for any eligible voter to cast a ballot before Election Day. While some states provide early in-person voting, this webpage addresses absentee voting and all-mail voting.

www.ncsl.org

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.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I guess I am different. I consider throwing ballots in a dumpster that were suppose to be delivered to the voter as election fraud.

Even if we accept that this incident was voter fraud. It is not evidence of widespread voter fraud orchestrated by a group that's trying to steal the election.

It was an individual acting alone.

Please quote the people that have said "no voter fraud exists," because I've never heard anyone say that. What I have heard people say is that the isolated cases of voter fraud that do exist are not enough to change the outcomes of elections. That's a very different statement from "voter fraud doesn't exist."

 

[LA - L.A.]

That's EXACTLY what each poster did besides Farb.

If someone is exaggerating something, then anyone else's efforts to put that thing in a more realistic and less exaggerated perspective is going to be seen as downplaying.

So of course putting this incident in a realistic, exaggerated perspective is going to be seen as downplaying this incident to those who are blowing it out of proportion.

 

[The moose]

Wow. I wonder what Under Cover Mother Hubbard has to say about this.

I bet techno frog has some real insight into this also!

 

[Mixtape]

Seems like that is one of the purposes of a message board. Meaning, there is this "vague" report and we discuss it in the way you just did. What seems counterproductive to that purpose are warnings by staff not to go into that area while apparently accepting innuendo that the president is going to unleash a violent army on people trying to vote (or any of the other dozens of hypotheticals/innuendos posted here each day or week).

To be clear, I thought that post was one that didn't cross a line. But "army" is often used in that context and was regularly used in describing Obama's campaign volunteers.

I think it was pretty clear that the passing, drive by suggestion of voter fraud, with no substance, is what I was talking about. I am absolutely fine with discussing something with substance and legitimacy. And this was clarified, I felt, when I wrote:

If there is something legitimate that comes up, then post it and discuss it. But we are not going to have conspiratorial or re-framed content that suggests there's some nefarious plot about our voting institutions. The process of mail-in voting and filing absentee ballots is a process that involves a lot of steps and many of the posts, of the more dubious and conspiratorial variety, do not take that into account. In the last two posts here of that nature, I don't see any actual evidence of some plot to rig the election. And it would be irresponsible for us to allow these sorts of posts, with no explanatory substance, to remain and be treated as valid.

I still see nothing in the sarcastic, eye-rolling that adds substance. And the implication is pretty clear - it's designed to call into question the process of mail-in voting.

So I did not say "do not go in that area" at all.

And if you see a post that you think contradicts it, then report it. As Andrus has said, do not assume that mods have read every single post. If you think something goes against what a mod has pointed out, then report that post. It will flag it for moderation.

Case in point, SFL saw a post he thought went against it. But rather than report it, he made it a public matter and singled out a moderator. I had not seen superchuck500's post, but there seemed to be an assumption that I did. And, not only that, but left it up. This was framed as some sort of hypocrisy.

This isn't the way to go about it.

By all means, discuss a "vague report" in a way that's discussion. To suggest that I was saying that should not happen is pretty close to the opposite of what I wrote.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I agree and just because he threw out other mail doesn't negate that fact.

Fraud requires intent. So if he had no knowledge there were ballots in there then there's no intent to commit election fraud. Notably, the article says the complaint itself doesn't mention a motive. Under such an expansive definition of election fraud, DeJoy's removal of sorting machines would also be election fraud. It's not. It's bad but it's not fraud.

Is this an extremely bad thing to happen? Yes. Is it election fraud? No. Check out La. R.S. 18:1461.2 and 18:1461.6.

 

[MT15]

Senator Lee actually said this. I mean the actions of the R party show they believe this, but I don’t think they have said it this frankly before. At least that I’ve seen.



This reads like fascism to me. The leaders, the ruling class, the elites, will decide what the people need. They will decide what is liberty, what is prosperity.

 

[brandon]

Senator Lee actually said this. I mean the actions of the R party show they believe this, but I don’t think they have said it this frankly before. At least that I’ve seen.



This reads like fascism to me. The leaders, the ruling class, the elites, will decide what the people need. They will decide what is liberty, what is prosperity.

So, there's an argument to be had that pure democracy is not ideal, in the sense that if you put slavery to a vote in Mississippi in 1865, we'd still have slavery in Mississippi.

But that's why we have representatives that are supposed to represent the best interests of the people and courts that rule on the constitutionality of the laws created by the representatives.

Unfortunately, we have representatives that are working in the interests of one particular group of people and a stacked court that is not going to stand in the way on constitutional grounds.

 

[MT15]

Yes, I know the context.

The entire arc of the evolution of our nation has been toward more democracy is an argument that could be made. Toward more liberties as well. And he’s making that remark in the shadow of Rs skewing a SC in the direction where they will most certainly remove liberties from large numbers of people. They will be removing those liberties by design. It’s such a dishonest argument when it comes from his mouth.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Senator Lee actually said this. I mean the actions of the R party show they believe this, but I don’t think they have said it this frankly before. At least that I’ve seen.



This reads like fascism to me. The leaders, the ruling class, the elites, will decide what the people need. They will decide what is liberty, what is prosperity.

This is consistent with the conservative project to limit access to voting to certain types of people whose votes they deem unworthy to be counted as equal to their own. I don't know that I have seen an elected GOP official say it so clearly before, but there is no doubt that they understand that their policies will never win over a majority of the voters in the United States again and that their only hope of maintaining power is to make sure that the votes of people they don't like don't count. This is why they need to ram Amy Coney Barrett through in a lame duck session, because they needs the courts to continue to allow them to limit the right to vote.

 

[DaveXA]

This is consistent with the conservative project to limit access to voting to certain types of people whose votes they deem unworthy to be counted as equal to their own. I don't know that I have seen an elected GOP official say it so clearly before, but there is no doubt that they understand that their policies will never win over a majority of the voters in the United States again and that their only hope of maintaining power is to make sure that the votes of people they don't like don't count. This is why they need to ram Amy Coney Barrett through in a lame duck session, because they needs the courts to continue to allow them to limit the right to vote.

Splitting hairs here, but technically, they're trying to ram it through before the Senate's lame duck session.

 

[Optimus Prime]

We’ll see how big and widespread an issue this becomes
=====================
A LOT of mail-in ballots are being rejected in North Carolina. The Tar Heel State is one of many along the East Coast with very low historical rates of absentee voting — before the coronavirus struck.

Already this year, the state has accepted about double the mail-in ballots it counted in the entire 2016 presidential election, with four weeks to go, according to state board of elections figures. With higher rates of mail-in voting comes a higher number of rejected ballots for mistakes such as a missing signature or other minor errors, a total that is also running a bit less than double the entire 2016 sum.

Disturbingly, it appears that Black voters’ ballots are being rejected at a massively disproportionate rate, according to University of Florida elections expert Michael McDonald.

Because so many more people are voting absentee, thousands of ballot rejections could determine who wins a tight race in this swing state.

North Carolina will not be the only state to face this problem in the coming weeks, and there is not much time to fix it............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mail-in-ballots-are-being-rejected-in-north-carolina-it-wont-be-the-only-state-to-face-this/2020/10/07/d792445e-0812-11eb-a166-dc429b380d10_story.html

 

[Saint by the Bay]

We’ll see how big and widespread an issue this becomes
=====================
A LOT of mail-in ballots are being rejected in North Carolina. The Tar Heel State is one of many along the East Coast with very low historical rates of absentee voting — before the coronavirus struck.

Already this year, the state has accepted about double the mail-in ballots it counted in the entire 2016 presidential election, with four weeks to go, according to state board of elections figures. With higher rates of mail-in voting comes a higher number of rejected ballots for mistakes such as a missing signature or other minor errors, a total that is also running a bit less than double the entire 2016 sum.

Disturbingly, it appears that Black voters’ ballots are being rejected at a massively disproportionate rate, according to University of Florida elections expert Michael McDonald.

Because so many more people are voting absentee, thousands of ballot rejections could determine who wins a tight race in this swing state.

North Carolina will not be the only state to face this problem in the coming weeks, and there is not much time to fix it............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mail-in-ballots-are-being-rejected-in-north-carolina-it-wont-be-the-only-state-to-face-this/2020/10/07/d792445e-0812-11eb-a166-dc429b380d10_story.html

Because of the paywall I can't read the article. Did the voters get some kind of notification that their ballot was rejected?

 

[bdb13]

Because of the paywall I can't read the article. Did the voters get some kind of notification that their ballot was rejected?

My follow up to that would be do the campaigns have access to voter information on the rejected ballots so that they can reach out to the voters?

 

[MT15]

Got you:

“The saving grace is that North Carolina allows voters to cure mail-in ballot deficiencies. But that process has been held up pending court action. The board of elections agreed to allow voters who had not met witness requirements to sign and return letters certifying that their ballots are genuine. But President Trump’s campaign and other Republicans have challenged this procedure in federal court. A ruling against the board of elections might force a more complex process, obliging voters to complete new ballots.”

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Splitting hairs here, but technically, they're trying to ram it through before the Senate's lame duck session.

I don't think they'll get it done before the election due to the GOP COVID outbreak, but point taken. I'm not sure that doing it knowing they are going to lose versus doing it after they've lost makes much difference.

The current GOP is out of step with a majority of Americans on many major issues -- gay rights, health care, abortion, marijuana, etc. And instead of attempting to change with the times and adjust their platform to compete in the ol' marketplace of ideas and win at the polls, they've decided to double down and limit access to the polls instead. Their ideas can't survive democracy. I've seen lots of "ackshually we're a republic" takes before but it's wild that elected officials are now openly anti-democracy.

 

[DaveXA]

We’ll see how big and widespread an issue this becomes
=====================
A LOT of mail-in ballots are being rejected in North Carolina. The Tar Heel State is one of many along the East Coast with very low historical rates of absentee voting — before the coronavirus struck.

Already this year, the state has accepted about double the mail-in ballots it counted in the entire 2016 presidential election, with four weeks to go, according to state board of elections figures. With higher rates of mail-in voting comes a higher number of rejected ballots for mistakes such as a missing signature or other minor errors, a total that is also running a bit less than double the entire 2016 sum.

Disturbingly, it appears that Black voters’ ballots are being rejected at a massively disproportionate rate, according to University of Florida elections expert Michael McDonald.

Because so many more people are voting absentee, thousands of ballot rejections could determine who wins a tight race in this swing state.

North Carolina will not be the only state to face this problem in the coming weeks, and there is not much time to fix it............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mail-in-ballots-are-being-rejected-in-north-carolina-it-wont-be-the-only-state-to-face-this/2020/10/07/d792445e-0812-11eb-a166-dc429b380d10_story.html

How do they know blacks are being rejected disproportionately? The ballots don't indicate race on them right? The only thing I can think of is an assumption based on the population of a precient. I'm just curious what their methodology is for determining that.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't think they'll get it done before the election due to the GOP COVID outbreak, but point taken. I'm not sure that doing it knowing they are going to lose versus doing it after they've lost makes much difference.

The current GOP is out of step with a majority of Americans on many major issues -- gay rights, health care, abortion, marijuana, etc. And instead of attempting to change with the times and adjust their platform to compete in the ol' marketplace of ideas and win at the polls, they've decided to double down and limit access to the polls instead. Their ideas can't survive democracy. I've seen lots of "ackshually we're a republic" takes before but it's wild that elected officials are now openly anti-democracy.

Oh I agree. I just think it's too late for them to make those kinds of changes at this point. Maybe this election will force them to reevaluate their platform and approach and pull the Republican party out of the abyss. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Oh I agree. I just think it's too late for them to make those kinds of changes at this point. Maybe this election will force them to reevaluate their platform and approach and pull the Republican party out of the abyss. I'm not holding my breath though.

I don't think that's possible because of the way they have cultivated their base over the last 30 years. If they try and become more moderate they will get taken out in the primaries but people who are more radical. The problem with building an entire party based on being inflexible is you have no dexterity to adjust.