The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (11 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.

 

[Foreign National]

You know, you could elaborate and answer my question rather than making snarky comments that accomplish nothing. I'm being serious in asking what is the rationale for this law.

You may not see it, but it serves to illustrate the points I made earlier. Get back to me when you learn more about the law.

 

[Foreign National]

my fear is something more sinister. Labeled "official" to dupe some into dropping off and that box disappearing. Not to suppress the vote.

to be an example of fraud so that the claims of voter fraud are supported by instances like this.

Im that worried with the pre-Nov 3rd narrative of voter fraud.

The California GOP’s official stance on this is they are just trying to get more ballots in from areas that are likely to have votes beneficial to them. And their official explanation for having labeled the boxes with the word ‘official’ was oops, they have since removed the word official from the boxes.

I think their official stance is fine, except I am not naive and know when it comes to voting related issues that their official reasoning is a crock of poo.

 

[DaveXA]

You may not see it, but it serves to illustrate the points I made earlier. Get back to me when you learn more about the law.

LA and coldseat explained a bit of what it is and some of the rationale behind it, which i thought was helpful and the others contributing to the discussion fleshed out some of the issues i was asking about. So...I'm good. I asked a genuine question, and...

 

[Foreign National]

LA and coldseat explained a bit of what it is and some of the rationale behind it, which i thought was helpful and the others contributing to the discussion fleshed out some of the issues i was asking about. So...I'm good. I asked a genuine question, and...

Am I’m telling you that you’re falling right into their trap. I get it, I might get defensive too if someone pointed that out to me.

 

[superchuck500]

Probably the first "poll watcher" arrest in this election, certainly not the last.

 

[DaveXA]

Am I’m telling you that you’re falling right into their trap. I get it, I might get defensive too if someone pointed that out to me.

Asking an honest question is being defensive? That's news to me.

 

[superchuck500]

There will be people incensed by this. How wacko is that?

 

[LA - L.A.]

This is a pretty long winded answer that avoided directly responding to what I asked entirely.

What are you talking about? I just read through your posts again. You didn't ask any questions. You made statements and I replied to those statements. What is the question you think you asked?

 

[DaveXA]

What are you talking about? I just read through your posts again. You didn't ask any questions. You made statements and I replied to those statements. What is the question you think you asked?

Oof, I thought I had framed it in the form of a question. Asking basically how the law is legal in the sense of harvesting ballots and seems to allow political party operatives to do this. It just seemed to me like those operatives can be selective in which ballots they want to deliver and the extent and success of that would depend on whichever party had better infrastructure and resources to accomplish this. I guess the question is how is this legal.

I think it was mostly answered later in the thread. My apologies for not posing a clearly stated question.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Oof, I thought I had framed it in the form of a question. Asking basically how the law is legal in the sense of harvesting ballots and seems to allow political party operatives to do this. It just seemed to me like those operatives can be selective in which ballots they want to deliver and the extent and success of that would depend on whichever party had better infrastructure and resources to accomplish this. I guess the question is how is this legal.

I think it was mostly answered later in the thread. My apologies for not posing a clearly stated question.

 

[CoolBrees]

Just finished voting.

I won’t bore you with the details but there were three measures that I found maybe interesting to you all

1) creating an independent police oversight board with discipline authority. All complaints and use of deadly force will be reviewed by this board if approved.

2) medical use of psilocybin to be legalized and distributed through the cannabis dispensaries on a license tag-on and only for those with a special medical card.

3) decriminalize all drugs under 2 grams and use cannabis retail funding primarily for rehab centers.

I won’t tell you how I voted because it doesn’t matter but I thought these were interesting.

 

[B4YOU]

I fully support DC doing 100% unsolicited mail ballots. I got mine first week of Oct. I used Indigenous Peoples Day (IPD) to research local candidates and issues. I walked 100 yard to my library that had a drop box outside with a video camera and staff person. So easy. I hope I never have to vote in person again.

 

[DaveXA]

I fully support DC doing 100% unsolicited mail ballots. I got mine first week of Oct. I used Indigenous Peoples Day (IPD) to research local candidates and issues. I walked 100 yard to my library that had a drop box outside with a video camera and staff person. So easy. I hope I never have to vote in person again.

I'd be so down with that. Sounds like DC is doing it the right way.

 

[Nebaghead]

I dropped my wife’s and my ballot off today at a drop box after work. Easy peasy.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Oh yeah for sure, I have no doubt that they've thrown away any ballots that were going for Democrats.

I actually think the opposite is a possibility

Trump has zero chance of winning California

So a small sacrifice is made of a couple hundred Republican ballots that aren’t counted and are magically found after the election and then they can scream voter fraud against Trump

 

[barbar]

I actually think the opposite is a possibility

Trump has zero chance of winning California

So a small sacrifice is made of a couple hundred Republican ballots that aren’t counted and are magically found after the election and then they can scream voter fraud against Trump

This is my belief also. Manufacturing voter fraud to justify harsher voting restrictions is right in their wheelhouse.

In this case I think their plan has been exposed to the point that it would not be effective.

 

[insidejob]

I won’t tell you how I voted because it doesn’t matter but I thought these were interesting

I'll gladly tell you how I'm voting to in New Orleans. See the attached.

I'm voting for pretty much all of the endorsed candidates except for Municipal Court Division A. Vote Paul Sens if you're in Orleans. He's family, the chief judge, and only didn't make it to the criminal bench because his now ex-wife went batshit crazy a week before the election in 2014 and accused him of all kinds of shirt she was guilty of and was arrested for (DV type shirt). Oh, and I can't vote for the judge named Piper. I've never met anyone named Piper who isn't a * * Next Thursday, but there's a dual endorsement in that race anyway.

 

[Optimus Prime]

This is my belief also. Manufacturing voter fraud to justify harsher voting restrictions is right in their wheelhouse.

In this case I think their plan has been exposed to the point that it would not be effective.

You’re right, it would be hard to do whatever the plan originally was because it was exposed so quickly

And this was caught right away because the GOP boxes are a different color than the official ones

I do wonder why they didn’t just go all the way and make their boxes identical to the official boxes

The only thing I can think of is it provides a bit of an out - “these clearly aren’t the official boxes”

If their boxes were the same as the official ones I’d guess that would a whole different level of trouble

As it is maybe it’s like counterfeiting $200 bills
“It’s not my fault the store thought they were real”

Definitely not good, but definitely better than using fake $100 bills

“it’s not our fault people thought this box that is clearly not the real official ballot box was real”