Talk About Marriage banner

181 - 200 of 215 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,575 Posts
If you meant something other than what you said, go ahead and clarify. It's not that big of a deal.
He meant, if I might speak for him, that the system is designed to stop the population of large cities having undue sway. This was particularly applicable in the first days when there were federalists and those favouring a looser union, as well as slavery and non-slavery states. A wonderful fudge had to be created to maintain a balance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
This is a point of disagreement. If Trump is an electoral asset, it makes no sense that he would lose the popular vote to an unpopular Democrat nominee when the Republicans were the more popular party.
So, it is one of these two:
- Clinton was unpopular in 2016 and Trump was an electoral liability. In 2016, people found the candidate uninspiring.
or
- Clinton was hugely popular and would have been the overwhelming choice for an enthused populace, were Trump not even more popular. People were hugely impressed by the candidates in 2016.
Obama won both the EC and the popular vote, he was a popular. If Hillary had been as popular we would not be having this discussion as whether or not she was a popular D candidate.

I suspect, that this year it may be more about who is more unpopular than who is popular.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
Like go to the gun store rather than the government show up on their doorstep to ask them which kind of gun they want?
false equivalency for what you were suggesting, so please don’t change the goalpost. What were you suggesting about who should be eligible to vote, again?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
@Thor

I get it though, if someone does not vote for the same candidate you deem acceptable, then somehow that person is a low information voter. Well, the same could be said about you from someone else’s perspective. Democracy is not based on only allowing those with our personal biases or only allow special interest to pick our elected officials. It is best served when as many eligible constituents have a say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
false equivalency for what you were suggesting, so please don’t change the goalpost. What were you suggesting about who should be eligible to vote, again?
No, go back and read what I wrote. I did not call for a tax nor any kind of knowledge test. I said it should require some effort to vote, so that the people who vote have put at least some thought into it. Ignorant voters do not improve the result of elections.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
No, go back and read what I wrote. I did not call for a tax nor any kind of knowledge test. I said it should require some effort to vote, so that the people who vote have put at least some thought into it. Ignorant voters do not improve the result of elections.
What effort do you expect... you mean like the effort put forth to vote in a reality TV star? How are you going to test for ignorance? Again, this is poll tax method, you want folks to pass a test before they can vote? I am not sure how you plan to implement this program.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
@Thor

You only want to see those who put forth effort to vote, that is put thought into (as if folks don’t already do so already) Their choice. Given that we are offered the choice of one where we have two candidate choices (neither of which would have been our first choice), it often means that we choose the one we either really like or choose against the one we definitely do not like. How much effort do you expect in this form of binary choosing?

Speaking mainly of general elections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
I expect someone to care enough to make an effort. There is talk going around of internet voting, email voting, 100% vote by mail. There are howls of disapproval when voter ID is mentioned. The less effort someone has to put into voting the less likely they are to 1) Actually care about the results, 2) Know anything about the person or issue.

If the voter gets off their couch and goes to the nearby polling station, they must care about the outcome. They probably have some awareness of candidates and issues. If the person has to register to vote before election day, they probably are thinking about how government affects their community.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
I expect someone to care enough to make an effort. There is talk going around of internet voting, email voting, 100% vote by mail. There are howls of disapproval when voter ID is mentioned. The less effort someone has to put into voting the less likely they are to 1) Actually care about the results, 2) Know anything about the person or issue.

If the voter gets off their couch and goes to the nearby polling station, they must care about the outcome. They probably have some awareness of candidates and issues. If the person has to register to vote before election day, they probably are thinking about how government affects their community.
I don’t think online voting has been approved anywhere in the country, we need a paper trail. However, a number of states have already approved vote by mail. This takes effort as much as getting off the couch. One still has to fill out the paper (mail-in) ballot and place into a USPS receptacle.

If the person does not have to wait hours and hours to vote - time some folks do not have because of their work. We will likely to get more participation in the democratic process. I call that a win for the democratic process.

I think anyone who takes the time to vote, whether by mail or in person cares enough about the process, so I am still not understanding your complaint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
I think anyone who takes the time to vote, whether by mail or in person cares enough about the process, so I am still not understanding your complaint.
I am disagreeing with this that you said:
Adding more people to voter registery is what democracy is built on, that is when all eligible actually participate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
I can't support that presumption.

There have always been many hands on the ballots in any election system. For physical ballots, someone collects them and puts them in boxes at the polling station. Someone has to deliver them to a counting site. Someone has to interpret those that cannot be tabulated manually. Maybe a box or two goes missing. Maybe that electronic machine you voted on didn't really register the vote you think it did.

If my mail-in ballot is stolen or missing, I can report that and correct it. No one can take my ballot and fill it out for me without me at least knowing that I didn't receive one. Once it is out of my hands, it is either in the mail or in a dedicated ballot drop box. At this point, there is nothing less secure than any physical polling station.

Every single ballot in our state has its signature validated against the voter's registration card by people trained for that purpose.

So no, I do not agree that it is easier. By what mechanism do you propose large scale voter fraud could be done in a mail in election that cannot be done equally well with a physical ballot?
I never stated that it would cause large scale fraud, I said it was less secure.

If you mail your ballot in how many people in the post office handle it? You really don't know after it leaves your hands. Post office never lost anything right?

In my town anyway, there are only about 5-6 people covering my precinct. I check in and get my ballot, I fill it out, I check out and place my ballot in the counting machine. The people working at my precinct, justify the ballots issued to them and the ballots collected against the number of people checked in and out. The machine counts the little ovals I color in and that is what gets reported in the main town election office. Very few people handling my ballot. Difficult to hack.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
I never stated that it would cause large scale fraud, I said it was less secure.

If you mail your ballot in how many people in the post office handle it? You really don't know after it leaves your hands. Post office never lost anything right?

In my town anyway, there are only about 5-6 people covering my precinct. I check in and get my ballot, I fill it out, I check out and place my ballot in the counting machine. The people working at my precinct, justify the ballots issued to them and the ballots collected against the number of people checked in and out. The machine counts the little ovals I color in and that is what gets reported in the main town election office. Very few people handling my ballot. Difficult to hack.
Mail fraud is a serious crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
Jesus Christ.


Out of over 2 million votes cast. Our Secretary of State is a Republican and rightly concludes that voter fraud is a completely vote by mail state is utterly and completely inconsequential.

You're welcome.
Here is what concerns me.

Back when Elizabeth Warren ran against Scott Brown for the MA senate. Warrens daughter who heads up a non profit found a women in the town next to mine who was not asked if she wanted to register to vote when she went to the welfare office. Yes they are supposed to ask by law.

Warrens daughters non-profit then hired a law firm to sue the state of MA. Governor Deval Patrick's wife worked for the law firm hired by Warrens daughter. The Governor settles out of court and agrees to mail 500,000 voter registration cards to the states welfare recipients at a cost of nearly $300,000.00. After a couple of weeks news begins to leak the many of these cards are being returned as undeliverable addresses. It first trickles in at 15,000. Then when all is said in done the count reaches in excess of 60,000 returned registration cards. These are ther same addresses that welfare checks get mailed to but do not get returned.

I see plenty of opportunity to have corrupted these if ballots had been mailed to these addresses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,710 Posts
I never stated that it would cause large scale fraud, I said it was less secure.

If you mail your ballot in how many people in the post office handle it? You really don't know after it leaves your hands. Post office never lost anything right?
Ballots are mailed out with a barcode only to registered voters. If I don't receive one, I can check to see if it was sent, so intercepting my mailed ballot is a non-starter as I will immediately notice its absence.

I fill it out, place it in a sealed and signed envelope, and either mail it back or drop it in a dedicated ballot drop box that bypasses the post office completely.

I can check the status of my ballot on a web site to ensure that it was received, although I cannot see my actual recorded vote online.

Now I suppose there could be a large underground organization at the post office that is somehow obtaining or printing fraudulent ballots with the correct bar code associated with my voter ID, opening my envelope, substituting
the contents, and forging my signature, which is then checked against my voter registration card at the county office. But since I did not mail my ballot, they'll have to instead intercept the ballots at the drop boxes too and do the same.

Since continued independent audits of the election process keep discovering that nothing like this is happening, I will not worry about it until it becomes a real problem.

Is this less secure? Only in a world where this manner of fraud is both likely and technically possible. Since there is an actual paper ballot, a paper trail exists and it is certainly possible that I could in a contested election verify that my vote was as intended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,710 Posts
I see plenty of opportunity to have corrupted these if ballots had been mailed to these addresses.
To receive a ballot, one has to be registered to vote. No registration, no ballot. If you do not have a permanent address, you may pick your ballot up with suitable ID at the county clerks office.

The difference being that no one gets sent a ballot who did not at least register. That ballot is then signed by you and the signature validated against your registration card.

This is the more likely problem here, which is to disenfranchise voters who bypass the normal return mechanism for their ballot. I see this as no different than not showing up at your polling station to vote - if you want your vote counted, make sure you properly deliver it to an official drop box or the post office.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,400 Posts
So isn't election fraud.
But you assumed that because there mail ballots were being handled by so many in the USPS that this was a problem. I am suggesting that you are accusing these workers of mail fraud.

Yes, election fraud is serious, but so is mail fraud. Do you have evidence that mail personnel are committing mail fraud?
 
181 - 200 of 215 Posts
Top