Toggle sidebar

Voting discussion thread

It’s “not tracking your vote” but numbers 3-7 track your vote. If they know all the barcodes, have your name and address and know the barcodes sent to you and returned to them, they have tracked your vote.
 
Last edited:
TIDE-HSV said:
It presumes a USPS functioning far above the level that it's really capable of right now. We have a rampant mail theft problem in our local USPS right now...
Click to expand...
So they will be able to divert said mail-in ballots allege theft of ballots then say the voter assumed the risk of their ballot not being counted by placing it in the mail. Problem solved. There are some sinister people orchestrating this government.
 
TIDE-HSV said:
It presumes a USPS functioning far above the level that it's really capable of right now. We have a rampant mail theft problem in our local USPS right now...
Click to expand...
That was one of my first thoughts, too. Not to mention the rampant incompetence one finds in these places.
 
TIDE-HSV said:
If I get an envelope which even sniffs like it might have a check in it, one corner is torn and a flap lifted so someone can look in...
Click to expand...
And we wonder why so many people don’t trust mail-in voting. I sure as hell don’t and never will.
 
CrimsonJazz said:
And we wonder why so many people don’t trust mail-in voting. I sure as hell don’t and never will.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. Around here, they're after money. In fact, when I heard the Rube Goldberg scheme, I thought that, at least, the petty thieves wouldn't be interested. (I had to have one client stop payment on a multi-thousand check, which managed just before they tried to negotiate it.) Now, would ballot malfeasants use the same clue to pirate ballots. Maybe. I'm of the opposite opinion. Every time there's been allegations of massive interference, when it's been run to ground, it's come nowhere close to affecting state, much less national, results. By personality and profession, I'm a skeptic, a "show me" type. Trump had 66 chances...
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 92tide
TIDE-HSV said:
I'm not so sure. Around here, they're after money. In fact, when I heard the Rube Goldberg scheme, I thought that, at least, the petty thieves wouldn't be interested. (I had to have one client stop payment on a multi-thousand check, which managed just before they tried to negotiate it.) Now, would ballot malfeasants use the same clue to pirate ballots. Maybe. I'm of the opposite opinion. Every time there's been allegations of massive interference, when it's been run to ground, it's come nowhere close to affecting state, much less national, results. By personality and profession, I'm a skeptic, a "show me" type. Trump had 66 chances...
Click to expand...
I don't know who won in 2020 in frankly, it doesn't matter anymore. Let's say only five ballots were tossed or destroyed by a dishonest USPS employee. People who argue against any sort of election reform will always frame it with something along the lines of, "if even just one person loses their vote, this is immoral and wrong!" Can we not make the same argument against mail-in voting? Or does it depend entirely on who wins? (Yes, that question is as rhetorical as it is cynical, but it does help make my point.) I'm just saying that if we are truly going to be "defenders of democracy" as D.C. nitwits try to paint themselves, we should at least show some consistency with our arguments. Without tracking, I just don't see how mail-in voting can be considered secure.
 
CrimsonJazz said:
I don't know who won in 2020 in frankly, it doesn't matter anymore. Let's say only five ballots were tossed or destroyed by a dishonest USPS employee. People who argue against any sort of election reform will always frame it with something along the lines of, "if even just one person loses their vote, this is immoral and wrong!" Can we not make the same argument against mail-in voting? Or does it depend entirely on who wins? (Yes, that question is as rhetorical as it is cynical, but it does help make my point.) I'm just saying that if we are truly going to be "defenders of democracy" as D.C. nitwits try to paint themselves, we should at least show some consistency with our arguments. Without tracking, I just don't see how mail-in voting can be considered secure.
Click to expand...
Nothing is ever iron-bound, 100% "secure." Nothing! That's not the pertinent question. The real question is whether the risk is sufficient to call for the draconian system, guaranteed to throw the USPS into an even more massive loss, which may bring down the chicanery by a fraction of a percent. I regard it as purely a method of suppressing the vote by as much as possible. We just happen to stand on opposites of the issue...
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: PaulD, 92tide and UAH
JDCrimson said:
CrimsonNagus said:
I don't think the situation with Alabama's maps is the same as what is happening in other states. This is not a mid-cycle redistricting attempt; this fight has been going on for over 5 years, since the last census. The state-drawn maps are the blatantly racist ones, and the courts had to force the state to use a more fair map. Now the state is trying once again to use its racist map that has already been struck down multiple times in federal court over the years.

I doubt the current SCOTUS will care, though. All they are concerned with is pushing the Epstein Administration's racist agenda to send this country back to a pre-civil rights movement mentality. It is what MAGA has been all about from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
mrga
Click to expand...
 
TIDE-HSV said:
Nothing is ever iron-bound, 100% "secure." Nothing! That's not the pertinent question. The real question is whether the risk is sufficient to call for the draconian system, guaranteed to throw the USPS into an even more massive loss, which may bring down the chicanery by a fraction of a percent. I regard it as purely a method of suppressing the vote by as much as possible. We just happen to stand on opposites of the issue...
Click to expand...
We had an entire thread dedicated to how inept the post office is and it wasn't that long ago. I remember being kind of surprised that mail-in voting never came up in that one. (If it did, I missed it.) Bottom line: we are in agreement that the post office is simply not in a position to help secure our elections. Hell, they can't even do their real jobs with any competency or within their budget. This idea fails right out of the gate.
 
TIDE-HSV said:
I regard it as purely a method of suppressing the vote by as much as possible.
Click to expand...
This woman is 25 years old

She has been driving her car for weeks, sweating and miserable because the air conditioning isn’t working

Finally she takes it to the dealership. They ask her if she’***** the “AC Button”

She hasn’t, that was the problem

These people vote…

There is a real argument and need for some form of cognitive competency test for voting

Voter ignorance is widespread

Decades of research from political scientists like Bryan Caplan, Jason Brennan, and more have shown that the average voter has very low political knowledge. Many cannot name basic facts about government, economics or candidates

IQ and cognitive ability correlate with better outcomes

Higher IQ predicts better information processing, lower susceptibility to certain biases, and higher voter turnout. Studies show smarter people are more likely to vote and have more stable, informed opinions on average

Democracy as a high-stakes decision, allowing uninformed people to vote is likely devastating to our society

https://twitter.com/x/status/2061857226172817632

Superficially, the phrase "voter suppression" always elicits an emotional response, but from a pragmatic POV, is voter suppression always a bad thing? The argument above makes the answer a resounding no. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am good with requiring people to prove basic competency with firearms before being allowed to legally purchase a firearm. We should do the same with voting. If you're too stupid to pass a basic civics exam, you don't get to vote this year. Try again after you've read a book or two. This seems really fair and a solid compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlistarWills and crimsonaudio
CrimsonJazz said:
This woman is 25 years old

She has been driving her car for weeks, sweating and miserable because the air conditioning isn’t working

Finally she takes it to the dealership. They ask her if she’***** the “AC Button”

She hasn’t, that was the problem

These people vote…

There is a real argument and need for some form of cognitive competency test for voting

Voter ignorance is widespread

Decades of research from political scientists like Bryan Caplan, Jason Brennan, and more have shown that the average voter has very low political knowledge. Many cannot name basic facts about government, economics or candidates

IQ and cognitive ability correlate with better outcomes

Higher IQ predicts better information processing, lower susceptibility to certain biases, and higher voter turnout. Studies show smarter people are more likely to vote and have more stable, informed opinions on average

Democracy as a high-stakes decision, allowing uninformed people to vote is likely devastating to our society

https://twitter.com/x/status/2061857226172817632

Superficially, the phrase "voter suppression" always elicits an emotional response, but from a pragmatic POV, is voter suppression always a bad thing? The argument above makes the answer a resounding no. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am good with requiring people to prove basic competency with firearms before being allowed to legally purchase a firearm. We should do the same with voting. If you're too stupid to pass a basic civics exam, you don't get to vote this year. Try again after you've read a book or two. This seems really fair and a solid compromise.
Click to expand...
I can think of at least one senator from (and likely governor of) Alabama who wouldn't be able to vote.
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: crimsonaudio and CrimsonJazz
www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch Sues California to Clean Up 873,000 Inactive Voter Registrations on Rolls - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a California political candidate and a state political party against the State of California due to its failure to maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)...
www.judicialwatch.org

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a California political candidate and a state political party against the State of California due to its failure to maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Don Wagner et al. v. Shirley N. Weber, in her official capacity as California Secretary of State (No. 8:26-cv-01263)).

Federal law requires most inactive voter registrations to be removed after two general federal elections. The new federal lawsuit alleges, based on admissions in prior Judicial Watch litigation, that 873,092 voter registrations have remained continuously inactive for at least three federal elections, and some for much longer. Of these registrations, 326,808 have remained continuously inactive through at least three consecutive federal general elections, while 151,202 have remained inactive through at least four consecutive federal general elections.
Click to expand...
 
CrimsonJazz said:
This woman is 25 years old

She has been driving her car for weeks, sweating and miserable because the air conditioning isn’t working

Finally she takes it to the dealership. They ask her if she’***** the “AC Button”

She hasn’t, that was the problem

These people vote…

There is a real argument and need for some form of cognitive competency test for voting

Voter ignorance is widespread

Decades of research from political scientists like Bryan Caplan, Jason Brennan, and more have shown that the average voter has very low political knowledge. Many cannot name basic facts about government, economics or candidates

IQ and cognitive ability correlate with better outcomes

Higher IQ predicts better information processing, lower susceptibility to certain biases, and higher voter turnout. Studies show smarter people are more likely to vote and have more stable, informed opinions on average

Democracy as a high-stakes decision, allowing uninformed people to vote is likely devastating to our society

https://twitter.com/x/status/2061857226172817632

Superficially, the phrase "voter suppression" always elicits an emotional response, but from a pragmatic POV, is voter suppression always a bad thing? The argument above makes the answer a resounding no. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am good with requiring people to prove basic competency with firearms before being allowed to legally purchase a firearm. We should do the same with voting. If you're too stupid to pass a basic civics exam, you don't get to vote this year. Try again after you've read a book or two. This seems really fair and a solid compromise.
Click to expand...
This is blue font right? We can't seriously think any sort of competency test for voting is a good idea
 
RollTide_HTTR said:
This is blue font right? We can't seriously think any sort of competency test for voting is a good idea
Click to expand...
It is not and yes I do. Thankfully, ignorance is curable. To put it another way, "Even stupidity has a certain charm; ignorance does not." -Frank Zappa

And before anybody gets his shorts in a knot re: constitutional rights, I'll remind all that 2A is the law of the land, but we infringe on it all the time and for good reasons. Why should voting be any different? One cannot be an absolutist on a part-time basis. It just doesn't work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back