Mail in voting - Democrats again the party of despotism

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
59,354
Reaction score
9,282
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either
 
Last edited:

night_son

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
6,099
Reaction score
3,982
Points
1,095
Location
The Full Moon
This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either
NO. The election system is the system is the system is the system we must adhere to at all costs. That being said, I bet the democrats would detonate a thermonuclear bomb to stop in person voting if their COVID bioweapon attack fails to prevent it.
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,462
Reaction score
1,486
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either
I say no also.
Just do like its been done since the civil war.
Do it like our military votes.

 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
59,354
Reaction score
9,282
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either
I say no also.
Just do like its been done since the civil war.
Do it like our military votes.

Whether or not you support mail in voting is not the question in this thread. Again:

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?
 

B. Kidd

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
23,948
Reaction score
6,331
Points
280
Location
Western Lands
How is mail in voting a new system?
There are 2 types of mail-in voting.
There's the new Nevada law where all registered voters are automatically sent a mail-in ballot.
Then there is the Florida type where a registered voter has to request a mail-in ballot.
See the difference?
The new Nevada law is open to major abuse.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
98,941
Reaction score
32,779
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
How is mail in voting a new system?
There are 2 types of mail-in voting.
There's the new Nevada law where all registered voters are automatically sent a mail-in ballot.
Then there is the Florida type where a registered voter has to request a mail-in ballot.
See the difference?
The new Nevada law is open to major abuse.
Informative.
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
23,968
Reaction score
4,817
Points
280
How is mail in voting a new system?
Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?
Didn't you get the memo? Mail in voting is somehow just fine in states where a lot of old people live.
 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
59,354
Reaction score
9,282
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
How is mail in voting a new system?
Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?
Didn't you get the memo? Mail in voting is somehow just fine in states where a lot of old people live.
Most of those don't mail ballots to everyone automatically, you have to request them. Now what if you answer the question?

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
14,892
Reaction score
3,857
Points
150
Now you’re worried about minority rights?
This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either
I don’t know man. Seems like the people getting elected and passing laws is exactly how democracy is supposed to work.
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
23,968
Reaction score
4,817
Points
280
How is mail in voting a new system?
Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?
Didn't you get the memo? Mail in voting is somehow just fine in states where a lot of old people live.
Most of those don't mail ballots to everyone automatically, you have to request them. Now what if you answer the question?

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?
When one party is actively engaged in an all-out campaign to suppress voter turnout they can suck it. You want every eligible voter to have an ample opportunity to vote don't you?
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
23,968
Reaction score
4,817
Points
280
You want every eligible voter to have an ample opportunity to vote don't you?
Mailing ballots to everyone and never purging the voter rolls.

What could go wrong?
Maybe someone could risk a long prison sentence, somehow gather a bunch of ballots along with handwriting samples of the people they were sent to and then hire skilled forgers to fake the signatures?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,048
Reaction score
10,378
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
You want every eligible voter to have an ample opportunity to vote don't you?
Mailing ballots to everyone and never purging the voter rolls.

What could go wrong?
Maybe someone could risk a long prison sentence, somehow gather a bunch of ballots along with handwriting samples of the people they were sent to and then hire skilled forgers to fake the signatures?
Yeah, I'm sure there'll be some eagle eyes double checking signatures.
Millions and millions of signatures. DURR.....
 

B. Kidd

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
23,948
Reaction score
6,331
Points
280
Location
Western Lands
You want every eligible voter to have an ample opportunity to vote don't you?
Mailing ballots to everyone and never purging the voter rolls.

What could go wrong?
Las Vegas has always been a transient city and remains one. The new Nevada law has no conditions for vote purging!
Our Governor is a Dimm blockhead and hopefully a one term clown.
 

B. Kidd

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
23,948
Reaction score
6,331
Points
280
Location
Western Lands
How is mail in voting a new system?
Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?
Didn't you get the memo? Mail in voting is somehow just fine in states where a lot of old people live.
Not under Nevada's new law.
I got 2 words for you.....VOTE HARVESTING!
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top