Mail in voting - Democrats again the party of despotism

[occupied]

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.....

You really don't know how it works do you? Trump told you to fear something and you just do. Sad. Mail in ballots are scanned like in person ballots and duds get spit out. Also you might remember if you ever voted in person that a poll worker compares your signature when you sign for your ballot. It's ok there I guess, somehow.

And no matter how many current examples of 10s of thousands of votes that can't be counted, that are lost, that are not valid, you don't care..

You just want to steal the election...we know it, you don't have to pretend here, we here at U.Smessage are not democrats so you can't lie to us....

You don't know shit. You're just another fool that dutifully attacks what Trump tells you to.

 

[Coyote]

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

Well...they already have.

Cutting back on early voting
preventing college students from voting where they live
Strict voter id laws
restricting voting hours
closing polling polling places in heavily minority districts
restricting voter registration efforts
recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.

 

[2aguy]

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

Well...they already have.

Cutting back on early voting
preventing college students from voting where they live
Strict voter id laws
restricting voting hours
closing polling polling places in heavily minority districts
restricting voter registration efforts
recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.

Yes....all of the scams the democrats use to cheat.....

And those polling places in minority district lies.....

In many instances, the reductions are a result of a statewide shift from traditional neighborhood polling places to voting centers, reducing the number of polling places and allowing voters to cast their ballots at any available voting site in the county.

Michelle Bennett, elections administrator of Aransas County, said this is a positive, not a negative, for the election process.

"It actually makes it easier for voters to vote because they can vote anywhere on Election Day without having to go to a specific poll site," Bennett said. "Previously, if they went to the wrong poll site and they weren't in that precinct, they'd be directed to the precinct they were registered in. Now we don't turn anybody away."
-----

Bill Sargent, chief deputy clerk for elections in Galveston, said the response has been overwhelmingly positive among voters who can now cast ballots at multiple locations.

"We do everything we can to let people know [about the changes]," Sargent said. "We had one election where you couldn't go to vote centers because of local jurisdictions. We had to be precinct-specific and voters got pretty upset."

Report: Texas has closed most polling places since court ruling

A report shows Texas leads the nation in the number of polling places that have been closed since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down part of the Voting Rights Act.

www.texastribune.org

 

[2aguy]

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

Well...they already have.

Cutting back on early voting
preventing college students from voting where they live
Strict voter id laws
restricting voting hours
closing polling polling places in heavily minority districts
restricting voter registration efforts
recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.

Voter I.D. Laws? So you can't cheat.....

College kids having to vote in only one location, instead of voting in the state where they go to college and voting in the state where they live...

Everytime you asshats open your mouths you are lying...

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

Well...they already have.

Cutting back on early voting
preventing college students from voting where they live
Strict voter id laws
restricting voting hours
closing polling polling places in heavily minority districts
restricting voter registration efforts
recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.

Voter registration?

The GOP-led Tennessee state Senate this week passed a measure that would require voter registration groups to go through training before they begin signing people up to vote. The measure would also levy fines on groups that submit too many incomplete forms.
-----

“We want every eligible Tennessean to vote, and complete forms are critical to that opportunity,” Hargett said in a statement. “Voter registration drives are important to the process, but to be successful, we must make sure that citizens submit forms with enough information to be processed.”

“This bill will help ensure all who want to vote have the ability to do so and will enhance the security and integrity of elections,” he added.
-----
But supporters of the new measures say they are necessary, both to cut down potential voter fraud and, more pressing for cash-strapped local elections bureaus, to make sure the voters who sign up to register actually have their forms turned in on time.

“There’s real financial costs involved. Secondarily, there’s real concern about security. The devil’s in the details, and a lot depends on the local political cultures in the states,” said Mark Braden, an election law expert and former chief counsel at the Republican National Committee. “There have been situations where people are getting paid by the registrant. That can incentivize people to register people who don’t exist.”

Republicans target voter registration drives with new state laws

Groups that conduct drives to register new voters face new rules and restrictions under measures that have passed into law in recent years, part of a new front in the battle over voting rights that is expanding into Republican-led states.

thehill.com

 

[occupied]

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.....

You really don't know how it works do you? Trump told you to fear something and you just do. Sad. Mail in ballots are scanned like in person ballots and duds get spit out. Also you might remember if you ever voted in person that a poll worker compares your signature when you sign for your ballot. It's ok there I guess, somehow.

You really don't know how it works do you?

Let's see, you never purge the voter rolls and you send out tens of millions of ballots through the US mail.

What could ever go wrong?

Mail in ballots are scanned like in person ballots and duds get spit out.

It's racist to reject a ballot if the signatures don't match.
Minorities and women will be impacted most.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Your protests are entirely hypocritical when there is no effort by republicans to make in-person voting quicker, easier and safer and their usual suppression efforts continue unabated. That stunt they pulled up in Wisconsin was just a warm-up for making people vote in-person during a pandemic.

their usual suppression efforts continue unabated.

Yup, suppress the shit out of the dead and fraudulent voters.

You're either ignorant or playing dumb about the turnout effect on elections. Suppressing turnout helps republicans so that's what they do.

How?

Trying to figure out which one you are, ignorant or disingenuous.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Actually, mailing a ballot to every registered voter helps you clean your rolls. Undeliverable mail returns to the election office, it does not forward so addresses can be updated, voters "pushed" to other counties or inactivated so they can be "purged" in four years.

 

[Seawytch]

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.....

Actually only rejected signatures get double checked not accepted signatures.

 

[2aguy]

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

Well...they already have.

Cutting back on early voting
preventing college students from voting where they live
Strict voter id laws
restricting voting hours
closing polling polling places in heavily minority districts
restricting voter registration efforts
recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.

recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.


Thugs? You mean Poll Watchers.....the senior citizens who sit there all day to make sure the democrats don't vote more than once.....

 

[Coyote]

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

Well...they already have.

Cutting back on early voting
preventing college students from voting where they live
Strict voter id laws
restricting voting hours
closing polling polling places in heavily minority districts
restricting voter registration efforts
recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.

Voter I.D. Laws? So you can't cheat.....

College kids having to vote in only one location, instead of voting in the state where they go to college and voting in the state where they live...

Everytime you asshats open your mouths you are lying...

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

Well...they already have.

Cutting back on early voting
preventing college students from voting where they live
Strict voter id laws
restricting voting hours
closing polling polling places in heavily minority districts
restricting voter registration efforts
recruiting thugs to challenge and intimidate voters at the polls...voters who are disproportionately minority.

Voter registration?

The GOP-led Tennessee state Senate this week passed a measure that would require voter registration groups to go through training before they begin signing people up to vote. The measure would also levy fines on groups that submit too many incomplete forms.
-----

“We want every eligible Tennessean to vote, and complete forms are critical to that opportunity,” Hargett said in a statement. “Voter registration drives are important to the process, but to be successful, we must make sure that citizens submit forms with enough information to be processed.”

“This bill will help ensure all who want to vote have the ability to do so and will enhance the security and integrity of elections,” he added.

As usual...you miss key terms. Not voter ID....STRICT voter ID.

And nope....not about making sure they only vote in one location, but making sure they can not vote where they live on campus, knowing they are unlikely able to return home for one day of voting. It is disenfranchisement, so stop “lying like a Republican”.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Or they could get a fake ID and go to the polls. Pollworkers aren't trained to identity a fake. Signatures aren't checked at the polls.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Actually, mailing a ballot to every registered voter helps you clean your rolls. Undeliverable mail returns to the election office, it does not forward so addresses can be updated, voters "pushed" to other counties or inactivated so they can be "purged" in four years.

Actually, mailing a ballot to every registered voter helps you clean your rolls. Undeliverable mail returns to the election office, it does not forward so addresses can be updated

When that's tried before elections, Dems whine.
Why would you want to send actual ballots using an unpurged roll?

 

[occupied]

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?

Or they could get a fake ID and go to the polls. Pollworkers aren't trained to identity a fake. Signatures aren't checked at the polls.

People could potentially do a lot of things and possibly get by with voting more than once but the payoff is not worth what happens if you get caught. Risking years in jail and all that effort for an extra vote? Just does not seem like it would be a big problem. Like breaking in a house just to steal the toilet paper.

 

[Lesh]

Or they could get a fake ID and go to the polls. Pollworkers aren't trained to identity a fake. Signatures aren't checked at the polls.

They may not be handwriting experts but they can see if someone has already signed...and that raises flags and creates a record.

Same for absentee votes.

So why is mail in voting OK in Florida and not in Nevada by the way?

 

[busybee01]

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

You have several flaws in your post. Nothing was jammed down anyone's throat. The fact is that the only reason that some Republicans like Trump oppse it is because the larger the turnout the more likely he is to lose. The Republican in Iowa who oversees elections sent out requests to every registered voter. The RNC is even pushing people to vote by mail. Making it easier to vote is not determining the election or despotic. You are the one who is a despot.

 

[busybee01]

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?

Some states that vote by mail send ballots to every registered voter. It is not new.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Mail in voting has been done since the civil war. It is neither new nor untried. Trump is lying through his teeth, but that’s nothing new.

 

[busybee01]

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?

Untrue. Oregon and Colorado send ballots to every registered voter. Oregon has been doing it since 2000. Also I assume that the state has had absentee balloting for some time.

 

[busybee01]

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.

There are actually 3.
Washington, Oregon and Colorado send ballots to every registered voter.
There are states that are sending absentee ballot requests to every registered voter as the REPUBLICAN in charge of elections in Iowa is doing.Then there is the Florida type.

There is no evidence that the Nevada law is open for abuse.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Actually, mailing a ballot to every registered voter helps you clean your rolls. Undeliverable mail returns to the election office, it does not forward so addresses can be updated, voters "pushed" to other counties or inactivated so they can be "purged" in four years.

Actually, mailing a ballot to every registered voter helps you clean your rolls. Undeliverable mail returns to the election office, it does not forward so addresses can be updated

When that's tried before elections, Dems whine.
Why would you want to send actual ballots using an unpurged roll?

Yes, purging voters right before an election isn't cool. You do this cleanup AFTER the election so as not to disenfranchise voters. Of course, if you institute same day registration, those voters won't end up being disenfranchised.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Untrue. Oregon and Colorado send ballots to every registered voter. Oregon has been doing it since 2000. Also I assume that the state has had absentee balloting for some time.

Oregon, Colorado, Washington and California.