Mail in voting - Democrats again the party of despotism

[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.

Oregon, Colorado, Washington and California.

California's measure is temporary.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

National mail in balloting would be a bigger fiasco than the one the leftists manufactured in Florida when they lost.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Can you explain how a lower total turnout automatically helps Republicans?

if you can't that's fine.

 

[kaz]

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.

Cool. Now you have any comments about my OP?

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?

 

[kaz]

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?

I don't give free therapy. You have to take your mental health professional.

Though I do note your admission you believe Democrats cheat better than Republicans. Of course you know that. You'd never advocate an insane system like this if you believed Republicans were the ones who cheated

 

[kaz]

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

Nobody's changing any rules in most places. Many states already have "no excuse needed" absentee ballots available to anyone who asks. For the ones that don't, "global pandemic" is surely sufficient reason to grant an absentee ballot to any registered voter who requests one.

Cut the shit, creep. The main issue is flooding ballots that were not requested.

You really are just flat out stupid. No, that isn't done on any scale right now. So back to the OP.

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?

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes, within reason. Voting is a matter controlled by the state within guidelines set by the U.S. Constitution. If both governor and legislature of the state are controlled by one political party then of course they have leeway to some extent on voting procedures. However, the judicial branch of government is there to act upon any objection based on injustice.

For example, I'm sure the Democrats would follow through with a lawsuit if the GOP here in Arizona had passed a law this past Spring requiring mail-in voting as the only means to vote in yesterday's primary and this November's general election. I'm pretty sure the court would agree that it disenfranchises a good number of Native-American voters living on reservations on roads with no names where mail delivery is problematic at best.

Thank you! One of the few people who made an actual attempt to answer the question.

My question doesn't really specify the Federal level. I wanted to point that out. I don't think new rules should be rammed down either party's throat against their objections at the State or Federal level.

If Democrats really believed in democracy, this is the last thing they would do. Think about it. Democracy relies on that when you lose, you accept the results because the process was fair.

Doesn't that bother you? That ballots are being mailed all the hell over and half the country thinks that's not a valid way to determine who won an election? It is just part of ending belief in the American system

 

[kaz]

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

If they were serious about wanting this to work...mail in voting.....instead of just wanting a way to cheat and steal the election......

They would have set up a practice test...or two.....to get the system ready to work....but that is the thing, they don't want it to work....sent out practice ballots with a deadline to work out the kings......long before we actually did it for a real election...

They want the vote to last for weeks...that way they can find out how many votes the need in which states and those votes will be created....put into the system after election day.

Yes. The Democrats have ended the pretense they believe it's the Republican party that cheats. You have to believe:

1) That people won't fill out ballots for other people
2) That with ballots piling up everywhere, that vote harvesters won't vote as many times as they can
3) That government will go back to the original voter registration card of MILLIONS of people and find their original signature
4) That people qualified to compare signatures will reliably match them
5) That they won't be influenced by that they are looking at the voter card which says how the ID they are matching voted

It's complete Tinkerbell fantasy land. Democrats KNOW they are the cheaters to want that system

 

[kaz]

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.

Um ... yeah, there are thugs at the polls who beat you up if you aren't voting for Trump. If you could only see yourself for what you look like when you say whacked out shit like that. It makes it impossible to take your post or anything else you say seriously. And again, you've given up the lie that you believe Republicans are the cheaters.

You have to believe:

1) That people won't fill out ballots for other people
2) That with ballots piling up everywhere, that vote harvesters won't vote as many times as they can
3) That government will go back to the original voter registration card of MILLIONS of people and find their original signature
4) That people qualified to compare signatures will reliably match them
5) That they won't be influenced by that they are looking at the voter card which says how the ID they are matching voted

It's complete Tinkerbell fantasy land. You KNOW for a fact you are the cheaters to want that system

 

[kaz]

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”.

Yes, we are clearly disenfranchising polygamous voting. It's Coyote's life cause to end that.

This was my favorite of her brain baked half crocked list of nonsense. I've never seen leftists pulled out of line and beaten up like she thinks is happening. Leftists are the ones who beat people up. Any TV will show you that even with fake news trying to cover it up

 

[The Breeze]

Everyone should put on a mask and vote in person. Masks work don't they?

 

[kaz]

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.

What you're doing is making the lame argument that if one Republican agreed to something anywhere then all Republicans agreed to it everywhere. Each State is different.

And you say flaw in my post, but nowhere honey did I say no mail in voting. In any state that wants to increase mail in voting, the parties should work together. And they will come up with different answers.

A Republican agreeing to something in Iowa is a Republican agreeing to something in Iowa. No less, but no more

 

[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.

Can you explain how a lower total turnout automatically helps Republicans?

if you can't that's fine.

Have you seriously never thought about it? Old people who tend to vote republican always turn out because they have nothing better to do. The rest of the world has shit to do. Putting up hurdles to make voting an hours long process standing out in the cold discourages a lot of people from showing up. It's why republicans fight early voting and mail in voting. There is no other reason.

 

[kaz]

Everyone should put on a mask and vote in person. Masks work don't they?

Good question. I wish we knew. Unfortunately there was a system of lying that they didn't work in the beginning to get people to not wear them.

Then they suddenly claimed they realized they do work and pushed them. But having established themselves as liars, we don't know now if they are pushing them for show/politics or if they really work.

And they never admitted they lied, further eroding their credibility

 

[kaz]

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.

Virtually no one does that. Most mail in voting is by request.

And again, that someone does something in one State is not justification to override other States.

So is voting local or federal control? You're shifting your argument back and forth at will to suit your arguments. So let's start there with a standard you will stop flip flopping on.

And explain how if someone does something in another State, it's fine if they think it works and your own State decides to hold you to that standard without you or anyone else in your State agreeing to it

 

[kaz]

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.

Again you're an idiot. We're talking about mass mailing out ballots. And no, that was not done in the Civil War. Stop being a retard

And again, that Iowa Republicans agreed to something does not justify Democrats in other States obliterating the rights of Republicans in their State.

This post is a double retard for you

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Can you explain how a lower total turnout automatically helps Republicans?

if you can't that's fine.

Have you seriously never thought about it? Old people who tend to vote republican always turn out because they have nothing better to do. The rest of the world has shit to do. Putting up hurdles to make voting an hours long process standing out in the cold discourages a lot of people from showing up. It's why republicans fight early voting and mail in voting. There is no other reason.

Thanks for answering.
I think that your answer bears no relation to realty.
There are millions of Republicans 18 and up that vote Republican
This just in - There are millions of people who work that vote Republican.
You have a very deluded view of the people that make up our society.

 

[kaz]

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.

No one is talking about absentee balloting, shove it up your ass. I'm sick of that deflection.

And OREGON has been doing that. So now other States are free to shove it down our throats? No, it doesn't.

There's a dry down in Maryland, I don't remember the name of it. So now your State can make alcohol illegal, right? That's what you're arguing

 

[kaz]

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.

Can you explain how a lower total turnout automatically helps Republicans?

if you can't that's fine.

Have you seriously never thought about it? Old people who tend to vote republican always turn out because they have nothing better to do. The rest of the world has shit to do. Putting up hurdles to make voting an hours long process standing out in the cold discourages a lot of people from showing up. It's why republicans fight early voting and mail in voting. There is no other reason.

Actually, old people seem to do more than the rest of us. We get bogged down working and raising kids. Do you know anyone over 65? My mother has plans pretty much every night. She goes to places like concerts during the day. She runs a charity which awards scholarships to high school students starting college and takes it very seriously

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Cool. Now you have any comments about my OP?

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?

Moving to mail voting does not slant the rules towards one party or the other, despite what you are told to believe. This is not despotism, which is absurd hyperbole.

Now, if you want to talk about gerrymandering, that's an entirely different story...