Mail in voting - Democrats again the party of despotism

[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?

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...

Irrelevant to the question I asked:

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?

 

[BluesLegend]

I get it, unlimited Dem vote fraud is bad for Republicans.

Actually the Dems true vote by mail ELECTION RIGGING SCHEME was reported yesterday...get millions to vote by mail BEFORE the first debate, BEFORE Biden has to face his opponent and defend his policies, BEFORE there is really a presidential campaign. Rig the election by letting the liberal news media to spew anti Trump, pro Biden propaganda while Biden hides in his basement not facing the American people.

So rig the election by getting millions of Americans to make an uninformed decision. Truly a new low for Democrats.

 

[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...

Irrelevant to the question I asked:

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 already addressed it but I'll try to restate it much clearer: A single party may change how elections are handled so long as the rules do not slant the outcome of the election. Since moving to mail in balloting does not tilt the playing field, it is not a problem.

 

[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.

California's measure is temporary.

Yes, except California passed the Voter's Choice Act. Some of it's largest counties had signed on to the VCA prior to COVID. Los Angeles, santa Clara and Sacramento had already conducted the primary as all mailed.

 

[Seawytch]

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

What "right" is being obliterated by mailing you a ballot?

 

[Lesh]

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.

And doing it after/between elections allows for errors to be corrected in time for those voters to cast their ballot.

Doing so shortly before elections obviously does not leave room for those corrections...which if voter disenfranchisement is the goal...well you get it...

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And doing it after/between elections allows for errors to be corrected in time for those voters to cast their ballot.

Doing so shortly before elections obviously does not leave room for those corrections...which if voter disenfranchisement is the goal...well you get it...

That is correct. We process in county and in state address changes before Election day if we can so that Voters can get mailed a ballot or get registered at their new address.

 

[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.

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

I'm not the one who comes here and posts the lies and excuses Donald Trump is telling you - verbatim. In a panic mode. Vote Republican - the Democrats are demons!

The rights of Republicans are different than the rights of Democrats? How is mail-in voting "obliterating" the rights of Republicans.

To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

 

[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

I'm not the one who comes here and posts the lies and excuses Donald Trump is telling you - verbatim. In a panic mode. Vote Republican - the Democrats are demons!

The rights of Republicans are different than the rights of Democrats? How is mail-in voting "obliterating" the rights of Republicans.

To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

True. Democrats are telling me that you're demons yourself. It's not Trump doing it

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Those of us who are fortunate enough to reach retirement age with our health intact, and adequate income to allow us to live comfortably, are living very well indeed. I've been saving a lot of money during the pandemic because I can't go to restaurants, or local festivals, or plays or concerts. My pensions were unaffected by the pandemic, and the government has tossed me an extra $1000 in all of this.

 

[my2¢]

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

Other than through amendment of the Constitution, I don't see the Congress or President having any say in our elections. I definitely don't agree with what Trump has to say on the matter but in all fairness he's just responding to the House of Representatives sticking its nose into November's election, a place where it doesn't belong.

Our state has had permanent mail-in voting registry for awhile now and I am happy with it. Other than those in Washington sticking their nose into state's business, what bothers me would be its forced implementation on a wide scale basis especially so near to November's election. If Arizona didn't already have it, I would hope to see it passed by the state next year, well ahead of time for the primaries and mid-terms of 2022.

The one issue that arose with mail-in voting here in the state was the question of when should counties stop validating the required envelope signatures? This was during the extremely close Martha McSally / Kyrsten Sinema contest to fill John McCain's seat in the Senate. Republicans wished to stop verification as soon as the polls closed and wanted those ballots tossed. Maricopa County (Phoenix area which is very Republican) and Pima County (Tucson which leans Democratic) with their large populations continued validation and counting days after the polls closed. The Republicans filed a lawsuit but agreement was reached between the parties and the count continued. Maricopa County, by the way, is claimed to have provided more votes to Trump in 2016 than any other county in the country.

I don't buy the voter fraud argument but I posted on that matter here: Millions of Absentee Ballots Go Missing

 

[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.

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

I'm not the one who comes here and posts the lies and excuses Donald Trump is telling you - verbatim. In a panic mode. Vote Republican - the Democrats are demons!

The rights of Republicans are different than the rights of Democrats? How is mail-in voting "obliterating" the rights of Republicans.

To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

True. Democrats are telling me that you're demons yourself. It's not Trump doing it

That you think anyone is a "demon" shows how utterly brainwashed you are. It wasn't Democrats, liberals or the left who made the decisions that have killed 160,000 Americans and cratered the economy. This isn't happening in any other first world nation, and you're here spouting the lies and propaganda that Trump is using to destroy the United States of America.

4 Republican Presidents = 3 economic crashes, 80% of the income and wealth of the nation going to the top 20% of wealthy corporations and individuals, leaving 40% of working Americans with full time jobs, dependent on government handouts, and no access to health care.

The Republican Party is the party of disease, death and debt. Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama cleaned up the Republican fiscal crises, stabilized the spending, reduced the deficits, all while being attacked and vilified by Republicans. 6 1/2 years of a "Special Counsel's" investigation, including the Paula Jones trial which was dismissed "with prejudice" was being unfounded in fact or evidence, and a bullshit impeachment over a lie about a blow job, and Clinton still handed over a balanced budget in the midst of an economic boom, which George W. Bush turned into the Great Recession, less than 8 years later.

And now Donald Trump has run the economy off the rails again, and you're blaming the Democrats for being demons. Voting for 4 more years of this criminal, will END your country. It's tottering on the brink now.

 

[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

Other than through amendment of the Constitution, I don't see the Congress or President having any say in our elections. I definitely don't agree with what Trump has to say on the matter but in all fairness he's just responding to the House of Representatives sticking its nose into November's election, a place where it doesn't belong.

Our state has had permanent mail-in voting registry for awhile now and I am happy with it. Other than those in Washington sticking their nose into state's business, what bothers me would its forced implementation on a wide scale basis especially so near to November's election. If Arizona didn't already have it, I would hope to see it passed by the state next year, well ahead of time for the primaries and mid-terms of 2022.

The one issue that arose with mail-in voting here in the state was the question of when should counties stop validating the required envelope signatures? This was during the extremely close Martha McSally / Kyrsten Sinema contest to fill John McCain's seat in the Senate. Republicans wished to stop verification as soon as the polls closed and wanted those ballots tossed. Maricopa County (Phoenix area which is very Republican) and Pima County (Tucson which leans Democratic) with their large populations continued validation and counting days after the polls closed. The Republicans filed a lawsuit but agreement was reached between the parties and the count continued. Maricopa County, by the way, is claimed to have provided more votes to Trump in 2016 than any other county in the country.

I don't buy the voter fraud argument but I posted on that matter here: Millions of Absentee Ballots Go Missing

You don't buy that people will send in ballots for other people if mass ballots are mailed out with no accountability? That's insane. The rest of your post was pretty reasonable though

 

[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

I'm not the one who comes here and posts the lies and excuses Donald Trump is telling you - verbatim. In a panic mode. Vote Republican - the Democrats are demons!

The rights of Republicans are different than the rights of Democrats? How is mail-in voting "obliterating" the rights of Republicans.

To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.

True. Democrats are telling me that you're demons yourself. It's not Trump doing it

That you think anyone is a "demon" shows how utterly brainwashed you are. It wasn't Democrats, liberals or the left who made the decisions that have killed 160,000 Americans and cratered the economy. This isn't happening in any other first world nation, and you're here spouting the lies and propaganda that Trump is using to destroy the United States of America.

4 Republican Presidents = 3 economic crashes, 80% of the income and wealth of the nation going to the top 20% of wealthy corporations and individuals, leaving 40% of working Americans with full time jobs, dependent on government handouts, and no access to health care.

The Republican Party is the party of disease, death and debt. Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama cleaned up the Republican fiscal crises, stabilized the spending, reduced the deficits, all while being attacked and vilified by Republicans. 6 1/2 years of a "Special Counsel's" investigation, including the Paula Jones trial which was dismissed "with prejudice" was being unfounded in fact or evidence, and a bullshit impeachment over a lie about a blow job, and Clinton still handed over a balanced budget in the midst of an economic boom, which George W. Bush turned into the Great Recession, less than 8 years later.

And now Donald Trump has run the economy off the rails again, and you're blaming the Democrats for being demons. Voting for 4 more years of this criminal, will END your country. It's tottering on the brink now.

I'm familiar with all the Marxist rhetoric, Mrs. Mao. I don't need to have it keep being repeated

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Other than through amendment of the Constitution, I don't see the Congress or President having any say in our elections. I definitely don't agree with what Trump has to say on the matter but in all fairness he's just responding to the House of Representatives sticking its nose into November's election, a place where it doesn't belong.

Our state has had permanent mail-in voting registry for awhile now and I am happy with it. Other than those in Washington sticking their nose into state's business, what bothers me would its forced implementation on a wide scale basis especially so near to November's election. If Arizona didn't already have it, I would hope to see it passed by the state next year, well ahead of time for the primaries and mid-terms of 2022.

The one issue that arose with mail-in voting here in the state was the question of when should counties stop validating the required envelope signatures? This was during the extremely close Martha McSally / Kyrsten Sinema contest to fill John McCain's seat in the Senate. Republicans wished to stop verification as soon as the polls closed and wanted those ballots tossed. Maricopa County (Phoenix area which is very Republican) and Pima County (Tucson which leans Democratic) with their large populations continued validation and counting days after the polls closed. The Republicans filed a lawsuit but agreement was reached between the parties and the count continued. Maricopa County, by the way, is claimed to have provided more votes to Trump in 2016 than any other county in the country.

I don't buy the voter fraud argument but I posted on that matter here: Millions of Absentee Ballots Go Missing

You don't buy that people will send in ballots for other people if mass ballots are mailed out with no accountability? That's insane. The rest of your post was pretty reasonable though

There absolutely is accountability. Every mail in ballot has to be certified by a notary public, who will see voter ID before swearing the ballot. The same checks and balances that have been used since Civil War times will be in place.

 

[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

Other than through amendment of the Constitution, I don't see the Congress or President having any say in our elections. I definitely don't agree with what Trump has to say on the matter but in all fairness he's just responding to the House of Representatives sticking its nose into November's election, a place where it doesn't belong.

Our state has had permanent mail-in voting registry for awhile now and I am happy with it. Other than those in Washington sticking their nose into state's business, what bothers me would its forced implementation on a wide scale basis especially so near to November's election. If Arizona didn't already have it, I would hope to see it passed by the state next year, well ahead of time for the primaries and mid-terms of 2022.

The one issue that arose with mail-in voting here in the state was the question of when should counties stop validating the required envelope signatures? This was during the extremely close Martha McSally / Kyrsten Sinema contest to fill John McCain's seat in the Senate. Republicans wished to stop verification as soon as the polls closed and wanted those ballots tossed. Maricopa County (Phoenix area which is very Republican) and Pima County (Tucson which leans Democratic) with their large populations continued validation and counting days after the polls closed. The Republicans filed a lawsuit but agreement was reached between the parties and the count continued. Maricopa County, by the way, is claimed to have provided more votes to Trump in 2016 than any other county in the country.

I don't buy the voter fraud argument but I posted on that matter here: Millions of Absentee Ballots Go Missing

You don't buy that people will send in ballots for other people if mass ballots are mailed out with no accountability? That's insane. The rest of your post was pretty reasonable though

There absolutely is accountability. Every mail in ballot has to be certified by a notary public, who will see voter ID before swearing the ballot. The same checks and balances that have been used since Civil War times will be in place.

You completely made that up and you're totally wrong

 

[Lesh]

You don't buy that people will send in ballots for other people if mass ballots are mailed out with no accountability? That's insane. The rest of your post was pretty reasonable though

Pure nonsense. All states have mechanism in place to detect and prevent double voting and ballots are only sent to registered voters

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't buy that people will send in ballots for other people if mass ballots are mailed out with no accountability? That's insane. The rest of your post was pretty reasonable though

Pure nonsense. All states have mechanism in place to detect and prevent double voting and ballots are only sent to registered voters

All states have mechanism in place to detect and prevent double voting and ballots are only sent to registered voters

And every time the states use those them to purge their rolls, the Dems scream like stuck pigs.

 

[WEATHER53]

If voting in person is too taxing to do once every 4 years then useful Americans don’t want you to vote because you are too uninformed and unmotivated.
The blubbering about third world lack of transportation is a non issue, pile Intp the taco or ice cream truck and go to tbe polls

 

[busybee01]

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

Again these are not new rules. Nevada has had absentee balloting in place for a long time. Mail in balloting has been in place for some time. Worth noting that many stateas run by Republicans have refused to allow voters to even vote absentee without excuses. You are not concerned about the fact that Republicans are ignoring Democrats.

There is no evidence that ballots are beingt mailed willy nilly. A big majority support mail in balloting. You are in the clear minority.