Mail in voting - Democrats again the party of despotism

[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

 

[Rambunctious]

This will backfire on the dems if its even allowed...there are millions of unregistered Trump supporters out there....so watch out dems...aren't you tired of screwing yourselves with harebrained ideas?....

 

[night_son]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO. The election system is the system is the system is the system we must adhere to at all costs. That being said, I bet the democrats would detonate a thermonuclear bomb to stop in person voting if their COVID bioweapon attack fails to prevent it.

 

[occupied]

How is mail in voting a new system?

 

[dudmuck]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say no also.
Just do like its been done since the civil war.
Do it like our military votes.

US troops routinely vote by mail. Why can’t the rest of America do the same?

Congress has supporting members of the military to vote by mail since the Civil War, and should ensure that all Americans can safely and effectively vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, says the author of this commentary.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy."

Democrats lie! That Dems are pushing this hard for this tells me they think they can use it to rig the election OR if Trump wins question the legitimacy in the courts for 2 years. Mark my words!

 

[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

I say no also.
Just do like its been done since the civil war.
Do it like our military votes.

US troops routinely vote by mail. Why can’t the rest of America do the same?

Congress has supporting members of the military to vote by mail since the Civil War, and should ensure that all Americans can safely and effectively vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, says the author of this commentary.

www.militarytimes.com

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

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

 

[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?

 

[B. Kidd]

How is mail in voting a new system?

There are 2 types of mail-in voting.
There's the new Nevada law where all registered voters are automatically sent a mail-in ballot.
Then there is the Florida type where a registered voter has to request a mail-in ballot.
See the difference?
The new Nevada law is open to major abuse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How is mail in voting a new system?

There are 2 types of mail-in voting.
There's the new Nevada law where all registered voters are automatically sent a mail-in ballot.
Then there is the Florida type where a registered voter has to request a mail-in ballot.
See the difference?
The new Nevada law is open to major abuse.

Informative.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[occupied]

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?

 

[aaronleland]

Mail-in voting is only okay in Florida, based on their stellar record for vote counting.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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?

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

Yeah, I'm sure there'll be some eagle eyes double checking signatures.
Millions and millions of signatures. DURR.....

 

[B. Kidd]

You want every eligible voter to have an ample opportunity to vote don't you?

Mailing ballots to everyone and never purging the voter rolls.

What could go wrong?

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

 

[B. Kidd]

How is mail in voting a new system?

Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?

Didn't you get the memo? Mail in voting is somehow just fine in states where a lot of old people live.

Not under Nevada's new law.
I got 2 words for you.....VOTE HARVESTING!