This is totally false. You can't send 5 ballots 5 ways. You don't really understand how the system works. A completed ballot doesn't count as a vote - it's crossed against voter registration roles. The signature is compared to the voter registration or DL. You're an American, learn how the system works before you push forward theories that are simply not true.
Never mailed my vote in. Can’t speak to it. So who’s cross checking these? Humans, computers? And you’re sure there’s no room for error? If your convinced that’s good enough for me. So we can hopefully put this thing to rest and I can revise my opinion to say ‘there is absolutely no potential for fraud’ with mass mail in balloting. So now we’re on common ground.
I think the disconnect here is that most of us feel that policy should be based on facts and evidence, and not on gut instincts and guesses and fears. In the case of mail-in ballots in the United States we have tons of evidence. This should not be partisan, but for some reason it is. It's merely rational to want policy to be based on evidence and facts. I don't have the time to research how the various states do this right now, but the fact that you think you could potentially mail in five votes with five different spellings of a name indicates you haven't researched at all.
So my question is: what happens when I provide evidence of Democrats and voter fraud? Does it then become how many more instance you can find or I can find? Is that useful? Let’s say you take the time and produce the Overwhelming evidence that Republicans are suppressing votes or whatever. That just strengthens my opinion that there is potential for fraud. Even though Sweet Lou changed my mind.
Absolutely it's useful! It's the foundation of rational debate. (I'd argue, the foundation of the Enlightenment era and the founding of our nation.) Of course, there's a hundred bad-faith ways to pretend one is arguing in good faith; ad hominems, strawmen, false dichotomies, etc. The typical approach one finds here in D&D when one is presented with contrary evidence: disavow the source. ("CNN? Fox News? HA! Like I'm even going to bother dignifying their lies!") If both you and I find contrary evidence, then ideally we would attempt rational debate to determine right vs wrong and/or compromise. But of course, it's very rare in here that two posters both argue in good faith with the search for truth above partisanship. What is truly poisonous, however, is to question whether rational debate based on evidence and facts is even worthwhile to determine policy. When no one believes in rational debate based on evidence in search of truth, then we're in dangerous territory. Somehow, we are currently in an era where science, the scientific method, the very pursuit of objective truth or it's existence is partisan. We're all the worse for it. I want to say that as the only conservative leaning poster bothering to continue in this thread, you're taking a lot of punches and handling it maturely. I tip my hat. I feel a little apologetic that I'm not taking time to post a bunch of sources to back up everything I say right now, but it would take so much time and typing this alone takes a lot of time already. I'll try to be better in the future but I can't promise I will.
You seem like a fairly reasonable person, but you're in a debate forum, debating an issue, regarding an actual debate. "It's just my opinion" doesn't fly. But let's see if some facts are able to change your opinion on this. These aren't arguments from Democrats; they're quotes from Trump and one of his top advisers. Here Trump openly admits that, if more people voted, Republicans would never win any elections: Does that affect your opinion at all? No? How about this? https://www.newsweek.com/republican...recording-before-walking-back-remarks-1478598 Justin Clark, senior political adviser to President Donald Trump, told Republicans in Wisconsin that the Republican party has engaged in voter suppression during elections, according to a recording obtained by a liberal activist group. Clark said he was taken out of context, and was referring to false accusations lobbed at the party. "Technically, it's always been Republicans suppressing votes in places," Clark said during a discussion at a November meeting of the Republican National Lawyer's Association in Wisconsin. Clark's comments were captured on audio tape. "Let's start protecting our voters. We know where they are," Clark said. "Let's start playing offense a little bit. That's what you're going to see in 2020. It's going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program." Walking back comments after one has been caught red-handed doesn't hold a lot of water. He was caught on tape. If your response to both things is, again, "it's just my opinion," you should probably change that to "it's just an opinion I have even though I have no basis for it and it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny."
Oh, hell yeah. The more seats that look like pick-ups, the better Warren's chances are of becoming Biden's running mate.
There's the same potential with coming in person and committing fraud. You have no evidence of something and you have admitted you don't know much about it. But you are postulating there is a problem - why? You know why. Just be honest and admit it, that hey you think it hurts your candidates chances to win. No shame in the truth really.
He's just a victim of conservative orthodoxy. They have a lot of fake news sources that pump out fake information and then their followers run around spreading concerns on the internets that are easily debunked by experts in that field. Since conservative orthodoxy not only spreads nonsense with regularity and also spreads distrust of "so-called experts", as they like to call them, then their entire experience simply involves a reliance on "common sense" created by a marginal education and a dopey feedback loop. "Many people are saying" the President of the United States lies with regularity to scare his constituents into conversations much like this one even though the President of the United States himself and probably all of his employees vote by mail. AND then to put mail by vote fraud with voter suppression in the same conversation is total garbage. There is actual data everywhere about Republicans suppressing voter participation in states around the country and there is ZERO data of any large scale voter fraud problems in the United States. Again, conservative orthodoxy to force a false equivocation where they have no leg to stand on.
Thank you for not pasting a bunch of sources That was my point to the question and then what’s next? ie: we end up in an unsettled debate/discussion that we both expend time and energy trying to convince each other with no results. Like it’s been said earlier we are not going to change each other’s minds. Usually I’m just trying to find common ground. The frustrating but predictable thing is it’s almost impossible the majority of the time because nobody will concede anything that is critical of their chosen political party. I’m not saying you. I’m generalizing my experience and I assume it goes both ways. I’m completely surprised that stating my opinion, which really applied To both parties, was greeted with such passion. Especially when it seems like an innocent observation that I assumed any sensible person would agree with. It just goes to show how differently people see things. I also chalk it up to me being the only right/conserv participating on the board at that time. Maybe now the Trump signed the EO about social media the discussion will move on to less trivial things. And that’s not meant to be a shot at you, Nolan. Hope you don’t take it that way. It’s meant to say I cared more to defend my right to have an opinion way more than I did of the topic the opinion was about. I’m not sure that came through in the sum of my posts.
I’m curious. Do you even know what my opinion was/is? I started down a rabbit hole with the intention to past link after link to match @Nolen and then snapped to and said ‘wtf am I doing this for? It’s not going to make a difference’. We’ve already established this. I encourage you to find my opinion and then you can tell me that I can’t have it.
Felony charge and jail time. System of protection has been in place for awhile. Whatever they are, they work. There has essentially been no fraud. Spoiler: Security Features of Voting by Absentee / Mailed Ballots In several ways, absentee/mailed ballots are as secure or more secure than traditional methods of voting: Absentee/mailed ballots are hand-marked paper ballots. Paper ballots that have been hand-marked by voters are considered by most to be the gold standard of election security. Absentee/mailed ballots provide a paper trail that can be examined if there is any suspicion of meddling, and the marks of voters can be examined one by one if need be. Paper ballots allow for post-election audits and cutting edge election security methods such as risk-limiting audits (RLA), which more states are adopting. An RLA compares a random sample of ballots against the vote tally to ensure the outcome of the election is correct. It requires a robust ballot accounting process to ensure a trustworthy paper trail. The identity of every absentee/mailed ballot voter can be verified through signature verification. In a sense, a signature is a form of biometric identification, i.e. it is unique to a particular voter. By having a voter sign an affidavit on an absentee/ballot envelope the voter is affirming that the ballot enclosed is their ballot. Election officials can verify the signature as well. When combined with an effective “cure process,” or opportunity for a voter to fix a mismatched or missing signature, signature verification is an effective way to verify a voter’s identity. See above for more details on how signature verification works. In most states, absentee/mailed ballots are examined and processed in advance of Election Day, spreading out the workload and providing more time for scrutiny and to “get it right.” If there is a cybersecurity incident that affects the election, there are longer lines at polling locations than anticipated, voting machines break down, election workers don’t show up, etc., voters may find it difficult to cast their votes. Even though voting is not occurring in a supervised environment, a number of features can be prescribed to enhance security of the election when voting by absentee/mailed ballot. Systems that allow a state to keep address information up-to-date for voters is the first step in ensuring the security of absentee/mailed ballots. If voters can easily keep their addresses up-to-date then their absentee/mailed ballot is more likely to get to them. Policies to make registration updates convenient for voters and to ensure robust voter list maintenance procedures can help keep voter information current. The act of sending out absentee/mailed ballots also allows election officials to ensure they have up-to-date addresses for voters, and states that send out more absentee/mailed ballots have seen an added benefit of “cleaner” voter lists, i.e. voter address information is kept up to date. Bipartisan teams have long provided a measure of security. Teams of election workers from different political parties can be deployed to retrieve ballots from the U.S. Postal Service or from drop boxes; verify signatures; open envelopes and separate the ballot from the envelope; prepare the ballots for scanning; and participate in the vote counting process. Established “chain of custody” procedures that account for all steps in the process of moving and processing ballots are useful. This is true for every aspect of election administration, but particularly true for ballots that are submitted throughout an election period and not just on Election Day. Because voted mailed ballots are stored for some length of time before the election is complete, physical security is essential, too. Security cameras, locks that need a bipartisan team to open, and logs of all activities relating to ballot handling can be part of this effort. See NCSL’s Elections Security webpage for more. Ballot tracking can help. Ballot tracking provides voters an opportunity to track their ballots through the process, just as packages can be tracked through FedEx or other carriers. In the case of Denver elections, texts can be sent to voters who sign up for the service so they know when their ballot has been mailed to them, when it has been received back at the election office, and when it has been approved for tallying. In other jurisdictions, voters can electronically query their local election office to ensure that a ballot is on the way. Voters can then ask for another ballot to be sent (and the first one is canceled by the election official to ensure the voter does not vote twice) if there is reason to believe a ballot has been lost. Security mechanisms to prevent double-voting can be required. For instance, ballot envelopes are barcoded for individual voters, allowing election officials to be sure that they are only accepting one ballot per voter. Ballot collection laws that specify how many voted ballots can be collected by any individual are intended to reduce fraud. This can also be mitigated by providing voters with ample opportunities to return their own ballots. And laws requiring signature verification rather than a witness or a notary signature can also reduce opportunities for coercion. Ensuring that there are meaningful penalties for tampering with or otherwise hindering the delivery of absentee/mailed ballots, and that voters are sufficiently informed of these penalties, is another way to enhance security. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
Have to replace the seat lost in AL. Plus the goal should be to take the senate... so more seats are needed.
I'm not telling you what to think or not think. And I didn't mean to be argumentative, truly. I saw you say a couple of times that it was 'only your opinion' so that's what I was responding to. I read several posts from you saying that voting by mail came with the danger of voter fraud and that five people could mail in ballots and whatnot. That's exactly what Trump's been saying so I admit I jumped to conclusions. I don't think they were unreasonable conclusions, but still... I did that because it's pretty darn frustrating to hear POTUS parrot lie after lie and then hear people seem to agree with them. If you didn't and I misunderstood, you have my apology. I'm really not here to argue and I'm sorry for whatever I said that made you take my post badly.
I honestly didn’t understand how hot of a topic this is. The whole news cycle is blowing up about this topic. I was not aware of anything other than the CA gov. floating an idea of mail in ballots. Now I see it’s a polarizing idealogic thing. I came to my own opinion without being influenced by anyone or anything. And it’s not intended to suppress anyone from voting.
