#1 I don’t have a problem with expanding mail-in voting. And I like that a state is pre-mailing a mail-in ballot to registered voters. I also wouldn’t have a problem in lieu of mailing the ballot that each person is mailed a mail-in ballot request 120 days in advance which can either be returned for action or contains instructions to request a mail-in ballot online.
#2 Current mail-in ballot packages are bar/QR coded to the specific voter and cross checked to prevent (a) multiple votes by mail, and (b) attempting to vote by mail and in-person.
#3 Signatures are good, but I would love to see a 2-factor authentication process where the voter receives a verification code that would have to be submitted with the returned ballot. While for the technologically comfortable obtaining a 2-factor authentication code via email or text is not a problem. It has to be a method that works for all.
I honestly don’t believe that ANY amount of election reform will satisfy the 50% or so who believe the last election was fraudulent.
Why?
Nobody with those unfounded concerns will look at data to drive their decisions. Voter fraud is uncommon that it is hard to fathom. Unless this crowd is sitting in the room, it won’t matter.
Even in 2016, the voter fraud narrative was starting before the election. That was before mass mail in. However since Trump won, he somewhat let it go (he did do the whole “I won despite the cheating” shtick).
Any amount of early voting is seen as fraudulent.
Any amount of absentee voting is seen as fraudulent.
Let’s take one of your proposals… count the early votes as soon as you get them. That won’t help… the narrative will turn to “they counted them too early, how do we know the numbers won’t be manipulated”.
Voter confidence really comes down to how well we market. Think monetary policy. US currency is valued based on confidence… not any tangible asset like gold/silver.
Think if every Republican told the world that our money is garbage and do not trust us. What would happen to the value of a dollar?
Maybe educating the public via commercials on TV would help ease peoples concerns over fraud. It’s great to say that no unsigned ballots were accepted and that every signature was verified against their voter registration cards, but verification is only as good as the system or person(s) doing it. Let the voters see the voting process, both at the polls and how mail in ballots are verified and that would greatly eliminate the calls of foul play. Ease the public mind by demonstrating the bipartisan way each ballot is handled and verified…
It wasn’t just mail in ballots that were of concern either. I’m all for honesty and open elections and for every person exercising their legal right to vote, but if Democrats want Republicans to take their word for it that they wouldn’t cheat and commit perjury to win, then Democrats should likewise be willing to take Republicans at their word that they wouldn’t cheat or commit perjury to win either. There were A LOT of people who signed affidavits, under penalty of perjury, that they witnessed a lot of irregularities in a lot of states, especially the swing states.
This wouldn’t be a hard problem to solve, but politicians lie and know people are basically too ignorant and apathetic to really get involved enough to insist things change…
Think about the logistics at the time the Constitution was written. Town Hall (or wherever voting happened) was likely a good haul for farmers, some likely miles away. And they didn’t have the convenience of a car to zoom over there.
I wonder how many polling places there were in Boston (to pick a large place) in 1795.
But you wouldn’t be ok with having only 1 polling station at the top of the highest mountain in each state…or a difficult to reach location… would you?
Of course you wouldn’t. There is some level of convenience that needs to be table stakes for voting. 30 years ago, no one would DREAM of banking from the internet. Now no one would DREAM of NOT banking from the internet.
Did banks throw their hands up and say “well money is super important, therefore we can not make it more convenient because of security concerns”
No they accepted some level of risk, to help drive innovation.
Doesn’t mean I’m calling for a return to 1795 voting logistics.
You could learn something from that. There can be good points that disagree or conflict with what a person is supporting, and that person could still recognize that.
PS: This wasn’t your only contrarian post in here. I ignored the others. I’m tired of telling you how foolish your posts are.
I agree. I’m merely saying that we should advance voting into the 21st century. We know convenience isn’t a “right” but voting technology should at least keep up with current tech.
I wish you would stop this schtick. You should take the advice you gave above.
I’d certainly be willing recognize a good post from you – if you ever made one.
And here’s a hint: If you don’t like your stupid posts getting called out, don’t make stupid replies to me. I only respond to you if you reply to me, and then only when I can stomach it. You’ve solidified my contempt for your posts, but you won’t get any replies from me calling out your posts if you don’t reply to me directly.
I just choose not to play petty games. I’ll engage with any post or poster. Doing what you incessantly do is a sign of weakness in your rebuttals, not my posts. But hey I’ll still engage because I’m here to engage with people who think differently. Oh well, do you.
