2020 US Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
   #781  

dieseldub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
113
Reaction score
152
Location
Bay Area, CA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=28764
That doesn't solve all the problems with stealing ballots from mailboxes. It is possible to suppress voting via targeted theft by stealing the ballots from people who have lawn-signs for the candidate you don't like, or who you suspect will vote for that candidate, while leaving those who you think will vote for your candidate alone.


That may have been the Dem's and the Court's intention, but I do not see how it's feasible to give voters who submitted ballots with questionable signatires via mail a chance to "correct" them in the time-frame available. So it seems to me that the actual effect of this ruling is that ballots are counted whether the signature matches or not.

If you really want secure not-in-person voting, signatures are a horribly unreliable method of doing this. I registered to vote at my current address in when I moved there 1988. I voted often enough to maintain my registered status for the next 20-some years, but due to me doing everything on a computer, my handwriting atrophied and my signature changed significantly. Yet every time I voted, by signature from 1988 was still in the book I had to sign. The folks who signed me in raised their eyebrows at the discrepancy more than once. Telling them that the reference signature was a couple of decades old and offering to show my ID was enough to placate them. This year, I re-registered (on-line) and the signature in the book now appears to be the one from my most recent driver's license renewal.

So instead of signatures, why don't we require re-registration on the same schedule that a person renews their driver's license? In PA that's every four years, and along with your driver's license, you're issued a set of 8 randomly generated six-digit codes printed on the back of your voter registration card, so one for each election in the next four years. When you vote by some means other than in-person, you must verify your identity using the code you were assigned for that election. That's just one idea.....

-Uwe-
Those are much of the same arguments that democrats have had against signature verification as being a reason to toss them out. So, I suppose you do agree with them on that point, it's just the what to do about it instead is the question.

The two states I've lived in, voter registration was done while getting a driver's license. Now, what I'm not 100% sure of is if that means when the license expires, so does my voter registration? I'll have to check with local rules on that. There likely are some communication between agencies that could be shored up to ensure accurate voter registration rolls to more quickly and accurately update for when someone moves out of state or passes away to better ensure people aren't just going to steal a ballot by mail and do whatever they want with it.

This all being said, I still don't think it's possible the few cases of fraud that are caught every election are ever enough to overturn the results. Also, my state has the ability to let me know when my ballot is sent, so I know when abouts to expect it in the mail (early October typically) and if I don't receive it, then I can contact them about it. I'm unsure on if there is an individual code each ballot has, that would also be a good thing to do in case they do reprint a ballot in the case of one being stolen, that way they can differentiate which is the stolen one so that can be thrown out. The other nice thing is they also have a notification system to let me know that it has infact been counted. Though I will admit, I haven't yet trusted the USPS to deliver my ballot. I drop it off either at the polling location the day of or there are other drop boxes inside city or county buildings (can only be dropped off during normal open hours) which I can deliver it early. That's my preferred way of going about it. It at least cuts down on my having to wait in a long line, which is the primary nice thing about the process to me.

So, even if I am dropping off a ballot on election day, I can cut the normal line and drop the ballot off in the designated mail-in ballot drop location at the polling spot and walk right back out, no wait, no hassle. Personally, if we aren't going to make election day a national holiday, this is my preferred method of going about it. Avoiding standing in line is a big plus. Hell, even if we DID make it a national holiday, I think I'd still prefer this method.
 
   #782  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,215
Reaction score
22,231
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
I still don't think it's possible the few cases of fraud that are caught every election are ever enough to overturn the results.
Which of course raises the question: How many aren't caught? ;)

-Uwe-
 
   #783  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,896
Reaction score
4,338
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Some religious organizations follow very strict rules about what is acceptable to do and what is not - what is deemed a day of rest and what is not - on the day of Sabbath. That you and others have different views do not give any the right to condemn the reasons of others. That you may not accept their ways is ok. They still have the right to believe as they do and to do as they have been taught and believe.
@Bruce: My apology - it must be the fact that English is my second language, but you have misunderstood the thesis of my augment about the sabbath.

As I said - "I have absolutely NO sympathy for this reason [the Sabbath]" as a prohibition to choosing the election day!

You are of course entirely correct that anyone has a right to believe whatever about anything. And of course, in an enlightened and healthy society, anyone has the right to practice "as they have been taught and believe" - as long as those beliefs DO NOT impact on the lives of others.

However, when the rest of society is asked to modify the wider practices in the community because of a religious tenet- then I'm firmly of the view that it is proper to examine both the nature of the belief and its impact. In fact, I would go further and assert that when this happens, it's mandatory for the examination to occur because societal value-sets can be subtly and inappropriately altered (as is the case here - I suspect). Using the religious tenet of the Sabbath as a reason for not voting on weekend days clearly falls into this category!

Lets put-aside the more immediate conversation about America's election day for the moment and consider instead the underlying principles about how communities should accommodate (or not) the religious beliefs of their members - and let's consider this example:

As you will be aware, a section of our respective communities believe as is their religious right that Xenu, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" transported billions of his people to this fragile blue planet in a DC-8 like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs. Further, the religious scriptures for these believers hold that thetans (immortal spirits) of these aliens adhere to humans, causing spiritual harm. If this community proffered that their religion held Tuesdays as a day of religious observance and abstinence from work - would you accept this as a reason to change America's election day?​

I suspect that your argument is that the Sabbath is an established religious belief!! I do not hold that this is an automatically acceptable reason for rejecting weekend voting - IMO this the tail-wagging-the-dog and it goes to the heart of my previous point that religious tenets once accepted within communities by non-believers can become immutable and intransigent blockers to change!! It is for this reason that I assert that blindly adopting religious restrictions in the general community is both dangerous and inappropriate in today's multi-cultural societies (and I include America in this lot)

Don

PS: As a personal aside, I'm more than happy for you to define my questions about the omnipotent being as "condemning" the Sabbath belief - albeit this was not my intent. My questions were just that; questions whose purpose was to expose my difficulties with the religious principle. If you characterize this as condemnation, then it says to me that you have understood my concerns!! As is so often the case in these debates, there is a tendency to counter logical questions with emotive labels - no offense, my friend!
 
Last edited:
   #785  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,215
Reaction score
22,231
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Unbelievable!!!
What exactly do you find unbelievable? Again, the media does not decide election results. Not a single State has certified its election results. No electors have been appointed, and the Electoral College doesn't meet until December 14th.

-Uwe-
 
   #786  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,896
Reaction score
4,338
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
What exactly do you find unbelievable? Again, the media does not decide election results. Not a single State has certified its election results. No electors have been appointed, and the Electoral College doesn't meet until December 14th.

-Uwe-
Exactly!!!!!!

Given the undeniable veracity of ALL of your points - how can Pompeo declare as the opening words to his media show "there will be a smooth transition to a 2nd Trump administration"?

Don

PS: wrt 14 December - are you suggesting the possibility of faithless Elector(s) in the event of a Trump defeat?
 
Last edited:
   #787  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,215
Reaction score
22,231
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Given the undeniable veracity of ALL of your points - how can Pompeo declare as the opening words to his media show "there will be a smooth transition to a 2nd Trump administration"?
It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way of telling them that their conclusing that Biden would be President in January is premature. Listen to the rest. He then clearly stated that the transition would be smooth no matter who is actually inaugurated in January.
wrt 14 December - are you suggesting the possibility of faithless Elector(s) in the event of a Trump defeat?
No. I'm suggesting that the outcome cannot be certain until the EC votes. That is how US Presidents are actually elected. Since no State has certified results, and the results are very tight in some key states, how the EC will vote is not certain yet, even without any faithless electors.

It is also possible that neither Trump or Biden will get the requisite 270 votes in the EC. In that case, the matter goes before the House of Representatives, and each State's delegation gets one vote...

-Uwe-
 
   #788  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,250
Reaction score
8,986
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Which of course raises the question: How many aren't caught? ;)

-Uwe-
Could not agree more!
And what if it's inverse showing more Republicans voted twice by absentee ballot and in person by instruction of the sitting President to perform or engage in a Felony? :p

Just playing the devil's advocate since I didn't vote!

What will the Country do when Texas becomes Democrat next & because it's getting pretty fuckin close?
 
   #791  

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,250
Reaction score
8,986
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
I think somehow this article is relevant to this entire fiasco with social media angles and conditioning of the election, no?

 
   #792  

Bruce

Active Member
Staff member
Ross-Tech Employee
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
2,851
Location
Near Philadelphia, PA, USA
VCDS Serial number
--------
As for "the Sabbath" prohibition - I mean no offense to believers, but I have absolutely NO sympathy for this reason (for not doing anything). Probably more a topic for @Bruce Belief-Systems thread - but why does an omnipotent being care? And even if the omnipotent being has human feelings (and is annoyed by something as banal as what her creations do on a particular day of the week) - why would she be annoyed by exercising the obligation to vote and not be annoyed by the myriad of other (far more trivial) tasks that these folk do on the Sabbath?
While you state you have no sympathy for those who would argue for a Sabbath prohibition on election, by the very nature of your following questions, you do condemn those that believe their God requires them to observe a day of rest. The moment you write, "I mean no offense", you know full well your statement will be offensive to exactly those who have such belief. Otherwise, there would be no need for such words. That is why i called your words condemning of those who hold such beliefs.

I do not observe a Sabbath rest. I find myself defending the right of those who might choose to observe a Sabbath rest for I understand their reason to do so (which I plan to expand upon in the Belief's thread when I find some time to write about that and all the other posts you made a month ago). Personally, I would have no issue with voting on a Sunday - the day of Sabbath rest my Presbyterian denomination observes. Do keep in mind that not only Christians observe a Sabbath. Devout Jews and devout Muslims also do so. Christians, Jews and Muslims would encompass a very large part of the American population - the point I believe Mike was trying to make when he mentioned the "Sabbath".

I accept your premise and I believe I even stated that an election process solution needs to be found that is workable for the greatest number of our American society. The point you are trying to get across: that solutions must be made that are representative of the entire larger social fabric of America is proper, right and fully supported by the American Constitution.

And Don, it is not right in a debate for either of us to put words down that the other has not said. Neither of us can know what the other thinks until such time as we put our thoughts down for all to observe. Let's agree that we will not write what we "suspect" the other's thoughts or feelings might be and let's agree to express our thoughts and feelings as clearly as we might. Further, when we are not sure of a feeling we get from what we read, let's agree to ask questions such that we can come to a place of understanding. Let's be sure to debate without labels. We cannot come to understand each other's views when we fail to remain open to the other's point of view.

Let's talk about what a Sabbath is in the belief thread and leave that out of the election thread. Your point has been made as has mine. (and we are in agreement no less.)
 
   #793  

jyoung8607

FoRT
Verified
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
4,159
Location
Cincinnati, OH
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=25607
Much more to reply to, but a few things between conference calls...

That's nice, but first you have to ensure the list of eligible voters is kept current. When people die, they must be removed. When people move, they must be removed. You also need to figure out how to keep ballots from being stolen out of people's mail boxes.
Dead voters generally do get removed, including even those who cast an otherwise valid absentee ballot but then die before Election Day. Details vary by state. There's pretty good data available on who's dead. If there's significant gaps to be found here, they can and should be fixed. For example, in brief research, I can see clearly that PA will remove voters who the PA Department of Health knows are dead. That said, I can't immediately confirm what happens if there's a non-PA issued death certificate, for example, if (God forbid) you might pass away in FL, whether your PA registration might persist until you miss two Presidential election cycles. I don't know if they ingest data from other sources, such as the SSDI/DMF.

Using a PA example again, here's a group throwing database queries at the wall and coming up with quite a lot of noise, but only showing one (1) fully confirmed match for a dead voter, for which the judge was singularly unimpressed:


Voters who move are very difficult to solve quickly in an automated fashion, because there are many perfectly legal reasons to have a ballot sent out-of-state. USPS mail forwarding is NOT the same thing as establishing new residency. State tax returns won't work for this purpose. I think the most effective thing you could do is establish some level of interstate cooperation to make sure you can't be registered in two states at once, therefore limiting potential damage to someone voting in the "wrong" state but still only being able to vote once without high risk of getting busted. Reconciling with state driver's license or state ID records might have some merit, but it's not like people have a great record of updating those the day after they move either, and even if they do, they still have the choice of voting in their old state for up to 30 days after they move. This is a very easy problem to bitch about, but it's a very hard problem to fix, and there's been no showing of evidence it has a major impact.

Not directly on point for this conversation, but lacking a better place to mention it, here's some info on the post-election auditing done in PA, who are apparently ahead of the curve compared to other states: https://www.votespa.com/About-Elections/Pages/Post-Election-Audits.aspx

Why not make Election Day a national holiday? Many (most?) other countries do this.
That sounds downright progressive of you. ;)

In seriousness, a lot of people want this, but DV52 and Bruce make good points as well and I tend to agree. I don't know that it buys us much, that we don't already get from early in-person and early mail balloting, and those are always things we will need. As one example, you yourself may not be anywhere near Pennsylvania during their early in-person voting period. As another example, my wife will never be able to vote in-person on Election Day, because she's the manager of a local library that serves as a polling place; it's not the polling place for our residence and she has to be there all day while the polls are open.

That doesn't solve all the problems with stealing ballots from mailboxes. It is possible to suppress voting via targeted theft by stealing the ballots from people who have lawn-signs for the candidate you don't like, or who you suspect will vote for that candidate, while leaving those who you think will vote for your candidate alone.
Stealing ballots out of mailboxes is a very high risk, very low return scheme for materially impacting the outcome of an election. Among other things, you have to get away with driving around a neighborhood checking a bunch of mailboxes that aren't yours while NOT driving a postal delivery truck, which is not something you'll get away with for very long in a world of ubiquitous camera phones and vehicle dashcams and Ring doorbells. And you could 10x the risk to the perp by mailing out ballots in random batches over the course of 10 days, making them have to sweep those mailboxes 10 times to get the same number of ballots, and I think they're already mailed out in batches today (though I have no cite for this).

So instead of signatures, why don't we require re-registration on the same schedule that a person renews their driver's license? In PA that's every four years, and along with your driver's license, you're issued a set of 8 randomly generated six-digit codes printed on the back of your voter registration card, so one for each election in the next four years. When you vote by some means other than in-person, you must verify your identity using the code you were assigned for that election. That's just one idea.....
This, or something like this, is worthy of some consideration. I still think it's a solution looking for a statistically significant problem, but it's low cost and might give some folks more confidence in the process. The only catch is that it CAN NOT be implemented in any way that looks, smells, feels, tastes, or sounds like a poll tax. There's been a lot of schemes in this country, from people who thought they were very clever, to make it more difficult for undesirables to vote, and many "Voter ID" laws fall squarely in that category.

* Live in a city with functioning mass transportation and expensive parking so you've never bothered to get a license? (what a good way to eliminate Philadelphia votes!)
* Got a suspended or confiscated license because you have no money to pay this or that civil fine?
* Can't pay your student loans? (in some states)
* Have to choose between feeding your kids this week and paying the fees (and maybe fines) necessary to get a license/ID so you can vote?

PA issues non-driver's photo ID, but today it's only free if you're surrendering a previously issued driver's license., which is weird since they swore up and down in the Voter ID campaign they'd be free.

If, IF IF IF, if there's a plan to make sure those codes are ALSO available on non-driver state ID cards that are made widely available free of charge in a way that isn't excessively burdensome to get hold of, then maybe it's something to talk about. But, if it takes someone without a license three hours one-way riding buses to get to a 90 minute wait at the one location in their area that does IDs so they can pay a fee for something they need because and only because they want to participate in our democracy, then everyone on both sides knows god damn good and well what it's really about.

 
   #796  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,215
Reaction score
22,231
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It makes no difference in New York State -- the outcome there was never in question.

-Uwe-
 
   #797  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,896
Reaction score
4,338
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
It makes no difference in New York State -- the outcome there was never in question.

-Uwe-
Uwe.... I have the upmost regard for Jack (I reckon he is a very fine human being) - but talented as Jack may be, how did he know with absolute certainty before the election that "the outcome was never in question"????

Or, are you are suggesting that if the polls or historic voting patterns indicate before the election that "the outcome is never in question", there is no need for a citizen to exercise his/her right/obligation to vote in the democratic process in which he/she enjoys the benefits of that democracy? If so -then every citizen should act in the same manner and by definition - the election outcome that was thought to be inevitable would never happen (because no one would vote)!!

Shirley the results of something as important as who runs the country ought not rest on the whim of an individual citizen's guess about how his/her fellow citizens vote- the entire concept of democracy based on citizens second guessing each other's votes seems bizarre IMHO?

Don
 
Last edited:
   #798  

Mike@Gendan

VCDS Distributor
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
750
Reaction score
909
Location
Swansea, UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57030
Uwe.... I have the upmost regard for Jack (I reckon he is a very fine human being) - but talented as Jack may be, how did he know with absolute certainty before the election that "the outcome was never in question"????
That's often the case - It's unfortunately the nature of the "first past the post" system. If you don't vote for the winner, your vote counts for nothing.
I personally still vote just-in-case, but where I live in the UK (Swansea East constituency), the Labour Party have held the seat by a considerable majority for as long as I can remember:
 
   #799  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,896
Reaction score
4,338
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
That's often the case - It's unfortunately the nature of the "first past the post" system. If you don't vote for the winner, your vote counts for nothing.
I personally still vote just-in-case, but where I live in the UK (Swansea East constituency), the Labour Party have held the seat by a considerable majority for as long as I can remember:
Mike: Hi - yes I understand entirely the dynamic that can prompt citizens to avoid exercising their democratic right/obligation on election day.

EVERY voting system (including first-past-the-post) has it's strengths and weaknesses! If the democratic system was preferential voting - would it be equally OK not to vote because somewhere in the preference distribution, a portion of the vote went to a candidate that you didn't like? Clearly not, because preferential voting systems distributes to ALL candidates

I'm sure that you would agree that democracy is NOT perfect; it's full of imperfections - BUT (and IMO) this doesn't excuse a citizen who is prepared to otherwise bask in the benefits that the democracy gives to its citizens -from voting.

Democracy is a thing in which proccess is as important as outcome. And, the fundamental premise of a democracy is egalitarianism; every citizen is treated equally. So, no one is better than anyone else and before the election - no one's views about the outcome of the democratic process is more informed, or more intuitively correct than any one else. ONE SYSTEM of voting is used in each election and regardless of the self belief of individual citizens, that ONE system should be used equally by all citizens (no exceptions).

That is of course unless the UK constitution (yes, I'm aware that your equivalent is a myriad of laws and Parliament Acts) says that a different process can be used by citizens if the "Labour Party have held the seat by a considerable majority for as long as I can remember" :facepalm:

Don
 
   #800  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,215
Reaction score
22,231
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
how did he know with absolute certainty before the election that "the outcome was never in question"????
You need to understand how US Presidential elections work. In all but two of the 50 states, the winner of the popular vote in that state gets all the electors for that state. Historical voting patterns for New York State (where Jack lives) indicate that a Republican presidential candidate has no chance there. There are a number of states where this is the case. Some are safe for Democrats and some are safe for Republicans. Then there are others states where the political views are more evenly split, which are considered "swing" or "battleground" states.

-Uwe-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top