The 2020 General Election Thread II

[BugI02]

Continuing my point above, I just want all the election rules followed equally on both sides. If the law says they have to let observers oversee the count, then the observation would need to be meaningful. Getting nitty about, well, what does that mean? The minimum distance has to be specified? C'mon. That's ridiculous. The purpose of observers is to make sure no one is cheating. So reasonably close enough to be able to determine that. But I can see where they might want to try to maintain social distance, and require masks or shields. Fairly applied. That's what I ask. If it's not, then they have a grievance. I don't want to see one side claiming "fraud!" where there really was non just to prevent a losing vote to be certified, as a means to victory. I also don't want to see people secretly counting votes and using tricks to keep observers away to hide it. I kinda see both things happening.

I see no reason why, if social distancing is a concern, that vote counters couldn't be overlooked by exactly the kind of high resolution cameras that watch dealers and croupiers at a casino. It disgusts me when either side pushes the process into grey areas and/or manipulates the rules for partisan advantage and then has the gall to talk about 'the will of the people'

I see unequivocally verifying that a potential voter is eligible as well as who they say they are as bedrock and non-negotiable. If it is too inconvenient to vote, then don't vote - the system should not be warped to accommodate the outliers

There should be at least as much security inherent in the voting transaction as there is in a financial one

 

[T.Lex]

But it's more than that in reality. The complaint about Abbott was playing within the rules. The legislature gave the Texas executive branch power to make those kinds of decisions. One complaint the Republicans have that I agree with is that some states used Covid to change laws that would tend to be more favorable to cheating. If we're talking about what ought to happen, I agree. It should just come down to getting people to register and then getting those people who registered out to vote.

I'll admit I'm biased against mail-in voting because that just has so many ways to go wrong, and all those ways will favor Democrats. I mean, if we have ****ty standards and it hurts both sides evenly, I guess it doesn't matter as much. But if one side gains an advantage by decreasing the integrity of the election, that's pretty ****ty. And I'll give Alpo his due that it was kinda ****ty for Abbott to limit drop-off boxes to one per county. But then I'm not all that fond of mail in voting, because there are way more ways for people to cheat.

I think the "integrity of elections" thing is up to each state, the way it is supposed to be.

Really, the only litmus test for election integrity is whether people eligible to vote, voted. The states have a great deal of leeway in that regard. (I think even the registered-voter paradigm is something that evolved rather than is dictated constitutionally.)

Do felons voting damage the integrity of an election? Some states allow it, others don't, others say it depends.

The mail-in-voting-is-ripe-for-abuse is a red herring. It can be done - like any other absentee ballot - with appropriate safeguards. It still gets back to an audit trail about registered voters and ballots.

 

[Tombs]

I'm sure annoying ballot counter observers have happened before over our 200+ year history.

But this many cases of them being thrown out, I can't find any record of.

 

[jamil]

I don't think you give sufficient consideration to what I'll call the 'blood feud' side of human nature, for want of a better term. It is my opinion that the more one side in a disagreement is subjected to what it feels are unfair conditions, constraints, decisions etc. and just has to **** it, the more incensed and unreasonable they become given the next indignity. With enough reps that sense of 'we're not going to take it' can preclude any rational solution to a disagreement because there is just no room to move on that side. It just seems it would behoove whatever side has the upper hand to moderate their own behavior, but everyone seems to believe their triumph is structural and permanent and books like The Emerging democratic Majority are ... unhelpful, as is the belief demographics are destiny (see Trump's inroads with blacks and especially hispanics).

I think if we are not at the brink, we are quite close to it. I don't see a way down off the ledge, not since Grant's terms for Lee has anyone been gracious in political victory

I say 'Let them fight'. The last time the absolute defeat of one side did kinda settle things for 160 or so years

That's completely untrue. It's a prominent input in determining when people are full of ****. If you're motivated by rage, yer probably not thinking things through, and you're probably saying the other is saying things or doing things they're not actually saying or doing. Get two sides motivated by rage and it's just bull**** vs bull****. I'd rather leave decisions about how close we are to brinks up to people who aren't that emotionally invested in their own side.

 

[BugI02]

That kind of stuff is playing within the rules, though. ID requirements, ballot harvesting (within the applicable rules), motor-voter registration, all of it.

As long as each side knows what demographics are more likely to vote for them, their GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts will be focused on those demographics.

At the end of the day it comes down to getting people to register to vote then converting those registered voters to vote for your party in the election.

Wouldn't it be better if that was done by enthusiaasm for the candidate, his party, and their platform rather than marketing tricks and pushing the envelope on rules? Again, if a potential voter finds it just too inconvenient to vote, maybe they shouldn't

 

[foszoe]

Yes, when that 'process' is altered for partisan advantage into a system riddled with the opportunity for fraud, we are right to seek its destruction - and republicans didn't start us down that road you may recall. We were quite content with in person voting after positive identification and accurate maintenance of the voting rolls. You know, the kind of constitutional 'disenfranchisement' by inconvenience that democrats were always on about

You cannot fight for inherrently insecure amendments to voting rules while resisting any and all attempts to close the loopholes that lead to cheating and expect people to continue to accept that they aren't being screwed

But you know that. The rest is Kabuki

What's your thoughts on gerrymandering ?

 

[BugI02]

That's completely untrue. It's a prominent input in determining when people are full of ****. If you're motivated by rage, yer probably not thinking things through, and you're probably saying the other is saying things or doing things they're not actually saying or doing. Get two sides motivated by rage and it's just bull**** vs bull****. I'd rather leave decisions about how close we are to brinks up to people who aren't that emotionally invested in their own side.

You might have to wait for functional AI; and even then, from what I read, the biases of the developers can make their way into the program

 

[jamil]

I think the "integrity of elections" thing is up to each state, the way it is supposed to be.

Really, the only litmus test for election integrity is whether people eligible to vote, voted. The states have a great deal of leeway in that regard. (I think even the registered-voter paradigm is something that evolved rather than is dictated constitutionally.)

Do felons voting damage the integrity of an election? Some states allow it, others don't, others say it depends.

The mail-in-voting-is-ripe-for-abuse is a red herring. It can be done - like any other absentee ballot - with appropriate safeguards. It still gets back to an audit trail about registered voters and ballots.

To some extent sure. But all the people in all the states have a stake in it. And though I kinda think Texas doesn't have standing to sue the four states, because I think the "disenfranchisement" argument is legally weak, there is some truth to the concept. So I think it's within the purview of the federal government to define fair boundaries in which state elections may operate. They have a legitimate role in making elections fair across the states, but not necessarily within states. I don't want FEDs getting too deep into state elections. But certainly they can ensure that a state obeys its own election laws fairly. If a state law says that elections must be done this way, and then partisans change it to that way outside of rule of law, it's a fair thing for feds to step in.

The mail-in-voting-is-ripe-for-abuse is not a red herring. There is no law or technology existing today that can make mail in voting as reliable as in-person. Some implementations can be made better than others, but regardless, there will always be more opportunities for fraud and mistakes with mail-in ballots. Less with Absentee mail-in ballots because they have some stricter rules. But even so, there are still more opportunities for mistakes and fraud than in-person. In-person isn't perfect. But it's simple enough that there aren't as many opportunities for mistakes/fraud.

 

[jamil]

I'm sure annoying ballot counter observers have happened before over our 200+ year history.

But this many cases of them being thrown out, I can't find any record of.

Sure. But 2020 is the Year of the Karen. We've also not had this many people think the other is the enemy.

 

[jamil]

You might have to wait for functional AI; and even then, from what I read, the biases of the developers can make their way into the program

Oh hell. I wouldn't trust AI for ****. If you want to industrialize bias, that's exactly how you do it. Social Media's use of AI has really ****ed us on that regard.

 

[jamil]

What's your thoughts on gerrymandering ?

It's legal. Not ideal. But at least it's not fraud.

It's a bipartisan vice. It's a tool that both sides use when they can, but often the state legislatures are Republican because the number of rural counties far outnumber urban counties in many states, and often Republicans get to decide. When Democrats are in charge, they suck too.

 

[BugI02]

What's your thoughts on gerrymandering ?

I'd like to see redistricting done according to a strict algorithm designed to make each district as competitive as possible, including sectioning up large metropolitan areas so that they were sliced up like a pie with, to the extent possible, equal numbers of urban, suburban and exurban voters in each slice

How do you feel/what remedy would you propose to situations such as Chicago or NYC controlling their states politics to the extent that they do? How about districting designed for diversity of outcome rather than fealty to representation of all?

 

[foszoe]

I'd like to see redistricting done according to a strict algorithm designed to make each district as competitive as possible, including sectioning up large metropolitan areas so that they were sliced up like a pie with, to the extent possible, equal numbers of urban, suburban and exurban voters in each slice

How do you feel/what remedy would you propose to situations such as Chicago or NYC controlling their states politics to the extent that they do? How about districting designed for diversity of outcome rather than fealty to representation of all?

My first thought Or first thing to cross my mind Which usually isn't where I end up But One senator For each County

 

[jamil]

I'd like to see redistricting done according to a strict algorithm designed to make each district as competitive as possible, including sectioning up large metropolitan areas so that they were sliced up like a pie with, to the extent possible, equal numbers of urban, suburban and exurban voters in each slice

How do you feel/what remedy would you propose to situations such as Chicago or NYC controlling their states politics to the extent that they do? How about districting designed for diversity of outcome rather than fealty to representation of all?

I used to think that algorithms like that would work. But I think that breaks federalism at least a little. Rural counties mostly have people in them with rural sensibilities. They tend to be more conservative. I think the goal should be to make the representation fit the district. For federal, state and local elections redistricting shouldn't try to favor one party over the other, and it should not try to be competitive. It should try to make the representation fit the community it serves. That could probably be done algoalgorithmically but it would be complicated. So congressional districts would be misrepresenting their constituents when a large rural area has a competitive chance of being represented by someone who has urban sensibilities. So the representation for Indy should mostly favor democrats, and representation for rural areas should mostly favor repbulicans. I think there would have to be some heavier weighting of rural areas so that they're not dominated by urban representatives. Probably some math could work that out fairly.

 

[T.Lex]

The mail-in-voting-is-ripe-for-abuse is not a red herring. There is no law or technology existing today that can make mail in voting as reliable as in-person. Some implementations can be made better than others, but regardless, there will always be more opportunities for fraud and mistakes with mail-in ballots. Less with Absentee mail-in ballots because they have some stricter rules. But even so, there are still more opportunities for mistakes and fraud than in-person. In-person isn't perfect. But it's simple enough that there aren't as many opportunities for mistakes/fraud.

I think we've been around about this before but "mail in" and "absentee" are the same process, just with different initiators.

To make sure we're talking about the same thing "mail in" is when the voting authority sends every registered voter an absentee ballot to send back in; an absentee is when the voter requests a ballot to mail in. Do I have that right?

Either way, the voting authority needs to track that the ballot being voted not-in-person is from a registered voter. There are different strategies for how to do that, but ultimately if those process are followed, the result is "good enough."

I will readily concede that someone showing up in person, with a valid ID, is the most integrity-filled way to vote. But, requiring that as the only way does (literally) disenfranchise a statistically significant number of people otherwise eligible to vote. That's not really a sign of election integrity.

 

[jamil]

I think we've been around about this before but "mail in" and "absentee" are the same process, just with different initiators.

To make sure we're talking about the same thing "mail in" is when the voting authority sends every registered voter an absentee ballot to send back in; an absentee is when the voter requests a ballot to mail in. Do I have that right?

Either way, the voting authority needs to track that the ballot being voted not-in-person is from a registered voter. There are different strategies for how to do that, but ultimately if those process are followed, the result is "good enough."

I will readily concede that someone showing up in person, with a valid ID, is the most integrity-filled way to vote. But, requiring that as the only way does (literally) disenfranchise a statistically significant number of people otherwise eligible to vote. That's not really a sign of election integrity.

Having to request a ballot has higher integrity than blasting them out to all registered voters. I am more okay with absentee vote by mail for that reason. I’m not saying I want to end that. But I would like to strengthen laws around who fills them out. Like amputation of limbs, castrations, etcetera for anyone who is caught trying to fill out someone’s ballot without the person’s permission. For elderly I think they’re very vulnerable to caregivers with strong political preferences. I mean if you thought Trump was literally Hitler and you know Gladys was a Trumper, how could you in any good conscience let that happen?

 

[T.Lex]

Having to request a ballot has higher integrity than blasting them out to all registered voters. I am more okay with absentee vote by mail for that reason. I’m not saying I want to end that. But I would like to strengthen laws around who fills them out. Like amputation of limbs, castrations, etcetera for anyone who is caught trying to fill out someone’s ballot without the person’s permission. For elderly I think they’re very vulnerable to caregivers with strong political preferences. I mean if you thought Trump was literally Hitler and you know Gladys was a Trumper, how could you in any good conscience let that happen?

hahaha

Well, amputation/castration creates a different constitutional problem.

The issue of caregivers and relatives "assisting" is a certain amount of breakage (for lack of a better concept) that we accept in the system. Rarely is that enough to change an outcome, and in return it does provide a more robust level of "franchisement."

 

[jamil]

I see no reason why, if social distancing is a concern, that vote counters couldn't be overlooked by exactly the kind of high resolution cameras that watch dealers and croupiers at a casino. It disgusts me when either side pushes the process into grey areas and/or manipulates the rules for partisan advantage and then has the gall to talk about 'the will of the people'

I see unequivocally verifying that a potential voter is eligible as well as who they say they are as bedrock and non-negotiable. If it is too inconvenient to vote, then don't vote - the system should not be warped to accommodate the outliers

There should be at least as much security inherent in the voting transaction as there is in a financial one

Cameras. Yes. I think that would solve a lot of it.

 

[BugI02]

I think we've been around about this before but "mail in" and "absentee" are the same process, just with different initiators.

To make sure we're talking about the same thing "mail in" is when the voting authority sends every registered voter an absentee ballot to send back in; an absentee is when the voter requests a ballot to mail in. Do I have that right?

Either way, the voting authority needs to track that the ballot being voted not-in-person is from a registered voter. There are different strategies for how to do that, but ultimately if those process are followed, the result is "good enough."

I will readily concede that someone showing up in person, with a valid ID, is the most integrity-filled way to vote. But, requiring that as the only way does (literally) disenfranchise a statistically significant number of people otherwise eligible to vote. That's not really a sign of election integrity.

I just cannot agree. By analogy, it is as if you were saying voter initiated registration is the same as motor voter. At some level, some of the mechanisms are the same but that's about it

And since current discussions about fraud always seem to turn around prevalence, as if some discrete level should be OK, then does the number of people 'disenfranchised' by somewhat more inconvenient voting rise above the level of fraud enabled by loosening restrictions? It seems if both quantities are not similar in magnitude then the change in procedure is counterproductive. All I ever hear about inconvenience-based 'disenfranchiusement' is anecdotal, the existence of even a single inconvenienced black grandmother who doesn't drive is held up as a sufficient reason for a myriad of distortions to the tried and true system

 

[foszoe]

Just do away with mail in voting, make election day an election week, 2 weeks, month, and allow absentee only if able to show one is out of town for the entire voting period.