The 2020 General Election Thread

[printcraft]

No. Not a ballot. And not voting - absentee or otherwise. I believe an application to REGISTER to vote, but that's not really the same thing, is it?

To have this conversation, we need to understand the process.

(And yes, there's some fraudulent voting - I've witnessed suspicious anomalies myself. But, both sides know how to do it, how to catch it, and it is not on the scale being portrayed.)

The process starts with a human being registering to vote based on an address in a precinct. Any questions about that?

Yeah, how sure are you the roles are correct? Oh wait...

[FONT=&amp]Under new election laws in California, counties will soon be mailing absentee ballots to every registered voter, and there will be unattended drop-boxes where ballots can be returned.
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]So instead of having a verified communication from a voter to request an absentee ballot (or become a permanent absentee voter), elections officials will just mail ballots out to every name on the voter rolls.[/FONT]

Problem being the voter rolls are not being purged to a HIGH degree, millions in this case alone.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...100-percent-of-anything-including-voters/amp/

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, how sure are you the roles are correct? Oh wait...



Problem being the voter rolls are not being purged to a HIGH degree, millions in this case alone.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...100-percent-of-anything-including-voters/amp/

So it isn't a mail voting problem its a voter purge problem. Ok. We have that technology, but let's do that. Let's have a big discussion (or not so big here in Indiana) about what it takes to remove someone from the lists of people allowed to vote.

But, even in California, those are going to REGISTERED voters. And if we aren't sure about who is actually filling in the ballots, then: A) that's not much different than current absentee ballot processes; 2) both sides have Get Out The Vote initiatives to "help" people fill out the ballots.

 

[two70]

Wait.

Do you guys think that people can vote without registering to vote?

Sure they can, someone can simply steal mass mailed ballots if they are determined enough. Worse, as several reports from the states that tried mail in primary voting indicate, numerous ballots were sent to incorrect addresses and to deceased voters due to voter rolls that had not been updated or purged recently. The only thing stopping unregistered voters who mistakenly received those ballots from voting was their own conscience and I'm not inclined to trust the conscience of Democrats. There is absolutely no reason people can't vote in person or submit an absentee ballot and there is absolutely no reason for mass mailed ballots(well, other than that being the only chance Democrats have).

 

[two70]

So it isn't a mail voting problem its a voter purge problem. Ok. We have that technology, but let's do that. Let's have a big discussion (or not so big here in Indiana) about what it takes to remove someone from the lists of people allowed to vote.

But, even in California, those are going to REGISTERED voters. And if we aren't sure about who is actually filling in the ballots, then: A) that's not much different than current absentee ballot processes; 2) both sides have Get Out The Vote initiatives to "help" people fill out the ballots.

Indiana purged our voter rolls a few years ago and Democrats lost their minds over it. It's almost like Democrats are against anything that could possibly reduce voter fraud...

 

[printcraft]

Indiana purged our voter rolls a few years ago and Democrats lost their minds over it. It's almost like Democrats are against anything that could possibly reduce voter fraud...

Weird right?!

 

[T.Lex]

Sure they can, someone can simply steal mass mailed ballots if they are determined enough.

And then.... fill them in and submit them with forged signatures that match the original signature on file with the Secretary of State (or whatever election governing body there is)?

Worse, as several reports from the states that tried mail in primary voting indicate, numerous ballots were sent to incorrect addresses and to deceased voters due to voter rolls that had not been updated or purged recently. The only thing stopping unregistered voters who mistakenly received those ballots from voting was their own conscience and I'm not inclined to trust the conscience of Democrats. There is absolutely no reason people can't vote in person or submit an absentee ballot and there is absolutely no reason for mass mailed ballots(well, other than that being the only chance Democrats have).

Mail-in = a kind of absentee (at least in the places I'm familiar with)

In terms of election fraud fan fic, how about a scenario in which people mail in their ballots and then also vote in person? Wait. We keep track of that, too, so the mail in ballot can be DQ'd if a person votes live.

Indiana purged our voter rolls a few years ago and Democrats lost their minds over it. It's almost like Democrats are against anything that could possibly reduce voter fraud...

Ok. So can we reach a point where we say the incidence of any mail in voter issues in Indiana is "small" or "negligible" or "it won't matter because Trump will win anyway"?

As an aside, I would take very seriously any process that could deprive someone of the right to vote, like purging voter rolls. There are low-hanging fruit like dead people (comparing voter bio data with the SSDI, for example). But, if someone is alive and just hasn't voted in a long time.... that's something I would take very seriously as a policy matter. Still a worthy exercise, but not one to take lightly.

And, now that it has come up a couple times, if the real problem is voter roll purging, why isn't fixing that the campaign issue instead of invalidating the election because of mail in voting?

 

[chipbennett]

Measuring my words carefully, as usual, this election is as safe as any other since you and I have been alive.

There has always been graft in elections, even in the US. No election has been pristine. But, both parties know how to catch each other (for the most part) so game theory keeps everything more or less netting out the way it should.

The fake scenario that you're suddenly trumpeting is no different than a close election decided by absentee ballots. There isn't 2 results. There's 1 result after all the votes are cast.


Well, Mr. Ad Hom, there's been no bigger cheerleader in chief about the "dangers" of mail in voting than Trump. Except for those footnote elections that he wants his email list to use mail in votes.

This whole mail in voting contrivance is wearing thin. It is a shiny distraction that Trump keeps directing his base toward.

Looking just at the ballot harvesting in California being used to flip seats in the 2018 House election, I have to disagree with you.

I am 100% against mail-in voting, without well-thought-out, planned, and implemented safety measures/risk mitigations. Some states already have such measures and the appropriate infrastructure in place, and that's great. But those cannot be put in place in a matter of months or weeks, which means that enforced mail-in voting in states that do not have the infrastructure to ensure the legitimacy of ballots received has a very high likelihood of fraud.

 

[T.Lex]

Looking just at the ballot harvesting in California being used to flip seats in the 2018 House election, I have to disagree with you.

I am 100% against mail-in voting, without well-thought-out, planned, and implemented safety measures/risk mitigations. Some states already have such measures and the appropriate infrastructure in place, and that's great. But those cannot be put in place in a matter of months or weeks, which means that enforced mail-in voting in states that do not have the infrastructure to ensure the legitimacy of ballots received has a very high likelihood of fraud.

Let's start with Indiana. Do you think Indiana's system is "safe enough"?

 

[chipbennett]

Most Trump voters didn't give 2 ****s about mail in voting in 2016. The only reason they care now is that Trump told them to.

And yet, the process hasn't changed since then.

I don't recall mail-in voting being a controversial, or even discussed, issue in 2016 - nor do I recall mail-in voting being proposed or used in any states that didn't already have it in place - much less, proposed for nationwide use - in 2016.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[chipbennett]

Let's start with Indiana. Do you think Indiana's system is "safe enough"?

Indiana doesn't have a mail-in voting system in place, so assessing whether it is "safe enough" or not is moot. Indiana does have an absentee voting system in place - but absentee voting and mail-in voting are not the same things.

 

[T.Lex]

Indiana doesn't have a mail-in voting system in place, so assessing whether it is "safe enough" or not is moot. Indiana does have an absentee voting system in place - but absentee voting and mail-in voting are not the same things.

Ok, explain the difference, because everywhere I look makes it seem like "mail in" voting is a version of absentee voting in which the voter... mails in... the ballot. And Indiana does have that.

Mail in voting:
Person registers to vote.
Person receives ballot in the mail, either after asking for one or automatically.
Person fills in ballot (or is assisted, along with an affidavit of assistance or some other certification by the helper).
Person mails in ballot before some arbitrary deadline.
Ballot is received, then processed before being counted for things like signature and other formalities.

What am I not getting?

 

[JettaKnight]

What am I not getting?

Because technically, they can only do it because they'll be absent on that Tuesday.

 

[OakRiver]

Sure they can, someone can simply steal mass mailed ballots if they are determined enough. Worse, as several reports from the states that tried mail in primary voting indicate, numerous ballots were sent to incorrect addresses and to deceased voters due to voter rolls that had not been updated or purged recently. The only thing stopping unregistered voters who mistakenly received those ballots from voting was their own conscience and I'm not inclined to trust the conscience of Democrats. There is absolutely no reason people can't vote in person or submit an absentee ballot and there is absolutely no reason for mass mailed ballots(well, other than that being the only chance Democrats have).

It's also not as if the mail carrier union, who would handle mail-in ballots, came out in support of Biden.

Also: https://publicinterestlegal.org/blog/244-counties-have-more-registered-voters-than-live-adults/
"In addition to the 244 counties exceeding 100% voter registration, another 279 counties across 31 states exhibit implausibly high registration rates of 95 to 99 percent."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...r_inaccurate_voter_registrations__142089.html
"In 378 U.S. counties, voter registration rates exceed 100% of the adult population, meaning there are more voter registrations on file than the total voting-age population, according to a new analysis by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Based on data the federal Electoral Assistance Commission released last year, the new analysis indicates that a minimum of 2.5 million voter registrations are wrongly listed as valid. It suggests widespread lack of compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires states to remove people who have died, moved, or are otherwise ineligible to vote from the rolls. While having excess registrations isn’t proof of voter fraud, voter integrity advocates note that it does create opportunities for deception, such as allowing people to vote twice in different precincts or submit invalid absentee ballots."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-mailed-ballots-presidential-primary-n1233754
"More than 100,000 mail-in ballots were rejected by California election officials during the March presidential primary, according to data obtained by The Associated Press that highlights a glaring gap in the state’s effort to ensure every vote is counted."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...es-more-registered-voters-voting-age-citizens
"The Election Integrity Project California provides a list of 11 California counties that have more registered voters than voting-age citizens.


In addition, Los Angeles County officials informed the project that “the number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.” "

 

[JettaKnight]

Forgive my naivete, but why is it always assumed that mail in voting fraud benefits the Democrats?



And please, spare me the, "Becaus there evils!" mantra.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok, explain the difference, because everywhere I look makes it seem like "mail in" voting is a version of absentee voting in which the voter... mails in... the ballot. And Indiana does have that.

Mail in voting:
Person registers to vote.
Person receives ballot in the mail, either after asking for one or automatically.

This is the first, major difference. With an absentee ballot, the voter requests the ballot. That request/application triggers certain ballot reconciliation controls. The board of election knows 1) an identified, registered voter requested an absentee ballot and, 2) that registered voter received (or, was sent - if not received, again, there are more controls in place) an absentee ballot. Further, the voter rolls are updated to indicate that a given voter was sent an absentee ballot (and also if the returned absentee ballot was received prior to election day - when I have worked polling places, we get hand-delivered an updated list of absentee ballot status the morning of the election). The in-person voter register indicates that the absentee ballot was sent to the voter, and if the voter attempts to vote in person, he will be denied if the absentee ballot was received, or he must either return the completed, absentee ballot in-person, or else must relinquish the blank, absentee ballot in order to cast an in-person vote. If the voter claims that the absentee ballot was mailed but not yet received, there is a provisional ballot process (I think; I might be mixing up IN and MO; I've worked polling places in IN, MO, and OH, and sometimes some of the procedures get a bit mixed up.)

With automatically mailed ballots, a) there is no tie to what is mailed and the explicit identification of the recipient. The person listed as a registered voter may no longer be eligible to vote (they may be dead, or may have moved out of precinct/state, etc.). There is no guarantee who actually receives the ballot.

Further, the in-person voting controls would not be sufficient in Indiana, especially with the weeks of early voting. There is no way to guarantee that a voter has received the "mail-in" ballot prior to attempting to vote in-person.

Person fills in ballot (or is assisted, along with an affidavit of assistance or some other certification by the helper).

Since we don't have any way of knowing that a "mail-in" ballot was received by a legitimate, registered voter, there is no assurance regarding who is actually filling out the ballot.

Person mails in ballot before some arbitrary deadline.

The devil is in the details regarding that arbitrary deadline. Indiana requires absentee ballots to be received (not merely postmarked) by election day. If mail-in ballot are held to the same requirement, that provides some measure of control. If only the postmark is required, there is ample room for fraud.

Ballot is received, then processed before being counted for things like signature and other formalities.

What am I not getting?

What signature is being verified with mail-in voting? With absentee ballots, the voter ID (and signature) can be verified against the absentee ballot. With mail-in voting, particularly based on motor-voter registration, there very likely may be no signature to verify against.

These are just a few concerns off the top of my head.

 

[chipbennett]

Forgive my naivete, but why is it always assumed that mail in voting fraud benefits the Democrats?



And please, spare me the, "Becaus there evils!" mantra.

Out of curiosity: in the 2018 election, where ballot harvesting changed election outcomes, how many such outcomes benefited the Republican candidate vs. benefiting the Democrat candidate? See, specifically, the House election results in California.

Similarly, when boxes of ballots are "found" in, say, Cook Co, IL, or St. Louis City, MO, or King Co, WA, etc. - how many times do those ballots benefit the Republican, as opposed to the Democrat, candidate?

 

[T.Lex]

(Sorry, trimming background for readibility.)

...there is a provisional ballot process

Yes, there is a provisional ballot process here in Indana.

With automatically mailed ballots, a) there is no tie to what is mailed and the explicit identification of the recipient. The person listed as a registered voter may no longer be eligible to vote (they may be dead, or may have moved out of precinct/state, etc.). There is no guarantee who actually receives the ballot.

Perhaps not, but there are processes to make sure the ballot voted "belongs" to the registered voter, including signature.

As you've worked the ballot, have you been part of the challenge process?

Further, the in-person voting controls would not be sufficient in Indiana, especially with the weeks of early voting. There is no way to guarantee that a voter has received the "mail-in" ballot prior to attempting to vote in-person.

As you note, if a person has received an absentee ballot, then they either can't vote or (I believe this is the case) if the absentee ballot is received after a "live" vote, it is disqualified.

Regardless, the scale of these kinds of "fraud" is small, no? That a person might get credit for both an absentee and live vote?

Since we don't have any way of knowing that a "mail-in" ballot was received by a legitimate, registered voter, there is no assurance regarding who is actually filling out the ballot.

This is not true, at least not as stated. There are things like bar codes to confirm that the absentee ballot was sent to a registered voter. That's crucial. Only registered voters can vote.

Now, the filling-out part has always been an issue. Nursing homes are full of voters who get assistance filling out their ballots.

But again, the scale is... dozens? MAYBE hundreds? And even still, those people are registered voters.

The devil is in the details regarding that arbitrary deadline. Indiana requires absentee ballots to be received (not merely postmarked) by election day. If mail-in ballot are held to the same requirement, that provides some measure of control. If only the postmark is required, there is ample room for fraud.

So we can agree that Indiana's regulation makes sense?

What signature is being verified with mail-in voting? With absentee ballots, the voter ID (and signature) can be verified against the absentee ballot. With mail-in voting, particularly based on motor-voter registration, there very likely may be no signature to verify against.

I'm pretty sure you just speculated on that hypothetical. From my understanding, the act of registering to vote - anywhere in the US - requires a signature. Please, if that is incorrect, I would like to know where one can register without a signature exemplar.

These are just a few concerns off the top of my head.

Ok. But a fair number of those concerns are purely speculation.

 

[T.Lex]

Out of curiosity: in the 2018 election, where ballot harvesting changed election outcomes, how many such outcomes benefited the Republican candidate vs. benefiting the Democrat candidate? See, specifically, the House election results in California.

North Carolina 2018
https://www.gq.com/story/north-carolina-ninth-district-fraud

Would've benefited, if they'd gotten away with it.

On that note - any linkification to proof that fraudulent ballots tipped that 2018 Cali election to the Dems? I'm immediately skeptical that a Republican had a chance at winning.

 

[jamil]

Wait.

Do you guys think that people can vote without registering to vote?

What? Where did you get that leap of logic? I didn't say anything about registration.

My problem with it is this. Universal mail-in voting avails people who have an interest in manipulating outcomes some exploits that aren't on the table with in-person voting. Just because there is a registration for a voter doesn't mean that person still lives at the address on the registration, or that the current occupants of that address are registered, or are even eligible to be registered. But they can fill in the ballot and mail it in. Of course that's fraud. And some of those who do it will be caught. Many won't. I think it's reasonable to suspect that people would exploit that, and the number of people who could get away with it could be enough to change the outcome.

Also, it adds extra unsecure steps to the process. There are fewer fingers who could manipulate outcomes with in-person voting, and there's a lot more scrutiny for those few people than there are all the extra fingers inserted into the process between casting the vote and tallying it with mail-in voting.

Don't get me wrong. I would like to see voting made easier for all eligible citizens. I think no-excuse absentee voting, where you have to request the ballot, is a better way of doing it. Bit even that still does not overcome the second problem of adding too many unaccountable fingers into the process.

 

[T.Lex]

Don't get me wrong. I would like to see voting made easier for all eligible citizens. I think no-excuse absentee voting, where you have to request the ballot, is a better way of doing it. Bit even that still does not overcome the second problem of adding too many unaccountable fingers into the process.

So is the concern more properly framed as fear that un-requested absentee ballots going to registered voters will be the source of fraud?

My question to you about voter registration was because, as I reflected on your position, it almost sounded like the concern was that ballots were going out to thousands/millions of people who were unregistered, but who could then send in their votes. From what I can tell, that is not happening, anywhere. (California, I politely decline to even look at.)

In-person voting is, indeed, ideal. I don't think there's much argument about that, at least not around here. But, our system is a reflection of society, and not everyone can get to the polls on election day.

Indiana does have mail-in voting, but you have to request the absentee ballot due to certain (easy to meet) conditions.