The 2020 General Election Thread

[jamil]

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.

Purging isn't going to happen. Some groups fight that. They say it's "disenfranchising" because it could purge someone who should not be. Like I said, I have less of a problem with no-excuse absentee voting systems, because if you have to request the ballot, they can take reasonable steps to make sure you're the person identified on the registration, and that you still live at the address of registration. And then, if you get a ballot in the mail, it's because you asked for it, and not because some dead person who lived at that address had registered.

 

[jamil]

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).

Well, when politicians say things like "never concede the election", and generally have a "by any means necessary" attitude, I think it's reasonable to suspect people will exploit whatever vulnerabilities in the system that they can find.

 

[T.Lex]

Purging isn't going to happen.

It has happened, and has been court ordered in some places.

So, IMHO, it'll happen. Not before November 2020, but system improvement is a long race.

 

[chipbennett]

(Sorry, trimming background for readibility.)

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

My experience with provisional ballots is that they are a last-resort means, and are no guarantee that your vote will get counted. If you've resorted to a provisional ballot, there is a 99% or better chance that the ballot will not get counted - primarily due to all the things that conspire against casting a ballot absentee or in-person, thereby leading someone to cast a provisional ballot. (A common one is not being able to prove your ID. In the end: it's required, and if you can't come up with one of the two dozen or so ways to verify, tough ****.)

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?

Thankfully, no. I have only run polling places. My job ends when my team closes out the voting machines and successfully reconciles the ballots cast against the voter register, and then I and a (D) counterpart deliver the ballots to a central location. I never see or deal with absentee ballots, except for the rare few that are surrendered at the polling place.

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.

It is a question of scale, and infrastructure. Let's say Indiana currently sees 5% of votes cast absentee. Only those 5% fall under the absentee ballot controls. That means that, on average, 5% of names in a voter register will be marked with "AS" (absentee ballot sent) or "AR" (absentee ballot returned). With mail-in voting, that percentage would increase to 100%. Every voter that attempts to vote in-person would then have to surrender a mailed ballot. And again, we don't have an infrastructure in place to deal with tracking/tracing of millions of mailed ballots. We are set up to handle a small fraction of that number.

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

There are two causes for concern here:

1. The scale for fraud is commensurate with the scale of ballots cast by mail. The opportunity for effective fraud is much different when 100% of ballots can be cast by mail, vs 5% of ballots. (You do know, I assume, that in many states, absentee ballots are not even counted if the total number of absentee ballots does not exceed the reported vote differential?)

2. The issue isn't so much that one person would cast two votes (both in person and via mail), but rather that a mailed ballot sent to a registered voter would get filled out and cast by someone other than the intended recipient. This is the danger in mail-in voting/ballot harvesting, particularly given the historical voter turnout, where 30 - 50% of registered voters generally do not cast ballots in a given, general election. That leaves a LOT of opportunity for fraud, and incredible means to implement it. (In fact, ballot harvesting is all but designed for it.)

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.

The problem is that not everyone on a voter registration is a valid voter. Now, that's not a problem, if such persons do not attempt to vote (e.g. because they are dead, and thus unable to make the attempt). However, nothing really stops someone from hijacking a ballot mailed to a dead person, and casting the ballot. (Do you seriously think that millions of signatures - even if they exist - will be verified?)

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 current scale is that.

Now change the scale to millions, by implementing mail-in voting. And keep in mind that 30 - 50% of those people, even if they are qualified, registered voters, choose not to participate. (This is how ballot harvesting flips elections.)

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

Sure. I don't think I ever disagreed with a requirement that absentee ballots be received by election day?

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.

Motor voter registration is electronic, yes? There is zero way to correlate my digital signature with my wet-ink signature. Further, that signature is for "penalty of perjury" purposes for the registration eligibility attestation. Perhaps if some DMVs still use the voter registration card, that can be returned to the board of elections? But the intent of motor voter is to digitize the process and incorporate the voter registration into the DL application process. So, I'm not even certain those electronic signatures ever even go to the board of elections, to be available to use for signature verification?

An absentee ballot can be correlated to an absentee ballot application, with wet ink signature.

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

Sure, but that observation is not dispositive to the points I'm making.

 

[jamil]

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.

Well technically Indiana doesn't have a "universal" mail-in system. It does have absentee ballots which can be mailed. But in 2016 Indiana decided not to enforce the "excuse" requirement for absentee, and allowed early voting in person or by mail-in ballot. So that made it an effective no-excuse absentee mail-in system. But I did the early voting in person. I voted by machine maybe a week before the election. I'll do that again this time if it's allowed. I don't want to trust my vote to the U.S. Mail. The quality of service depends too much on the personal work ethic of the people touching the mail. Too many fingers in that process touching my ballot.

 

[jamil]

It has happened, and has been court ordered in some places.

So, IMHO, it'll happen. Not before November 2020, but system improvement is a long race.

That's going to be a state by state thing. It won't be applied across the board.

 

[BugI02]

^^^ And that's a conditioned response put in place by Trump.

Or its not and we can start from a belief that people reach their own conclusions about things.

Just like we did with masking, eh?

 

[chipbennett]

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.

2018, in California, at least seven House seats flipped from R to D due to ballot harvesting. Orange County (typically a Republican stronghold) flipped entirely Red-to-Blue. There is plenty more information available, that I leave as an exercise for the reader.

 

[jamil]

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.

I think on a given election it probably all washes out. But this election there are Democrats saying **** like no matter what, don't concede. Ever. This isn't going to be a typical election. I don't think the quantity of Republicans who have a "by any means necessary" attitude about this election comes anywhere close to the Democrats right now. So maybe if we get past all this insane social justice nonsense, and this push to invalidate dissenters, and the constant imposing the Heckler's veto, we can get back to normal left-right dynamics, and then fraud will be a wash again. As it is, I think it's fair to suspect that Democrats would tend to pursue fraud more than Republicans this time around.

 

[chipbennett]

Well technically Indiana doesn't have a "universal" mail-in system. It does have absentee ballots which can be mailed. But in 2016 Indiana decided not to enforce the "excuse" requirement for absentee, and allowed early voting in person or by mail-in ballot. So that made it an effective no-excuse absentee mail-in system. But I did the early voting in person. I voted by machine maybe a week before the election. I'll do that again this time if it's allowed. I don't want to trust my vote to the U.S. Mail. The quality of service depends too much on the personal work ethic of the people touching the mail. Too many fingers in that process touching my ballot.

Is it not understood that "absentee" and "(universal) mail-in" are not the same things? Is it not understood that saying "mail-in" voting refers to universal mail-in voting and not to absentee voting?

The entire point of the debate/discussion is that absentee voting is not the same thing as mail-in voting, and that the absentee ballot infrastructure/workflow is not a proxy for universal mail-in ballot workflow/infrastructure.

 

[BugI02]

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.

[I wish I could say I was surprised to 'hear' you say that, esp. given what happened in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties at the hands of Democratic elected officials with the full support of the national media. That seemed like a trial run, to me. Hopefully you can at least say that only votes received at secure, bipartisan controlled locations by election day should be ever counted and iron clad provisions for challenging and rejecting any vote that doesn't meet said criteria should be in place. I find the 'vote safely during pandemic' canard to be of equivalence with the 'having to show ID disenfranchises me' canard, if a person is willing to put so little effort into the process - the timing of which should not be a surprise to anyone - perhaps it is just as well that they don't vote.

As for those many ways to conduct a free and fair election that is not in person, ya' should probably 'listen to the experts' about that. Some of them are right here on INGO]


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.

*.*

ETA: Hypocrisy is always literally Ad Hom. Only people can demonstrate hypocrisy, not inanimate objects

 

[jamil]

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.

No, as far as I know, all the "universal" mail-in systems mass mail out ballots to registered voters. And that's just one of the concerns. There's still the problem with inserting extra fingers into the process between filling out the ballot and tallying it that is mostly unaccountable.

 

[BugI02]

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?

Then perhaps you would expound upon which side also supports 'same day voting', because apparently having to register ahead of time is also too much trouble. It is instructive how people who make a big deal over all the ways that WuVid might be transmitted, to the extent that those postulated pathways must be mitigated, are unable to comprehend concerns about all the ways that looser voting rules might be exploited and will resist mitigation

Perhaps we could arrange a trade, where we accommodate your tribe's 'overblown' concerns and you return the favor?

What do you suppose the results would be if it could be announced now, 62 days before the election, that in person voting will be the law of the land and plans must be made to support that? I would predict whinging about how there just isn't time

So whither mail in voting, which requires much greater infrastructure development? Why should we believe there is adequate time for one but not the other?

 

[Alamo]

Presidential debate schedule in Biden-Trump 2020 election released

 

[Alamo]

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

 

[jamil]

Is it not understood that "absentee" and "(universal) mail-in" are not the same things? Is it not understood that saying "mail-in" voting refers to universal mail-in voting and not to absentee voting?

The entire point of the debate/discussion is that absentee voting is not the same thing as mail-in voting, and that the absentee ballot infrastructure/workflow is not a proxy for universal mail-in ballot workflow/infrastructure.

No. Because of common use the terms are ambiguous. It helps to clarify. I've heard mail-in referred to as universal mail-in, all-mail-in, no-excuse absentee (which isn't actually absentee, it just means you have to request the ballot before it's mailed to you), or even just absentee, which means you have a reason that you can't vote in person on election day. Wouldn't hurt to specify. But whatever.

 

[BugI02]

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...

This^^^ I notice a correlation between the blueness of a state and the level of resistance to cleaning up the voter rolls, but I recall quite a few on INGO didn't want other federal information used as a cross reference to voter rolls for that purpose

Many states had to be prompted by federal requirements, and people purged had to be inactive in all elections for the preceding 8 years as well as ignore a mailed contact at their address of record explaining they were about to be purged and explaining how to remedy the problem

Again, if it is just too much trouble to keep the board of elections information on you up to date and vote in any elections for eight years, perhaps you should be disenfranchised - and required to initiate the actions to fix same by providing proof of identity and place of residence to rejoin the rolls

 

[T.Lex]

2018, in California, at least seven House seats flipped from R to D due to ballot harvesting. Orange County (typically a Republican stronghold) flipped entirely Red-to-Blue. There is plenty more information available, that I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Sorry, mate - to date there does not appear to have been fraud involved in those. At least, nothing proven. So it is more a political rorschrach test.

California has f'd up rules. Dems apparently played by those rules and won. That's not fraud. (That may be a f'd up system, but it isn't fraud.)

 

[T.Lex]

Is it not understood that "absentee" and "(universal) mail-in" are not the same things? Is it not understood that saying "mail-in" voting refers to universal mail-in voting and not to absentee voting?

The entire point of the debate/discussion is that absentee voting is not the same thing as mail-in voting, and that the absentee ballot infrastructure/workflow is not a proxy for universal mail-in ballot workflow/infrastructure.

Properly, "mail in" is a version of "absentee" voting. Absentee voting just means the voter isn't at the polling place.

If you go back and look at Trump's rhetoric on this, there's more than a little conflation of "absentee" and "universal mail in" voting.

And, with an increase in absentee voting (which universal mail-in would probably create), we should all expect a longer wait for results. Hand-counting is a horrible process, but a necessary tradeoff if that's what we want to allow.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, mate - to date there does not appear to have been fraud involved in those. At least, nothing proven. So it is more a political rorschrach test.

California has f'd up rules. Dems apparently played by those rules and won. That's not fraud. (That may be a f'd up system, but it isn't fraud.)

It's also not a free and fair election. It's exploiting a system to "flip" the actual will of the voters there. But I agree, it isn't legally fraud. It's just ****ty politics.