The 2020 General Election Thread

[BugI02]

I obviously can't speak to every state, but in Indiana there's a state constitutional provision (Art. IV, sect. 5) and laws that describe the process.

The thing about laws is they define lines and what happens when the line is crossed. By describing those lines, it leaves all the conduct on one side of the line legitimate. People are creative. So, they can come up with all sorts of conduct that almost crosses the line, without going over.

The important part of that concept would appear to be that it was enacted by the legislature with the input of the peoples representatives, rather than imposed by a judge (ala Pennsylvania) in what we know is an age in which we know judges are not and not desired to be non-partisan

 

[jamil]

Particularly the "employ people to fill out ballots" - how long do you think that could be kept secret when done on a scale of thousands?

As I mentioned earlier, I'm familiar with suspicious precinct-level vote patterns. At that scale, a handful of trusted people could do it and keep it a secret. (So far.)

I just don't see how that would scale up.

How many people does it take to fill out thousands of ballots? I think 8 people in a room working 8 hours a day could easily crank out 1000 mail-in ballots per day. It's a little suspicious how some districts where their Democrat was behind in the count, suddenly found boxes full of ballots in the strangest places. Uh, how many do we need? Oh. Hold on... Wow. Hard to believe, but we found these boxes of completed ballots in Susie's basement of all places.

 

[BugI02]

Apropos of nothing, for as hard as Russian bots (both AI and human) worked in the 2016 cycle, when you get down to it, they really are just ghey.

In recent reading about the origins of Critical Race Theory, I learned it was birthed and promoted initially by law schools in the 90s. I must say, experience on INGO leaves me unsurprised

 

[T.Lex]

How many people does it take to fill out thousands of ballots? I think 8 people in a room working 8 hours a day could easily crank out 1000 mail-in ballots per day.

Thousands of ballots for thousands of registered voters with the appropriate indicia of propriety, who aren't otherwise voting (because that could raise the alarm) - that's a fantasy dude.

Where could that possible happen? Even in California, those appear to have been actual people voting. We can debate whether the policies that allowed them to vote are meritorious (I think we'll agree they probably aren't), but those weren't "fake" votes.

I've done a little bit of looking at jurisdictions that have something close to what Trump is denouncing, but there are controls to prevent actual fraud. Now, it may open the door to legal Get Out The Vote initiatives, but that's a different issue right?

 

[printcraft]

Thousands of ballots for thousands of registered voters with the appropriate indicia of propriety, who aren't otherwise voting (because that could raise the alarm) - that's a fantasy dude.

Where could that possible happen? Even in California, those appear to have been actual people voting. We can debate whether the policies that allowed them to vote are meritorious (I think we'll agree they probably aren't), but those weren't "fake" votes.

I've done a little bit of looking at jurisdictions that have something close to what Trump is denouncing, but there are controls to prevent actual fraud. Now, it may open the door to legal Get Out The Vote initiatives, but that's a different issue right?

 

[KLB]

Why? Registered voters voting is fraud because you don't like who they voted for?



This is absolutely semantics. "Mail in voting" is a form of absentee voting. I didn't say they were the same thing - absentee voting is broader than mail in voting.

My point is that the infrastructure for handling "regular" absentee ballots exists and can be used for "mail in" ballots.

Now, I'm not saying it is seamless or easy or worth it (particularly if we value the secret ballot). But many aspects of voting are complicated.

If Indiana adopts a no-excuse absentee process, isn't that mail in voting? Or are you using it only in the context of universal "mail out" voting or something like that?

The bolded part is the part I have issue with. A no-excuse policy still requires a person to proactively request a ballot. That at least helps limit the chance of abuse somewhat.

Saying that we need to mail everyone a ballot because of Covid is asinine. People have plenty of time to request an absentee ballot. If they are too lazy or disinterested to do so, they should not vote. Just as they probably weren't going to in the first place.

 

[T.Lex]

The bolded part is the part I have issue with. A no-excuse policy still requires a person to proactively request a ballot. That at least helps limit the chance of abuse somewhat.

Saying that we need to mail everyone a ballot because of Covid is asinine. People have plenty of time to request an absentee ballot. If they are too lazy or disinterested to do so, they should not vote. Just as they probably weren't going to in the first place.

I totally agree that universal mail-out ballots would be a horrible policy standing on its own, without any verification.

Is there any place in the US that does that, or will do it for the presidential election?

 

[BugI02]

Particularly the "employ people to fill out ballots" - how long do you think that could be kept secret when done on a scale of thousands?

As I mentioned earlier, I'm familiar with suspicious precinct-level vote patterns. At that scale, a handful of trusted people could do it and keep it a secret. (So far.)

I just don't see how that would scale up.

This is so depressingly disingenuous. So what if employing people to fill out ballots can't be kept a secret

Can you intervene to remedy the problem? If so, please explain how. Interrogate the guilty about which ballots to disallow? Time is short, and they may lie

Throw out all absentee ballots from particular district where fraud was detected? Why wouldn't an answering strategy be to go to a heavily Republican district and arrange for oneself to be caught in order to invalidate all the absentee votes from that district

Aggressively match signatures to voter signatures on file? A recipe for endless court challenges to the decisions made. Only a lawyer would want ... oh ... never mind

Even a most cursory analysis of the game should indicate preventing the fraud should be the focus, not the far more complicated process of undoing it later. Somebody needs to review the in your face actions by Democratic elections officials in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties in the 2016 Florida election for a blueprint of electoral brinksmanship powered by the knowledge that the damage wrought cannot be undone

 

[BugI02]

I totally agree that universal mail-out ballots would be a horrible policy standing on its own, without any verification.

Is there any place in the US that does that, or will do it for the presidential election?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-to-send-every-voter-mail-in-ballot-for-november/
California to send every voter mail-in ballot for November

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill Thursday to require county officials to mail a ballot to every registered voter for the November election, cementing into law the Democratic governor's earlier order to mail out ballots statewide in response to the coronavirus outbreak.

And, if the infrastructure is already in place to handle mail-in voting as some insist, why is this necessary and how does it support the ideal of obtaining results by election day or shortly thereafter?

Another change: Under current law, mail ballots that have been postmarked by election day can arrive up to three days after the election and still be counted. For the November election, the bill would extend that window to 17 days, two weeks later from the current three days.

 

[chipbennett]

Why? Registered voters voting is fraud because you don't like who they voted for?

Straw man, much?

No. It is fraud not because of the candidate for whom they voted, but rather the manner in which the vote was cast/ballot was collected. It is forcing/compelling a vote-cast on someone who otherwise chose not to participate in the election - and doing so in a manner that intentionally targets likely supporters of one candidate.

This is absolutely semantics. "Mail in voting" is a form of absentee voting. I didn't say they were the same thing - absentee voting is broader than mail in voting.

Demonstrably false. Universal vote-by-mail encompasses 100% of registered voters. Absentee voting encompasses the tiny fraction of registered voters who apply to vote absentee.

My point is that the infrastructure for handling "regular" absentee ballots exists and can be used for "mail in" ballots.

And, as I've already explained: no, that infrastructure cannot. Absentee voting requires voters to submit an application to vote absentee. Universal vote-by-mail mass-mails ballots to every registered voter.

Now, I'm not saying it is seamless or easy or worth it (particularly if we value the secret ballot). But many aspects of voting are complicated.

If Indiana adopts a no-excuse absentee process, isn't that mail in voting? Or are you using it only in the context of universal "mail out" voting or something like that?

No, it is not the same. Again; even no-excuse absentee voting requires the voter to submit an application to vote absentee. (The only difference is whether a particular reason for voting absentee is identified as part of the application.)

Which would be easily rooted out on any significant scale.

Maybe, maybe not. The seats that flipped in the CA House election in 2018 clearly demonstrated a statistically significant shift in absentee/harvested ballots from in-person results, when by and large, absentee ballots generally reflect the in-person voting results.

Plus, assuming arguendo that it would be the GOP ballots lost/misplaced... well... GOPers should vote in person. Problem solved. Or hand deliver the ballot to where it needs to be.

Or perhaps everyone should vote in person (Indiana, for one, makes that very easy with almost a month of early in-person voting available), or avail themselves of the secure, absentee-ballot process.

Again, has anyone found a jurisdiction that has the mail-in voting that people are worried about, without taking precautions for fraud? I've read of bar codes tracking who has received which ballots, etc.

The states that already have universal vote-by-mail already have the workflows and infrastructure in-place to handle universal vote-by-mail. The states that do not currently have universal vote-by-mail do not have that infrastructure in place, and therefore do not have the safeguards provided by that infrastructure.

 

[T.Lex]

No. It is fraud not because of the candidate for whom they voted, but rather the manner in which the vote was cast/ballot was collected. It is forcing/compelling a vote-cast on someone who otherwise chose not to participate in the election - and doing so in a manner that intentionally targets likely supporters of one candidate.

Hold up.

You've worked polls - are you not familiar with Get Out The Vote drives? Both sides do it and have lots of tools to make sure "their" voters vote.

Upon what evidence are you basing your claim that those California voters were - your words - "forcing/compelling" someone to vote. Making it easy is not forcing, unless you have some information that says otherwise.

Demonstrably false. Universal vote-by-mail encompasses 100% of registered voters. Absentee voting encompasses the tiny fraction of registered voters who apply to vote absentee.

Again, you're using specific words in ways that I don't know what you mean. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that is saying 100% of registered voters ("universal") have to vote by mail. Or are you talking about sending all registered voters absentee ballots, whether they request it or not?

Perhaps importantly, is there a jurisdiction doing something that you think compromises the 2020 presidential election?

And, as I've already explained: no, that infrastructure cannot. Absentee voting requires voters to submit an application to vote absentee. Universal vote-by-mail mass-mails ballots to every registered voter.

And that's only half of the process. The other half is validating the ballots that come in.

If 100% of registered voters in a precinct request absentee votes, isn't the system set up to handle that (albeit clumsily)?

No, it is not the same. Again; even no-excuse absentee voting requires the voter to submit an application to vote absentee. (The only difference is whether a particular reason for voting absentee is identified as part of the application.)

I'm still trying to narrow in on your definitions. Your label of "mail in voting" refers to a jurisdiction that sends 100% of registered voters an absentee ballot? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (or keyboard), just trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Maybe, maybe not. The seats that flipped in the CA House election in 2018 clearly demonstrated a statistically significant shift in absentee/harvested ballots from in-person results, when by and large, absentee ballots generally reflect the in-person voting results.

Ok... but not always, right? From my limited personal experience, it isn't a 1:1 type thing, there are demographic trends that can mean one candidate might be more appealing to the homebound type voters who use absentee.

Regardless, what happened in Cali appears to have been legal and consistent with their election policies, right?

Or perhaps everyone should vote in person (Indiana, for one, makes that very easy with almost a month of early in-person voting available), or avail themselves of the secure, absentee-ballot process.

No argument from me. The secrecy of the ballot is as important to me as any other factor. (I think I've said that somewhere around here.) That gets diluted with absentee ballots, or at least has that potential problem. It is the nature of validation.

The states that already have universal vote-by-mail already have the workflows and infrastructure in-place to handle universal vote-by-mail. The states that do not currently have universal vote-by-mail do not have that infrastructure in place, and therefore do not have the safeguards provided by that infrastructure.

So tell me where, for the 2020 election, there is a jurisdiction going to "universal vote-by-mail" that does not have the safeguards?

 

[Ingomike]

A big issue not yet addressed is the "Mail system" itself is staffed by partisan union members not poll watchers from both sides handling the ballots. Don't think for a minute you mail carrier doesn't know who gets Trump or NRA mail and knows to lose those ballots first...

 

[JettaKnight]

A big issue not yet addressed is the "Mail system" itself is staffed by partisan union members not poll watchers from both sides handling the ballots. Don't think for a minute you mail carrier doesn't know who gets Trump or NRA mail and knows to lose those ballots first...

That's really kind of scraping the bottom the barrel for "what if", don't you think?

If you're worried about, just go vote in person. Or drop of your outgoing ballot in a big blue box.

 

[Ingomike]

That's really kind of scraping the bottom the barrel for "what if", don't you think?

If you're worried about, just go vote in person. Or drop of your outgoing ballot in a big blue box.

I am not worried about my ballot, I will cast it in person as always. I am legitimately concerned with my vote being negated by fraud. A postal employee was just caught stealing a political sign while in a postal vehicle on the job think she would not throw away your ballot? The union just called for members to work to get Trump out and endorsed Biden. The postal service is very anti republican, no scraping the bottom of any barrel necessary...


https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/04/08/city-calls-for-usps-investigation-into-missing-ballots/

 

[jamil]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-to-send-every-voter-mail-in-ballot-for-november/
California to send every voter mail-in ballot for November



And, if the infrastructure is already in place to handle mail-in voting as some insist, why is this necessary and how does it support the ideal of obtaining results by election day or shortly thereafter?

that 17 days. Makes sense. You need to have a buffer to decide if you need to bring the crew back and gen some more ballots.

 

[BugI02]

that 17 days. Makes sense. You need to have a buffer to decide if you need to bring the crew back and gen some more ballots.

Indubitably

 

[printcraft]

that 17 days. Makes sense. You need to have a buffer to decide if you need to bring the crew back and gen some more ballots.

I guess in the grand scheme of things he won without california last time. So... E.C. for the win.

 

[BugI02]

That's really kind of scraping the bottom the barrel for "what if", don't you think?

If you're worried about, just go vote in person. Or drop of your outgoing ballot in a big blue box.

There isn't any big blue box on my block. Waaah! Why are you disenfranchising me?

 

[chipbennett]

Hold up.

You've worked polls - are you not familiar with Get Out The Vote drives? Both sides do it and have lots of tools to make sure "their" voters vote.

GOTV drives do just that: they get out the vote. The voters go to the polls and vote.

Upon what evidence are you basing your claim that those California voters were - your words - "forcing/compelling" someone to vote. Making it easy is not forcing, unless you have some information that says otherwise.

Democrats were bragging about their efforts in California. In one example, canvassers went to a specific home multiple times, trying to contact the 18-year-old daughter of the homeowners. They finally reached her, and got her to fill out her ballot. (The homeowner parents? They bragged further about ignoring them, because they were known to be Republican voters.)

Now, that occurrence is just ripe for nefarious deeds. How do we know the 18-year-old really wanted to vote? How do we know that she was not influenced to vote a certain way by the clearly partisan canvassers? How do we know that there aren't instances of similar people telling the canvassers "here, fill it out and I'll sign it" - or even canvassers offering to do so?

The very act of partisan canvassers "encouraging" the filling out of a ballot would approach, if not cross, the line of illegal electioneering inside the bounds of a designated polling place.

Yes, I call this fraud.

Again, you're using specific words in ways that I don't know what you mean. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that is saying 100% of registered voters ("universal") have to vote by mail. Or are you talking about sending all registered voters absentee ballots, whether they request it or not?

Are you not aware that "vote by mail" is exactly that: the sending out of ballots, en masse, to every registered voter? What, exactly, do you think "vote by mail" means?

(I repeat: they are NOT absentee ballots, because absentee ballots require an application to be received and to which to be correlated to the returned ballot.)

Perhaps importantly, is there a jurisdiction doing something that you think compromises the 2020 presidential election?

Every jurisdiction that implements, either willingly or under compulsion, a universal vote-by-mail system without first having appropriate safeguards in place risks compromising the 2020 election.

And that's only half of the process. The other half is validating the ballots that come in.

If 100% of registered voters in a precinct request absentee votes, isn't the system set up to handle that (albeit clumsily)?

It would be a strain on the system, due to volume. But in that case, every returned absentee ballot can be matched to a corresponding absentee ballot application (complete with signature, address, ID verification, etc.).

I'm still trying to narrow in on your definitions. Your label of "mail in voting" refers to a jurisdiction that sends 100% of registered voters an absentee ballot? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (or keyboard), just trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

No. A universal vote-by-mail jurisdiction is one that sends 100% of registered voters a ballot. That ballot is not an absentee ballot. An absentee ballot has a corresponding absentee ballot application. A vote-by-mail ballot does not. It only has a corresponding name on a registered voter list.

Ok... but not always, right? From my limited personal experience, it isn't a 1:1 type thing, there are demographic trends that can mean one candidate might be more appealing to the homebound type voters who use absentee.

Regardless, what happened in Cali appears to have been legal and consistent with their election policies, right?

Slavery was legal at one point. Something being legal is not a proxy for something being right, or good, or appropriate.

California may make it legal for illegal aliens to vote. That would make it a-okay, then?

No argument from me. The secrecy of the ballot is as important to me as any other factor. (I think I've said that somewhere around here.) That gets diluted with absentee ballots, or at least has that potential problem. It is the nature of validation.

It is more than just the secrecy of the ballot that is at stake. It is the right of those who choose to participate in an election have their vote not be diluted by those who either choose not to participate or else who are not eligible to participate. (Yes, I think that participating in an election should require some modicum of "skin in the game" to participate. It should not be an impediment to participating, but it should demonstrate that each voter chooses and intends to participate.)

So tell me where, for the 2020 election, there is a jurisdiction going to "universal vote-by-mail" that does not have the safeguards?

I don't know specifics. I am speaking in general terms, regarding concerns I have with the narrative/push for nationwide universal vote-by-mail.

 

[d.kaufman]

[video=youtube_share;idPv9zAkL48]https://youtu.be/idPv9zAkL48[/video]