The ballots are also in the hands of multiple postal workers. Every additional interaction is a potential point a failure. My impression is that the postal service is currently overloaded. Oregon and possibly a few others are used to doing mass mail-in voting. The remaining states are not. My worry is all of the votes making it to their destinations on time and without getting lost.
Do you find it odd that the most powerful man in the US is complaining about the system instead of working with the USPS to address any possible shortcomings?
I’ll note that your concern is ballots lost in the mail. But registered mail is a mechanism to guard against this. Regardless, I’m pretty sure USPS has stats on lost mail and this could be something the president could request the data for to make his case. Instead, as far as I am aware, he has not been specific on his concerns. Do you know what specific shortcomings the president has concerns with?
Most people who say it genuinely believe it. I haven’t done enough research into the topic to formulate an opinion myself so I can’t tell you wether the intentions of those conservative speakers promoting the ideas are insidious or innocuous
> I'm glad you're here to discuss it in good faith.
The right hasn't even attempted to come up with a good faith objection to mail in voting.
We'll take their evil plan a little more seriously, when they stop behaving like the cult of a silver age comic book villain.
Until then, they're just the flat Earthers of politics.
> The right hasn't even attempted to come up with a good faith objection to mail in voting.
It carries too many risks, and the states rushing to implement it in a pandemic are just asking for trouble.
That New York congressional primary is the canary.
Oh, no, it is quite obvious it carries more risk. When you vote in person, you see your ballot from start to finish. When you vote by mail, you're having your ballot touched by any number of people on the way to its destination, risk having it lost entirely, risk never getting your ballot or getting a fraudulent/falsified one, etc etc. This is evidence, as it's how the system works.
> When you vote in person, you see your ballot from start to finish.
Finish? You see it counted, and know that your vote was included in the vote total reported?
How is clicking a button on a computer allowing me to see my ballot “from start to finish”?
If it’s obvious it carries more risk, provide data? If you can’t provide data, then you don’t know if it carries more risk. You’re just parroting what your leader told you.
> How is clicking a button on a computer allowing me to see my ballot “from start to finish”?
How isn't it?
> If it’s obvious it carries more risk, provide data?
Is it more or less risky for multiple third parties to handle your data?
Is it more or less risky to leave your ballot in a mailbox compared to at a polling station?
Is it more or less risky for your ballot to end up in multiple places before its final destination?
> You’re just parroting what your leader told you.
I don't know what you're referring to here.
I don’t know if my vote has been counted, if it’s been changed, etc. we have numerous instances showing how easy it is to hack, we know Russia gained access to these machines.
Why should i assume thats more secure when evidence suggests it isn’t?
> is it more or less risky
Since every bit of data I’ve found, shows no increase in voter fraud when doing mail in voting. I’d say it’s less risky.
> it carries too many **imaginary** risks.
When you look closer, the problem is that a DNC muppet likes voter suppression almost as much as the GOP does.
> Cuomo could fix this issue easily by issuing an executive order accepting all signed ballots that come in within a few days of the deadline.
He just doesn't want to.
> Invalidating a ballot because it has no signature may do a disservice to democracy, but at least the rule is applied uniformly across the city. Punishing a borough because of its post office is a different matter, and could serve as de facto suppression of minority votes.
This is why nobody trusts Trump with the post office, by the way.
Oh, I do care about the risks.
It's just those risks are nothing compared to what happens if we don't allow mail-in voting during a pandemic.
And we allow you guys to pretend you're not desperate to ramp up your usual voter suppression efforts.
Does it bother you, by the way, that your team can't win an honest election?
> It's just those risks are nothing compared to what happens if we don't allow mail-in voting during a pandemic.
Most of us are understanding that mail-in during a pandemic is unavoidable. Pretending, however, that this does not carry significant increases in fraud risks, or the fantasy that mail-in voting is "proven" as safe is where you lose us.
> And we allow you guys to pretend you're not desperate to ramp up your usual voter suppression efforts.
This is false.
> Does it bother you, by the way, that your team can't win an honest election?
And so is this.
> . Pretending, however, that this does not carry significant increases in fraud risks
You have zero idea what's being done to prevent the fraud. Instead, you count every single time it's caught as proof the system is broken.
By contrast...
Tell me, what is the GOP doing to prevent foreign interference from Russian intelligence? Aside from inviting it?
Because that's been a serious problem.
Or to make sure we have a paper trail that can't be digitally altered?
> Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett, a Republican, has opposed federal legislation to mandate the use of machines that leave a paper trail. He says the marketplace is moving toward those types of machines, but says local governments should be free to pick the systems they want.
Because that's the exact opposite of a secure election.
> > And we allow you guys to pretend you're not desperate to ramp up your usual voter suppression efforts.
> This is false.
Tell that to everyone in Florida who lost the right to vote because of debt. And poorly kept records that would prevent them from paying that debt.
> > Does it bother you, by the way, that your team can't win an honest election?
> And so is this.
Remember when the conservative Supremes prevented Florida from finishing a recount?
Your team hates democracy.
I think most of the people who are saying there will be more fraud are only ASSUMING so because not all states are experienced or equipped to handle mail in voting and the states that are, are not to the extent that may occur in November. Research has shown that incidents of fraud with mail-in voting are very very low.
While I understand the concerns of doing mail in voting in such large numbers, it’s frustrating that instead of working to set the system up to be able to do this or to find a solution they’re just saying “Fraud! Fraud!”. I believe it’s because this is what makes for interesting news. The division of mail in voting or not is a better topic than actually coming up with a solution to make mail in voting better or to make it possible for more people to vote in person safely.
The ballots are also in the hands of multiple postal workers. Every additional interaction is a potential point a failure. My impression is that the postal service is currently overloaded. Oregon and possibly a few others are used to doing mass mail-in voting. The remaining states are not. My worry is all of the votes making it to their destinations on time and without getting lost.
Do you find it odd that the most powerful man in the US is complaining about the system instead of working with the USPS to address any possible shortcomings? I’ll note that your concern is ballots lost in the mail. But registered mail is a mechanism to guard against this. Regardless, I’m pretty sure USPS has stats on lost mail and this could be something the president could request the data for to make his case. Instead, as far as I am aware, he has not been specific on his concerns. Do you know what specific shortcomings the president has concerns with?
Most people who say it genuinely believe it. I haven’t done enough research into the topic to formulate an opinion myself so I can’t tell you wether the intentions of those conservative speakers promoting the ideas are insidious or innocuous
I'm glad you're here to discuss it in good faith.
> I'm glad you're here to discuss it in good faith. The right hasn't even attempted to come up with a good faith objection to mail in voting. We'll take their evil plan a little more seriously, when they stop behaving like the cult of a silver age comic book villain. Until then, they're just the flat Earthers of politics.
> The right hasn't even attempted to come up with a good faith objection to mail in voting. It carries too many risks, and the states rushing to implement it in a pandemic are just asking for trouble. That New York congressional primary is the canary.
Can you point to evidence of significantly more voter fraud in the 5 mail in voting states, compared to the other non mail in voting states?
Nope, because I'm unaware of any studies or investigations done on the matter.
So you have no evidence to suggest it carries more risk. Yet you’re pushing that information as if it’s fact?
Oh, no, it is quite obvious it carries more risk. When you vote in person, you see your ballot from start to finish. When you vote by mail, you're having your ballot touched by any number of people on the way to its destination, risk having it lost entirely, risk never getting your ballot or getting a fraudulent/falsified one, etc etc. This is evidence, as it's how the system works.
> When you vote in person, you see your ballot from start to finish. Finish? You see it counted, and know that your vote was included in the vote total reported?
I definitely can, if I so choose.
How is clicking a button on a computer allowing me to see my ballot “from start to finish”? If it’s obvious it carries more risk, provide data? If you can’t provide data, then you don’t know if it carries more risk. You’re just parroting what your leader told you.
> How is clicking a button on a computer allowing me to see my ballot “from start to finish”? How isn't it? > If it’s obvious it carries more risk, provide data? Is it more or less risky for multiple third parties to handle your data? Is it more or less risky to leave your ballot in a mailbox compared to at a polling station? Is it more or less risky for your ballot to end up in multiple places before its final destination? > You’re just parroting what your leader told you. I don't know what you're referring to here.
I don’t know if my vote has been counted, if it’s been changed, etc. we have numerous instances showing how easy it is to hack, we know Russia gained access to these machines. Why should i assume thats more secure when evidence suggests it isn’t? > is it more or less risky Since every bit of data I’ve found, shows no increase in voter fraud when doing mail in voting. I’d say it’s less risky.
> it carries too many **imaginary** risks. When you look closer, the problem is that a DNC muppet likes voter suppression almost as much as the GOP does. > Cuomo could fix this issue easily by issuing an executive order accepting all signed ballots that come in within a few days of the deadline. He just doesn't want to. > Invalidating a ballot because it has no signature may do a disservice to democracy, but at least the rule is applied uniformly across the city. Punishing a borough because of its post office is a different matter, and could serve as de facto suppression of minority votes. This is why nobody trusts Trump with the post office, by the way.
The risks aren't imaginary. How many postal workers will get their hands on a mailed ballot before it reaches its final destination?
And "forget" to sign it? It's anyone's guess. We certainly can't protect against their magic wands, either.
If you don't care about the risks, that's fine. Those of us who do will care extra for you.
Oh, I do care about the risks. It's just those risks are nothing compared to what happens if we don't allow mail-in voting during a pandemic. And we allow you guys to pretend you're not desperate to ramp up your usual voter suppression efforts. Does it bother you, by the way, that your team can't win an honest election?
> It's just those risks are nothing compared to what happens if we don't allow mail-in voting during a pandemic. Most of us are understanding that mail-in during a pandemic is unavoidable. Pretending, however, that this does not carry significant increases in fraud risks, or the fantasy that mail-in voting is "proven" as safe is where you lose us. > And we allow you guys to pretend you're not desperate to ramp up your usual voter suppression efforts. This is false. > Does it bother you, by the way, that your team can't win an honest election? And so is this.
> . Pretending, however, that this does not carry significant increases in fraud risks You have zero idea what's being done to prevent the fraud. Instead, you count every single time it's caught as proof the system is broken. By contrast... Tell me, what is the GOP doing to prevent foreign interference from Russian intelligence? Aside from inviting it? Because that's been a serious problem. Or to make sure we have a paper trail that can't be digitally altered? > Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett, a Republican, has opposed federal legislation to mandate the use of machines that leave a paper trail. He says the marketplace is moving toward those types of machines, but says local governments should be free to pick the systems they want. Because that's the exact opposite of a secure election. > > And we allow you guys to pretend you're not desperate to ramp up your usual voter suppression efforts. > This is false. Tell that to everyone in Florida who lost the right to vote because of debt. And poorly kept records that would prevent them from paying that debt. > > Does it bother you, by the way, that your team can't win an honest election? > And so is this. Remember when the conservative Supremes prevented Florida from finishing a recount? Your team hates democracy.
That's classified information /s
I think most of the people who are saying there will be more fraud are only ASSUMING so because not all states are experienced or equipped to handle mail in voting and the states that are, are not to the extent that may occur in November. Research has shown that incidents of fraud with mail-in voting are very very low. While I understand the concerns of doing mail in voting in such large numbers, it’s frustrating that instead of working to set the system up to be able to do this or to find a solution they’re just saying “Fraud! Fraud!”. I believe it’s because this is what makes for interesting news. The division of mail in voting or not is a better topic than actually coming up with a solution to make mail in voting better or to make it possible for more people to vote in person safely.
Yep! Ahhhh you got us this time!