Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
while still positing "Hey isn't it odd that the economic terrorism that they're committing for some reason attracts nazis and racists?" Because thats what people who can use their own critical thinking to decide what they think about a situation do
Isn't it odd that for some reason the movement attracts Nazis and racists? Kinda makes a fella wonder. Ontario again... maybe it was the same guy...
Surprise, surprise Nazi sympathizers are also not terribly supportive of Israel... unless it means deporting all Jews to it.
But this is faulty guilty by association thinking. Group A thinks B You think B Therefore you are Group A.
This gets trotted out in the immigration debate. Canada has in the last decade increased their immigration numbers substantially to around 500,000 per year. If you dare to voice (in the realm of politics) the idea of turning down that number to say, 2015 numbers or earlier, suddenly you are hit with a racism charge because racists also want less immigrants in the country... because apparently there are no other reasons to want to roll back immigration to a smaller number. And of course you will get some money quote from a racist organization, signing off on whichever party wants to lower immigration because of course they would support any party that would do so. So then "Isn't it odd that for some reason your lower immigration policy attracts racists and Nazis." Kinda makes a fella wonder.
But maybe that example doesn't truly demonstrate the ridiculousness of this line of reasoning if you've become too entrenched along particular ideological battle lines.
So here's another: The Nazis hated impressionistic art and lauded romantic realism. You hate impressionistic art and prefer romantic realism. You are a Nazi.
The proper formulation would be: Nazis hate impressionistic art and laud romantic realism You are a Nazi Therefore you (likely) hate impressionistic art and laud romantic realism.
You cannot simply assume that because one or two despicable individuals are supportive of your movement, ergo the movement is based upon the same foundation that the despicable individual is supporting it. That is, unless it is something truly foundational to that despicable belief system/ organization, etc. A good policy can be supported by heinous people for heinous reasons but that does not inherently say anything about the goodness or badness of the policy or the motivations of the people in the main, unless there are more direct links.
We cannot go after The Beatles because Charles Manson thought Helter Skelter was supportive of his post-apocalyptic race war ideas. Isn't it odd that for some reason the song attracted Nazis and racists? Kinda makes a fella wonder.
Holy runaway strawman batman. If you want to ask me if I think any of those things you are free to ask. BJ doesn't ask questions or makes any sort of argument, but I want to assume you operate in good faith enough to ask if I believe any of those things.
So basically you get to dismiss wide swathes of people that you've never interacted with as nazis, racists, bigots, and misogynists because they oppose vaccine mandates, but in turn everyone should ask you in good faith what your opinions are and accept them at face value. Rules for thee but not for me.
On May 12 2024 06:46 Sermokala wrote: We went 20 rounds with me constantly asking BJ why he doesn't agree with people being forced to get the covid vaccine when hes okay with forcing people to get other vaccines because I was trying to get out of him exactly why he was so against vaccine requirements.
The reason we went 20 rounds on this is because I answered the question 20 times and for whatever reason it never sank in for you.
Here is a postwhere I’m even explaining how many times I answered that question and even quoted some of my other posts where I’ve answered it. I’ve explained like 20 times that vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis and the reason we should vaccinate for say Measles and not Covid is because the MMR can actually stop measles from spreading and the covid vaccine can’t stop Covid from spreading. I’m not sure why this won’t stick for you.
Probably because you are still under the illusion that we can reach herd immunity and eradicate COVID from schools if we just throw enough vaccines at children as you stated in this post.
Funny that the entire world is in agreement with my position - we should judge vaccine mandates on a case by case, we can’t eradicate covid from schools with vaccine mandates, and we should require covid vaccines for children to attend schools. The entire world disagrees with your position. Maybe you should really reflect on that and ask yourself why you think I’m the one with the extreme positions.
On May 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We still have half a year before the presidential election, but Trump is already suing to preemptively invalidate some legal mail-in ballots that will be cast in swing states, since mail-in ballots are disproportionately cast by Democrats. If lawsuits like these were filed last election, and passed by unethical judges, then Trump could have won certain swing stages (like Pennsylvania) last time, which could have flipped the 2020 election. Let's hope this Nevada lawsuit gets shut down.
Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why?
I don't have a number in mind, because that's something that's not actually an issue. Trying to set a specific number feels like trying to solve a non-existent problem. For example, in 2020, Pennsylvania needed another day or so, even while counting through the night. That's necessary. It's not like states are deciding to pause for a week (for no reason) during the process, and it's not the voters' faults if their on-time votes get counted a day late. If the vote is sent in on time, then it deserves to be counted.
How do you know a non-postmarked ballot was sent in time?
Edit: In fact, you seem to have misunderstood the entire content of the lawsuit. Here's my best guess at what's going on. Your view of things: Nevada counts mail-in ballots as they come in to the best of their ability, but even so, it's impossible to keep up, so obviously after the polls close on election day, they continue to count ballots which have already arrived, because that takes a little bit. Republicans are evil and want to stop this.
Reality: If your ballot is postmarked by election day and arrives within 4 days after, or not postmarked at all and "arrives" within 3 days after, it's to be counted under the Nevada rules in question being challenged. A majority of states don't accept mail in ballots after election day regardless of postmark. I'm not well versed enough in election chicanery to know how many continue to count ballots received after election day with no postmark, and until how many days after "election day" that is allowed to go on.
They are not suing to stop counting, after election day, ballots that were received. They are suing to stop BALLOTS that are RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY from being COUNTED.
On May 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We still have half a year before the presidential election, but Trump is already suing to preemptively invalidate some legal mail-in ballots that will be cast in swing states, since mail-in ballots are disproportionately cast by Democrats. If lawsuits like these were filed last election, and passed by unethical judges, then Trump could have won certain swing stages (like Pennsylvania) last time, which could have flipped the 2020 election. Let's hope this Nevada lawsuit gets shut down.
Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why?
I don't have a number in mind, because that's something that's not actually an issue. Trying to set a specific number feels like trying to solve a non-existent problem. For example, in 2020, Pennsylvania needed another day or so, even while counting through the night. That's necessary. It's not like states are deciding to pause for a week (for no reason) during the process, and it's not the voters' faults if their on-time votes get counted a day late. If the vote is sent in on time, then it deserves to be counted.
How do you know a non-postmarked ballot was sent in time?
Edit: In fact, you seem to have misunderstood the entire content of the lawsuit. Here's my best guess at what's going on. Your view of things: Nevada counts mail-in ballots as they come in to the best of their ability, but even so, it's impossible to keep up, so obviously after the polls close on election day, they continue to count ballots which have already arrived, because that takes a little bit. Republicans are evil and want to stop this.
Reality: If your ballot is postmarked by election day and arrives within 4 days after, or not postmarked at all and "arrives" within 3 days after, it's to be counted under the Nevada rules in question being challenged. A majority of states don't accept mail in ballots after election day regardless of postmark. I'm not well versed enough in election chicanery to know how many continue to count ballots received after election day with no postmark, and until how many days after "election day" that is allowed to go on.
They are not suing to stop counting, after election day, ballots that were received. They are suing to stop BALLOTS that are RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY from being COUNTED.
I guess a lot is going to depend on how efficient your postal services are at postmarking ballots on the same day they were received. If I were to put my ballot in the mailbox the day before election day, but it (a) never got postmarked or (b) got postmarked 3 days later, I would be quite upset if my ballot didn't get counted. Seeing this as some kind of issue in a vacuum is rather weird, as it depends almost entirely on how well the postal service functions. How well does the postal service of Nevada function?
On May 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We still have half a year before the presidential election, but Trump is already suing to preemptively invalidate some legal mail-in ballots that will be cast in swing states, since mail-in ballots are disproportionately cast by Democrats. If lawsuits like these were filed last election, and passed by unethical judges, then Trump could have won certain swing stages (like Pennsylvania) last time, which could have flipped the 2020 election. Let's hope this Nevada lawsuit gets shut down.
Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why?
I don't have a number in mind, because that's something that's not actually an issue. Trying to set a specific number feels like trying to solve a non-existent problem. For example, in 2020, Pennsylvania needed another day or so, even while counting through the night. That's necessary. It's not like states are deciding to pause for a week (for no reason) during the process, and it's not the voters' faults if their on-time votes get counted a day late. If the vote is sent in on time, then it deserves to be counted.
How do you know a non-postmarked ballot was sent in time?
"There are alternate ways to check when a ballot was mailed. ... There are ways for election officials to verify that a ballot was cast by Election Day, even if it arrives without a legible postmark. For example, most states use bar codes that encode tracking information directly on ballot envelopes. Those systems can be used to help determine when a ballot was returned to a post office. ... Election officials can also coordinate with post offices to try to determine when a particular batch of mail with missing postmarks was picked up. And election officials can even rely on the date a voter writes on their envelope as evidence a ballot was cast on time. ... Voting by mail has allowed millions of Americans to vote safely this year, and the lack of a postmark shouldn’t stand in the way of the right to vote." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-if-mail-ballots-arrive-after-election-day-without-postmark
On May 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We still have half a year before the presidential election, but Trump is already suing to preemptively invalidate some legal mail-in ballots that will be cast in swing states, since mail-in ballots are disproportionately cast by Democrats. If lawsuits like these were filed last election, and passed by unethical judges, then Trump could have won certain swing stages (like Pennsylvania) last time, which could have flipped the 2020 election. Let's hope this Nevada lawsuit gets shut down.
Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why?
I don't have a number in mind, because that's something that's not actually an issue. Trying to set a specific number feels like trying to solve a non-existent problem. For example, in 2020, Pennsylvania needed another day or so, even while counting through the night. That's necessary. It's not like states are deciding to pause for a week (for no reason) during the process, and it's not the voters' faults if their on-time votes get counted a day late. If the vote is sent in on time, then it deserves to be counted.
Edit: In fact, you seem to have misunderstood the entire content of the lawsuit. Here's my best guess at what's going on. Your view of things: Nevada counts mail-in ballots as they come in to the best of their ability, but even so, it's impossible to keep up, so obviously after the polls close on election day, they continue to count ballots which have already arrived, because that takes a little bit. Republicans are evil and want to stop this.
Reality: If your ballot is postmarked by election day and arrives within 4 days after, or not postmarked at all and "arrives" within 3 days after, it's to be counted under the Nevada rules in question being challenged. A majority of states don't accept mail in ballots after election day regardless of postmark. I'm not well versed enough in election chicanery to know how many continue to count ballots received after election day with no postmark, and until how many days after "election day" that is allowed to go on.
They are not suing to stop counting, after election day, ballots that were received. They are suing to stop BALLOTS that are RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY from being COUNTED.
As quoted above, it can be determined whether or not a voter has correctly sent in their vote before the deadline. If the voter messes things up, then that's their problem and their vote should be invalidated (unless they somehow fix it in time). If there are issues on the receiving/delivering end that are not the fault of the voter, however, then their vote should still be counted (as the voter did nothing wrong). There are ways to make this process easier and more streamlined, and more funding and preparation can make it less likely for large numbers of votes to be delivered/counted late. People who value democracy, fair elections, and the right to vote should be trying to make the voting process easier.
That's the content. Now, on to the context:
1. Mail-in voting is disproportionately used by people who live in more populated areas, as they would otherwise need to stand in line for far longer on Election Day (several hours, rather than a few minutes). Not everyone can guarantee a large amount of spare time on that one specific day, and these mail-in demographics tend to be Democratic (since urban / more dense areas tend to be more liberal, while rural / less dense areas tend to be more conservative). Mail-in voting is legal and available for everyone, but Democrats tend to take more advantage of it than Republicans, out of necessity or convenience. This is especially true when Republican presidential candidates, like Donald Trump, encourage their supporters to avoid mail-in voting at all costs (and claim that mail-in voting is fraudulent). As mail-in votes can often be counted later than in-person votes, this means that most of the Republican votes would be tallied before most of the Democratic votes. We saw this happen during the 2020 election, with certain swing states (e.g., Pennsylvania) showing an early, temporary lead for Trump, because all the Trump votes were counted before all the Biden votes were counted. This led to accusations of the election being rigged when Biden eventually beat Trump in those states, and Trump tried to insist that the remaining Biden votes should be disqualified.
2. Rather than making it easier to vote in person (making Election Day a national holiday, opening up more voting locations, etc.), Republicans have been making it more difficult to vote in person for years now, especially in areas that are more densely populated (i.e., Democrats are being disproportionately affected by new voting restrictions), and especially in southern, conservative, or swing states: a. "The report comes as Republican-led states impose a range of other restrictions, from shorter voting hours ..." b. " ... to photo-ID requirements. ..." c. " ... Seven counties in Georgia now have only one polling place, the report found." d. "Election officials in Texas have closed more than 1 in 10 voting locations statewide, according to data collected by the Leadership Conference's education and research arm." e. "In Arizona, more than 1 in 5 polling locations were closed, the data showed." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations-idUSKCN1VV09J/ Having less time to vote on Election Day, forcing extra requirements, and reducing the number of polling locations are all ways to make voting more difficult, and to disproportionately affect potential voters who have more constraints on their time or means. Again, these groups tend to be more Democratic than Republican.
3. With it becoming harder and harder to vote in person, these Democratic demographics are more likely to mail in their votes, which is also legal. However, Republicans have also taken steps to invalidate this alternative voting method, by either making this process more difficult, spreading misinformation about the security and accuracy of mail-in voting, or outlawing it outright: a. "President Donald Trump said Thursday that he opposes much-needed funding for the United States Postal Service because he doesn’t want to see it used for mail-in voting this November." https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/trump-usps-funding-comments-2020-election/index.html b. "President Donald Trump went on a tear against mail-in voting Thursday morning. In a pair of tweets, he once again falsely claimed that mail-in voting was rife with fraud and an easy target for foreign election interference. "Mail-In Voting is already proving to be a catastrophic disaster," Trump tweeted. "The Dems talk of foreign influence in voting, but they know that Mail-In Voting is an easy way for foreign countries to enter the race."" https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_0098fb00-07a9-4bd2-8bcb-5d9074b9bcc9 c. "This lawsuit seeking to invalidate mail-in ballots that are timely cast and received after Election Day is the latest in a slew of anti-voting lawsuits Republicans are filing in the leadup to the 2024 presidential election. Though this is the first anti-voting lawsuit filed this year by Trump’s presidential campaign, the RNC has already filed five other active lawsuits targeting the right to vote across six states." https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-campaign-files-first-election-lawsuit-of-the-cycle-targets-nevada-mail-in-voting/
What Trump and other Republican leaders are doing is completely unethical. They're not focused on improving the speed or efficiency or accuracy of our elections. On the contrary, they're trying to rig elections by making it harder for Democrats to vote, and harder for Democrats' votes to be counted. And these shady moves have consequences: over half of Trump supporters incorrectly believe that the 2020 election was stolen due to widespread voter fraud, most Republican politicians and most conservative news outlets promote that lie, and we see violent insurrections based on misinformation.
And this doesn't even include widespread gerrymandering, using the electoral college over the popular vote, or any of the other issues that continue to unfairly help Republicans retain power.
On May 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We still have half a year before the presidential election, but Trump is already suing to preemptively invalidate some legal mail-in ballots that will be cast in swing states, since mail-in ballots are disproportionately cast by Democrats. If lawsuits like these were filed last election, and passed by unethical judges, then Trump could have won certain swing stages (like Pennsylvania) last time, which could have flipped the 2020 election. Let's hope this Nevada lawsuit gets shut down.
Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why?
I don't have a number in mind, because that's something that's not actually an issue. Trying to set a specific number feels like trying to solve a non-existent problem. For example, in 2020, Pennsylvania needed another day or so, even while counting through the night. That's necessary. It's not like states are deciding to pause for a week (for no reason) during the process, and it's not the voters' faults if their on-time votes get counted a day late. If the vote is sent in on time, then it deserves to be counted.
How do you know a non-postmarked ballot was sent in time?
Edit: In fact, you seem to have misunderstood the entire content of the lawsuit. Here's my best guess at what's going on. Your view of things: Nevada counts mail-in ballots as they come in to the best of their ability, but even so, it's impossible to keep up, so obviously after the polls close on election day, they continue to count ballots which have already arrived, because that takes a little bit. Republicans are evil and want to stop this.
Reality: If your ballot is postmarked by election day and arrives within 4 days after, or not postmarked at all and "arrives" within 3 days after, it's to be counted under the Nevada rules in question being challenged. A majority of states don't accept mail in ballots after election day regardless of postmark. I'm not well versed enough in election chicanery to know how many continue to count ballots received after election day with no postmark, and until how many days after "election day" that is allowed to go on.
They are not suing to stop counting, after election day, ballots that were received. They are suing to stop BALLOTS that are RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY from being COUNTED.
The problem is that the boy has cried wolf to many times.
There is no reason to assume Republicans are being genuine with raising concerns about ballots when they have spend the last 4 years trying to get a legitimate election thrown out while providing exactly 0 proof of any fraud. In fact the only cases of election fraud in the last 4 years that I have heard about have been Republicans.
So if you want to make a case that something is wrong your going to have to do the work and present arguments and evidence that there is something wrong instead of asking leading questions because the default assumption is always going to be that the Republicans are full of shit. Yet again.
On May 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We still have half a year before the presidential election, but Trump is already suing to preemptively invalidate some legal mail-in ballots that will be cast in swing states, since mail-in ballots are disproportionately cast by Democrats. If lawsuits like these were filed last election, and passed by unethical judges, then Trump could have won certain swing stages (like Pennsylvania) last time, which could have flipped the 2020 election. Let's hope this Nevada lawsuit gets shut down.
Nevada has early voting from October 12th to November 1st, and universal no-excuse mail-in ballots gone out no later than October 16th. What is your personal view on how many days after election day it would be okay to wait before not counting non-postmarked ballots that came in the mail, and why?
I don't have a number in mind, because that's something that's not actually an issue. Trying to set a specific number feels like trying to solve a non-existent problem. For example, in 2020, Pennsylvania needed another day or so, even while counting through the night. That's necessary. It's not like states are deciding to pause for a week (for no reason) during the process, and it's not the voters' faults if their on-time votes get counted a day late. If the vote is sent in on time, then it deserves to be counted.
How do you know a non-postmarked ballot was sent in time?
Edit: In fact, you seem to have misunderstood the entire content of the lawsuit. Here's my best guess at what's going on. Your view of things: Nevada counts mail-in ballots as they come in to the best of their ability, but even so, it's impossible to keep up, so obviously after the polls close on election day, they continue to count ballots which have already arrived, because that takes a little bit. Republicans are evil and want to stop this.
Reality: If your ballot is postmarked by election day and arrives within 4 days after, or not postmarked at all and "arrives" within 3 days after, it's to be counted under the Nevada rules in question being challenged. A majority of states don't accept mail in ballots after election day regardless of postmark. I'm not well versed enough in election chicanery to know how many continue to count ballots received after election day with no postmark, and until how many days after "election day" that is allowed to go on.
They are not suing to stop counting, after election day, ballots that were received. They are suing to stop BALLOTS that are RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY from being COUNTED.
The problem is that the boy has cried wolf to many times.
There is no reason to assume Republicans are being genuine with raising concerns about ballots when they have spend the last 4 years trying to get a legitimate election thrown out while providing exactly 0 proof of any fraud. In fact the only cases of election fraud in the last 4 years that I have heard about have been Republicans.
So if you want to make a case that something is wrong your going to have to do the work and present arguments and evidence that there is something wrong instead of asking leading questions because the default assumption is always going to be that the Republicans are full of shit. Yet again.
Agreed. Hanlon's Razor suggests first assuming sincere ignorance over intentional malice, but that ship sailed years ago. Republican leaders (especially Trump) are intentionally being wicked and unethical and terrible, and need to be corrected, called out, and voted out.
DarkPlasmaBall, there is a lot of presumption about how hard it is to vote in person when someone very kindly explained to us on the last page that Nevada must have ballots sent out (which they do universally even if you didn't ask them) AT THE LATEST by October 16th. Giving you 20 days seems like enough time for you to fill it out, post it, and have the post office literally walk it to the seat of whatever municipality you live in. And again, they have early voting from October 12th to November 1st. As a math professor, you don't have to sit and theorycraft about how disenfrachised people are - calculate how many weeks that is. Either this is enough or it isn't. Then calculate how many weeks is enough and tell me so I know what exactly voter right extension I need to go out and campaign for with my erudite colleagues.
I asked you a simple question of how many days YOU think is acceptable. "There are ways to know." Okay, having learned what the ways to know when an unpostmarked ballot was sent are - despite that there's no evidence Nevada is set up to do a forensic investigation of when each ballot was postmarked, rather just assume anything that comes in within 3 days of Election Day somehow made it in time - having researched all that, you should be sufficiently informed to have an opinion - How many days do you get? There are 76 days between Election Day and Inauguration Day. I'm assuming you agree that's our hard maximum? Perhaps we could agree to get the votes counted by when Congress certifies the election? It might help to have it done a little earlier in case of challenges and recounts and audits by either side. Understanding that try as we might, the world can't wait on your imaginary disenfranchised person in Nevada who can't vote despite having a ballot automatically sent to him and every other registered voter he knows at least 3 weeks before the election, and that to the unfortunate detriment of his constitutional rights, we have to say an election is over at some point, and since again a majority of states do not count mail-in ballots received after Election Day postmarked or not, but since whatever the Republicans are saying is wrong clearly - what should the rule be, how many days, as an integer if you please?
You said very strawmanningly "rather than." If you open up X you see most on the right want Election Day to be a national holiday. They don't want other things to be national holidays, but they want an election day to happen on a day because "election year" is a misnomer, it's "campaign year" but the idea is as a country we debate and then take a day to choose it, and they want auditable paper ballots, not constantly breaking machines which have also disproportionately disenfranchised certain classes of voters if you take off the John Oliver glasses. What you're saying has no internal consistency whatsoever. Republicans don't trust mail in voting so they oppose a federal holiday so they could all go and vote in person? Do better.
From what I know 20 years ago we didn't have universal mail in ballots so I don't know where this "harder and harder to vote" conspiracy theory is coming from. If you want a federal holiday, you should probably get the federal government to do it as only they have the power. What party controlled the entire federal government during the 117th Congress?
I asked you very specifically about a lawsuit you brought up about Nevada and you are quote mining Texas and Georgia. Show me the Democratic lawsuits there. How many people live in those counties? How big are they geographically? Why don't Blue states have twice as many polling places as they do now? In fact, why not just make every household a polling place - oh wait, that's what we do now, it's called universal no-excuse mail-in voting. You're operating from a status quo fallacy mixed with biased assumptions - whatever the blue state is doing now must be enough, otherwise they'd be doing more, and if the red people closed a polling place it couldn't be that it's not needed.
I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
"Republicans don't trust mail in voting so they oppose a federal holiday so they could all go and vote in person?" I did not make that non sequitur. Republicans incorrectly don't trust mail-in voting (because they've been lied to by Republican leaders), *and* Republican leaders are making it harder for Democrats to vote in person (not easier).
"I don't know where this "harder and harder to vote" conspiracy theory is coming from" Please refer to my points outlined in 2a-e.
Also, please don't scoff at "imaginary disenfranchised" voters, when Trump tried to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters across multiple states (Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc.) just so he could rig the 2020 election.
EDIT: "You're operating from a status quo fallacy mixed with biased assumptions - whatever the blue state is doing now must be enough" Nope. I never said that the blue states are without fault, or are doing enough, or anything like that. If you believe that certain blue states are disenfranchising voters, then please provide some evidence; I'd be more than happy to look at it, and give you my honest opinion about the situation.
On May 12 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
How is the premise of the question flawed? Whose fault it is for the ballot being late is irrelevant. At some point election officials are going to need to know what they should do and they won't be able to determine that from your non-answer.
On May 12 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
How is the premise of the question flawed? Whose fault it is for the ballot being late is irrelevant. At some point election officials are going to need to know what they should do and they won't be able to determine that from your non-answer.
oBlade was criticizing voters for not sending in votes significantly earlier than deadlines, but that's not how deadlines work. If a voter is told to mail in their vote by November 1st, for example, then they should assume their vote will be counted, whether they mail it on November 1st or a full week earlier. If that deadline ends up leading to issues where the counting needs an extra day or two after Election Day to finish up, then the officials need to plan better for the next election. I don't know if that means that they need to hire more people to count votes faster, or improve the delivery system to obtain votes earlier, or push the mail-in deadline up a day or two next time, or just keep counting votes one or two days late if they don't think it's an issue, but the ethical solution cannot be to throw out votes from people who met the deadline and correctly did what they were told. And, again, the context is that Republicans want to throw out those votes because they're most likely to be Democratic votes.
On May 12 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
How is the premise of the question flawed? Whose fault it is for the ballot being late is irrelevant. At some point election officials are going to need to know what they should do and they won't be able to determine that from your non-answer.
oBlade was criticizing voters for not sending in votes significantly earlier than deadlines, but that's not how deadlines work. If a voter is told to mail in their vote by November 1st, for example, then they should assume their vote will be counted, whether they mail it on November 1st or a full week earlier. If that deadline ends up leading to issues where the counting needs an extra day or two after Election Day to finish up, then the officials need to plan better for the next election. I don't know if that means that they need to hire more people to count votes faster, or improve the delivery system to obtain votes earlier, or push the mail-in deadline up a day or two next time, or just keep counting votes one or two days late if they don't think it's an issue, but the ethical solution cannot be to throw out votes from people who met the deadline and correctly did what they were told.
Seems like the only proposal he disagrees with would be the last one that I bolded. Who is the "they" there? The election workers? The Legislature? You can't just have some "they" making decisions that could possibly flip an election by counting late votes and then simultaneously admonish people questioning the integrity of our elections.
On May 12 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
How is the premise of the question flawed? Whose fault it is for the ballot being late is irrelevant. At some point election officials are going to need to know what they should do and they won't be able to determine that from your non-answer.
I don't understand your objection.
You state that fault for the ballot being late is irrelevant, then state that officials need to know what to do [in the event of a late ballot]. Surely in this instance accurately placing fault is EXTREMELY relevant.
On May 12 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
How is the premise of the question flawed? Whose fault it is for the ballot being late is irrelevant. At some point election officials are going to need to know what they should do and they won't be able to determine that from your non-answer.
I don't understand your objection.
You state that fault for the ballot being late is irrelevant, then state that officials need to know what to do [in the event of a late ballot]. Surely in this instance accurately placing fault is EXTREMELY relevant.
If you don't have a clear answer on whether a ballot that is X days late should be counted then the reason it is late is irrelevant.
On May 12 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
How is the premise of the question flawed? Whose fault it is for the ballot being late is irrelevant. At some point election officials are going to need to know what they should do and they won't be able to determine that from your non-answer.
oBlade was criticizing voters for not sending in votes significantly earlier than deadlines, but that's not how deadlines work. If a voter is told to mail in their vote by November 1st, for example, then they should assume their vote will be counted, whether they mail it on November 1st or a full week earlier. If that deadline ends up leading to issues where the counting needs an extra day or two after Election Day to finish up, then the officials need to plan better for the next election. I don't know if that means that they need to hire more people to count votes faster, or improve the delivery system to obtain votes earlier, or push the mail-in deadline up a day or two next time, or just keep counting votes one or two days late if they don't think it's an issue, but the ethical solution cannot be to throw out votes from people who met the deadline and correctly did what they were told.
Seems like the only proposal he disagrees with would be the last one that I bolded. Who is the "they" there? The election workers? The Legislature? You can't just have some "they" making decisions that could possibly flip an election by counting late votes and then simultaneously admonish people questioning the integrity of our elections.
I don't know how the precise chain of command works when it comes to federal/state guidelines that trickle down to individual precincts and election workers, but I'm referring to whether or not the top of the pyramid feels it's absolutely necessary to have everything counted by midnight vs. one day later vs. two days later. That's who I mean by "they". I'd love to know the outcome as soon as possible, but I don't think we should sacrifice accuracy for speed. I'd also hope that each state/precinct is proactively accounting for variables like having more mail-in ballots to count, but if the counting runs late then the counting runs late.
I don't think I understand your last sentence. Are you saying that people are justified in questioning the integrity of our elections just because the continuation of vote counting can flip an election the day or two after Election Day? We know that the election isn't decided merely by whoever is in the lead at midnight, and arbitrarily deciding to stop counting the remaining votes would be election interference (which is what Republicans are promoting, like when Trump told key states to stop counting during the 2020 election, when he was still leading in them, before all the remaining Democratic votes were counted).
There are two needs here. - A correctly-cast ballot should always count, because democracy. - An election should eventually lock in its result, because stability.
These can conflict if the system errs or is sabotaged. If we discover additional correctly-cast ballots after the election is supposed to be concluded, and those ballots reveal that the official election results were wrong, do we keep the incorrect results for stability's sake, or do we correct them belatedly?
This is an interesting question, but not an important one, because of course the correct solution is to fix the system so that the two needs don't conflict.
On May 12 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I already told you that I don't have a specific number of days, and that the very premise of the question is flawed, because it mistakenly assigns blame to the voter rather than the system - the system that is being undermined by Republicans. I'm sorry if that's an unsatisfactory answer, but I'm not just going to make up a number like "If on-time votes aren't counted by day 2, then they just don't get counted." That just allows Republicans to additionally focus on finding new ways to pause the mail-in vote count (or in-person vote count) by 48 hours.
How is the premise of the question flawed? Whose fault it is for the ballot being late is irrelevant. At some point election officials are going to need to know what they should do and they won't be able to determine that from your non-answer.
oBlade was criticizing voters for not sending in votes significantly earlier than deadlines, but that's not how deadlines work. If a voter is told to mail in their vote by November 1st, for example, then they should assume their vote will be counted, whether they mail it on November 1st or a full week earlier. If that deadline ends up leading to issues where the counting needs an extra day or two after Election Day to finish up, then the officials need to plan better for the next election. I don't know if that means that they need to hire more people to count votes faster, or improve the delivery system to obtain votes earlier, or push the mail-in deadline up a day or two next time, or just keep counting votes one or two days late if they don't think it's an issue, but the ethical solution cannot be to throw out votes from people who met the deadline and correctly did what they were told.
Seems like the only proposal he disagrees with would be the last one that I bolded. Who is the "they" there? The election workers? The Legislature? You can't just have some "they" making decisions that could possibly flip an election by counting late votes and then simultaneously admonish people questioning the integrity of our elections.
I don't know how the precise chain of command works when it comes to federal/state guidelines that trickle down to individual precincts and election workers, but I'm referring to whether or not the top of the pyramid feels it's absolutely necessary to have everything counted by midnight vs. one day later vs. two days later. That's who I mean by "they". I'd love to know the outcome as soon as possible, but I don't think we should sacrifice accuracy for speed. I'd also hope that each state/precinct is proactively accounting for variables like having more mail-in ballots to count, but if the counting runs late then the counting runs late.
I don't think I understand your last sentence. Are you saying that people are justified in questioning the integrity of our elections just because the continuation of vote counting can flip an election the day or two after Election Day? We know that the election isn't decided merely by whoever is in the lead at midnight, and arbitrarily deciding to stop counting the remaining votes would be election interference (which is what Republicans are promoting, like when Trump told key states to stop counting during the 2020 election, when he was still leading in them, before all the remaining Democratic votes were counted).
Yeah I think people are justified in questioning the integrity of elections if you won’t hammer down specific rules. “Counting ballots that are 1-2 days late if they think it’s not an issue” isn’t very specific. Is it 1 day or 2 days? Why not 3 days or 4 days?
I’m not even saying whatever you think the rules should be are wrong. You might have some great ideas. But I do think giving vague non-answers to what the rules should be is not a good idea if you want people to trust the elections.
This is a very weird thing to come after him on given that he’s not responsible for the specific rules. If your doctor said that you’d need 1 or 2 operations you might go “which is it, 1 or 2?” But this isn’t that. He’s not an expert, this isn’t his responsibility, he has no obligation to be specific here. Not only is he entirely within his rights to be non specific, it’d actually be weird if he had a fully specific and all encompassing policy document to hand ready to pass your review. You’d no doubt accuse him of refusing to give a simple answer as you refused to read his 500 page document.
I really don't understand this "We need to know the outcome of the election as soon as possible after election day" mentality. "Ballots must be counted within X days of the election or they will be discarded is nowhere in the US constitution.
So ballots that were cast before the election aren't finished being processed right away. So what? They were legitimately cast ballots. The US electoral process was written before the internet or telegrams allowed rapid transference of information across the continent. A mail-in ballot postmarked on election day 2024 is doing the exact same thing every ballot was doing when the constitution was written.
Ballots taking time to be processed isn't the problem. People's need for instant gratification is the problem.
Clearly he is implying that tens of thousands of ballot would be 'created' after the election to change the end result after the preliminary count. Because that is the only situation where this entire line of questioning is remotely relevant.
At no point in this have I seen oblade or blackjack bring forth any indication, let alone evidence, that ballot fraud might be happening.
EPT
