|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 25 2026 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 11:40 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. Ah, interesting! Three follow-up questions: 1. What's the downside of automatically mailing ballots out to voters? 2. Why would it be better to have fewer weeks available for early voting? 3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID? Mailing ballots to people and places that did not ask for them is an...invitation I'd rather not make. Okay, that's fair. Would you be okay with an opt-in program, where a voter could choose to receive a mailed ballot if they preferred it? That way it's not automatically extra mail for every voter, since some voters might not want it, but it's available as an option for those who do? Show nested quote +Too long an early voting period means sometimes things happen before election day that voters might like to know. But once they've dealt with their ballot early they are less likely to bother changing it. Elections happen on particular days. It's not the 1820s anymore, you don't need that much time. Shouldn't that be a choice each individual voter could make though? The government isn't forcing voters to vote a month early, right? If a person was truly undecided with a month left before the election, couldn't that person just decide to wait a little longer, if they wanted? The vast majority of all voters obviously know who they're going to vote for way in advance, so it sounds like a beneficial option for anyone who wants to send in their vote and have one fewer errand to remember and run in November. You're right that most people "don't need that much time", but if a person wants to vote on the day of the election, or a week early, or a month early, I don't really see a downside to being flexible there. Show nested quote +I haven't looked into any literature specially but from what I've read it seems like most people who study such things think it's a pretty good system. It is generous within the rules. Famously early voting within Florida is very popular. But you still have to go through a security process. They even report turnout exactly through the day each day (from what I recall) which gives people a very good sense of what is happening. They know how many ballots are to be counted before they even start (early voting ends a few days before election day in most places). Maybe California changed this but I believe they do not know, and it makes sense because they also allow ballots to be received after election day, which if you have a easy, long early vote period is not needed. While I appreciate the response here, I don't think it addressed my question, which was "3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID?" I asked that because one of your three "main things" was voter ID, and I still don't see any beneficial impact of it. I'm not aware of any evidence either - I'm pretty sure all 50 states have secure elections, regardless of their rules and requirements - and while I agree that it's great that Florida reports up-to-date turnout throughout the day, that's not the same thing as preventing voter fraud. Also, voter ID isn't even a key component in the ability to report up-to-date turnout. Florida would still run smoothly and transparently without voter ID... maybe even more efficiently, since removing a voter ID requirement would allow for faster lines (less time per voter is needed when you don't need to check ID). And since we know that there's no widespread voter fraud that needs to be prevented with any extra regulations, it sounds like voter ID is pretty redundant and not crucial for anything in particular.
If you want to vote by mail you should have to request it.
it's not about being undecided, it's about changing circumstances, or events, or statements that might cause one to want to change their vote.
All the things I listed are security measures. Given that, *so far as we know* there isn't an enormous amount of fraud (although it seems like local stories pop up pretty often, I think recently in NJ actually) you are asking for an effect you don't think you are even going to find lol. But as I said the other day, doing easy things that make it more secure make it harder to claim fraud in the future as well. And you prevent things you don't even know about.
Florida is a good example because none of those reasons you gave apply. Voting is incredibly easy, everyone knows how it works, and turnout in the state is super high. There is no trouble with long lines. I like the locked door example someone gave earlier. Everything hinges on there being no fraud, but also we're going to try and remove all the barriers to fraud. Seems pretty silly.
|
On April 24 2026 20:19 Uldridge wrote:
Do you know the difference between the mental constitutions of a conservative and a progressive (or here a Rep and Dem), or do you believe they just pick a side based on how succesful they'll be there?
Also, no need to strawman, no one ever said Dems are pure souls. But Dems do respect the legislature and Reps have time and again demonstrated they don't really care about that if it doesn't serve their narratives.
You mean politicians?
I believe we have our personalities, even genetic proclivities that makes us gravitate towards certain political ideologies so young politicians go towards those parties that fit them best, but as time goes on the corruptive cesspool that politics is, it erodes all integrity and believes turn into puerile naivety, and at that time I do believe they simply pursue personal gain and would switch party in an instant if that greatly benefited them.
Of course almost never see that especially in older politicians is because to have the circumstances where switch parties is feasible and greatly beneficial are very rare.
Also there are some exceptions I don't think you'd ever get Bernie Sanders to change, he is too deep into the socialist bit and he is way too old, it's hard to corrupt a dying man, but I think if you offered something like a guaranteed presidency in the RNC ticket to Liz Warren she would stake it in the blink of an eye.
When I say you believe Dems are "pure souls" is not straw man, its hyperbole, and since you believe dems respect the legislature and reps don't that is exactly what I'm talking about.
Also please refrain from giving me examples of how they are legislature respectooooors lol
Edit: Fun anecdotal evidence, Mexico was ruled by the same party (PRI) for 80 years, in the year 2000 another paty (conservative) won, ending the quasi-dictatorship, then in 2018 a new Party (MORENA) won the elections, the PRI's reputation was too damaged and the party was half-dead, so almost every single PRI politicians switched to MORENA especially the powerful "dinosaurs", so now we are ruled again by a rebranded PRI, the exact same people but now they just talk socialist bullshit.
It's not that this shaped my belief, it was just a confirmation of what I already believed: only corrupt men seek power, and these people pass through a corruptive system and that is why we are ruled by the worst of us, no matter what country you are from, your politicians are the worst of your people. Of course the worst of the swiss will be way better than the worst of the mexicans.
|
On April 24 2026 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There are plenty of issues with Democratic politicians and the Democratic party. Pushing for insecure elections is not one of them. Your retreat from "election integrity" to "oH nOw dEmOcRaT PoLiTiCiAnS aRe pErFeCt!?!?!?!?!?!?" is a clear goalpost-moving concession on your part, and it's probably the closest we'll all get to you apologizing for being the most recent poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
They are pushing for insecure elections while refusing to put any form of ID to vote.
I'm not moving the goalpost, I said republicans want ID for personal gain (votes) and Dems don't want it for the same reason, people who don't see that are in my opinion naive.
It's the same argument.
So... you don't have a source for the bolded? And instead of backing up your claim, you thought it'd be a good idea to provide a non sequitur, since the lack of a photo ID doesn't actually mean "the US has one of the least secure systems"? And we know this is true, because your assertion - "the US has one of the least secure systems" - is actually completely false. You're right that there have been "multiple studies"... but they disprove your statement. The United States's election system and general election integrity are nowhere near the bottom. In fact, they consistently rank in the top half of countries, with scores like 11/12 and 9.17/10 depending on which metrics are being used and who is doing the research. Not perfect, but still very secure...
Elections outside of the 1st world are a shit show, of course they are going to rank higher than in places where people steal ballot boxes with machetes in a pickup and the votes are counted by the president's cousin, and that is pretty much what happens in all the rest of the world.
However the system itself isn't secure because not even a photo ID is required, having a Photo ID would make elections even more secure, or even better a federal voting ID with a better security measures than a driving license.
There is very little downside, the cost is minimal and you get better security in your elections.
|
On April 24 2026 23:17 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 11:46 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 23:35 Billyboy wrote:On April 23 2026 19:27 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 17:09 LightSpectra wrote:On April 23 2026 15:49 Gorsameth wrote:
Yeah if you think Europeans dont consider republics fascists after electing someone who instigated an insurrection you have not been paying attention. Maybe they don't teach about the Beer Hall Putsch or March on Rome in whatever school baal went to. Also, deeply funny that he was emphasizing "people who voted for Nazis aren't ontologically evil, they didn't know there were plans to eradicate the Jews" while laughing off insinuations that Republicans are fascists as they routinely dehumanize immigrants and trans people with the same language like "vermin" or "a plague". The omens of the evils of fascism are simultaneously too hard to recognize for their average supporter, but also nothing to worry about whatsoever, you're being hysterical if you think you see them. So you think Germans that voted for the nazi party wanted a literal Jewish genocide. You also believe this of republicans, that they are also want the genocide of all immigrants and trans people. lmao you people live in some wild RPG fantasies, you imagine a world where the most powerful country with a military bigger than the rest of the world combined is ruled by a crazy genocidal fascist in control of the senate, house and court, but sadly for the RPG the result is a bit deflating though, deportations, std arab wars and tariffs aren't really that compelling for the narrative but don't let that stop you from living this fantasy to the fullest. I’m confused by your reasoning. It seems you are convinced that Germans who voted for the Nazis didn’t know what they were getting because the Nazis didn’t explicitly say it. Then when people here bring up a lot of comparisons between the Nazis before WW2 and Republicans, and there are lots, many that you have agreed with. You say no way the Republicans and fascists because they have not explicitly said it. You can’t have it both ways. You should be worried about how far the Republicans are going to take it, they have already pushed it much more than people thought before this election. Even look at project 2024 . There was tons of talk about how that was a Democrat scare tactic, now the Republicans are just following it and all their voters that said they were against it, are not shockingly in favour. The republicans keep pushing toward fascism and people who vote for them keep going along with it and I guess use confirmation bias to forget about what they were against a few short months ago. Yes I claim the majority of germans didn't knew the extent of what the nazis planned to do. Yes, MAGA flits with certain aspects of fascism and its dangerous. No, the republicans are not the nazis secretly planning to genocide migrants. Calling republicans nazis only normalizes real nazis in the shadows and also makes people believe if THIS is nazism it ain't so bad. The same way rednecks calling scandis commies, it doesn't help their cause, on the contrary. Lucky I never called the Republicans Nazis nor accused them of secretly plotting genocide. I said you should be scared with how far they are going to push it, since they keep pushing further down this path. Where it goes neither of know, but I am certain it’s not good for anyone but him and his allies. I get that it’s easier to argue against what you want me to say rather than what I did, but it would preferable to not do that.
I'm discussing with like a dozen people at the same time, not everything is about you bud, It's a general statement about the boy who cried wolf.
I've said many times that some of his rhetoric is indeed dangerous and should be called out, but if you call securing borders and deportations fascism then you are part of the problem.
|
On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look.
Are you autistic by any chance?
This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people.
|
On April 25 2026 00:45 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Sorry Ender there are not any. He was attempting a shitty gotcha. He is trying to state it is so obvious that without that requirement they can’t possibly have secure elections. I run into this in my job all the time, then I unpack and explain and it works a really high percentage of the time, one on one. But it takes a fair bit of time to build the credibility and I have to take a lot of “jokes” along the way.
lolol its like watching "The I.T. crowd"
|
On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people.
Really?
It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion.
I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from.
|
On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from.
The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdf
Regarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here.
|
On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from.
It was obviously a joke lol.
I'm saying the US system is insecure because they don't even require an ID and you ask me for a source.
An unlocked house in rural Finland will be statistically less burglarized than a house in South Africa with an electrical fence and a moat, and a study would show the Finland house to be more secure but the security system in the South African house is much better.
|
On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence.
Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird.
|
On April 25 2026 15:15 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. It was obviously a joke lol. I'm saying the US system is insecure because they don't even require an ID and you ask me for a source. An unlocked house in rural Finland will be statistically less burglarized than a house in South Africa with an electrical fence and a moat, and a study would show the Finland house to be more secure but the security system in the South African house is much better.
You stated that American elections are amongst the most insecure in the developed world.
What you are saying now is that you don't actually need a source because it's a self evident truth. I don't think that is correct. There are many systems in place in elections to ensure they are secure. ID verification at the voting booth is only the last step in a long line of steps.
|
On April 25 2026 15:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 15:15 baal wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. It was obviously a joke lol. I'm saying the US system is insecure because they don't even require an ID and you ask me for a source. An unlocked house in rural Finland will be statistically less burglarized than a house in South Africa with an electrical fence and a moat, and a study would show the Finland house to be more secure but the security system in the South African house is much better. You stated that American elections are amongst the most insecure in the developed world. What you are saying now is that you don't actually need a source because it's a self evident truth. I don't think that is correct. There are many systems in place in elections to ensure they are secure. ID verification at the voting booth is only the last step in a long line of steps. he claims its self evident but no investigation has ever found more then individual instances that dont even ads up to a ronding error, and Trump despite dozens of lawsuits claiming fraud has never produced a shred of evidence.
In his world 1+1 no longer equals 2
|
On April 25 2026 15:15 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. It was obviously a joke lol. I'm saying the US system is insecure because they don't even require an ID and you ask me for a source. An unlocked house in rural Finland will be statistically less burglarized than a house in South Africa with an electrical fence and a moat, and a study would show the Finland house to be more secure but the security system in the South African house is much better.
You know what's better than analogies based on nothing? Data. Data is better. Data is incidentally the thing no Republicans in this thread have decided to cite in favor of their beliefs.
|
On April 25 2026 15:15 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. It was obviously a joke lol. I'm saying the US system is insecure because they don't even require an ID and you ask me for a source. An unlocked house in rural Finland will be statistically less burglarized than a house in South Africa with an electrical fence and a moat, and a study would show the Finland house to be more secure but the security system in the South African house is much better.
That seems to just reinforce the argument against the need for voter ID. If the house in rural Finland is secure enough without even locking the front door, why would anyone add an electric fence and a moat? Unless the real goal isn't security, but to make it harder for the in-laws to visit.
And yes, for the particularly dense people here like you yourself, and razyda:
House in rural Finland = elections in US as they are right now
Electric fence = voter id
In-laws = brown/black electorate.
|
United States43953 Posts
On April 25 2026 17:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 15:15 baal wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. It was obviously a joke lol. I'm saying the US system is insecure because they don't even require an ID and you ask me for a source. An unlocked house in rural Finland will be statistically less burglarized than a house in South Africa with an electrical fence and a moat, and a study would show the Finland house to be more secure but the security system in the South African house is much better. You know what's better than analogies based on nothing? Data. Data is better. Data is incidentally the thing no Republicans in this thread have decided to cite in favor of their beliefs.
The data simply doesn’t exist. You may ask “how can that be? There have been dozens on high profile investigations into voter fraud in the last few years alone” but the problem is those investigations found that the elections were secure. You’re asking for data showing that they’re insecure. It’s simply not a reasonable ask, nobody is gathering that data.
|
On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird.
This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble.
On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here.
Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other.
Baal's point re:sources is something like you don't need to funnel a basic fact through Karen, PhD to work with it. You can just look at each country, see which ones have ID and don't, see which ones have universal mail-in and don't, see which ones have a national voter roll and don't. You don't need a stiff academic to analyze these facts and give them each "points" evaluated by secret methods they don't share with you in order to see that.
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed
|
On April 25 2026 18:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 17:26 LightSpectra wrote:On April 25 2026 15:15 baal wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. It was obviously a joke lol. I'm saying the US system is insecure because they don't even require an ID and you ask me for a source. An unlocked house in rural Finland will be statistically less burglarized than a house in South Africa with an electrical fence and a moat, and a study would show the Finland house to be more secure but the security system in the South African house is much better. You know what's better than analogies based on nothing? Data. Data is better. Data is incidentally the thing no Republicans in this thread have decided to cite in favor of their beliefs. The data simply doesn’t exist. You may ask “how can that be? There have been dozens on high profile investigations into voter fraud in the last few years alone” but the problem is those investigations found that the elections were secure. You’re asking for data showing that they’re insecure. It’s simply not a reasonable ask, nobody is gathering that data.
I guess that's why Republicans are engaging in voter fraud - to collect the evidence! It all makes sense now.
|
On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed
Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any.
|
On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other.
That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ?
|
On April 25 2026 13:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 11:40 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. Ah, interesting! Three follow-up questions: 1. What's the downside of automatically mailing ballots out to voters? 2. Why would it be better to have fewer weeks available for early voting? 3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID? Mailing ballots to people and places that did not ask for them is an...invitation I'd rather not make. Okay, that's fair. Would you be okay with an opt-in program, where a voter could choose to receive a mailed ballot if they preferred it? That way it's not automatically extra mail for every voter, since some voters might not want it, but it's available as an option for those who do? Too long an early voting period means sometimes things happen before election day that voters might like to know. But once they've dealt with their ballot early they are less likely to bother changing it. Elections happen on particular days. It's not the 1820s anymore, you don't need that much time. Shouldn't that be a choice each individual voter could make though? The government isn't forcing voters to vote a month early, right? If a person was truly undecided with a month left before the election, couldn't that person just decide to wait a little longer, if they wanted? The vast majority of all voters obviously know who they're going to vote for way in advance, so it sounds like a beneficial option for anyone who wants to send in their vote and have one fewer errand to remember and run in November. You're right that most people "don't need that much time", but if a person wants to vote on the day of the election, or a week early, or a month early, I don't really see a downside to being flexible there. I haven't looked into any literature specially but from what I've read it seems like most people who study such things think it's a pretty good system. It is generous within the rules. Famously early voting within Florida is very popular. But you still have to go through a security process. They even report turnout exactly through the day each day (from what I recall) which gives people a very good sense of what is happening. They know how many ballots are to be counted before they even start (early voting ends a few days before election day in most places). Maybe California changed this but I believe they do not know, and it makes sense because they also allow ballots to be received after election day, which if you have a easy, long early vote period is not needed. While I appreciate the response here, I don't think it addressed my question, which was "3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID?" I asked that because one of your three "main things" was voter ID, and I still don't see any beneficial impact of it. I'm not aware of any evidence either - I'm pretty sure all 50 states have secure elections, regardless of their rules and requirements - and while I agree that it's great that Florida reports up-to-date turnout throughout the day, that's not the same thing as preventing voter fraud. Also, voter ID isn't even a key component in the ability to report up-to-date turnout. Florida would still run smoothly and transparently without voter ID... maybe even more efficiently, since removing a voter ID requirement would allow for faster lines (less time per voter is needed when you don't need to check ID). And since we know that there's no widespread voter fraud that needs to be prevented with any extra regulations, it sounds like voter ID is pretty redundant and not crucial for anything in particular. If you want to vote by mail you should have to request it. it's not about being undecided, it's about changing circumstances, or events, or statements that might cause one to want to change their vote. All the things I listed are security measures. Given that, *so far as we know* there isn't an enormous amount of fraud (although it seems like local stories pop up pretty often, I think recently in NJ actually) you are asking for an effect you don't think you are even going to find lol. But as I said the other day, doing easy things that make it more secure make it harder to claim fraud in the future as well. And you prevent things you don't even know about. Florida is a good example because none of those reasons you gave apply. Voting is incredibly easy, everyone knows how it works, and turnout in the state is super high. There is no trouble with long lines. I like the locked door example someone gave earlier. Everything hinges on there being no fraud, but also we're going to try and remove all the barriers to fraud. Seems pretty silly.
I'm fine with needing to request vote-by-mail. I don't think we're in disagreement there.
I don't think we'll see exactly eye-to-eye on allowing for very early voting, but I think that's fine:
You're prioritizing a hypothetical need to change one's vote, and I don't think that's the number one priority because it's rarely necessary.
I'm prioritizing a hypothetical maximal schedule flexibility, and you don't think that's the number one priority because it's rarely necessary.
Whether early voting is 2 weeks or 4 weeks or 6 weeks isn't the biggest deal to me; it might become a bigger deal to me if I learn about any states where voters are insisting they need more time to vote early because of some specific reason.
" *so far as we know* there isn't an enormous amount of fraud "
I think we're the furthest apart on the subject of voter ID. I'd be interested in hearing Florida's safeguard against a massive amount of locusts disrupting Election Day, or how Florida would protect against assassins stealing all their mail-in ballots. Because, *so far as we know*, there isn't an enormous amount of those things happening, but better safe than sorry, right? Why not have three locks on the door instead of one? That's how I feel you're treating this non-existent threat of widespread voter fraud, and given that this push for voter ID came from Trump and other Republican leaders fabricating bad-faith claims about election integrity, I feel more passionate about pushing back on this. They're purposely trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters, as previously discussed.
As I've said before, if every voter automatically receives a free, immediate "voter ID" upon registering to vote and before every election (like a paper receipt or an email confirmation or a QR code or whatever can be easily, instantly, universally given out), I'm actually fine with people bringing it on Election Day, but Republicans suspiciously aren't advocating for the most convenient voter ID options possible. And it's painfully obvious that even if national voter ID laws were implemented, Republicans would still complain about election security the next time they lost, and then there would be another made-up excuse. They'll never be satisfied until all their cheating guarantees wins every time, and we know this because voter ID laws aren't the only examples of Republicans trying to rig the system.
I know you don't want our conversation to descend into just talking about voter ID, since that topic has been beaten to death over the past few days, so I'll respect both of our time and just say I'm happy we found some common ground (mail-in voting is fine as long as you request it) and that one of our two disagreements can lead to a reasonable compromise (we should allow a period of early voting that's long enough to be flexible for most voters, and short enough that most voters won't be voting before they're actually set on a candidate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
