The fact that one side has not prioritized this isn't similar to the other side's repeated attempts to overthrow our government.
We don’t even need security – we need confidence. And this recent idea that it takes weeks to count votes, that we might not know the results for weeks – is completely unacceptable and is already doing irreparable damage to people’s faith in elections.
Why on earth would that be? The "counting period" was originally set at 5 weeks. Between laws saying that you cannot start counting mail in ballots before the close of polls on election day, laws that (rightly) limit how many hours that can be spent counting ballots, etc. I'm not sure how to square that with instant results.
Maybe we just be patient counting the scores in a contest that takes 18 months to run?
But, even if you ignore that two individuals (or three) representing all the candidates each count by hand a stack of ten, have to agree, sign off that they agree, etc. I think you underestimate other problems. You're focused on the counting.
Just consider how long it takes to open the outer envelope, check the signature on the inner envelope (again, by multiple people who represent different campaigns), and physically remove and unfold that sheet of paper. Now multiply by several million. Add in some extra time for managing stack of ten ballots.
Or, to put it another way, we don't vote with a phone app. We are willing to pay extra for security.
Let's say it takes a minute to process a single ballot. That means a single poll worker can go through a couple hundred ballots--500 is a nice round number-- a day. And all of this is going to be processed generally at a centralized facility at county level, and because of the pandemic, you might have 500,000 of those to get through. Even with 100 workers working those ballots, that's still going to take 10 days to get through everything.
I really suspect you’re being intentionally difficult here, this is not such a simple problem as you suggest.
And I honestly don’t even know who you’re talking about but I assume it’s the pillow/pcap guy.
Have you heard about the president’s son, or the New York governor, or the speaker of the house who moonlights as a prolific stock trader?
Good people are not leading us.
Your other whataboutisms are weak sauce compared with this. In particular the Cuomo one is not good for you, he's out, while your party continues to embrace the p**y grabber that has a higher harassment allegation count.
Just want to point out that Trump doesn't lead the GOP.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rnc-chair-ronna-mcdaniel-tru...
As do the parade of GOP officials and wannabes that have made the trek to Mar-a-lago to kiss the ring. As do the many state GOP parties that are expelling anyone not sufficiently loyal and conducting crazy "audits" to show fealty to Trump's election lies.
* "They" meaning the news media. The official vote took longer and counted the mail in ballots
Both have, in my view, reasonable arguments on why they feel that way.
Try to zoom out and look at your comment from the 3rd person view. The right believes the left stole an election (coup), they believe they have evidence to prove it. The left saw Jan 6 on the corporate news and believes they have the evidence to prove Trump attempted to seize government.
Note, none of the people charged for Jan 6 was for sedition. So the evidence really isn't there either.
If you take a step back and try to see both perspectives, perhaps it's possible to relate again.
On the right, we have:
* USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election
* Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts (including having broken precedent to rush a SCOTUS appointment during the election, which could have changed the outcome of the coup attempt in a different timeline)
* 1/6
* Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...), alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering
And the left has:
* Failed to advocate for open source voting systems (which isn't a widely known or politically relevant issue on either side at present)
* Pushed for stronger voting rights and increased voter participation — both uncontroversially positive properties of a democracy, but also happen to benefit the Democratic Party at the current moment
* Proposed measures in the For the People Act that were arguably overly ambitious or aggressive in the current political environment, such as stricter campaign finance regulations, which were promptly renegotiated within their own party ranks
To frame these as comparable is borderline gaslighting.
Every day I switch between msnbc, nbc, warroom.org, breaking points, Ben Shapiro and Tim pool. Probably ~6-8hrs a day I listen to content at double speed (while doing other stuff).
Every single one has their own take, but just to get you up-to-date with what the right believes:
* BLM and Antifa caused billions in damages. Harassing or attacking everyone who disagreed with ideology (they were coming to senators homes)
* in some places this is leading to the reintroduction of segregation https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelie...
* FBI spied on trump on Clinton and Obama’s behalf. Utilizing a known fabricated document (fabricated to keep business with the Clinton foundation - see uranium one): https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-sc...
* election laws were changed last minute, broken among other things to effect a coup and they brag about it: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
* more people voted in 2020 than were registered in 2016 or 2018. With a 93% then out rate.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registe...
* here’s a couple video explaining some of their concerns about the election
https://rumble.com/vkyxju-retired-u.s.-army-colonel-phil-wal...
https://rumble.com/vkyzgb-mike-lindell-cyber-symposium-dr.-d...
The list goes on and on...
It is indeed.
You sound arrogant, “only one side is correct and it’s my side”
I have very little patience for dishonesty. If that makes me seem "arrogant" to peddlers of disinformation, so be it.
BLM and Antifa caused billions in damages
Sure. That was terrible and uncalled for. Lots of bad ideas and movements come from the grassroots left, like "Defund the Police" and "All Cops are Bastards". I don't recall this being sanctioned or incited by Joe Biden or the Democratic Party, and it wasn't a coup d'etat.
in some places this is leading to the reintroduction of segregation
I didn't see where your source made a connection between these events. Either way, if you think that a racist principal imposing segregation in their school somehow vindicates right-wing insurrectionists, I don't know what to tell you.
FBI spied on trump on Clinton and Obama’s behalf. Utilizing a known fabricated document
This is an article about two British citizens independently making a decision to attempt to influence our election in a small way. I find that objectionable for the same reason as Russia's larger-scale election interference, but I don't see how it relates to the conspiracy theory of Obama spying on Trump.
election laws were changed last minute, broken among other things to effect a coup and they brag about it
Can you be more specific? All I'm seeing from an initial pass is that an effort was made to respond to right-wing voter suppression efforts and disinformation leading up to the election.
more people voted in 2020 than were registered in 2016 or 2018. With a 93% then out rate.
That was pretty cool. I'm not sure what you're suggesting it has to do with right-wing beliefs.
here’s a couple video explaining some of their concerns about the election
Sure, I'm aware that Trump and his allies claim to have concerns. That's what we're discussing here. Do you have more specific points and sources that aren't videos?
Are you talking about Russia or the Federalist Society SCOTUS picks or the rioters who were let in by the few security guards remaining after the Capitol security was lowered or the Big Tech services that should be declared as political donations but aren't?
* USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election
* Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts (including having broken precedent to rush a SCOTUS appointment during the election, which could have changed the outcome of the coup attempt in a different timeline)
* 1/6
* Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...), alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering
This is implying that default mail-in voting was a way to get Democrats elected in the first place. (which it was given how mail-in voting was the source of the Democrats advance when they arrived)
> Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts
Challenging elections integrity in the courts are what insure the process is transparent and followed in the first place. This makes no sense by definition. Just because a SCOTUS nominee was nominated just before doesn't change anything and is still entirely within the Constitution. Because Democrats got unlucky on the retirement / death draw during this presidency doesn't mean a "coup". And by the way, it happened before.
> 1/6
Not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (no weapons) and barely a riot given the lack of destruction and violence. Also why leave out how security was reduced, that the FBI had informants and that Trump even proposed to increase security?
> Ongoing propagation of the "big lie"
I get it that you are not familiar with Bush v. Gore and how it was the big rig for years?
> and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...)
It's easy to pick a random clown in a camp and then zoom 1000x to paint a bad picture:
"The cards, featuring a seven-point plan, appear to have been made by a group called Patriots Soar, which is not connected to the organisers of CPAC"
> alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering
Gerrymandering happens in blue districts too by the way, can can only do so much (elections results still mostly 50/50 percentage wise). And the "voter suppression" are a joke when you read the details of them since the measures being implemented are the same that are found in Canada (showing ID with proof of your address, registering to vote, having a reason to vote by mail, which used to be a Democrat talking point during the Bush/Obama years by the way).
No it isn't. Don't be obtuse.
Challenging elections integrity in the courts are what insure the process is transparent and followed in the first place.
Filing dozens of frivolous lawsuits and aggressively pressuring state government officials to help overturn election results isn't normal.
Democrats got unlucky on the retirement / death draw
https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/20...
[1/6 was] not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (no weapons)
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters...
I get it that you are not familiar with Bush v. Gore
Yup, this is the first I've heard of George Bush and Al Gore. Thanks for letting me know about them.
It's easy to pick a random clown in a camp and then zoom 1000x to paint a bad picture
Sure. I agree with that. I'm not claiming that this is the official platform of the GOP, simply that it's a radical and dangerous element of society that Trump and his wing of the party are actively cultivating by continuing to promote lies.
And the "voter suppression" are a joke
Sure. They didn't work in the end, but they made it a lot closer than it would have been. The new ones may work or they may not, but we shouldn't tolerate any voter suppression in America.
showing ID with proof of your address
No one is opposed to requiring an ID to vote. The For the People Act included a voter ID provision, with alternative documents such as utility bills allowable as a fallback.
If you want to require IDs without that fallback, how about we make federal voting IDs available to everyone in the country at no cost and with minimal hassle or time investment? If the intent isn't voter suppression, this should be perfectly agreeable.
> No it isn't. Don't be obtuse.
Do you have more to say than "don't be obtuse"? Because it was well known that Democrats were more likely to use mail-in voting from the beginning as various polls showed and how the vote turned out Democrats as more and more mail-in votes were counted.
> Filing dozens of frivolous lawsuits and aggressively pressuring state government officials to help overturn election results isn't normal.
"Frivolous" is your opinion, not the one of the courts. And by the way multiple cases have been thrown out during Bush v. Gore, were they "frivolous" too?
> Democrats got unlucky on the retirement / death draw
> https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/20...
Can you actually verbalize the point you're trying to make without simply linking an opinion piece from NPR?
> [1/6 was] not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (no weapons)
> https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters...
"Many of the weapons allegedly used in the riot are considered "less lethal" but are dangerous and can even be fatal, according to experts."
Again, nothing lethal enough to start an "insurrection" against armed guards.
> I get it that you are not familiar with Bush v. Gore
> Yup, this is the first I've heard of George Bush and Al Gore. Thanks for letting me know about them.
So you you know that challenging elections results and irregularities in the courts are part of the electoral process then.
> It's easy to pick a random clown in a camp and then zoom 1000x to paint a bad picture
> Sure. I agree with that. I'm not claiming that this is the official platform of the GOP, simply that it's a radical and dangerous element of society that Trump and his wing of the party are actively cultivating by continuing to promote lies.
Trump never said things that are outside of what are heard at political rallies. Things like "fighting" for a cause and "walking on X building" are fairly common.
> No one is opposed to requiring an ID to vote.
This is not true. Democrats and various pressure group have opposed it for decades now:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/873878423/voting-and-election...
> The For the People Act included a voter ID provision, with alternative documents such as utility bills allowable as a fallback.
Bills are not id, they're proof of address. In Canada for example (and in most other liberal democracies), we have to show an id with a picture and a proof of address (the election card or a hydro bill if it's missing).
> No one is opposed to requiring an ID to vote. The For the People Act included a voter ID provision, with alternative documents such as utility bills allowable as a fallback.
> If you want to require IDs without that fallback, how about we make federal voting IDs available to everyone in the country at no cost and with minimal hassle or time investment? If the intent isn't voter suppression, this should be perfectly agreeable.
I'm sure this would get bi-partisan support, especially amongst the moderates. Social security numbers were never meant to be IDs in the first place and they are clearly out of date now.
If you think this is evidence of a secure election, I have an unpickable lock to sell you. Anyone repeating the talking point that this was “the most secure election ever” sounds like a partisan hypocrite, especially when you can find videos of Democratic Congress members warning about the security of elections as recently as in 2017.
Or, maybe it’s a coincidence that polls asking questions about election security – an objectively non-partisan topic – find a distribution of opinions weirdly aligned with support for the red or blue team.
Alas, anonymous verifiable signatures must be impossible.
Mail-in ballots are no different. A limited, known number are printed. The system prioritizes in-person ballots in case the mailed one is filled out under pressure. Some states forbid unique ballot tracking, using theoretically non-unique identifiers.
Note that the map colors DRE w/ voter verifiable paper audit trail as (lightish) red. That's consistent with the prevailing opinion today that DRE w/ VVPAT is inferior to paper ballots with precinct tabulation (because voters do not necessarily actually examine the VVPAT), but does tend to make the current situation look worse than it is due to Nevada.
If you mean Arizona, see Title 16:
> After the canvass has been completed, the officer in charge of elections shall deposit the package or envelope containing the ballots in a secure facility managed by the county treasurer, who shall keep it unopened and unaltered for twenty-four months for elections for a federal office or for six months for all other elections, at which time he shall destroy it without opening or examining the contents.
> The officer in charge of elections shall ensure that electronic data from and electronic or digital images of ballots are protected from physical and electronic access, including unauthorized copying or transfer, and that all security measures are at least as protective as those prescribed for paper ballots.
I believe some states completely hand recounted the entire millions of receipts from the machines this year (in response to the allegations of voter fraud). However, it shouldn't be necessary to exhaustively recount the entire race. We should be able to use random sampling to statistically verify that the race is not fixed.
But we can set the confidence we want and test enough ballots to get there. In this past election, some states decided it was "100% sure to this kind of detectable attack" and they hand counted every ballot.
I'll have to wait till the next election cycle to see how this is tortured. You need a proof of immunization [for work, for benefits, etc.,] but you don't need an ID to vote because... asking for IDs disenfranchises. but denying people work is not disenfranchisement.
I don't think this is true? The mass vaccination center that I went to didn't ask for any form of ID at all.
>You need a proof of immunization, but you don't need an ID to vote. (though in reality, the immunization requirement would likely be illegal given we don't require proof of any other immunization prior to voting.)
I'm confused, no one is proposing proof of immunization for voting.
If a private bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage than Carnival Cruises or whoever should be able to deny access to those actively endangering the lives of their customers.
The latest is that the refusal means a fine.
"On June 15, 2021, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips had violated Colorado's anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a cake for Scardina and ordered him to pay a fine of $500"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
Seems like that's the standard way to get outcomes especially the Fed Govt in particular gets a lot of their power from the purse. Get health insurance tax deduction or fine.
Example of upcoming reconciliation we can't pass actual clean energy regulations with the (arbitrary 50+1 can overturn) rules & because Republicans won't support it. it has to be fines and incentives.
>"I'm confused, no one is proposing proof of immunization for voting."
My point is that on the one hand requiring an immunization card which requires an ID is okay, but requiring an ID for voting is not okay. Proof of immunization is being required for more and more things which potentially would disenfranchise lots of people.
People are having their private and public sector jobs jeopardized when they hesitate to immunize. At present, though not historically, the most hesitant are the highly educated class...
Citation?
"Those with professional degrees (e.g., JD, MBA) and PhDs were the only education groups without a decrease in hesitancy, and by May, those with PhDs had the highest hesitancy. To our knowledge, no other study has evaluated education with this level of granularity, which was possible due to our unusually large sample size (>10,000 participants with PhDs). Further investigation into hesitancy among those with a PhD is warranted."
You need to show papers to go grocery shopping: that's OK. You need to show papers to vote: that's not OK.
Do you see the inconsistency?
Biden is the most popular president ever, millions of votes more than Obama.
It comes down to a few ten thousands (or less) in critical swing states.
There's a compelling statistical argument to be made that states like Georgia, or maybe perhaps even bigger margin in FL, might have gone another way without laws & regulations to make it harder to vote and cast a ballot by mail.
My point wasn't about "who won", only pointing out the statistics of popularity, considering that an election is basically a popularity contest.
The most unpopular president (and vice-president) got more historical more votes than the last most popular president of the past 50-100 years.
That is to say, one major difference is the availability of the papers.
The vaccine-card equivalent of Republican Voter ID requirements would be mandating that everyone present a vaccine card before being allowed to vote with the intent of discouraging eligible Republican voters.
The equivalent of present-day pollbooth security in vaccine-card form would be requiring people to associate themselves with an official vaccine record before shopping / working / etc. You wouldn't have to present an ID on the spot, but the records would be checked to look for two people claiming the same vaccination record, someone trying to claim a record that didn't exist, etc. Discrepancies would be investigated and if you were found to have fraudulently represented your vaccination status you'd be in trouble.
Okay cool, but what's the point of this? Did the parent poster claim otherwise?
BUT I think it's a worthy policy debate. I could see myself being in favor of allowing long term residents the vote given how impossible it is to get citizenship (or hell even permanent status).
maybe then the point should be fixing our immigration system and naturalizing the huge backlog we have.
as is, millions are already being taxed but not represented and they are subject to the laws they don't get a voice in crafting.
My general gut instinct on this stuff is that we could have simple, safe elections, but we would need to be patient in receiving results, commit to competitive redistricting, and reduce political party influence over the details as they will always attempt to game them towards their preferred status quo.
There are usually a few double voting cases. I think I remember a case of TX going after maybe i remember a young college student hard. it was on Vice News but I can't find it.
You don't care that non-citizens can vote?
What would you do if you turned up, your name was already checked off, but you hadn't voted? What do you think happens then?
Seems like an entirely plausible attack. Why don't you tell me what happens then?
Is there something about holding a green card for 5 years that makes you suddenly start to engage in politics?
>How do they even register to vote?
Presumably they take someone else's identity.
Religious and 1st amendment leeway to discriminate goes both ways.
Shopping is a privilege granted to those who have money, which isn't a right.
Working is a privilege granted to those who have skills the market is willing to pay for, which isn't a right.
Participation in society is preconditioned on obeying the law, and can be taken away through arrest and imprisonment.
Working, commerce, and social behaviors are all protected in US law to varying degrees.
"A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are pronounced examples of transferable privilege. These can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth.
By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(law)
>Working, commerce, and social behaviors are all protected in US law to varying degrees.
But you said "rights under the constitution."
The constitution guarantees you the right to own and carry a gun. Not to employment, food, clothing, shelter, or the ability to participate in society. The latter are all conditional, dependent upon the market or the will of the state.
The constitution doesn't even guarantee a right to vote (obviously the framers didn't believe such a right should be universal) which is why felons can lose their voting rights. There are amendments like the 15th and 19th amendments which prevent voting discrimination, but an inalienable right to vote doesn't exist in the constitution.
The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you.
Rights need not be provided to you for free. You have the right to buy a gun, or an abortion, or a political ad, or a wedding cake - but you’ll have to buy them.