I will note that it's easier to break the rules and commit voter fraud when you can vote by mail. In person voting at least requires that you be physically present on Election Day. I moved to California and got voting materials from whence I came. I did not elect to commit voter fraud and vote, but I could have pretty easily.
Haven’t most (all?) jurisdictions supported vote by Mail for absentee ballots since a long time ago? All that vote by mail has actually changed is that people can vote from their homes.
This is the first year I’ve gotten election material I didn’t request. I had forgotten to deregister, but the crazy thing is the post office told them I had moved because they forwarded a previous letter. They then sent me more material at the new forwarded address in another state.
I don’t think this is nefarious, mostly incompetence. I think fraud happens, always has. Voting by mail probably increases opportunistic fraud. It probably also increases voter participation, so maybe it’s worth it in that sense, not sure. However, I think we need to have rock-solid verifiable and trustworthy elections, even if it’s inconvenient and the fraud it is meant to prevent is theoretical (hacked voting machines, other schemes). It’s very unhealthy for a democracy when large fractions of the population distrust the results. We’ve had both major political parties suggest electoral fraud/shenanigans multiple times over the past 20 years. It’s bad stuff.
I fully agree with that. I also think it’s unhealthy for democracy when large swaths of the population feels disenfranchised, though, and there is a lot of that sort of shenanigans going on. I think the push against vote by mail is a mostly a 1)scheme to disenfranchise more voters, and 2) stir up unfounded BS about fraud.
It’s well established that high turnout favors democrats. And it’s well established that vote by mail increases turnout.
Tie any restriction to ICU capacity and only if efforts were made to expand ICU capacity
Otherwise that means the state was only pretending to care because it was easier to govern if people werent doing anything
If the state actually cares increase the ICU bandwidth or tell us the challenges encountered doing that and how those are being addressed
You’re reading what you want to read, it was worded specifically and intentionally
Its not any one of them, its the one that I am registered to vote in.
But I’m still stuck on why. What is the point in getting yourself involved in something that doesn’t affect you personally? Why is it worth getting yourself involved with someone else’s self governance?
The goal being that there would eventually be one less county and state that would consider restrictions.
But this doesn’t seem constructive so we can let this go.
E.g. “I’m from New York. If any of New York, Chicago, LA, Atlanta [etc.] shut down, I’ll move back to New York and [etc.]”
Am I correctly understanding that you intend to move to a different region for the sole purpose of voting against restrictions that otherwise would not apply to you? You’re literally trying to be a problematic immigrant.
I remember when I was in college a bunch of people did exactly this. They registered for residency in the state solely so they could vote a single issue in a state election. Specifically they registered so they could vote for Mississippi to keep the confederate flag as part of the state flag. So you’re in great company.
Honestly, isn’t the whole “state’s rights” thing about telling other people to fuck off and let them manage themselves? And here you are thinking you should meddle in someone else’s self-governance.