Processing a mail ballot involves physically opening the envelope, removing the ballot, ensuring that everything matches against the records. This could not be done in a single night. There's no conspiracy, just obvious consequences of those rules when you evaluate the information critically.
But I agree, we should put aside partisan bullshit and come up with some meaningful improvements, but that will never happen as long as we have politicians who insist on trying to rig everything their way. We should be pushing for an end to gerrymandering, a way to count votes that makes it reasonable for every eligible voter to vote, assures to a reasonable degree that only eligible voters can vote, and that the count is accurate. Let me know when there's a conservative idea that actually does those things and I'll be behind it.
How anyone could state this with any particular confidence is beyond me. The truth is, when someone votes by mail, you have no idea who filled in the ballot. How could anyone possibly collect metrics? No one can possibly say what's going on, unless you trust the populace at large, which not everyone does. Many countries have systems for dealing with this. In many countries, they ink your finger to indicate you voted. Why not just do that at physical polling stations.
Honestly, mail-in ballots are very difficult for me. They get mailed to you, and by the time I finally have a chance to sit down, I often have to go searching for where it went / whether my toddler put it somewhere. On the other hand, when I voted in person, I would just go to the polling booth in the morning and be done. Super easy. I don't understand the desire for pure vote by mail.
One year, I didn't even receive my ballot, and it was difficult to get a replacement. Whereas, when I lived in CA, it didn't matter. You show up to the polling station (which is conspicuously noted), and just vote.
How do you know who filled in the ballot at the polling place? All I would need is to show up and know someone else's name and address and I could vote for them. Vote by mail isn't any worse than that and is possibly better because there's a stronger confidence that whoever filled it out actually lives at that address. As I recall from my own mail-in ballot, it is also signed by myself and a witness.
> Honestly, mail-in ballots are very difficult for me. They get mailed to you, and by the time I finally have a chance to sit down, I often have to go searching for where it went / whether my toddler put it somewhere. On the other hand, when I voted in person, I would just go to the polling booth in the morning and be done.
The poling place is open on exactly one day, and you have to wait in line for your turn. Have to go to work that day? Well, tough shit. For some people this is simple, but for quite a lot of people in overcrowded polling places and inflexible working conditions it is not. The option of a mail in ballot provides a convenience for people less privileged with the ability to make it to a polling place during a sub-24 hour window.
Notice I said option. If filling out a ballot is difficult for you, you can still do it by showing up in person.
> One year, I didn't even receive my ballot, and it was difficult to get a replacement.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Presumably by some kind of voter identification? Like the way most countries do it.
> The poling place is open on exactly one day, and you have to wait in line for your turn. Have to go to work that day? Well, tough shit. For some people this is simple, but for quite a lot of people in overcrowded polling places and inflexible working conditions it is not. The option of a mail in ballot provides a convenience for people less privileged with the ability to make it to a polling place during a sub-24 hour window.
I guess I don't get it. The polling places open at a ridiculously early hour and end at 8. You could have multi-day polling too, that's fine. I don't understand why this is so hard in this country.
> Notice I said option. If filling out a ballot is difficult for you, you can still do it by showing up in person.
No I can't because I live in Oregon, which despite being a high tax state, is unable to conduct even the most basic election.
> Perfect is the enemy of good.
It's not when we have an easy answer to this problem -- have a physical place to vote. I've voted absentee in California, and one year, my ballot got lost there. Do you know what I did? I went to a polling location. In Oregon, because it was COVID, there was no place to get a ballot. EIther you use the byzantine system set up by the state which was too complicated, or tough shit. That's not acceptable. Why aren't these 'voter suppression' tactics used in liberal states not up to questioning? Why is only the motivations of one party suspect? I don't think it is easier to vote in Oregon than any other state, despite what everyone here wants you to believe.
Ok, sure, just find a way to implement that which doesn't allow it to be abused disenfranchise voters, which is what typically happens here in the states.
> You could have multi-day polling too, that's fine. I don't understand why this is so hard in this country.
Yep, you could. No politician suggests this for some reason.
> No I can't because I live in Oregon, which despite being a high tax state, is unable to conduct even the most basic election.
Sounds like your problem is less with the concept of mail-in ballots and more with the fact that your state can't handle running a polling location.
> It's not when we have an easy answer to this problem -- have a physical place to vote.
For all the reasons I already outlined, it is not actually an easy answer.
> Why aren't these 'voter suppression' tactics used in liberal states not up to questioning?
They are. If no one is talking about it then they should make a bigger stink about it.
I mean they have a name for these people: RINOs. I think I read an article that showed that most conservatives distrust their own politicians more than liberals distrust theirs. The feeling I get is that they have a clear idea of a politician they want, but no one who believes that runs, and they feel there is a mass conspiracy to prevent people like them from running -- namely funding. That sort of thing doesn't bode well for a country's stability.
Truth is, if you continue to allege fraud, some people will stop voting. And you can push laws that restrict voting to a specific time and manner. That also reduces turnout. And it just so happens that turnout is negatively correlated with republican election victories. That is the playbook and we are watching it happen, because “just asking questions” isn’t generally being done in good faith.
Could you explain the thought with this? If the people saying "there is fraud" are Republicans, and the people believing "this is fraud" are Republicans, and subsequently they are less likely to vote, wouldn't that lead to them losing more elections, and by a larger margin?
In my experience, non-conservatives tend to believe conservatives are 'regurgitating' Tucker Carlson. Most of Carlson's audience are actually democrats. Polls show that most conservatives distrust fox news. And the whole 'bad faith' thing is a way to dismiss people. You shouldn't every think that what people are telling you is in bad faith. If you think that what someone is telling you is so preposterous as to not possibly be in good faith, perhaps you need to recalibrate as to what is normal.
> And it just so happens that turnout is negatively correlated with republican election victories.
This is increasingly not true. The democrats have kind of maxed out on their voter turnout. It turns out that they mainly have voter turnout efforts for people who will vote democrat. They've ignored the non-democrats (not their fault of course), and these are the bulk of the people who don't vote. Several South Texas districts for example have seen higher turnout amongst formerly non-voting Hispanics, and most of these are new GOP voters.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2722
So, the Democrats are the racist right-wingers, and Mitch McConnell is the progressive in this story?
Note that, on their own, paper ballots don't actually address the attack described in the article, though the bill provides funding for mechanisms that would.
There's nothing in the SAFE act that can be considered partisan, unless you assume that one of the parties is against allowing people to vote. The Republicans in the senate blocked it for two reasons:
- It is impossible to print legible ballots on recycled paper. (The recycled paper requirement in the bill could have been removed in reconciliation, even if this argument is nonsense.)
- Establishing federal standards for election machines and paper ballots would discourage states from establishing redundant standards. (Note that the opponents of the bill didn't make the stronger claim that it would prevent states from establishing stronger standards.)
The bill would provide funding for standardizing best practices around paper ballot counting. That would speed up the count and reduce election fraud.
The bill doesn't touch voter disenfranchisement, except that it includes a small amount of research funding to allow people with disabilities to vote on paper ballots without trusting a computer or divulging their vote to another person (this is currently an open problem).
It was repeatedly proposed by Democrats + fillibustered by Senate Republicans.
I don't see how any honest conversation about voting counting issues in the US can't point out that there are low-tech solutions to the exact issues you're complaining about, that the bill has been written, and that exactly one party has been blocking / fillibustering it for 3+ years (without publicly providing any legitimate complaints about the contents of the bill).