Political rants, humor, and other nonsense.

[Caballus]

I'm old, but I have been carded a number of times in the past year. Back in the good old days 5 months ago when restaurants were open I would get carded at some establishments when I ordered a beer. I think one particular establishment accidentally served a minor and got caught, so as a punishment they were required to card absolutely everyone. I don't smoke or buy ammunition or guns, so I haven't been carded for those things.

When I go to the bank they also ask for my ID. When I renew automobile tabs or transfer automobile titles I have to show an ID.

Generally when it's important to verify that you are you - ID is the way to do it.

I would like to see a voter ID requirement be national law, but state law would be better than nothing. It seems absolutely crazy to me that we don't have a law like that.

I'm not spring chicken myself--happy to compare age in a non-public discussion. Point is that you are not carded for alcohol more often than you are carded, no? Voter ID laws are controlled by states. Yours, among most others, chose either not to have them, not to enforce them, or not to require an actual picture ID--ballot is enough. Apparently, the current procedures have not proven faulty enough to warrant changing. As noted much earlier, there are a lot of deep rooted reasons for that, which cannot be ignored. Most argue that voter ID is a distraction from those deeper issues.

None of that, by the way, gets to the mail-in ballot claim that started this conversation.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

None of that, by the way, gets to the mail-in ballot claim that started this conversation.

Yeah, by mail I'm indistinguishable from anyone else of any age or race. In person it's a lot more difficult to fake it. If I have to present an ID it's really hard to pretend to be someone else.

 

[Caballus]

Yeah, by mail I'm indistinguishable from anyone else of any age or race. In person it's a lot more difficult to fake it. If I have to present an ID it's really hard to pretend to be someone else.

So, you think voting by mail should be ceased? I don't.

Edit: There is not evidence to justify infringing upon Americans' right to vote by disallowing voting by mail.

 

[Hack]

So, you think voting by mail should be ceased? I don't.

Edit: There is not evidence to justify infringing upon Americans' right to vote by disallowing voting by mail.

I think voting by mail is ok as long as it's an exception only granted when necessary.

 

[Caballus]

I think voting by mail is ok as long as it's an exception only granted when necessary.

When is it not necessary and why not?
Edit: and based on what criteria?

 

[Hack]

When is it not necessary and why not?
Edit: and based on what criteria?

I don't care to write down guidelines. What matters to me is that there should have to be some hoops to jump through for a person to be able to vote by mail. The reason why I want hoops is so that fraudulent mail-in voting isn't really easy. I also want people to have a good reason to want to vote by mail. It should be annoying enough to get a mail-in ballot that most people will do in-person voting.

 

[Gregs24]

I don't care to write down guidelines. What matters to me is that there should have to be some hoops to jump through for a person to be able to vote by mail. The reason why I want hoops is so that fraudulent mail-in voting isn't really easy. I also want people to have a good reason to want to vote by mail. It should be annoying enough to get a mail-in ballot that most people will do in-person voting.

There is an important difference between postal voting controls to avoid fraud and postal voting availability. If the system is secure then there is no reason to restrict access.

Making postal voting difficult to obtain will supress turnout - as in postal voting has been demonstrated to increase turnout in countries such as the UK. If you are supressing turnout you will be influencing the result in some way which I think is what you are trying to avoid ? Influencing the results does not automatically mean fraud, just different demographics have different voting patterns.

So Trump may fail to get re-elected because of postal voting, not because of fraud, but because more of his opposition may get to vote. Of course it could be the other way around as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting - lots more information on postal voting around the world.

 

[Caballus]

I don't care to write down guidelines. What matters to me is that there should have to be some hoops to jump through for a person to be able to vote by mail. The reason why I want hoops is so that fraudulent mail-in voting isn't really easy. I also want people to have a good reason to want to vote by mail. It should be annoying enough to get a mail-in ballot that most people will do in-person voting.

Thanks for sharing that, Hack. I must admit that I have a completely different stance. I don't think the government should ever seek to make voting difficult for citizens. I believe the exact opposite is true. The government should do everything possible to enable every citizen to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. In so doing, the government (and citizens) is also responsible to protect the integrity of the system. Whatever measures are put in place to do that have to be balanced against responsibility #1, enabling universal suffrage.

With particular regard to mail in voting, if I am at war or on the moon, I should be able to vote without jumping through hoops. If I am elderly and unable to leave my house, I should be able to vote by mail. If I am threatened by a pandemic, I should be able to vote by mail. If I have a hangnail...

Again, the government's job is to enable and secure the vote. They are not responsible for establishing some sort of crucible to ensure I really want to vote. Nor should the government ever make a system that is intentionally annoying. On the contrary, they should do everything possible to reduce the annoyances that are inherent to every bureaucratic system.

The measures in place can always be improved and improvements should be continuous. However, the current system is not broken and does not call for greater government interference.

 

[Hack]

Thanks for sharing that, Hack. I must admit that I have a completely different stance. I don't think the government should ever seek to make voting difficult for citizens. I believe the exact opposite is true. The government should do everything possible to enable every citizen to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. In so doing, the government (and citizens) is also responsible to protect the integrity of the system. Whatever measures are put in place to do that have to be balanced against responsibility #1, enabling universal suffrage.

With particular regard to mail in voting, if I am at war or on the moon, I should be able to vote without jumping through hoops. If I am elderly and unable to leave my house, I should be able to vote by mail. If I am threatened by a pandemic, I should be able to vote by mail. If I have a hangnail...

Again, the government's job is to enable and secure the vote. They are not responsible for establishing some sort of crucible to ensure I really want to vote. Nor should the government ever make a system that is intentionally annoying. On the contrary, they should do everything possible to reduce the annoyances that are inherent to every bureaucratic system.

The measures in place can always be improved and improvements should be continuous. However, the current system is not broken and does not call for greater government interference.

Your examples don't contradict what I want. I don't want it to be difficult to do mail in. I just want some hoops so some organization can't just mail in a couple million fake ballots and throw the election.

I think if you make it too easy to do a mail-in ballot there will be more fraud.

Voting is too important to prioritize ease of use over accuracy.

 

[Caballus]

Your examples don't contradict what I want. I don't want it to be difficult to do mail in. I just want some hoops so some organization can't just mail in a couple million fake ballots and throw the election.

I think if you make it too easy to do a mail-in ballot there will be more fraud.

Voting is too important to prioritize ease of use over accuracy.

Seems contradictory to want "hoops."

This sounds as though the current system is failing and nothing supports that, neither in regard to individuals nor organizations. As I said previously, I have been voting my entire adult life and only did it in person twice. The system adequately ensured that I had the right to vote, and I have to believe that my votes counted. It ain't broke...

 

[Hack]

Seems contradictory to want "hoops."

This sounds as though the current system is failing and nothing supports that, neither in regard to individuals nor organizations. As I said previously, I have been voting my entire adult life and only did it in person twice. The system adequately ensured that I had the right to vote, and I have to believe that my votes counted. It ain't broke...

I don't think the current mail in system is a problem. Most people vote in person unless they have a reason to do mail in. Because there currently are some hoops to do mail in. I just don't think having every single person do mail in is a good idea. I think it's a terrible idea in fact. It would be a broken system if that happened. And the voters would no longer have any semblance of control.

I would for sure like voters to have to show an ID. Seems like a minimum requirement to me. Unless someone prefers for it to be easy to cheat, I don't see the issue.

 

[Caballus]

I don't think the current mail in system is a problem. Most people vote in person unless they have a reason to do mail in. Because there currently are some hoops to do mail in. I just don't think having every single person do mail in is a good idea. I think it's a terrible idea in fact. It would be a broken system if that happened. And the voters would no longer have any semblance of control.

I would for sure like voters to have to show an ID. Seems like a minimum requirement to me. Unless someone prefers for it to be easy to cheat, I don't see the issue.

What hoops are you referring to? I have never jumped through a hoop to vote, and I vote only by mail and it is very well controlled.

Additionally, nearly all states allow mail in voting without hoops. What indicators are there that something is broken or would break if more people voted by mail? It seems that we are reacting to a fictitious scenario that results in voter suppression, albeit unintentional suppression. Consider the following:
· 33 states and the District of Columbia allow early voting with no-excuse required.
· 27 states and the District of Columbia permit voters to vote absentee without requiring an excuse.
· 20 states permit voters to vote via absentee ballots but require an excuse.
· 6 states and the District of Columbia allow voters to request 'Permanent Absentee Status'.
· 5 states (Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii) conduct their elections completely by mail.

In my world, we operate off "mission type orders." In this case the mission is to "ensure anyone who wants to vote via mail can do so." The guidance is "ensure the system does not increase fraud and that you do not infringe upon our Citizens' Constitutional rights." Let me know what resources you need and backbrief me on the implementation plan no later than XXX.

Simple--no drama.

 

[Hack]

What hoops are you referring to? I have never jumped through a hoop to vote, and I vote only by mail and it is very well controlled.

Wrong. You had to do something to get the mail in ballot.

 

[Caballus]

Wrong. You had to do something to get the mail in ballot.

That something was not jump through a hoop. My knees would know if I did. So, if you are talking about the process for me getting and mailing my ballot, you are talking about the process that is already in effect. No changes required. Simple--no drama.

 

[Bikeman315]

Sponsored