Mass mail in voting.

[racer254]

Do you think the post office and all the public employees working for them are for this?

[Jimmy Snacks]

Getting an absentee ballot is a simple and straightforward process as long as you’re a registered voter. It should suffice and be the only way to vote other than in person.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Jimmy Snacks

[1jkw]

11 minutes ago, racer254 said:

What is this magical scrutiny you are talking about?  Do you even know how the mailing will work?   They will be counting ballots for months after the election and they will just magically be coming in 1000's at a time, depending on which politician wants to pay more.

 

Google it,  read it for yourself. I have witnessed it first hand. Yes I do.  No, actually they can start counting ballots sooner if they are mailed in.  Ballots need to be counted for in person voting too, what makes you think it's harder to count a ballot if it's mailed in compared to done in person?  When you vote in person the ballots are counted after the poll closes.   

If you mail in your ballot and then go in person, you are given a provisional ballot, it will over ride your mail in ballot, but may not be entered in as a vote for several days depending on the size of your precinct.  So no you can't vote twice by mailing in and voting in person.

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

Because that is how the system works. And as I stated before if you have a corrupt official or officials that is where the problems are.

7 California seats the GOP held strong leads then all of a sudden they found a bunch of mail in ballots.   Election officials are part of the system.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/11/29/california-2018-midterm-elections-results-voting-republicans-1031072

[jammin]

33 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

You have zero proof this will lead to more corruption zero.  Mail in ballots get the same scrutiny that so called absentee ballots do, they are the same thing called by a different name. 

 

If you won 10K, 100K, 1M$, 500M$ etc playing the lottery would you mail in your winning ticket or would you go to the lottery redemption office with the winning ticket?  

[Voodoo]

It is an interesting debate but the bottom line is no matter how many ballots get lost. spoiled or otherwise canceled by subterfuge from either side, you get a turd sandwich.

Turd with a side of socialist dementia  or turd with a side of mental midget.

No matter who wins, y'er fucked

[Angry ginger]

19 hours ago, DriftBusta said:

Bullshit.  As others have pointed out, absentee ballots are fine.  Mail in ballots are not.

x2

[1jkw]

10 minutes ago, jammin said:

If you won 10K, 100K, 1M$, 500M$ etc playing the lottery would you mail in your winning ticket or would you go to the lottery redemption office with the winning ticket?  

Honestly that's a poor comparison, but I would take it myself.    Between my wife and I we have mailed at least  a 1/4 million in checks, and have received at least  $25000.00 in checks, and have mailed parts many states and foreign countries.

[1jkw]

25 minutes ago, Highmark said:

7 California seats the GOP held strong leads then all of a sudden they found a bunch of mail in ballots.   Election officials are part of the system.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/11/29/california-2018-midterm-elections-results-voting-republicans-1031072

 

5 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

x2

So please tell the class the difference.

[1jkw]

28 minutes ago, Highmark said:

7 California seats the GOP held strong leads then all of a sudden they found a bunch of mail in ballots.   Election officials are part of the system.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/11/29/california-2018-midterm-elections-results-voting-republicans-1031072

So when all the provisional and absentee ballots were counted they lost.  Any proof it was anything more than that? 

[Angry ginger]

7 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

So please tell the class the difference.

1 is requested by the voter and has protocols to ensure it's not fraudelent.  The other is just mailed out hoping it goes to and returned by the right person.  

[Highmark]

30 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

So please tell the class the difference.

Absentee ballots are specifically requested by the voter.   These so called "mail in ballots" go out to everyone in the voter registration.   We know voter registration rolls are extremely inaccurate.   On top of that its difficult to ballot harvest absentee ballots its not for "mail in" ballots.

Even the dems in the past have spoke of the issues with mail in ballots.   

[1jkw]

16 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

1 is requested by the voter and has protocols to ensure it's not fraudelent.  The other is just mailed out hoping it goes to and returned by the right person.  

Actually absentee ballots are issued to those who won't be in their voting district on election day, only the reason is different     The same  protocols are used for mail in ballots except for the reason and request.   Ballots are mailed out to the addresses of registered voters.

[Angry ginger]

4 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Actually absentee ballots are issued to those who won't be in their voting district on election day, only the reason is different     The same  protocols are used for mail in ballots except for the reason and request.   Ballots are mailed out to the addresses of registered voters.

the request being the key driver-  i request a ballot by completing a form which is they matched to my ballot when returned back

 

anyone who wants to vote can.  they can request a ballot absentee or go to the poll.  it would take me 3 minutes to do an absentee request-  lots of places the request can be done electronically now.  

 

 

[1jkw]

15 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Absentee ballots are specifically requested by the voter.   These so called "mail in ballots" go out to everyone in the voter registration.   We know voter registration rolls are extremely inaccurate.   On top of that its difficult to ballot harvest absentee ballots its not for "mail in" ballots.

Even the dems in the past have spoke of the issues with mail in ballots.   

 You need the ballot sent wrongly to someone who is willing to commit voter fraud, then you need the person who didn't get the ballot to either not ask why they didn't get a ballot or they go to the polls and vote by provisional ballot. Ballot harvesting, requires either breaking into the post office or running around the countryside pulling ballots from mail boxes, seriously do you think in this day and age that will happen? 

[1jkw]

4 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

the request being the key driver-  i request a ballot by completing a form which is they matched to my ballot when returned back

 

anyone who wants to vote can.  they can request a ballot absentee or go to the poll.  it would take me 3 minutes to do an absentee request-  lots of places the request can be done electronically now.  

 

 

Yes and that is the only difference, every other protocol is carried out the same way.  Electronic anything to do with voting is the most dangerous IMO.

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 You need the ballot sent wrongly to someone who is willing to commit voter fraud, then you need the person who didn't get the ballot to either not ask why they didn't get a ballot or they go to the polls and vote by provisional ballot. Ballot harvesting, requires either breaking into the post office or running around the countryside pulling ballots from mail boxes, seriously do you think in this day and age that will happen? 

That's not what ballot harvesting is (theft).   Ballot harvesting is the collection of ballots that may never been mailed back in the first place.   Any time you have a 3rd party who happens to work for a particular candidate handling ballots (going door to door to collect them) increases the chance at fraud.  

Again if the voter registration rolls are wrong and EVERYONE on those rolls gets a ballot then many could be committing voter fraud without even knowing they are doing it.

In small congressional districts it doesn't take much fraud at all to swing an election.  Again both parties in the past have been against mass mail in balloting.  

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. n More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. n Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Highmark

[Highmark]

26 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Actually absentee ballots are issued to those who won't be in their voting district on election day, only the reason is different     The same  protocols are used for mail in ballots except for the reason and request.   Ballots are mailed out to the addresses of registered voters.

And these registration rolls are highly inaccurate.  How do you catch fraud when ballots come back in that match the registration rolls even when they should not?

[1jkw]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

And these registration rolls are highly inaccurate.  How do you catch fraud when ballots come back in that match the registration rolls even when they should not?

Ever notice when you vote that the person looks at your signature even when you are standing right in front of them? And again you are taking for granted that the person who receives a ballot that isn't theirs is going to commit voter fraud, the fact is the number that are is extremely small, only about 65% of voters even vote.  

Would you yourself or do you know anyone who would commit voter fraud?  

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

Ever notice when you vote that the person looks at your signature even when you are standing right in front of them? And again you are taking for granted that the person who receives a ballot that isn't theirs is going to commit voter fraud, the fact is the number that are is extremely small, only about 65% of voters even vote.  

Would you yourself or do you know anyone who would commit voter fraud?  

No I would never commit voter fraud nor do I think I know anyone that would however you are missing my point completely.

There are millions on voter rolls that should not be.   When they get ballots and fill them out they simply might not even know they are not supposed to use that ballot.   Then you have people going door to door to collect those ballots and could fill them out for the voter.   These are not poll workers these are CAMPAIGN workers.   IF the ballot is reviewed and checked against the voter roll it appears to match the inaccurate voter registration.   The voter rolls are extremely inaccurate and it doesn't take much to swing an election.

On top of that you have corruption inside the people who handle the ballots.   You think everyone who works elections operate with integrity?    Come on man.  

Using an photo ID at the point of vote and the ballots to be counted by machines in as many cases as possible is still the most accurate method of voting.    If you can't be there fine then request a absentee ballot.   The mass mailing of ballots to everyone on the registration is ripe for inaccuracy much less fraud.   

Did you know up to 16% of absentee ballots are rejected because of people not filling them out right or some other issue.   Its not JUST about fraud.  

Edited July 13, 2020 by Highmark

[1jkw]

 

The chances of the perfect storm of campaign workers getting all these ballots from people who got them by mistake and didn't throw them out because they knew they weren't addressed to them, or that they gave the unfilled ballot freely is quite a stretch.  

I don't think all the inside workers are honest, I think most are and it is or has the possibility of being the greatest threat.  

The problem with the ID was the way it was handled, it was a blatant attempt to remove a certain group of voters from the roles, it happened in my state, they tried to make the ID so restricted that it was near impossible for some to get, as I stated in the past I had license that required a background check and finger printing and photo issued by the state of PA and it was not legal ID under the states guidelines, the idea got dropped after the first ID was asked for but not required, when the states GOP realized that the greatest number of non compliant were rural elderly staunch republicans  it went away.   

Other states tried the same thing and conservative judges ruled it was an attempt to block certain groups from voting. 

My feeling is if you can do everything else in your life with the ID you posses, it should be good enough to vote with, further a voter should be able to produce utility bills as proof of residence, that is what is needed in cases of identity theft.   

I have always voted in person never missed since I was 18, I agree it is the least likely to be tampered with from voters, not necessarily poll workers though. I also believe that voter fraud by individuals is no where near the problem it is made out to be, a 6 year college study and many court cases have proven my belief.

[Highmark]

9 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

The chances of the perfect storm of campaign workers getting all these ballots from people who got them by mistake and didn't throw them out because they knew they weren't addressed to them, or that they gave the unfilled ballot freely is quite a stretch.  

I don't think all the inside workers are honest, I think most are and it is or has the possibility of being the greatest threat.  

The problem with the ID was the way it was handled, it was a blatant attempt to remove a certain group of voters from the roles, it happened in my state, they tried to make the ID so restricted that it was near impossible for some to get, as I stated in the past I had license that required a background check and finger printing and photo issued by the state of PA and it was not legal ID under the states guidelines, the idea got dropped after the first ID was asked for but not required, when the states GOP realized that the greatest number of non compliant were rural elderly staunch republicans  it went away.   

Other states tried the same thing and conservative judges ruled it was an attempt to block certain groups from voting. 

My feeling is if you can do everything else in your life with the ID you posses, it should be good enough to vote with, further a voter should be able to produce utility bills as proof of residence, that is what is needed in cases of identity theft.   

I have always voted in person never missed since I was 18, I agree it is the least likely to be tampered with from voters, not necessarily poll workers though. I also believe that voter fraud by individuals is no where near the problem it is made out to be, a 6 year college study and many court cases have proven my belief.

Have a link to that?   

[1jkw]

35 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Have a link to that?   

You can Google, in the Pa case right after they left the court one of the REPs. said we just guaranteed Romney the win, my friend who lives just up the road was working the polls with the ID group, they were organized by the local Rep. committee, she told me in no uncertain terms she would never do that again as people who she knew from the time she was a child were very upset that they didn't have the right ID, my friend who had the same ID as I did and had no drivers license due to DUI who I met on his way out warned me about it and my friend inside told me the same. It was optional to show ID, I refused and as the other ID lady was telling me how much easier it would be the girl who I had know since she was born handed me my ballot and paper to sign, I said doesn't get much easier than this does it.  

I know the ID part and the fact that they gave up on it to be true, while I doubt they want it known the GOP controlled all three branches and didn't try it again. 

If you think the ID law was, is nothing more than an attempt to target a certain group you are completely  ignorant of the facts, that is for sure, just like limiting the number of polling places or moving them and giving them older machines was.

[Highmark]

15 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

You can Google, in the Pa case right after they left the court one of the REPs. said we just guaranteed Romney the win, my friend who lives just up the road was working the polls with the ID group, they were organized by the local Rep. committee, she told me in no uncertain terms she would never do that again as people who she knew from the time she was a child were very upset that they didn't have the right ID, my friend who had the same ID as I did and had no drivers license due to DUI who I met on his way out warned me about it and my friend inside told me the same. It was optional to show ID, I refused and as the other ID lady was telling me how much easier it would be the girl who I had know since she was born handed me my ballot and paper to sign, I said doesn't get much easier than this does it.  

I know the ID part and the fact that they gave up on it to be true, while I doubt they want it known the GOP controlled all three branches and didn't try it again. 

If you think the ID law was, is nothing more than an attempt to target a certain group you are completely  ignorant of the facts, that is for sure, just like limiting the number of polling places or moving them and giving them older machines was.

Standard ID like a drivers licenses targets exactly who? 

Seems quite prejudicial to think any specific group of people is incapable of obtaining a form of picture govt ID.  

Not sure why its so hard to have a form of ID the first time but not subsequent times.  

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Voter ID Guidance FINAL.pdf

If a voter is voting for the first time in an election district, the voter must show proof of identification, either photo or non-photo identification. Returning voters need not show any identification unless otherwise noted in the poll book

Edited July 13, 2020 by Highmark

[1jkw]

57 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Standard ID like a drivers licenses targets exactly who? 

Seems quite prejudicial to think any specific group of people is incapable of obtaining a form of picture govt ID.  

Not sure why its so hard to have a form of ID the first time but not subsequent times.  

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Voter ID Guidance FINAL.pdf

If a voter is voting for the first time in an election district, the voter must show proof of identification, either photo or non-photo identification. Returning voters need not show any identification unless otherwise noted in the poll book

Like thousands that live in the city, have no car and no need for one as they only use public transportation and the cost of just having a place to park your car is nuts, not to mention the number of older widows in my area alone who don't drive, that was a huge problem.  

It is quite prejudicial according to the judge who didn't allow it.   

The law you posted is not what they were trying to get through.  

You seem to miss the point many types of ID weren't to be permitted if the new law stood. 

Again that is the law now, not what was wanted originally.