Voter suppresion/"stealing the election" megathread

[compucomp]

I've said this before, but Democrats really should have been organizing large scale "Honor the Vote" protests. We only hear the MAGA voices and Trump insisting the election was stolen and it could easily reach (maybe already reached?) a point where it distorts public opinion. There needs to be a public reminder that Biden won the freaking election and that the will of the American people must be respected.

There were 600 people arrested in Minneapolis on election night when it looked like Trump would be re-elected.

Where's the proof?
 

600+ arrested on I-94 in Minneapolis while protesting Trump’s election threats

More misinformation, posted on Nov. 4 at 10:13pm when it was clear that Biden was on track to win. They were protesting Trump's threats to challenge the election. Try again.

[MATTROSE94]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

[jimrtex]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

Congress could, or governors can.

[Devils30]

And they didn't! Donald is gone in 6 weeks, face it.

[Hammy]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

Congress could, or governors can.

If you're trying to make a false equivalency with the primary dates, primaries are run entirely by the states There is no federally mandated date by which they must be held, nor a requirement that they actually hold one at all--it would be 100% legal (even if unpopular) for a state to simply hold a party convention without a caucus or primary.

However, as per the constitution, only Congress has the power to delay a federal election.

[jimrtex]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

Congress could, or governors can.

If you're trying to make a false equivalency with the primary dates, primaries are run entirely by the states There is no federally mandated date by which they must be held, nor a requirement that they actually hold one at all--it would be 100% legal (even if unpopular) for a state to simply hold a party convention without a caucus or primary.

However, as per the constitution, only Congress has the power to delay a federal election.

That is nonsense.

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

[Hammy]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

Congress could, or governors can.

If you're trying to make a false equivalency with the primary dates, primaries are run entirely by the states There is no federally mandated date by which they must be held, nor a requirement that they actually hold one at all--it would be 100% legal (even if unpopular) for a state to simply hold a party convention without a caucus or primary.

However, as per the constitution, only Congress has the power to delay a federal election.

That is nonsense.

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

That has literally nothing to do with my reply--it's laying out procedure if the slate of electors is not chosen in time--it has nothing to do with the primary or whether a governor can delay the election itself.

[Crumpets]

Jimrtex, if we did it your way and had all votes in-person where a poll worker verified the signatures in real-time, we would still have no recourse if someone wanted to challenge the signatures later on because those signatures are not tied to specific ballots. It's an inevitable consequence of having a secret ballot that we will never be able to look at a ballot and get its "metadata" so to speak. If you trust poll workers at voting booths, why do you not trust poll workers at mail-in voting centers?

And I'll also note that signature verification is not just a rubber stamp even in heavily blue states. I myself have had to cure a ballot I cast in all-mail Washington before this election because my signature had changed too much since I turned 18. We have a system that works and it sure seems like all you don't like about it is the outcome of this particular election.

[GeorgiaModerate]

National Review has come out against the Texas lawsuit calling it “frivolous” and highly unlikely to go anywhere. If that’s true (and I’m assuming it is but too lazy to read the article because I just don’t care anymore), it blows my mind that this many attorneys general would go along with it.

Attorney general is often the last step before a run for governor or senate. Stunts like this pump up the base.

Only in today's Republican Party would "Tried to overthrow a legitimate election" be a positive bullet point on a resume.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1336889123819446272

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yep, now all that's left is the Texas turbokraken (leviathan?). Likely within the next twenty-four hours that will be slain too and then we can all sleep till Monday.

[Wiz in Wis]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

Congress could, or governors can.

No, Governor's cannot change FEDERAL election days, dummy.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337040387349893121

More:

How can you give an election to someone who lost the election by hundreds of thousands of legal votes in each of the swing states. How can a country be run by an illegitimate president?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337040883988959232

How does Governor @BrianKempGA allow certification of votes without verifying signatures and despite the recently released tape of ballots being stuffed? His poll numbers have dropped like a rock. He is finished as governor! @RepDougCollins

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337041669368258565

“Donald Trump won by a landslide, and they stole it from him!” @seanhannity

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042201738612736

“People are upset, and they have a right to be. Georgia not only supported Trump in 2016, but now. This is the only State in the Deep South that went for Biden? Have they lost their minds? This is going to escalate dramatically. This is a very dangerous moment in our history....
...The fact that our Country is being stolen. A coup is taking place in front of our eyes, and the public can’t take this anymore.” A Trump fan at Georgia Rally on @OANN Bad!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042714924380166

[compucomp]

snipped Trump tweets

What will Trump say when the Supreme Court smacks him down again? Will he give up and stop his "election fraud" ranting? Will he switch to pressuring electors or asking Congress to use the Electoral Count Act to overturn the election? Or will he start calling for a (real) coup, possibly demanding that his militias rise up and overthrow the corrupt deep state? Perhaps he might call for the 18 states that supported the lawsuit to declare their independence, upon which he will gladly serve as their God-Emperor for Life?

[Horus]

snipped Trump tweets

What will Trump say when the Supreme Court smacks him down again? Will he give up and stop his "election fraud" ranting? Will he switch to pressuring electors or asking Congress to use the Electoral Count Act to overturn the election? Or will he start calling for a (real) coup, possibly demanding that his militias rise up and overthrow the corrupt deep state? Perhaps he might call for the 18 states that supported the lawsuit to declare their independence, upon which he will gladly serve as their God-Emperor for Life?

He will pressure electors and state legislatures.

[compucomp]

snipped Trump tweets

What will Trump say when the Supreme Court smacks him down again? Will he give up and stop his "election fraud" ranting? Will he switch to pressuring electors or asking Congress to use the Electoral Count Act to overturn the election? Or will he start calling for a (real) coup, possibly demanding that his militias rise up and overthrow the corrupt deep state? Perhaps he might call for the 18 states that supported the lawsuit to declare their independence, upon which he will gladly serve as their God-Emperor for Life?

He will pressure electors and state legislatures.

The ship on that will soon sail and will be out of the harbor next Monday when the electors vote. What then?

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337040387349893121

More:

How can you give an election to someone who lost the election by hundreds of thousands of legal votes in each of the swing states. How can a country be run by an illegitimate president?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337040883988959232

How does Governor @BrianKempGA allow certification of votes without verifying signatures and despite the recently released tape of ballots being stuffed? His poll numbers have dropped like a rock. He is finished as governor! @RepDougCollins

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337041669368258565

“Donald Trump won by a landslide, and they stole it from him!” @seanhannity

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042201738612736

“People are upset, and they have a right to be. Georgia not only supported Trump in 2016, but now. This is the only State in the Deep South that went for Biden? Have they lost their minds? This is going to escalate dramatically. This is a very dangerous moment in our history....
...The fact that our Country is being stolen. A coup is taking place in front of our eyes, and the public can’t take this anymore.” A Trump fan at Georgia Rally on @OANN Bad!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042714924380166

There's a lot that I want to say, but to sum it up: getting MIGHTY sick of this. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

snipped Trump tweets

What will Trump say when the Supreme Court smacks him down again? Will he give up and stop his "election fraud" ranting? Will he switch to pressuring electors or asking Congress to use the Electoral Count Act to overturn the election? Or will he start calling for a (real) coup, possibly demanding that his militias rise up and overthrow the corrupt deep state? Perhaps he might call for the 18 states that supported the lawsuit to declare their independence, upon which he will gladly serve as their God-Emperor for Life?

He will pressure electors and state legislatures.

The ship on that will soon sail and will be out of the harbor next Monday when the electors vote. What then?

Electoral Count Act funny business.

[compucomp]

snipped Trump tweets

What will Trump say when the Supreme Court smacks him down again? Will he give up and stop his "election fraud" ranting? Will he switch to pressuring electors or asking Congress to use the Electoral Count Act to overturn the election? Or will he start calling for a (real) coup, possibly demanding that his militias rise up and overthrow the corrupt deep state? Perhaps he might call for the 18 states that supported the lawsuit to declare their independence, upon which he will gladly serve as their God-Emperor for Life?

He will pressure electors and state legislatures.

The ship on that will soon sail and will be out of the harbor next Monday when the electors vote. What then?

Electoral Count Act funny business.

On its face that wouldn't faze me at all because there is zero chance any House Democrat would vote to reject Biden electors. However, at this stage, who knows if the "funny business" means that suddenly 11 Democratic Congressmen-elect will "commit suicide" having "shot themselves in the back of the head 3 times"...

[HisGrace]

An election turning out differently than the prior one is not evidence of fraud and that's all their argument has been reduced to at this point. I don't recall any of these concerns being raised by anyone on the right last time when Clinton considerably underperformed Obama. You have to have some kind of diagnosable intellectual disability to actually take this seriously.

[Devils30]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337040387349893121

More:

How can you give an election to someone who lost the election by hundreds of thousands of legal votes in each of the swing states. How can a country be run by an illegitimate president?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337040883988959232

How does Governor @BrianKempGA allow certification of votes without verifying signatures and despite the recently released tape of ballots being stuffed? His poll numbers have dropped like a rock. He is finished as governor! @RepDougCollins

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337041669368258565

“Donald Trump won by a landslide, and they stole it from him!” @seanhannity

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042201738612736

“People are upset, and they have a right to be. Georgia not only supported Trump in 2016, but now. This is the only State in the Deep South that went for Biden? Have they lost their minds? This is going to escalate dramatically. This is a very dangerous moment in our history....
...The fact that our Country is being stolen. A coup is taking place in front of our eyes, and the public can’t take this anymore.” A Trump fan at Georgia Rally on @OANN Bad!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042714924380166

There's a lot that I want to say, but to sum it up: getting MIGHTY sick of this. 

I hate to say it but we're doing to get a violent incident relating to these GOP thugs at some point. Trump and his enablers/kids will be as responsible as anyone.

[jimrtex]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

Congress could, or governors can.

If you're trying to make a false equivalency with the primary dates, primaries are run entirely by the states There is no federally mandated date by which they must be held, nor a requirement that they actually hold one at all--it would be 100% legal (even if unpopular) for a state to simply hold a party convention without a caucus or primary.

However, as per the constitution, only Congress has the power to delay a federal election.

That is nonsense.

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

That has literally nothing to do with my reply--it's laying out procedure if the slate of electors is not chosen in time--it has nothing to do with the primary or whether a governor can delay the election itself.

I apologize. I was not responding to your wildly false conjecture that my reply had anything to do with a primary. Please wipe "primary" out of your fertile imagination.

I was responding to the part of your reply where you had bolded "or governors can".

But in fact a state legislature may provide for a procedure in cases where an election can not be held on the day set by Congress, and they may delegate immediate authority to the governor. There is a similar provision for congressional elections. In 2008, Louisiana delayed a congressional election because Hurricane Gustav made it unsafe to hold an election.

You may wish to review the history of 3 USC 2 from its previous versions enacted in the 1840s.

[jimrtex]

Jimrtex, if we did it your way and had all votes in-person where a poll worker verified the signatures in real-time, we would still have no recourse if someone wanted to challenge the signatures later on because those signatures are not tied to specific ballots. It's an inevitable consequence of having a secret ballot that we will never be able to look at a ballot and get its "metadata" so to speak. If you trust poll workers at voting booths, why do you not trust poll workers at mail-in voting centers?

And I'll also note that signature verification is not just a rubber stamp even in heavily blue states. I myself have had to cure a ballot I cast in all-mail Washington before this election because my signature had changed too much since I turned 18. We have a system that works and it sure seems like all you don't like about it is the outcome of this particular election.

When I voted, I presented my driver's license to the election clerk, who had me pull down my mask so she could see my full face. I was asked to verify my address, and I signed the vote registry. She didn't verify my signature. I suppose if I wasn't who I said I was, that the signature could be used in my trial for vote fraud and/or perjury.

In Texas, there is no right to secrecy for unlawfully cast ballots. You may be compelled to reveal who you "voted" for (since it was unlawful, it was not actually a vote).

Note in Texas you may be able to vote a limited ballot if you have moved before an election. The purpose of the question about my address was to make sure I voted the correct ballot, not that it was part of the ID check.

In my complete scheme, there would be federal IDs. Your registration would be automatically updated when you moved, even between states. People would be more likely to update this address than a driver's license. I assume you would be in favor of automatic voter registration.

You would thus also have control against double voting.

During in-person voting poll watchers would also be able to watch the process. In earlier times (and present times in North Dakota) there was not voter registration. You would simply appear at the polls and announce that you are Tia Anne Crumpets. Your neighbors would recognize you or not. If you were new in the area there might be further questioning. Note that when the uniform presidential election date was introduced in the 1840s, part of the rationale was to curb the practice of pipelining where voters might cross state lines to vote multiple times.

Voting would return to being a community event held in public view.

Voting would be on simple ballots, one per office. Voters would fill out the ballot at voting stations that would consist of a horizontal writing surface, and vertical privacy wings (cardboard, wood, or other opaque material). They would drop the complete ballot in the ballot box.

At the end of the election day, the ballots would be counted, again in full view of the public. There would be a cross-check that the number of ballots equals the number of voters. Even if there was some sort of cheating, it would be compartmentalized to the voting precinct.

[jimrtex]

Why not check them again to give assurance that everything was done correctly.

Because 1) you can’t. As already discussed, the ballots are separated from the envelopes at this point, and 2) if you give a conspiracy theorist a cookie, they’ll want a glass of milk.

If voting was done in person on paper ballots (one per office), after voters showed ID, and were counted in the precinct on election night, we would have known on November 3 who was elected.

Why would knowing the result on November 3rd be more important than ensuring voting was widely accessible during a pandemic?

What you are saying is that there is now a pile of ballots where there was not a complete chain of custody from the time someone marked the ballot. We don't know whether anyone was influenced to vote.

In 2018, while I was voting, an elderly couple was voting, and the husband was assisting his wife (I think she had vision problems - I was listening while I was voting). The election judge was administering the oath to the husband. In Texas, an assistant can not make suggestions or guess how to vote ("You want Biden for President, right?"). But in this case, the assistance can at least be observed. The election judge was careful not to give the voting slip to the husband before his wife had finished voting. A voting slip has a code that is entered into a voting machine that ensures that voter is authorized to vote and the correct ballot style is presented. It is time limited, so the husband was not given his at the same time he was assisting.

What I am saying that is voting is in person, the process can be observed. Identity of voters could be verified. The ballot box would be fully in view throughout the day. Ballots would be counted by hand. The ballots would be placed in stacks and the stacks counted. The ballot count would be recorded and signed by all observers. The ballots would be secured and take to a central location in case a recount was necessary.

We would also know what the voters wanted on November 3, not in early October.

If there was a health risk of in-person voting, delay the election.

Go to h*ll you crazy b@$%@$d! A President cannot unilaterally delay an election under US law.

Congress could, or governors can.

No, Governor's cannot change FEDERAL election days, dummy.

Governors (if authorized by the legislature) can override federal election days if conditions prevent safe conduct of an election. See 2008 congressional election in Louisiana.

[Non Swing Voter]

Reminder: people like jimrtex are the reason we have voting rights laws and why it's necessary to have an even stronger Voting Rights Act.