A Sensible Article on the Procedures of Voting and Vote Counting

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's too late for this year, but these common sense rules should be applied going forward:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/527501-and-the-2020-winner-is-dangerous-distrust

This resulting chaos from mass mail-in ballots cannot be permitted to occur again. Yet, Democratic leaders believe otherwise: They want to expand mail-in voting for future elections, even in a post-COVID-vaccine world.

But Election Day is called that – a “day” – for a reason. So, let's take it a step further, by making it a national holiday to allow more people to vote in-person. When going to the polls (which should open at 6 a.m. and stay open until 9 p.m. in every state), an identification should be required; we don't get to board a plane, drive a car, enter our kid's schools or buy liquor without one. Expand the number of voting locations, particularly in urban areas, to avoid long lines and, by extension, allegations of voting suppression.

As for mail-in ballots, they should continue — but only for those over 65, those with health problems that may prevent them from physically going to the polls and military service members. 

All votes from early voting also should be counted on or before Election Day. One big reason for the Trump lead evaporating for days after Nov. 3 was the befuddling rule, in states such as Pennsylvania, to start counting early and mail-in votes only after the polls closed. And North Carolina allowed mail-in votes to be accepted until Nov. 12.

I'm not particularly opposed to the concept of in-person Early Voting.  I've utilized this for over a decade.  But a 40 day early voting period is ridiculous. 

[Virginiá]

[...]

All votes from early voting also should be counted on or before Election Day. One big reason for the Trump lead evaporating for days after Nov. 3 was the befuddling rule, in states such as Pennsylvania, to start counting early and mail-in votes only after the polls closed. And North Carolina allowed mail-in votes to be accepted until Nov. 12.

I'm not particularly opposed to the concept of in-person Early Voting.  I've utilized this for over a decade.  But a 40 day early voting period is ridiculous. 

Democrats tried to get Republicans to agree to allow counting much earlier in MI/PA so we could avoid this, but Republican lawmakers refused to budge. Why is the Republican Party's resistance to conducting competent elections justification to significantly curtail mail voting?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing voters to send in their ballots via mail. The vote counting issue can easily be solved without doing away with the practice.

[Kingpoleon]

Alternatively, we could count ballots when they are received. The Republican opposition to this was built expressly upon the idea of casting doubt on the legitimacy of a loss.

“All votes from early voting also should be counted on or before Election Day. One big reason for the Trump lead evaporating for days after Nov. 3 was the befuddling rule, in states such as Pennsylvania, to start counting early and mail-in votes only after the polls closed.”

This rule was decided by a Republican legislature. Why did they oppose counting mail in and early votes early? If not to doubt the legitimacy of a loss, then why?

[Fuzzy Bear]

[...]

All votes from early voting also should be counted on or before Election Day. One big reason for the Trump lead evaporating for days after Nov. 3 was the befuddling rule, in states such as Pennsylvania, to start counting early and mail-in votes only after the polls closed. And North Carolina allowed mail-in votes to be accepted until Nov. 12.

I'm not particularly opposed to the concept of in-person Early Voting.  I've utilized this for over a decade.  But a 40 day early voting period is ridiculous. 

Democrats tried to get Republicans to agree to allow counting much earlier in MI/PA so we could avoid this, but Republican lawmakers refused to budge. Why is the Republican Party's resistance to conducting competent elections justification to significantly curtail mail voting?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing voters to send in their ballots via mail. The vote counting issue can easily be solved without doing away with the practice.

Mail-in balloting is rife for fraud.  Democrats themselves were saying this before they determined that it was in their best interest to push it. 

In-person voting is the surest way to ensure the validity of an election. 

[Virginiá]

Mail-in balloting is rife for fraud.  Democrats themselves were saying this before they determined that it was in their best interest to push it. 

If it's so rife with fraud, why can't Republicans provide any evidence of such? I keep hearing this over and over and over again, and yet whenever the time comes to put up, such as in a court of law contesting the results of an election which is claimed to be "rife" with fraud, there is nothing of substance? So little even that conservative judges who are very open to the idea can't stomach proceeding?

This entire debate is conservatives saying "we just know there is fraud!" to a crowd of people responding, "ok, well, show us what you have and we'll take a look." And yet, nothing but crickets.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Mail-in balloting is rife for fraud.  Democrats themselves were saying this before they determined that it was in their best interest to push it. 

If it's so rife with fraud, why can't Republicans provide any evidence of such? I keep hearing this over and over and over again, and yet whenever the time comes to put up, such as in a court of law contesting the results of an election which is claimed to be "rife" with fraud, there is nothing of substance? So little even that conservative judges who are very open to the idea can't stomach proceeding?

This entire debate is conservatives saying "we just know there is fraud!" to a crowd of people responding, "ok, well, show us what you have and we'll take a look."

The process of doing so is going on.

Of course, election officials have made it impossible to verify signatures of questionable mail-in ballots after the fact.  There are affidavits of individuals backdating the postmarks on mail-in ballots.  There are huge numbers of ballots in one state with only the Presidential choice made; these things are suspicious on their face.  Mail-in opens up the greater possibility of stuffing ballot boxes, and this is ratcheted up with the practice of ballot-harvesting.

In-person voting EXPONENTIALLY ensures that (A) it's the voter him/herself that's voting, (B) that their vote is not unduly influenced, and (C) it is harder to add to or subtract from the actual number of votes cast.  This is a no-brainer.  And I say this as a person with experience as a poll watcher, poll challenger, and a person who has challenged signatures on nominating petitions of opposing candidates.

[Virginiá]

The thing is, it's not about things just being "suspicious." And I seriously doubt if an election has hundreds of thousands or even millions of fraudulent ballots, that the entire operation to do this is going to leave no evidence. Humans being humans, there will be lots of incredibly dumb mistakes. See fraud in 2018's NC-09 election.

If Republicans are willing and able to put up robust evidence of this mass voter/election fraud, I'd be more open to restrictions, and I say this as someone whose primary issues are election reform. But, until then, significantly restricting voting as it exists now just based on feelings, literal fake news and/or baseless theories is just not going to fly. It's not unlike my resistance to various gun control proposals. Show me it'll solve the problem in question. In this case, show me the problem is actually a problem in the first place.

Then again, surely we can trade policies. Restrict vote by mail in exchange for nationwide rollout of all the aforementioned policies, plus same-day voter registration (for people with valid IDs), along with partisan gerrymandering reform.

[SteveRogers]

Mail-in balloting is rife for fraud.  Democrats themselves were saying this before they determined that it was in their best interest to push it. 

If it's so rife with fraud, why can't Republicans provide any evidence of such? I keep hearing this over and over and over again, and yet whenever the time comes to put up, such as in a court of law contesting the results of an election which is claimed to be "rife" with fraud, there is nothing of substance? So little even that conservative judges who are very open to the idea can't stomach proceeding?

This entire debate is conservatives saying "we just know there is fraud!" to a crowd of people responding, "ok, well, show us what you have and we'll take a look."

The process of doing so is going on.

Of course, election officials have made it impossible to verify signatures of questionable mail-in ballots after the fact.  There are affidavits of individuals backdating the postmarks on mail-in ballots.  There are huge numbers of ballots in one state with only the Presidential choice made; these things are suspicious on their face.  Mail-in opens up the greater possibility of stuffing ballot boxes, and this is ratcheted up with the practice of ballot-harvesting.

In-person voting EXPONENTIALLY ensures that (A) it's the voter him/herself that's voting, (B) that their vote is not unduly influenced, and (C) it is harder to add to or subtract from the actual number of votes cast.  This is a no-brainer.  And I say this as a person with experience as a poll watcher, poll challenger, and a person who has challenged signatures on nominating petitions of opposing candidates.

You understand that your guy’s lawsuits are routinely being laughed out of court, right? Or do you really believe it every time Trump retweets that the next lawsuit (which is coming really soon) is definitely going to be the one that exposes the massive fraud?

[Benjamin Frank]

Mail-in balloting is rife for fraud.  Democrats themselves were saying this before they determined that it was in their best interest to push it.  

If it's so rife with fraud, why can't Republicans provide any evidence of such? I keep hearing this over and over and over again, and yet whenever the time comes to put up, such as in a court of law contesting the results of an election which is claimed to be "rife" with fraud, there is nothing of substance? So little even that conservative judges who are very open to the idea can't stomach proceeding?

This entire debate is conservatives saying "we just know there is fraud!" to a crowd of people responding, "ok, well, show us what you have and we'll take a look."

The process of doing so is going on.

Of course, election officials have made it impossible to verify signatures of questionable mail-in ballots after the fact.  There are affidavits of individuals backdating the postmarks on mail-in ballots.  There are huge numbers of ballots in one state with only the Presidential choice made; these things are suspicious on their face.  Mail-in opens up the greater possibility of stuffing ballot boxes, and this is ratcheted up with the practice of ballot-harvesting.

In-person voting EXPONENTIALLY ensures that (A) it's the voter him/herself that's voting, (B) that their vote is not unduly influenced, and (C) it is harder to add to or subtract from the actual number of votes cast.  This is a no-brainer.  And I say this as a person with experience as a poll watcher, poll challenger, and a person who has challenged signatures on nominating petitions of opposing candidates.

You understand that your guy’s lawsuits are routinely being laughed out of court, right? Or do you really believe it every time Trump retweets that the next lawsuit (which is coming really soon) is definitely going to be the one that exposes the massive fraud?

As far as I can tell, Fuzzy has never believed that he's had to provide actual evidence to back up his assertions.

[pbrower2a]

[...]

All votes from early voting also should be counted on or before Election Day. One big reason for the Trump lead evaporating for days after Nov. 3 was the befuddling rule, in states such as Pennsylvania, to start counting early and mail-in votes only after the polls closed. And North Carolina allowed mail-in votes to be accepted until Nov. 12.

I'm not particularly opposed to the concept of in-person Early Voting.  I've utilized this for over a decade.  But a 40 day early voting period is ridiculous. 

Democrats tried to get Republicans to agree to allow counting much earlier in MI/PA so we could avoid this, but Republican lawmakers refused to budge. Why is the Republican Party's resistance to conducting competent elections justification to significantly curtail mail voting?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing voters to send in their ballots via mail. The vote counting issue can easily be solved without doing away with the practice.

Mail-in balloting is rife for fraud.  Democrats themselves were saying this before they determined that it was in their best interest to push it. 

In-person voting is the surest way to ensure the validity of an election. 

Voters must register, which can establish that they are eligible to vote (residency rules, not being disqualified for non-citizenship or criminal records, and of course death). In my community, I went to the voter registrar to seek to remove a deceased father's eligibility to vote by showing a death certificate. I was told that the registrar had deleted my father's registration after seeing his obituary. Had a vote come in supposedly from him it would have been disqualified. 

During a pandemic, in-person voting only would have ensured very low participation at the polls. Just think of how bad things would get if such grossly distorted the electoral results and given us a President extremely unpopular . 

[jimrtex]

It's too late for this year, but these common sense rules should be applied going forward:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/527501-and-the-2020-winner-is-dangerous-distrust

This resulting chaos from mass mail-in ballots cannot be permitted to occur again. Yet, Democratic leaders believe otherwise: They want to expand mail-in voting for future elections, even in a post-COVID-vaccine world.

But Election Day is called that – a “day” – for a reason. So, let's take it a step further, by making it a national holiday to allow more people to vote in-person. When going to the polls (which should open at 6 a.m. and stay open until 9 p.m. in every state), an identification should be required; we don't get to board a plane, drive a car, enter our kid's schools or buy liquor without one. Expand the number of voting locations, particularly in urban areas, to avoid long lines and, by extension, allegations of voting suppression.

As for mail-in ballots, they should continue — but only for those over 65, those with health problems that may prevent them from physically going to the polls and military service members. 

All votes from early voting also should be counted on or before Election Day. One big reason for the Trump lead evaporating for days after Nov. 3 was the befuddling rule, in states such as Pennsylvania, to start counting early and mail-in votes only after the polls closed. And North Carolina allowed mail-in votes to be accepted until Nov. 12.

I'm not particularly opposed to the concept of in-person Early Voting.  I've utilized this for over a decade.  But a 40 day early voting period is ridiculous. 

Mail voting can not be verified.

(1) Issue Federal ID to all citizens and permanent residents. ID's could be used for employment purposes, and making sure Social Security, PPP, and Medicare Payments are made to living persons. Once the Fair Tax is implemented, it would ensure tax credits were paid.

(2) Federal ID would be used in conjunction with the census to locate all residents. In addition, it could be used to count overseas citizens not-affiliated with government for apportionment purposes. These citizens may vote for representatives but are excluded from determining the number of representatives.

(3) Federal ID would serve as automatic voter registration. When an address was updated, registration would be moved to the new location.

(4) Voting would be in person on election day(s). If held over two days, all voters would not be permitted to work for both days (employers could designate which day).

(5) Election precincts would be limited to 500 persons (lesser for more densely populated areas).

(6) Federal elections would be separate from state elections. Voting would be by paper ballot, one ballot per race to facilitate hand counting. One marking device per precinct would be available for those with mobility, visual, language or other disabilities.

(7) Curbside voting would be provided for those with mobility problems. For those confined to home or other facility, election workers would go to them.

(8) For those overseas or away from home, remote voting locations would be provided in embassies, consulates, and military bases overseas, capitals and courthouses in the United States. A voter would go to the remote facility, present an ID, and ballots would be generated. These would be securely returned to the United States for counting.

(9) Ballots would be counted in-person following close of voting. Counted ballots would be returned to county election officials in case of a need for auditing. Election workers would be selected in a manner akin to jury duty.

(10) Postcards would be sent to all voters informing them of the upcoming election.

(11) Primaries for Congress would be held one month prior to general election day. Candidates would qualify by presenting 300 voters at courthouses (300 x number of districts for Senator). A processing fee of $10 would also be paid. A candidate who receives a majority of the vote would be elected in a primary. Otherwise, candidates receiving a cumulative of 80% would advance to the general election, where a majority would be required.

(12) Immigration would be limited to 13% of each single-year age cohort. As limits are approached, annual limits would be reduced. For ages over the limit, minimal net increases would be permitted.

(13) Employment-based visas would include a significant tax and require health care coverage.

(14) Unauthorized aliens who have been present in the United States for five or more years would pay a fine ($5000 per year as well as back taxes) and be granted temporary status. If they can identify employers, the employer would be liable for a doubled fine.

(15) Immigrants would be selected by citizen juries. Juries would be randomly selected in randomly selected geographically areas. X candidates would be presented to jurors, who would choose Y applicants by PAV (proportional approval voting). Applicants would be eligible for 12 monthly panels.

(16) Unauthorized aliens who have been converted to temporary status (14) will be eligible for conversion to permanent resident status under (15), otherwise be subject to the fees under (13).