Should we adopt Mail-in voting?

[Narland]

No. Too corrupt and prone to cheating. France had to find out the hard way.

Go back to handheld size paper ballots on one single election day that can be counted at the precinct within a couple of hours. The ballots can be counted in plain sight on open tables and recorded from 30 different angles. Everyone can view, check, and recheck the tabulation stack -- democrat, republican, libertarian, green, constitutionalist et al. to their satisfaction. Those that have a legitimate reason -- for example, they are in the hospital, overseas, enlisted, or incarcerated get absentee ballots. That way people who are too lazy to take the responsibility for themselves to vote in person cannot have their votes harvested by fraudsters.

Check the voter rolls early and often so that the criminals in our midst do not harvest the votes of the deceased, those who are no longer residents, those who are foreigners, and those who have ceded their right to vote. In the most corrupt precincts such as found in parts of Chicago and Philadelphia have the people vote with their thumbs dipped in permanent ink so they cannot vote more than once, and have duly constituted and deputized investigators ready to track down and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone unlawfully subverting the system. A felony charge and 5 years for each volitional act is what is on the books. .

If you have proof of mass fraud with mail in ballots or early voting would you kindly share it?

Counting ballots by hand could take or weeks.

Not if you do it right. If it takes weeks to count the old ibm sized ballot cards, you are doing it wrong.
First paper is free, the rest will cost you.
Crime Prevention_Research_Center_-_Why_Do_Most_Countries

[Necroghastia]

So, Mail in voting. A huge topic, especially during election years If your registered and have access to a postal service, you get sent a ballot. Sign on what you want to vote for and mail it back. Pretty simple. This practice has been set up in an almost all mail in voting practice in 7 US states, with Vermont adopting it in general elections and DC might adopt it in the future, though 4 states has restricted mail-in voting. Outside the United States, Germany, Canada, Poland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Austria had adopted mail-in voting on demand with many more adopting it in some form.

Mail-in voting has several advantages against in-person voting. Advantages, for example simpler, more convenient voting, waiting less time to vote for a candidate, helping with increases in voting turnout, and in Colorado where Mail-In voting was introduced, deters more extremists, participation, and an survey of 1,500 Coloradoans, most reported that they were satisfied with the voting practice and it showed that Mail-In voting in Colorado actually saved money. On the other hand, ballots could be discarded or damaged before they can be counted intentionally, less accessible to communities without mailboxes, complications with deadlines are there, and it can be confusing, for example assuming if your vote will be counted, or if you might request it.

So, do you think that we should adopt mail-in voting? Personally, yes, I think we should adopt mail in voting. Voting should be free and fair, and should be convenient to the voter, with little pressure on them, and should be a quick ballot in and go. Some of the benefits of mail-in voting could be in dire need (depends on location) and could help to yield more free and fair elections.

No. Too corrupt and prone to cheating. France had to find out the hard way.

Go back to handheld size paper ballots on one single election day that can be counted at the precinct within a couple of hours. The ballots can be counted in plain sight on open tables and recorded from 30 different angles. Everyone can view, check, and recheck the tabulation stack -- democrat, republican, libertarian, green, constitutionalist et al. to their satisfaction. Those that have a legitimate reason -- for example, they are in the hospital, overseas, enlisted, or incarcerated get absentee ballots. That way people who are too lazy to take the responsibility for themselves to vote in person cannot have their votes harvested by fraudsters.

Check the voter rolls early and often so that the criminals in our midst do not harvest the votes of the deceased, those who are no longer residents, those who are foreigners, and those who have ceded their right to vote. In the most corrupt precincts such as found in parts of Chicago and Philadelphia have the people vote with their thumbs dipped in permanent ink so they cannot vote more than once, and have duly constituted and deputized investigators ready to track down and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone unlawfully subverting the system. A felony charge and 5 years for each volitional act is what is on the books. .

You wouldn't happen to have any actual data that points toward such a system being more reliable, would you?

[San Lumen]

If you have proof of mass fraud with mail in ballots or early voting would you kindly share it?

Counting ballots by hand could take or weeks.

Not if you do it right. If it takes weeks to count the old ibm sized ballot cards, you are doing it wrong.
First paper is free, the rest will cost you.
Crime Prevention_Research_Center_-_Why_Do_Most_Countries

This guy is a nut whose claims are false and he believes the election conspiracy lie.

Kindly explain to me then how only the presidential election was rigged and every other election was missed by this massive fraud?

Could you provide a source not so absurdly biased?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

You want to hand out absentee ballots to... how many people?

As a matter of simple practicality it's better to open polling stations for absentee voters, which is what my country does. Advanced voting at any polling station in the country, so no need to take two days off every time there's a local election so that I can go back home and be physically present in my electoral district.

[United Calanworie]

Not if you do it right. If it takes weeks to count the old ibm sized ballot cards, you are doing it wrong.
First paper is free, the rest will cost you.
Crime Prevention_Research_Center_-_Why_Do_Most_Countries

Let's re-learn something called "source validity," shall we...?

The paper is from a group called the "Crime Prevention Research Center," an organization with a name so bland, it's borderline indistinguishable from other groups. That should be red flag number one -- it's trying to blend in.

Red flag, the second: the "about us" page.

CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world-recognized expert on guns and crime. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.

This bio is for their current President. If nothing jumps out at you here, that's because it's designed this way. "world recognized expert on guns and crime" Recognized by who? It never says. He also served in the Trump administration, so his 2020 paper about mail-in-ballot fraud, published in August of 2020 immediately becomes more suspect.

Red flag, the third: For an academic paper by a supposedly "world-recognized expert," he sure doesn't have a lot of citations on this ballot fraud paper. In fact, he only has two. And one of them is his own paper.

Red flag, the fourth: He only has two references listed. He may have more in the paper itself, but it's 152 pages long and honestly, since there's no "references" section at the very end (I scrolled and checked), I'm not going to go through looking for pin cites.

Red (flag) five, standing by:
Putting "" quote marks around the term "news" when referencing news agencies that produced coverage that did not positively reflect on Donald Trump.

tl;dr this paper is a load of horseshit and it serves as a reminder that just because something might be published doesn't mean it's a good source. Do your legwork, evaluate your sources, people.

[Eleanor Turner]

What you will do with this voting?

[Rary]

What you will do with this voting?

Well, you know, vote?

[Untecna]

What you will do with this voting?

...I think you answered your own question.

[Jellian Federation]

No, I think in-person voting discourages people who are too lazy or apathetic about politics to vote which is a good thing. Albeit, some places have very bad voting infrastructure which means voters have to wait in line for hours.

The democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people.
The more people vote, the more accurate that reflection will be.


Making a some national holidays for voting ought to be a great bipartisan solution.

[La Cocina del Bodhi]

So, Mail in voting. A huge topic, especially during election years If your registered and have access to a postal service, you get sent a ballot. Sign on what you want to vote for and mail it back. Pretty simple. This practice has been set up in an almost all mail in voting practice in 7 US states, with Vermont adopting it in general elections and DC might adopt it in the future, though 4 states has restricted mail-in voting. Outside the United States, Germany, Canada, Poland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Austria had adopted mail-in voting on demand with many more adopting it in some form.

Mail-in voting has several advantages against in-person voting. Advantages, for example simpler, more convenient voting, waiting less time to vote for a candidate, helping with increases in voting turnout, and in Colorado where Mail-In voting was introduced, deters more extremists, participation, and an survey of 1,500 Coloradoans, most reported that they were satisfied with the voting practice and it showed that Mail-In voting in Colorado actually saved money. On the other hand, ballots could be discarded or damaged before they can be counted intentionally, less accessible to communities without mailboxes, complications with deadlines are there, and it can be confusing, for example assuming if your vote will be counted, or if you might request it.

So, do you think that we should adopt mail-in voting? Personally, yes, I think we should adopt mail in voting. Voting should be free and fair, and should be convenient to the voter, with little pressure on them, and should be a quick ballot in and go. Some of the benefits of mail-in voting could be in dire need (depends on location) and could help to yield more free and fair elections.

My gut tells me no, it shouldn’t allowed. And if it is allowed it must have incredibly strong checks to prevent fraud and abuse, including one person filling out multiple ballots for example if ballots are sent to wrong addresses. I’m very wary of the idea that making voting as easy as possible is inherently a good thing, if I’m being completely honest. The electorate as a whole doesn’t exactly wow me with its intellectual prowess, and if someone can’t be bothered to go to a physical location, or go through the steps of a rigorously protected mail-in system, I’m not sure that I want that person to have a say in the governing process.

[Jellian Federation]

So, Mail in voting. A huge topic, especially during election years If your registered and have access to a postal service, you get sent a ballot. Sign on what you want to vote for and mail it back. Pretty simple. This practice has been set up in an almost all mail in voting practice in 7 US states, with Vermont adopting it in general elections and DC might adopt it in the future, though 4 states has restricted mail-in voting. Outside the United States, Germany, Canada, Poland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Austria had adopted mail-in voting on demand with many more adopting it in some form.

Mail-in voting has several advantages against in-person voting. Advantages, for example simpler, more convenient voting, waiting less time to vote for a candidate, helping with increases in voting turnout, and in Colorado where Mail-In voting was introduced, deters more extremists, participation, and an survey of 1,500 Coloradoans, most reported that they were satisfied with the voting practice and it showed that Mail-In voting in Colorado actually saved money. On the other hand, ballots could be discarded or damaged before they can be counted intentionally, less accessible to communities without mailboxes, complications with deadlines are there, and it can be confusing, for example assuming if your vote will be counted, or if you might request it.

So, do you think that we should adopt mail-in voting? Personally, yes, I think we should adopt mail in voting. Voting should be free and fair, and should be convenient to the voter, with little pressure on them, and should be a quick ballot in and go. Some of the benefits of mail-in voting could be in dire need (depends on location) and could help to yield more free and fair elections.

My gut tells me no, it shouldn’t allowed. And if it is allowed it must have incredibly strong checks to prevent fraud and abuse, including one person filling out multiple ballots for example if ballots are sent to wrong addresses. I’m very wary of the idea that making voting as easy as possible is inherently a good thing, if I’m being completely honest. The electorate as a whole doesn’t exactly wow me with its intellectual prowess, and if someone can’t be bothered to go to a physical location, or go through the steps of a rigorously protected mail-in system, I’m not sure that I want that person to have a say in the governing process.

Everybody gets a vote.
This is a democracy.

Imagine you are living paycheck to paycheck and you can’t afford to take the day off to vote because the republicans closed all but one voting center and the line takes hours.

[Juansonia]

My gut tells me no, it shouldn’t allowed. And if it is allowed it must have incredibly strong checks to prevent fraud and abuse, including one person filling out multiple ballots for example if ballots are sent to wrong addresses. I’m very wary of the idea that making voting as easy as possible is inherently a good thing, if I’m being completely honest. The electorate as a whole doesn’t exactly wow me with its intellectual prowess, and if someone can’t be bothered to go to a physical location, or go through the steps of a rigorously protected mail-in system, I’m not sure that I want that person to have a say in the governing process.

Everybody gets a vote.
This is a democracy.

Imagine you are living paycheck to paycheck and you can’t afford to take the day off to vote because the republicans closed all but one voting center and the line takes hours.

Just make election day a holiday FFS.

[La Cocina del Bodhi]

My gut tells me no, it shouldn’t allowed. And if it is allowed it must have incredibly strong checks to prevent fraud and abuse, including one person filling out multiple ballots for example if ballots are sent to wrong addresses. I’m very wary of the idea that making voting as easy as possible is inherently a good thing, if I’m being completely honest. The electorate as a whole doesn’t exactly wow me with its intellectual prowess, and if someone can’t be bothered to go to a physical location, or go through the steps of a rigorously protected mail-in system, I’m not sure that I want that person to have a say in the governing process.

Everybody gets a vote.
This is a democracy.

No, we are a republic(and please forgive me for my Americentric approach here, I won’t speak for other countries). The founders purposefully designed a system where the people have a say and those who govern are answerable to the people, but that does not give too much power vested in the people themselves. And with good reason. As I mentioned, I am incredibly wary of the shall we say, dim-minded among us, playing a significant role in how the country is run. I simply don’t believe this is wise.

[Jellian Federation]

Everybody gets a vote.
This is a democracy.

No, we are a republic(and please forgive me for my Americentric approach here, I won’t speak for other countries). The founders purposefully designed a system where the people have a say and those who govern are answerable to the people, but that does not give too much power vested in the people themselves. And with good reason. As I mentioned, I am incredibly wary of the shall we say, dim-minded among us, playing a significant role in how the country is run. I simply don’t believe this is wise.

Yes,
And the more accountability in our representatives, they better they will represent us.

Who decides the criteria of not being “good enough” to vote.
That’s a very dangerous path.

In the real world, it’s certain crimes and extreme mental disability. That’s it.
The dumbest of the dumb have the right to vote.

[Necroghastia]

Everybody gets a vote.
This is a democracy.

No, we are a republic(and please forgive me for my Americentric approach here, I won’t speak for other countries).

We're not a quadrilateral, we're a rectangle!!!1!

The founders purposefully designed a system where the people have a say and those who govern are answerable to the people, but that does not give too much power vested in the people themselves. And with good reason.

So what? The founders also required one to own property to vote (and often, that one be a white man). Why should anyone care?

As I mentioned, I am incredibly wary of the shall we say, dim-minded among us, playing a significant role in how the country is run. I simply don’t believe this is wise.

Oh, yeah, it takes so much more brainpower to stand in a line than to send something in the mail. Jeeeez.

[Caurus]

I'm not against mail-in voting, but I do have reservations. My biggest concerns are feasibility and security.

For the former, I don't know how well suited the US Postal Service is to the task of ensuring that ballots 1)are sent out on time, 2)make it to the recipient, 3)sent to counters on time. I do recall hearing that some ballots from the 2020 election had gone uncounted as they had been lost in storage until the "investigations" uncovered them (if memory serves, the majority of ballots were still cast for Biden). That kind of situation is very concerning, the idea that your vote could go uncounted due to some logistical or clerical error.

I also worry about if the ballots will make it to their recipients. What about people who are transient for whatever reason? Would P.O. boxes be an acceptable address or would it have to be a residential address? I suppose if you have to use a P.O. box, perhaps it would be best to use a dedicated polling station instead although I fail to see why federal offices like that can't double on Election Day.

When you venture away from the coasts and into the interior, populations can be more spread out and remote. Would rural Americans be able to expect the same service as Americans in cities? As a personal anecdote, I have relatives who are both disabled and live remotely in rural America and I certainly would hope that anyone in the same position could still exercise their rights.

As for security, my concerns are more about verification and accountability. Would mail ballots have some kind of system to ensure that the person casting a vote is eligible? I've heard that some states and jurisdictions send out ballots automatically rather than by request. I'm not opposed to that, but maybe there could be some kind of two-step verification, one on the state's part and one on the voter? I imagine, and I am by no means familiar with the procedures in states that do send out ballots automatically, that they use the voter rolls for this.

On the voter's part, could there be anything that lets them verify their identity and ensure that their vote is counted? Since it is, technically, a government document and it would go through government channels, perhaps the last four of your SSN and your birth month and year could suffice? For accountability, maybe the state's secretary of state could keep a site that lets you input your birth month and year and your SSN just to see if your vote was processed (not giving out any information about how the ballot was cast just in case)? Would that be too onerous of a restriction on the voters' side?

[San Lumen]

I'm not against mail-in voting, but I do have reservations. My biggest concerns are feasibility and security.

For the former, I don't know how well suited the US Postal Service is to the task of ensuring that ballots 1)are sent out on time, 2)make it to the recipient, 3)sent to counters on time. I do recall hearing that some ballots from the 2020 election had gone uncounted as they had been lost in storage until the "investigations" uncovered them (if memory serves, the majority of ballots were still cast for Biden). That kind of situation is very concerning, the idea that your vote could go uncounted due to some logistical or clerical error.

I also worry about if the ballots will make it to their recipients. What about people who are transient for whatever reason? Would P.O. boxes be an acceptable address or would it have to be a residential address? I suppose if you have to use a P.O. box, perhaps it would be best to use a dedicated polling station instead although I fail to see why federal offices like that can't double on Election Day.

When you venture away from the coasts and into the interior, populations can be more spread out and remote. Would rural Americans be able to expect the same service as Americans in cities? As a personal anecdote, I have relatives who are both disabled and live remotely in rural America and I certainly would hope that anyone in the same position could still exercise their rights.

As for security, my concerns are more about verification and accountability. Would mail ballots have some kind of system to ensure that the person casting a vote is eligible? I've heard that some states and jurisdictions send out ballots automatically rather than by request. I'm not opposed to that, but maybe there could be some kind of two-step verification, one on the state's part and one on the voter? I imagine, and I am by no means familiar with the procedures in states that do send out ballots automatically, that they use the voter rolls for this.

On the voter's part, could there be anything that lets them verify their identity and ensure that their vote is counted? Since it is, technically, a government document and it would go through government channels, perhaps the last four of your SSN and your birth month and year could suffice? For accountability, maybe the state's secretary of state could keep a site that lets you input your birth month and year and your SSN just to see if your vote was processed (not giving out any information about how the ballot was cast just in case)? Would that be too onerous of a restriction on the voters' side?

Washington, Oregon and Colorado have had mail in voting for years with no problems without having to do anything you suggest.

[Caurus]

I'm not against mail-in voting, but I do have reservations. My biggest concerns are feasibility and security.

For the former, I don't know how well suited the US Postal Service is to the task of ensuring that ballots 1)are sent out on time, 2)make it to the recipient, 3)sent to counters on time. I do recall hearing that some ballots from the 2020 election had gone uncounted as they had been lost in storage until the "investigations" uncovered them (if memory serves, the majority of ballots were still cast for Biden). That kind of situation is very concerning, the idea that your vote could go uncounted due to some logistical or clerical error.

I also worry about if the ballots will make it to their recipients. What about people who are transient for whatever reason? Would P.O. boxes be an acceptable address or would it have to be a residential address? I suppose if you have to use a P.O. box, perhaps it would be best to use a dedicated polling station instead although I fail to see why federal offices like that can't double on Election Day.

When you venture away from the coasts and into the interior, populations can be more spread out and remote. Would rural Americans be able to expect the same service as Americans in cities? As a personal anecdote, I have relatives who are both disabled and live remotely in rural America and I certainly would hope that anyone in the same position could still exercise their rights.

As for security, my concerns are more about verification and accountability. Would mail ballots have some kind of system to ensure that the person casting a vote is eligible? I've heard that some states and jurisdictions send out ballots automatically rather than by request. I'm not opposed to that, but maybe there could be some kind of two-step verification, one on the state's part and one on the voter? I imagine, and I am by no means familiar with the procedures in states that do send out ballots automatically, that they use the voter rolls for this.

On the voter's part, could there be anything that lets them verify their identity and ensure that their vote is counted? Since it is, technically, a government document and it would go through government channels, perhaps the last four of your SSN and your birth month and year could suffice? For accountability, maybe the state's secretary of state could keep a site that lets you input your birth month and year and your SSN just to see if your vote was processed (not giving out any information about how the ballot was cast just in case)? Would that be too onerous of a restriction on the voters' side?

Washington, Oregon and Colorado have had mail in voting for years with no problems without having to do anything you suggest.

What about the accessibility part? Do the voters there have equal access to mail-in ballots regardless of where they live or their living conditions? As for the matter of being able to check if your vote has been counted, I believe I have previously seen The Black Forrest mention something about being able to check if their ballot was cast where they live. Do Washington, Oregon, and Colorado have the same thing?

[San Lumen]

Washington, Oregon and Colorado have had mail in voting for years with no problems without having to do anything you suggest.

What about the accessibility part? Do the voters there have equal access to mail-in ballots regardless of where they live or their living conditions? As for the matter of being able to check if your vote has been counted, I believe I have previously seen The Black Forrest mention something about being able to check if their ballot was cast where they live. Do Washington, Oregon, and Colorado have the same thing?

Yes.

[Caurus]

What about the accessibility part? Do the voters there have equal access to mail-in ballots regardless of where they live or their living conditions? As for the matter of being able to check if your vote has been counted, I believe I have previously seen The Black Forrest mention something about being able to check if their ballot was cast where they live. Do Washington, Oregon, and Colorado have the same thing?

Yes.

Oh, neat. I still worry about the access part though. I hate the idea that someone might not have the ability to cast a ballot because of something out of their control. That's more of a larger societal issue, though, and less of a mail-in voting one.

[San Lumen]

Yes.

Oh, neat. I still worry about the access part though. I hate the idea that someone might not have the ability to cast a ballot because of something out of their control. That's more of a larger societal issue, though, and less of a mail-in voting one.

What would these circumstances be?

[Caurus]

Oh, neat. I still worry about the access part though. I hate the idea that someone might not have the ability to cast a ballot because of something out of their control. That's more of a larger societal issue, though, and less of a mail-in voting one.

What would these circumstances be?

Off the top of my head, disability, homelessness, and jobs that require traveling (like truckers, airline crews, or train crews for example). I know that there are some limitations to what you can do with a P.O. box, but I don't know if you can do mail-in ballots through one. Somebody who, in particular, has to travel a great deal would certainly be at a disadvantage if the circumstances of their job means the postal service has a hard time delivering an absentee or mail-in ballot.

[San Lumen]

What would these circumstances be?

Off the top of my head, disability, homelessness, and jobs that require traveling (like truckers, airline crews, or train crews for example). I know that there are some limitations to what you can do with a P.O. box, but I don't know if you can do mail-in ballots through one. Somebody who, in particular, has to travel a great deal would certainly be at a disadvantage if the circumstances of their job means the postal service has a hard time delivering an absentee or mail-in ballot.

I can't speak for Oregon but I do know Washington and Oregon still have polling sites to a limited degree.

As far as jobs that require traveling the post office has a obligation to deliver your ballot back to the Board of Elections but this is required for all ballots. No post office or postal can take their time or delay mailing them.

[A m e n r i a]

We already did. It's good, and if the people of foreign countries like America want to adopt it, then go for it.

[Caurus]

Off the top of my head, disability, homelessness, and jobs that require traveling (like truckers, airline crews, or train crews for example). I know that there are some limitations to what you can do with a P.O. box, but I don't know if you can do mail-in ballots through one. Somebody who, in particular, has to travel a great deal would certainly be at a disadvantage if the circumstances of their job means the postal service has a hard time delivering an absentee or mail-in ballot.

I can't speak for Oregon but I do know Washington and Oregon still have polling sites to a limited degree.

As far as jobs that require traveling the post office has a obligation to deliver your ballot back to the Board of Elections but this is required for all ballots. No post office or postal can take their time or delay mailing them.

Ah, I see