HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE TO LEGALIZE VOTING FRAUD

[Knight In TN]

HUH? Why? If you guys want to avoid 'the evils' of mail-in ballots, this is your best solution. The bottom line is that when a voter chooses to vote (a month out or the very last day) is up to him or her.
Then what, pray tell, are we really talking about?
When you have the nation's Commander-in-Chief saying both BEFORE and AFTER the election that the only way he loses is if there's widespread voter fraud, you don't think that's not going to impact the thinking of his diehard minions?

Hell, what was the January 6th 'Stop the Steal' all about for crying out loud?

You don’t read well. I said in the quoted portion that it wasn’t secure.

If you had somebody come by and check your house while you were on vacation and they left the door wide open every time they left, is that a problem? It sounds like what you’re saying is “not if nobody came in and stole anything.”

We’re talking about the fact that our elections are becoming far less secure.

 

[Cubs79]

Not to you, but pretty much everybody else can see that what I'm suggesting wouldn't restrict anybody from voting.

So what is the reason for not wanting it to be to be longer? And I mean a real and actual reason, not because you think people should have to sacrifice to vote or any of that type of non sense.

 

[DaShuckster]

Not to you, but pretty much everybody else can see that what I'm suggesting wouldn't restrict anybody from voting.

This discussion started because of the "opportunities for rampant voter fraud" in mail-in voting. When do you think most states send out their mail-in ballots?

 

[Crazyhole]

So what is the reason for not wanting it to be to be longer? And I mean a real and actual reason, not because you think people should have to sacrifice to vote or any of that type of non sense.

Because I prefer an educated electorate. There's a reasonable balance that can be found between having simple access to voting and making sure that all of the information has been collected. I think a week is reasonable. You think a month is. Would you argue that a year is too long? If so, why?

 

[DaShuckster]

Because I prefer an educated electorate. There's a reasonable balance that can be found between having simple access to voting and making sure that all of the information has been collected. I think a week is reasonable. You think a month is. Would you argue that a year is too long? If so, why?

What the f*k does the number of days open for voting have to do with an "educated electorate?"

 

[Crazyhole]

What the f*k does the number of days open for voting have to do with an "educated electorate?"

How long is too long for early voting and why?

 

[DaShuckster]

How long is too long for early voting and why?

You mean as opposed to how early I can turn in a mail-in ballot? A number of states sent them out over the summer months -- was that too early for you?

I thought a month was long enough. But if you are going to force in-person voting, it's okay with me if some states want to extend it longer.

 

[Crazyhole]

You mean as opposed to how early I can turn in a mail-in ballot? A number of states sent them out over the summer months -- was that too early for you?

I thought a month was long enough. But if you are going to force in-person voting, it's okay with me if some states want to extend it longer.

Why avoid the question? I have no interest in talking about the last election, I'm more interested in finding solution moving forward that everyone thinks is reasonable. Is 3 months too long? 6 months? 2 years? Where is your line?

 

[DaShuckster]

Why avoid the question? I have no interest in talking about the last election, I'm more interested in finding solution moving forward that everyone thinks is reasonable. Is 3 months too long? 6 months? 2 years? Where is your line?

What avoidance? I said I thought a month-long period for open voting is sufficient. I also said if states were to choose to extend it further, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Once the primaries are all completed (usually in the late-April to early-June timeframe), does it really matter that much?

 

[Crazyhole]

What avoidance? I said I thought a month-long period for open voting is sufficient. I also said if states were to choose to extend it further, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Once the primaries are all completed (usually in the late-April to early-June timeframe), does it really matter that much?

So we really aren't that far off. I say a week, you say a month. Can you tell me why a week isn't sufficient but a month is?

 

[Crazyhole]

Having only certain candidates names printed on a ballot is a form of voter suppression. It should completely be a write-in system where people dont feel like they are limited to just 2 or 3 candidates to vote for.

 

[DaShuckster]

Having only certain candidates names printed on a ballot is a form of voter suppression. It should completely be a write-in system where people dont feel like they are limited to just 2 or 3 candidates to vote for.

WTF? There's a reason we have party primaries.

So we really aren't that far off. I say a week, you say a month. Can you tell me why a week isn't sufficient but a month is?

If citizens were literally given weeks to mail in their ballots in the past, why in the world would we want to place a one-week limit on voting if we're moving to an in-person process??!?

 

[Crazyhole]

WTF? There's a reason we have party primaries.
If citizens were literally given weeks to mail in their ballots in the past, why in the world would we want to place a one-week limit on voting if we're moving to an in-person process??!?

So you really don't think that 1 month is long enough. Why? Just explain your rationale on what amount of time is sufficient, and why any longer than that is not, instead of dancing around the issue.

 

[Cubs79]

Because I prefer an educated electorate. There's a reasonable balance that can be found between having simple access to voting and making sure that all of the information has been collected. I think a week is reasonable. You think a month is. Would you argue that a year is too long? If so, why?

I don't see what this has to do with an educated electorate. It is 2021, we have constant news cycles and coverage. Anyone who is interested in elections is going to be educated by October.

Umm, because we don't even have the candidates a year out so who would people be voting for?

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't see what this has to do with an educated electorate. It is 2021, we have constant news cycles and coverage. Anyone who is interested in elections is going to be educated by October.

Umm, because we don't even have the candidates a year out so who would people be voting for?

So October 1st is the earliest date that is reasonable for voting in your opinion? Why is this more reasonable than October 15th?

 

[Cubs79]

So October 1st is the earliest date that is reasonable for voting in your opinion? Why is this more reasonable than October 15th?

Anytime after the ballots are set is actually reasonable, but that varies from state to state and even city to city because local and state wide races are also on the ballots, and they don't all follow the same time frame. So yes, I would say the 1st Monday in October until the last Friday before the election, or something along those lines, is perfectly reasonable.

It is more reasonable because it gives people more time. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

 

[Crazyhole]

Anytime after the ballots are set is actually reasonable, but that varies from state to state and even city to city because local and state wide races are also on the ballots, and they don't all follow the same time frame. So yes, I would say the 1st Monday in October until the last Friday before the election, or something along those lines, is perfectly reasonable.

It is more reasonable because it gives people more time. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

So if you're saying one full month is a reasonable time frame, do you think it's not reasonable to require in-person voting for that month? Surely we can all agree that almost everybody (99%) would be able to find an hour or 2 to show up in person in the course of a full month.

 

[Cubs79]

So if you're saying one full month is a reasonable time frame, do you think it's not reasonable to require in-person voting for that month? Surely we can all agree that almost everybody (99%) would be able to find an hour or 2 to show up in person in the course of a full month.

I don't have an issue with mail in voting. The only reason you guys have an issue is because your guy lost. So no, if people want to vote absentee I have no issue with that. And nothing that I am saying is some radical idea. Many states already offer these things and already begin early voting in early October, others in mid-October, etc, and until Trump started spouting off his nonsense with no evidence to back it up, none of you cared.

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't have an issue with mail in voting. The only reason you guys have an issue is because your guy lost. So no, if people want to vote absentee I have no issue with that. And nothing that I am saying is some radical idea. Many states already offer these things and already begin early voting in early October, others in mid-October, etc, and until Trump started spouting off his nonsense with no evidence to back it up, none of you cared.

None of this has to do with Trump. Can you just answer the question of whether or not giving people 1 month to show up and vote in person is not a reasonable expectation?

 

[Cubs79]

None of this has to do with Trump. Can you just answer the question of whether or not giving people 1 month to show up and vote in person is not a reasonable expectation?

It all has to do with Trump. Some of thiss stuff was talked about before Trump, but it has been sent into over drive since Trump's baseless lies.

I did answer that and told you I had no issue with absentee voting. I don't know how much clearer you want me to be.

 

[Crazyhole]

It all has to do with Trump. None of this stuff was any sort of significant issue before Trump's baseless lies. now all of a sudden we have to go out of our way to make it more difficult for people to vote.

I did answer that and told you I had no issue with absentee voting. I don't know how much clearer you want me to be.

Trump has nothing to do with my question. For some reason it has everything to do with your response though.

It's a very simple yes or no question: is one month a reasonable amount of time for 99% of people to show up and vote in person?

 

[Cubs79]

Trump has nothing to do with my question. For some reason it has everything to do with your response though.

It's a very simple yes or no question: is one month a reasonable amount of time for 99% of people to show up and vote in person?

I have answered you twice now that I think absentee voting is fine too, so now I am saying it for the 3rd time. I don't understand what you aren't getting about that.

 

[Crazyhole]

I have answered you twice now that I think absentee voting is fine too, so now I am saying it for the 3rd time. I don't understand what you aren't getting about that.

I didn't ask about absentee voting. I asked about in-person voting. You aren't discussing this in good faith.

 

[Crazyhole]

In the topic of absentee ballots: if a person isn't absent from their voting district and you give them 1 month to show up in person, why should they be allowed to provide an "absentee" ballot?

 

[Cubs79]

I didn't ask about absentee voting. I asked about in-person voting. You aren't discussing this in good faith.

You asked if it was reasonable to expect people to vote in person. I said I had no issues with absentee ballots, which is directly related to voting in person or not. I am absolutely discussing this in good faith. You have your answer. I have no issue with making is easy for people to vote. There is absolutely no reason it should be a chore to cast a ballot.

 

[Cubs79]

In the topic of absentee ballots: if a person isn't absent from their voting district and you give them 1 month to show up in person, why should they be allowed to provide an "absentee" ballot?

Because they want to and there is no reason they shouldn't be able to.

 

[Crazyhole]

You asked if it was reasonable to expect people to vote in person. I said I had no issues with absentee ballots, which is directly related to voting in person or not. I am absolutely discussing this in good faith. You have your answer. I have no issue with making is easy for people to vote. There is absolutely no reason it should be a chore to cast a ballot.

Then why do you support a limit on the amount of time a person is allowed to cast their vote?

 

[Cubs79]

Then why do you support a limit on the amount of time a person is allowed to cast their vote?

Dude, you aren't being serious right now. Obviously nobody can cast a ballot until we know the candidates, they are printed, uploated to the machines, etc etc. Nobody is suggesting that early voting for the 24 election should start today or anything.

 

[Crazyhole]

Dude, you aren't being serious right now. Obviously nobody can cast a ballot until we know the candidates, they are printed, uploated to the machines, etc etc. Nobody is suggesting that early voting for the 24 election should start today or anything.

Can you just explain why people should be able to cast an absentee ballot when they aren't absent? Let's start there.

 

[Cubs79]

Can you just explain why people should be able to cast an absentee ballot when they aren't absent? Let's start there.

Because people are busy and it is more convenient for a lot of people. I don't know why you need anymore of a reason than that. There is nothing wrong with making it convenient to vote.

 

[Crazyhole]

Because people are busy and it is more convenient for a lot of people. I don't know why you need anymore of a reason than that. There is nothing wrong with making it convenient to vote.

By that logic, voting isn't really something that people value. If you can't find an hour in the course of a month to do something, it isn't the kind of thing you really care about. If you don't care, why should your opinion on the matter be considered?

 

[Crazyhole]

Is the modern left really so lazy that they think you shouldn't have to put any effort into something but still get the reward.

NM, cubs already answered that question, and the answer is a resounding "yes".

 

[Cubs79]

By that logic, voting isn't really something that people value. If you can't find an hour in the course of a month to do something, it isn't the kind of thing you really care about. If you don't care, why should your opinion on the matter be considered?

This is simply your projection. I always do early voting because it is typically much quicker and easier, and I certainly care. I have no clue why you think I should be forced to stand in a line for 1-2 hours to show I care, when I can do the same thing in much less time either through early voting or mailing a ballot in. If this is your logic then maybe people who stand in line the longest should get multiple votes, since they obviously care more than people who only stood in short lines. Right?

 

[Cubs79]

Is the modern left really so lazy that they think you shouldn't have to put any effort into something but still get the reward.

NM, cubs already answered that question, and the answer is a resounding "yes".

Stupid post.

 

[Knight In TN]

Anytime after the ballots are set is actually reasonable, but that varies from state to state and even city to city because local and state wide races are also on the ballots, and they don't all follow the same time frame. So yes, I would say the 1st Monday in October until the last Friday before the election, or something along those lines, is perfectly reasonable.

It is more reasonable because it gives people more time. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

What if something comes out in the news on the 15th of October that changes how a voter feels about the vote they cast on the 3rd?

Isn’t it disenfranchising that voter to not let them change it?

 

[Cubs79]

What if something comes out in the news on the 15th of October that changes how a voter feels about the vote they cast on the 3rd?

Isn’t it disenfranchising that voter to not let them change it?

No. Because no one is forcing that person to vote early. If someone is concerned about something like that they should wait until election day.

 

[Knight In TN]

“No, there are no problems with mail in voting. It’s all a republican myth. It doesn’t happen.”

Florida man who requested ballot for dead wife: ‘I feel like I haven’t done anything wrong’

A Florida man is being accused of voter fraud after authorities say he requested a mail-in ballot for his wife who died two years ago.

www.google.com

Getting A Ballot In The Mail For Your Dead Relative Is Not As Weird As It Seems

Elections officials are reluctant to purge voter rolls. But cases of people actually voting on someone else's behalf almost never happen.

www.civilbeat.org

Redirect Notice

Yolo County man received ballot in the mail for his deceased wife

On Oct. 5, Joe Sutton of West Sacramento received two ballots in the mail: one for him & one for his wife, Barbara Ann Hall. The problem is, Barbara died in 2019.

www.google.com

 

[Knight In TN]

Because people are busy and it is more convenient for a lot of people. I don't know why you need anymore of a reason than that. There is nothing wrong with making it convenient to vote.

No, of course not... but only if the integrity and security of an election can still be maintained along with increasing convenience.

Would you support voting by phone? That’s a lot easier than going to the post office... just call up the election line and tell them your name and who you want to vote for. Simple as that!

 

[Cubs79]

No, of course not... but only if the integrity and security of an election can still be maintained along with increasing convenience.

Would you support voting by phone? That’s a lot easier than going to the post office... just call up the election line and tell them your name and who you want to vote for. Simple as that!

I have no issues with an online voting system as long the proper security procedures are in place. I don't know really about voting by phone unless they were able to match your # up with their system or something like that.

 

[Cubs79]

“No, there are no problems with mail in voting. It’s all a republican myth. It doesn’t happen.”

Florida man who requested ballot for dead wife: ‘I feel like I haven’t done anything wrong’

A Florida man is being accused of voter fraud after authorities say he requested a mail-in ballot for his wife who died two years ago.

www.google.com

Getting A Ballot In The Mail For Your Dead Relative Is Not As Weird As It Seems

Elections officials are reluctant to purge voter rolls. But cases of people actually voting on someone else's behalf almost never happen.

www.civilbeat.org

Redirect Notice

Yolo County man received ballot in the mail for his deceased wife

On Oct. 5, Joe Sutton of West Sacramento received two ballots in the mail: one for him & one for his wife, Barbara Ann Hall. The problem is, Barbara died in 2019.

www.google.com

You listed 4 examples. Obviously there are always a handful of issues, nobody is denying that, and there will always be a handful of examples. What we are saying is that the response from Republicans is often times over the top when it comes to resolving the issue.