You edited this post twice, and still left “nutpicking”?
I’m sitting here, picturing Bricker fondling his testicles.
It is not a pretty picture.
I was thinking of BobLibDem, BrainGlutton – THAT hot-headed crowd.
People in elected positions must by necessity tone down their hot-headedness.
There is an Achilles heel with mail-in votes that Republicans can and probably have exploited- somebody has to check the signature on the envelope vs the registration. Somebody with an agenda. So imagine it’s Ohio in 2004 and the thugs working under the direction of Blackwell are going through a pile of envelopes. Let’s just consider two pools of 5 envelopes each:
Pool A is from Tyrone Washington, Jose Menendez, Jasmine Jones, Sanjay Singh, and Mohammed Khomeini.
Pool B is from Percy McBride, Wendell Oliver, Mary Kelly, Susan Worthington, and Billy Joe Jimbob McCoy.
You can bet the farm that some ballots from Pool A will be discarded for not quite matching the registration signature and that all ballots from Pool B will be counted even if some are signed with an “X”.
Yeah, it really is self-evident.
We can reply to mailed ballots with a return mail that advises a registered voter at a given address that his vote has been received, and that it’s incumbent on him to report immediately in case he did not cast such a vote.
Then, if he turns out to be ineligible, a prosecution can show he voted. He may deny it, of course, but the evidence will show that he got the reply mail and did nothing, which should be enough to sustain a conviction.
Do the rest of us get to find out what that was, or do we have to wait for you and Bricker to play some sort of guessing game first?
I see two obvious vulnerabilities to mail-in voting, one before and one after mailing.
The ‘before’ one is the potential for ‘helping’ seniors with their voting when they’re no longer mentally competent, particularly in a nursing home where one could vote on behalf of dozens of elderly people at a time. I’m not sure what one does about that, but it’s probably not a huge problem. Still, it’s worth keeping in mind that roughly 2 million people reside in nursing homes, a number that’s only going to go up as my g-g-generation ages, and that we might have to think about that down the road.
(Stuff also probably goes on like a church pastor telling his flock to show up on a given evening with their mail-in ballots, so he can tell them all how to vote. But if fully competent adults wish to let their pastor tell them how to vote, that is their choice AFAIAC, and nothing needs to be done about it.)
The ‘after’ part involves the counting of the ballots, in instances where that is done by scanning software. This is important because you’ll get a lot more ballots being counted in one place than you do with precinct voting, and while there are recounts when an election is closer than some predetermined percentage, someone could bug the software so that it tilts the results more than that. But it’s easy enough to deal with, assuming either the Federal government sets standards for vote counting in Federal elections, or states do it themselves.
Suppose a mid-sized state has 2 million ballots, all by mail. Divide them into batches of, say, 200 ballots per batch, with the batches identified and kept separate. Require that the software produce counts for each batch, and total them up.
Then you randomly select a certain percentage of the batches and either hand-count them, or run them through alternate vote-counting machinery provided by each major party, to ascertain whether the official vote-counting machinery is doing its job.
The nice thing about mail-in ballots is that you do have this paper trail that can be checked against the official counts. I feel a lot more secure with something like that than touch-screen voting at my precinct, where I have absolutely no assurance that the votes being transmitted are the ones I indicated on the touch screen.
I don’t fear some nebulous, pervasive voting fraud scheme, although I know that widespread voting by mail would be a ton more vulnerable to abuse and sabotage (“let’s put ink bombs in all the mail slots on Election Day!”) than the system we have now. Conservatives like Bricker apparently do entertain such paranoid wetdreams, however. He has made this apparent on the board. So I’m finding it rich that now he’s suddenly so blase.
If mail-in voting is suddenly so much more economical and secure than voting in person, why were no conservative voices proposing this idea during the last election? Why do I get the strong feeling it will NOT be conservatives rallying around this idea for the next presidential election, and Bricker will be siding with them as always?
Fucking hilarious that we’re supposed to tie ourselves in knots over the cost of paper ballots, but to print and mail a confirmation to each mail-in voter- no problem.
What I find funny is that we’re supposed have trust in an institution that the conservatives have been villifying over the past year. Yeah, privatize the entire enchilada and let mail delivery be subject to the whims of the corner-cutting free market --and at the same time, let’s lay the foundation of our beloved republic in its hands! That wouldn’t be perverse at all! We don’t have to worry that the same private entities that would be handling our ballots are the same private entities that work with lobbyists, write big checks to politicians, and even sponsor campaign ads. Only left-wing crazies would worry about this!
Bricker, why do you hate America?
Data has trouble using contractions in everyday speech. At least that’s what they had to retcon it to when it was obvious that he had used them a lot up to the point they mentioned he couldn’t.
In any case, you’re certainly dishonest Bricker. The fact that you support voter ID laws that would stop literally tens of cases of in-person voter fraud while keeping hundreds of thousands of people who are likely Democrats from voting shows that you don’t care about honest elections.
Couple that with your dishonest insinuations about ACORN, and a clear pattern of not giving a shit about fair play is evident.
You care about partisan gain. It’s sickening and un-American, but it’s your right.
Nutpicking it is, then. (Note to prr: this is a term defined by Kevin Drum several years back. It means attempting to define the nature of the other side by reference to extreme blog posts, comments to newspaper articles or on message boards, etc. that aren’t particularly representative of that side.)
Yer a riot, Bricker. Or maybe you don’t keep up with what people in the GOP Congressional caucus are saying these days?
But I’ll take that as an assertion that whatever crazy stuff that GOP elected officials are spouting these days, I’m only getting the toned-down version, and that what they really believe is much crazier than that.
Seriously? This is your plan?
Aside from the costs of maintaining the voter database and handling the envelope/ballot to check off the voter, this adds the cost of mailing a return card with variable data on it. I’m sure you know the exact costs of this, right?
It won’t be much, but since you can assume that shorter lines can have monstrous costs, why can’t I assume that additional mailings will be hundreds of trillions of dollars?
I’m guessing you’re a really, really shitty trail lawyer.
Prosecution: “And then you didn’t dial the number on the card, proving you voted illegally!”
Defense: “I don’t even remember getting the card. I must have thought it was spam, if they even delivered it.”
And taking people to court for not replying to some bullshit accusation wouldn’t incur any expense. Shit like that would be free, because lawyers and judges and baliffs don’t eat. Just look at Data.
Why would you charge the cost of a database to my plan? The database already exists; it’s a sunk cost for this purpose.
Because I can show actual costs for similar data processing tasks. Mailing out voter cards, for example, as Virginia already does.
I’m guessing you don’t understand the concept of legal sufficiency at all. And I’m guessing I have won more criminal trials than you have.
That’s not an expense chargeable to the program either. The point of the photo ID program is simply to build a factual framework that could support a conviction if the prosecutor wants to pursue it. The same benefit exists here with the mailing plan. We don’t add existing prosecution costs to voter costs in any budget right now – why would we start?
And, of course, by the same token, lost more as well.
So – shockingly – you oppose mailed ballots.
And their success in Oregon, etc, does not move you?
Well, yes, you got me there.
But since the issue seems to be the degree to which each of us understands legal sufficiency of evidence, I would suggest that even losing a criminal trial as a defense lawyer is excellent ground for analyzing and briefing sufficiency of evidence claims.
You know, there are quite a number of lawyers here on the Boards, ever since I was outvoted on the admission criteria that allowed such leniency. So, demographics being what they are, there pretty much has to be, some have publicly confessed their shame.
But I can’t recall any of them who rolls up their diploma to smack somebody in the face with it as often as you do.
Are you asking a question or making a statement? Or just collecting straw?
No, I’m not opposed to mail-in ballots. I am very much opposed to idiotic hypocrites, though.
Has Oregon’s mail delivery been privatized? Or did that entire post you quoted fly right over your head?