I somewhat agree with not counting late votes

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
Not for any legal reason, but as a punishment for being lazy and intellectually challenged. I can’t think of more early voting options and coverage of them than there has been this voting cycle. If you still plan to show up to vote on voting day only to complain about long lines you’re an idiot. If you’re waiting to first find out what’s on Hunter Biden’s laptop you’re also an idiot.

Can anybody give me any reasonable reason why somebody’s vote this year just couldn’t make it in, in time? And straight up sabotage doesn’t count. I’m talking about from the individual voter’s responsibility end.
 

fooferdoggie

Elite Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
2,811
Reaction score
4,658
some but the lines are long or there is limited access. republicans have been working really hard to limit voting. plus what about the oversees votes? just throw them out? Plus they let votes count for the primaries. it just typical conservatives trying to stop voting. Now the Supreme Court will cause it too.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
some but the lines are long or there is limited access. republicans have been working really hard to limit voting. plus what about the oversees votes? just throw them out? Plus they let votes count for the primaries. it just typical conservatives trying to stop voting. Now the Supreme Court will cause it too.
It just boggles my mind that in this specific year there are still undecided voters or that there still was several months ago. Quit fucking around thinking things are normal, or have been. Republicans have been quite publicly trying to suppress voters for months and there are still people going "Nah, I'll wait."?
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,361
Reaction score
9,098
In a number of the countries where I have observed elections, an extended period of "early voting" always, but always, served as a massive red flag.

In countries - such as Bosnia - a few short years after a devastating and destructive civil war - the vast majority of the electorate managed to cast a ballot on the day of the election.

As a vastly experienced international election observer (monitor, supervisor), I would be implacably opposed to anything that would serve to curtail, inhibit, restrict, the counting of any legitimate ballot, irrespective of whether it was cast early, during election day, or late in the course of the day of the actual election.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,361
Reaction score
9,098
Not for any legal reason, but as a punishment for being lazy and intellectually challenged. I can’t think of more early voting options and coverage of them than there has been this voting cycle. If you still plan to show up to vote on voting day only to complain about long lines you’re an idiot. If you’re waiting to first find out what’s on Hunter Biden’s laptop you’re also an idiot.

Can anybody give me any reasonable reason why somebody’s vote this year just couldn’t make it in, in time? And straight up sabotage doesn’t count. I’m talking about from the individual voter’s responsibility end.

No "punishment".

What a silly and, frankly, counter-productive - idea.

Pure Puritan.

Voting should be encouraged, and not discouraged.
 

Alli

Perfection
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,970
Reaction score
10,038
Location
Alabackwards
What about early voting locations? Are there seriously any states that offer no options other than showing up to the polls on Tuesday?
Plenty of places offer no alternatives. I was surprised Alabama allowed everyone to vote absentee due to the pandemic. Normally you need to show proof that you’ll be out of town, a doctor’s excuse, or be over 65. Allowing us to deliver those absentee ballots in person was a plus. I’ve been proud of this backwards state lately. I know I’ll be singing a different tune once the election is over and the people elect Coach Clueless to the Senate. Oh well.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
Plenty of places offer no alternatives. I was surprised Alabama allowed everyone to vote absentee due to the pandemic. Normally you need to show proof that you’ll be out of town, a doctor’s excuse, or be over 65. Allowing us to deliver those absentee ballots in person was a plus. I’ve been proud of this backwards state lately. I know I’ll be singing a different tune once the election is over and the people elect Coach Clueless to the Senate. Oh well.
Federal elections should have the same rules and options across the entire country.

The less options in your area the more corrupt and rigged your system. There’s no other way to look at it and it should be federally prosecutable. Voting shouldn’t be a state’s rights issue. Period.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,361
Reaction score
9,098
Federal elections should have the same rules and options across the entire country.

The less options in your area the more corrupt and rigged your system. There’s no other way to look at it and it should be federally prosecutable. Voting shouldn’t be a state’s rights issue. Period.

Yes.

On this, I am in complete, and wholehearted, agreement, with you.

This - federal elections - is something that something be removed - entirely - from the individual states, and disentangled from, or separated from, the concept of "states' rights".

Actually, personally, I'd like to see an independent, impartial, federal body in charge of mandating everything to do with how the federal election should be run.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
Yes.

On this, I am in complete, and wholehearted, agreement, with you.

This - federal elections - is something that something be removed - entirely - from the individual states, and disentangled from, or separated from, the concept of "states' rights".

Actually, personally, I'd like to see an independent, impartial, federal body in charge of mandating everything to do with how the federal election should be run.
I don’t know if this would mean all elections, but I would consider any election where you’re voting on a Congress member to be a federal election because we’ve seen time and time again it takes very small group of people in congress to hold something hostage or force it through.

Also the majority leader shouldn’t be able to just have bills stacking up collecting dust indefinitely. Who decided that was a good idea?
 

Alli

Perfection
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,970
Reaction score
10,038
Location
Alabackwards
Federal elections should have the same rules and options across the entire country.

The less options in your area the more corrupt and rigged your system. There’s no other way to look at it and it should be federally prosecutable. Voting shouldn’t be a state’s rights issue. Period.

Yes.

On this, I am in complete, and wholehearted, agreement, with you.

This - federal elections - is something that something be removed - entirely - from the individual states, and disentangled from, or separated from, the concept of "states' rights".

Actually, personally, I'd like to see an independent, impartial, federal body in charge of mandating everything to do with how the federal election should be run.
We would wind up having two sets of election rules, one for state/local elections, and one for federal elections. Then what happens in years like this where we have a combination?
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,361
Reaction score
9,098
We would wind up having two sets of election rules, one for state/local elections, and one for federal elections. Then what happens in years like this where we have a combination?

My own view - for what it is worth - is that all rules pertaining to elections should be determined federally, with mandated federal oversight, and that the rules should be the same across all fifty states.

This is not something that I would trust the individual states to address in a fair, impartial and accountable manner - especially the southern states - if left to their own devices.

Mind you, I also think that some other areas - Washington DC, some US territories - should also have representation. And I think that the electoral college needs radical reform.
 
Last edited:

Alli

Perfection
Staff Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,970
Reaction score
10,038
Location
Alabackwards
Mind you, I also think that some other areas - Washington DC, some US territories - should also have representation. And I think that the electoral college needs radical reform.
That is an understatement. It’s time DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam all voted with the same representation and same state’s rights as everywhere else. And it’s time we had 1 person 1 vote - which means retiring the electoral college.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,809
Reaction score
8,863
We would wind up having two sets of election rules, one for state/local elections, and one for federal elections. Then what happens in years like this where we have a combination?
One would have to ask why have more than one set of rules. Expect a meaningless word salad in response full of unsubstantiated large scale conspiracy theories. Even Trump publicly admitted if Democrats got all their voting rights rules passed then a Republican would never get voted in. Trump being Trump didn’t analyze the bigger meaning of that statement for even a second.
 

Mark

Site Champ
Site Donor
Posts
289
Reaction score
627
Location
Hokkaido
....Actually, personally, I'd like to see an independent, impartial, federal body in charge of mandating everything to do with how the federal election should be run...
there is a very old body called the FEC. and was generally impartial before trump's years. but its turned into just an org that tracks campaign finance now. it would be the most likely candidate to become the kind of body with the power you are seeking.

different note: states vs. federal.
i preface with saying that i believe that with the current constitution america is structurally unable to continue to be nimble enough and responsive enough to not only lead the free world, but get itself out of problems like the Q-Anon quagmire that is going to become worse and worse.
but anyway: America's strength during the 1800's and until circa 1980 (or maybe 1990-esque Berlin wall fall) did in fact come from its decentralised structure.
but we have learned during these past 4 years exactly how the traditions kept america afloat, not the laws not the structure of its government.
biden is a compromise President. he's generationally the right person for these times.
but the blue wave of 2020 will not be repeated in 2024. if we are only at best even now only 2 to 4 % points ahead of such a dictator, then in 2024 without the opposition being such a dumb dictator, but probably a more crafty-dictator as opposition, then the power that 2 senators from all the red states will still stymie all that a modern america requires even for just bare survival.
i posit that it is impossible to change the american constitution in such significant ways enough to ensure a robust america's survival in this 21st century.
the reasons for america's greatness will also turn out to be the reasons for its decline.

ps:
its Gretchen vs. Nikki in 2024.
im with Gretchen.
 
Last edited:

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,361
Reaction score
9,098
there is a very old body called the FEC. and was generally impartial before trump's years. but its turned into just an org that tracks campaign finance now. it would be the most likely candidate to become the kind of body with the power you are seeking.

different note: states vs. federal.
i preface with saying that i believe that with the current constitution america is structurally unable to continue to be nimble enough and responsive enough to not only lead the free world, but get itself out of problems like the Q-Anon quagmire that is going to become worse and worse.
but anyway: America's strength during the 1800's and until circa 1980 (or maybe 1990-esque Berlin wall fall) did in fact come from its decentralised structure.
but we have learned during these past 4 years exactly how the traditions kept america afloat, not the laws not the structure of its government.
biden is a compromise President. he's generationally the right person for these times.
but the blue wave of 2020 will not be repeated in 2024. if we are only at best even now only 2 to 4 % points ahead of such a dictator, then in 2024 without the opposition being such a dumb dictator, but probably a more crafty-dictator as opposition, then the power that 2 senators from all the red states will still stymie all that a modern america requires even for just bare survival.
i posit that it is impossible to change the american constitution in such significant ways enough to ensure its survival.
the reasons for america's greatness will also turn out to be the reasons for its decline.


ps:
its Gretchen vs. Nikki in 2024.
im with Gretchen.

In another thread, which I started, (OSCE/ODIHR LEOM - Limited Election Observation Mission - US Election 2020 - Interim Report, published last week) on this forum, I linked the Interim Report of the Election Observation.

It is well worth reading, and taking a look at.

Anyway, most of what the report covered (in terms of voter suppression, eat) I was already reasonably familiar with, or aware of, but, and this did take me aback, for I was not aware that the FEC has not had a quorum - and thus, has been unable to meet, or hold a meeting, - since summer 2019: I take the liberty of quoting from the relevant section of the Executive Summary, on page two: "Campaign finance is regulated and enforced at the federal level. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) tasked with enforcing reporting and disclosure requirements for campaigns has been without a quorum since August 2019 and is therefore unable to make decisions or issue advisory opinions. While individual donations to parties and candidates are limited and disclosed, expenditure is unrestrained. Individuals, corporations and trade unions, defined by law as independent spenders, can donate and spend without restrictions; charity organizations can avoid disclosure, which raises concerns about transparency."
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,361
Reaction score
9,098
And, a further quote from page eleven of the same report, (OSCE/ODIHR LEOM Interim Report US Election 2020) in the actual section that deals with campaign financing: "The oversight of campaign finance is vested with a bipartisan six-member Federal Election Commission (FEC), with the law requiring four commissioner votes to make decisions.54 Since August 2019 (with the exception of May and June 2020), only three commissioner seats have been filled and the FEC is therefore unable to make decisions or issue advisory opinions relating to requests for clarification of the law and regulations. According to ODIHR LEOM interlocutors, this raised concerns about enforcement of non-coordination principles, bans on foreign financing and online advertising regulations. The FEC continues to conduct educational and outreach activities."
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,690
Reaction score
14,520
And, a further quote from page eleven of the same report, (OSCE/ODIHR LEOM Interim Report US Election 2020) in the actual section that deals with campaign financing: "The oversight of campaign finance is vested with a bipartisan six-member Federal Election Commission (FEC), with the law requiring four commissioner votes to make decisions.54 Since August 2019 (with the exception of May and June 2020), only three commissioner seats have been filled and the FEC is therefore unable to make decisions or issue advisory opinions relating to requests for clarification of the law and regulations. According to ODIHR LEOM interlocutors, this raised concerns about enforcement of non-coordination principles, bans on foreign financing and online advertising regulations. The FEC continues to conduct educational and outreach activities."
Who is in charge of filling the seats?
 
Top Bottom