Do we really need instant election returns? (About voting, not politics.)

[skyblue17]

I knew what the other person was talking about though my point was people who are that influenced are likely in large part going to be that way regardless of in-person or mail-in ballot.

Maybe they would never feel comfortable filling out a ballot outside of a polling location but so many people do. The poster also doesn't live in a state that allows mail-in ballots for open reasons. In my County alone there were 137,000 requests for this November election for mail-in ballots with over 417,000 registered voters which accounts for nearly a 1/3 of the registered voters in the County wanting mail-in ballots.

My friend had a baby a few weeks before the election. She did a mail-in ballot which was much appreciated especially as she has Lyme disease and the last few years have been the only time in over 10 years she hasn't been in and out of a hospital due to complications of Lyme disease for months on end.

The poster's own experience regarding being late to work because they had to vote on election day per their state's rule (from the I better vote tomorrow thread) and their boss being lenient for being late to work but another person's boss not being lenient for being late to work a mail-in ballot would be a great way (especially if getting any time off for work if their state allowed advanced voting in person was not ideal either) to have mail-in ballots as another option in their state (as well as advanced in person voting).

I don't want all mail-in ballots myself but I love that I have that option. As is, I can early vote in person and I love that option as well. I would absolutely hate only being able to vote on election day. I avoid the polling locations like the plague on election day (and the last few days left in advanced voting if I can help it). More options not less options is better IMO especially considering the topics of both of those threads which is access and ease of things to improve one's ability to vote should they choose to.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think mail-in ballots are a great option, I just don't think it should be the only option.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think mail-in ballots are a great option, I just don't think it should be the only option.

Apologies. It was a bit hard to tell that's what you were getting at with your comments.

 

[Wishing on a star]

QUOTE: "They mail the ballots to your house. They check signatures. It would be very difficult to conduct voter fraud on a large enough scale to swing the election with vote by mail."

I am all for Mail-In ballots, with some requirements and oversight.
No problem at all....

However, Isn't it being alleged in FL that only/mostly certain ballots, specifically from one party, were mailed back, to be 'corrected'. (and, IMHO, mailing back shouldn't be allowed or considered to be constitutional.... If there is a re-do, then EVERYONE should get a re-do. EQUALITY AND EQUAL ACCESS, RIGHT????)
There seems to have been absolutely no oversight or double-checking of any of this, with ballots going missing, destroyed, and found many districts away,
Again, none of these checks matter if there is no real oversight, and rampant and ongoing corruption.
THAT kind of thing is my problem...
Not the requirement of ID...
Not making sure that every single person has so-called and 'created' equal access. (which IMHO is just another argument of the entitled)

 

[okeydokey]

QUOTE: "They mail the ballots to your house. They check signatures. It would be very difficult to conduct voter fraud on a large enough scale to swing the election with vote by mail."

I am all for Mail-In ballots, with some requirements and oversight.
No problem at all....

However, Isn't it being alleged in FL that only/mostly certain ballots, specifically from one party, were mailed back, to be 'corrected'. (and, IMHO, mailing back shouldn't be allowed or considered to be constitutional.... If there is a re-do, then EVERYONE should get a re-do. EQUALITY AND EQUAL ACCESS, RIGHT????)
There seems to have been absolutely no oversight or double-checking of any of this, with ballots going missing, destroyed, and found many districts away,
Again, none of these checks matter if there is no real oversight, and rampant and ongoing corruption.
THAT kind of thing is my problem...
Not the requirement of ID...
Not making sure that every single person has so-called and 'created' equal access. (which IMHO is just another argument of the entitled)

I don't know where you get your "news" but no it is not being alleged by any credible source that only/mostly ballots from one party were mailed back to be corrected.

 

[porschegrl]

I don't know where you get your "news"

I do.

 

[b2k1121]

A "handful of people" will vote fraudulently??? Wow, you have way too much trust in people. I watch the news and see how many unethical/lying/law-breaking people are out there. Please show me some statistics that there is just a few people, here and there that vote illegally??? Can you give us any research or studies to back this?

Here's a whole bunch of sources proving voter fraud is virtually non-existent:

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

 

[jrmasm]

I do.

And your avatar takes the cake in this case.

 

[porschegrl]

And your avatar takes the cake in this case.

Dangit, talk about a missed opportunity. Would have been even better if I'd said something like, "I think I have an idea..."

 

[CarolAnn856]

QUOTE: "They mail the ballots to your house. They check signatures. It would be very difficult to conduct voter fraud on a large enough scale to swing the election with vote by mail."

I am all for Mail-In ballots, with some requirements and oversight.
No problem at all....

However, Isn't it being alleged in FL that only/mostly certain ballots, specifically from one party, were mailed back, to be 'corrected'. (and, IMHO, mailing back shouldn't be allowed or considered to be constitutional.... If there is a re-do, then EVERYONE should get a re-do. EQUALITY AND EQUAL ACCESS, RIGHT????)
There seems to have been absolutely no oversight or double-checking of any of this, with ballots going missing, destroyed, and found many districts away,
Again, none of these checks matter if there is no real oversight, and rampant and ongoing corruption.
THAT kind of thing is my problem...
Not the requirement of ID...
Not making sure that every single person has so-called and 'created' equal access. (which IMHO is just another argument of the entitled)

No. No credible sourse is reporting anything like that.

 

[wvjules]

I wouldn't be able to do mail in voting. My signature is different practically every time I sign my name.

 

[bcla]

I get what you’re saying here about determining whether there is problem or just a potential problem. But, we take extraordinary steps to solve potential problems every single day.

So, speaking in general terms, I believe there’s a second step here - is it an actual issue, or just a potential issue? AND if the latter, how high is the potential, and what would the ramifications be if steps aren’t taken to minimize the potential?

The federal court case in Wisconsin had an estimate of 9% of the registered voters in the state not having an ID acceptable under their new law. This is a population that’s overwhelmingly eligible, but where people never had or no longer have a current, valid ID in line with the requirements.

We can certainly see simply that a residential address requirement was targeted at a specific voting population of native voters who tended to not have one. It might not have made that much of a difference because that population went through extraordinary measures to obtain residential addresses.

That gun permits, but not student IDs are acceptable voter ID in Texas says a lot about the intent.

We’ve relied for years on a system where picking a name on a list and illegally voting in that person’s name is risky. One runs the risk of being recognized as being someone else. Perhaps a neighbor of that registered voter is standing in line and notices. Or the poll worker is from the same neighborhood and knows the registered voter. Someone would really risk a felony violation to vote multiple times?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I wouldn't be able to do mail in voting. My signature is different practically every time I sign my name.

No one's signature is exactly the same every single time. But you can tell how a particular person does loops on their "S"s or "M" or "Z"s, etc.

If you matched my DL signature from my when I changed my name in 2013 it looks different in a minimal way than my signature in 2016 when I last renewed. You can still tell that the same person signed them.

 

[Colleen27]

Because, even if person A is demanding that person B vote a certain way, B can do whatever he/she wants to do in the privacy of the voting booth. That option is removed by mail-in ballots. (I'm not arguing agaist them at all, just pointing out a potential flaw in the process.)

Yep. My state doesn't allow selfies in the ballot booth because of the potential (w/o any evidence of it actually happening) of people being paid to vote a certain way. Mail-in ballots would open up the same possibility, and that was actually an argument mounted against no-reason absentee voting here. Do I think it is a realistic concern? No, not at all. But I do think it is a very good emotional/fear-based hot button to push to cast doubt on the validity of election results, and we need fewer of those, not more.

 

[Colleen27]

No one's signature is exactly the same every single time. But you can tell how a particular person does loops on their "S"s or "M" or "Z"s, etc.

If you matched my DL signature from my when I changed my name in 2013 it looks different in a minimal way than my signature in 2016 when I last renewed. You can still tell that the same person signed them.

But unfortunately, matching is pretty subjective. One observer might match a signature that another would discard, and that's happening a fair bit in FL right now.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yep. My state doesn't allow selfies in the ballot booth because of the potential (w/o any evidence of it actually happening) of people being paid to vote a certain way. Mail-in ballots would open up the same possibility, and that was actually an argument mounted against no-reason absentee voting here. Do I think it is a realistic concern? No, not at all. But I do think it is a very good emotional/fear-based hot button to push to cast doubt on the validity of election results, and we need fewer of those, not more.

Mail-in ballots are something already available in a variety of states. The difference is 3 states have mail-in ballots only. I totally get the concern but it's not a new concern whatsoever and people can certaintly do something in polling locations. Don't think that just because someone doesn't have the chance of someone else standing over them at a polling location that they aren't able to be swayed to vote one way over another. Doesn't mean we should just get rid of polling locations either.

But unfortunately, matching is pretty subjective. One observer might match a signature that another would discard, and that's happening a fair bit in FL right now.

Is that an issue elsewhere though? I haven't heard of the thousands and thousands and thousands of mail-in ballots in my county alone having a crisis of signature matching.

 

[CarolAnn856]

Is that an issue elsewhere though? I haven't heard of the thousands and thousands and thousands of mail-in ballots in my county alone having a crisis of signature matching.

That raises an interesting question...are voters notified if their ballot is rejected? From hanging chads at the polling place to supposed mismatched signatures on mail-ins, how do people know if their ballot wasn't counted? I honestly don't know.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That raises an interesting question...are voters notified if their ballot is rejected? From hanging chads at the polling place to supposed mismatched signatures on mail-ins, how do people know if their ballot wasn't counted? I honestly don't know.

I think it depends on the state. If the state does they would contact you to clear up any issues like a signature problem.

32 states allow mail-in ballots without needing a specific reason. 6 states don't compare signatures and 8 states don't have a state-mandated law about fixing ballots if there's an issue but I don't know if that means they don't contact you at all or if it's just the state isn't telling them how to contact and the length of time somone has (according the news article linked below).

According to a news article ( https://www.tampabay.com/florida-po...on-to-cure-their-rejected-ballot-not-florida/ ) in FL yes they do notify you (well the Counties are supposed to notify you) but they give you the day before the election by 5pm to correct it. That same article says CO gives 8 days, UT is 7 days, OR gives 14 days, WA gives up to when election results are certified and calls anyone who hasn't cured their ballot three days before all election results are certified , RI is 7 days. In MN an election official must call or email anyone whose ballot was rejected within five days of an election. So basically FL gives very very little time to rectify a possible issue with signatures.

That same article discusses that FL has been a trouble child (my phrase) for multiple elections. There is a now deleted comment in this thread by a poster and as it has been deleted I don't want to bring up the specifics (I just know what it says from my e-mail) but FL is well it's got some issues and has had a lot of scrutiny in how they handle elections. Without getting too into politics sounds like FL is using their stricter time frame for some not so good reasons at least that's my take on it.

The article does say "U.S. District Judge Mark Walker on Thursday granted an injunction giving voters until 5 p.m. Saturday to fix mail and provisional ballots that were rejected because of mismatched signatures." for FL.

Looks like CA was having a similar issue as FL according the article and a law ended up being passed there where someone has 8 days to fix a ballot should it be rejected.

ETA: I should note that the timelines given are for fixing one's ballot which is not limited to signatures. I could be missing information like an address or some other information, missing signature to begin with, etc.

 

[bcla]

That raises an interesting question...are voters notified if their ballot is rejected? From hanging chads at the polling place to supposed mismatched signatures on mail-ins, how do people know if their ballot wasn't counted? I honestly don't know.

In Arizona, there’s a way to check, and then to confirm. There was also a controversy over which counties were contacting voters by phone to confirm. This was apparently very common over the years, but up to each county registrar whether or not it was done, and how long. It was primarily done by the most populous counties. After a lawsuit, a state judge ordered that all counties had to perform what they called “curing” signatures that weren’t confirmed.

https://recorder.maricopa.gov/earlyvotingballot/earlyvotingballotstatus.aspx

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...t-republican-party-mcsally-sinema/1935158002/
The lawsuit centered on the length of time that voters have to rectify signature mismatches on the green envelopes that contain mail-in ballots.

When counties receive mail-in ballots, election workers attempt to check the signature against the voter's signature on record. If the workers cannot verify the signature, the county attempts to contact voters to allow them to confirm their ballot.

All of Arizona's 15 counties take part in this process before Election Day, but only a handful of them allow voters to continue "curing" their ballots after Election Day.
​

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

The federal court case in Wisconsin had an estimate of 9% of the registered voters in the state not having an ID acceptable under their new law. This is a population that’s overwhelmingly eligible, but where people never had or no longer have a current, valid ID in line with the requirements.

We can certainly see simply that a residential address requirement was targeted at a specific voting population of native voters who tended to not have one. It might not have made that much of a difference because that population went through extraordinary measures to obtain residential addresses.

That gun permits, but not student IDs are acceptable voter ID in Texas says a lot about the intent.

We’ve relied for years on a system where picking a name on a list and illegally voting in that person’s name is risky. One runs the risk of being recognized as being someone else. Perhaps a neighbor of that registered voter is standing in line and notices. Or the poll worker is from the same neighborhood and knows the registered voter. Someone would really risk a felony violation to vote multiple times?

From what I recall reading in that Wisconsin study that was posted here, they only cross referenced data for Drivers Licenses and State IDs. There are other acceptable forms of ID for voting purposes that weren't taken into account, which would realistically lower the number of voters who supposedly do not possess an ID that is acceptable for voting purposes. The study also didn't take into account that Wisconsin allows expired IDs to be used as long as they expired after the last general election. They only used data for IDs that were current/not expired at that time.

Also, Wisconsin offers free IDs for voting to those who need one regardless of whether they have the appropriate documents or not. They simply fill out 2 forms at the DMV and get mailed an ID.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/license-drvs/how-to-apply/petition-process.aspx

With Texas, it's not a gun permit but a Handgun License. There's a huge difference between one of those and a college ID. One is issued by the state, the other is not. Many ineligible voters can obtain a college ID. I had 3 college IDs by the time I was 17, though obviously my age would have made me ineligible to vote, though my IDs never stated my age, whether I was a citizen, etc.

Texas also gives out free Election Identification Certificates and allows anyone who doesn't have that or any of the other required forms of ID to vote with an alternate form of identification (such as a bank statement, paycheck, or utility bill) and signing a form stating they cannot reasonably obtain an ID.

In regards to people recognizing you at the polls, I've never seen a single person that I recognize and I live in a pretty small town. I'm bigger cities especially, I doubt most people are going to recognize those they see voting.

 

[bcla]

From what I recall reading in that Wisconsin study that was posted here, they only cross referenced data for Drivers Licenses and State IDs. There are other acceptable forms of ID for voting purposes that weren't taken into account, which would realistically lower the number of voters who supposedly do not possess an ID that is acceptable for voting purposes. The study also didn't take into account that Wisconsin allows expired IDs to be used as long as they expired after the last general election. They only used data for IDs that were current/not expired at that time.

Also, Wisconsin offers free IDs for voting to those who need one regardless of whether they have the appropriate documents or not. They simply fill out 2 forms at the DMV and get mailed an ID.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/license-drvs/how-to-apply/petition-process.aspx

With Texas, it's not a gun permit but a Handgun License. There's a huge difference between one of those and a college ID. One is issued by the state, the other is not. Many ineligible voters can obtain a college ID. I had 3 college IDs by the time I was 17, though obviously my age would have made me ineligible to vote, though my IDs never stated my age, whether I was a citizen, etc.

Texas also gives out free Election Identification Certificates and allows anyone who doesn't have that or any of the other required forms of ID to vote with an alternate form of identification (such as a bank statement, paycheck, or utility bill) and signing a form stating they cannot reasonably obtain an ID.

In regards to people recognizing you at the polls, I've never seen a single person that I recognize and I live in a pretty small town. I'm bigger cities especially, I doubt most people are going to recognize those they see voting.

I checked on Wisconsin’s voting only ID. I believe that was a response to some of the concerns. However, it’s not always easy as it has to be done in person at a Wisconsin DMV office.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/opin...r-id-tied-lower-wisconsin-turnout/1480862002/
In Sauk City, a town of around 3,400 residents about 30 miles north of the state Capitol in Madison, voters in the last presidential election without a proper form of identification could obtain free state ID cards at local Division of Motor Vehicles offices — but that office was only open every fifth Wednesday of every month — or just four days in 2016.

“(The voter ID law) made it harder for people to cast a ballot,” said Matt Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan political watchdog group. “Making it much harder to vote is about as anti-democratic as you can get.”​