The vote by mail fiasco, as it unfolds

[Kriegsspiel]

I'll be voting in person, like normal. I've voted in my current polling location before, and I can tell you for certain that it's the least infectious place I'll have gone to in the past several months, with the exception of my house

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that vulnerable populations like oldsters in nursing homes are the people that already vote via the mail.

[glennds]

They are advertising for hiring additional poll workers at $12.00-$13.50/hr and supposedly offering live wait times online for vote locations on Election Day to try and minimize lines.

That would be a pretty cheap way to muck with those mail in ballots, wouldn't it? WIth the voting machines there is an electronic and paper record, and it would be hard for a poll worker to tamper with them. But a poll worker sitting at a socially distanced location can quickly check a ballot and invalidate it depending on how the person voted. So easy to do, all it takes is a No. 2 pencil and/or an eraser.

Bets on how many people taking jobs as poll workers will engage in that kind of activity?

What would it take to satisfy you?

Voting in person, I would think, would be the reliable way.

Xan, WiseOne's post raises concerns about the poll workers at the voting location quickly checking and tampering with the ballots.

[Xan]

They are advertising for hiring additional poll workers at $12.00-$13.50/hr and supposedly offering live wait times online for vote locations on Election Day to try and minimize lines.

That would be a pretty cheap way to muck with those mail in ballots, wouldn't it? WIth the voting machines there is an electronic and paper record, and it would be hard for a poll worker to tamper with them. But a poll worker sitting at a socially distanced location can quickly check a ballot and invalidate it depending on how the person voted. So easy to do, all it takes is a No. 2 pencil and/or an eraser.

Bets on how many people taking jobs as poll workers will engage in that kind of activity?

What would it take to satisfy you?

Voting in person, I would think, would be the reliable way.

Xan, WiseOne's post raises concerns about the poll workers at the voting location quickly checking and tampering with the ballots.

I think she's talking about the poll workers who are receiving "mail-in" ballots at polling places.

[glennds]

They are advertising for hiring additional poll workers at $12.00-$13.50/hr and supposedly offering live wait times online for vote locations on Election Day to try and minimize lines.

That would be a pretty cheap way to muck with those mail in ballots, wouldn't it? WIth the voting machines there is an electronic and paper record, and it would be hard for a poll worker to tamper with them. But a poll worker sitting at a socially distanced location can quickly check a ballot and invalidate it depending on how the person voted. So easy to do, all it takes is a No. 2 pencil and/or an eraser.

Bets on how many people taking jobs as poll workers will engage in that kind of activity?

What would it take to satisfy you?

Voting in person, I would think, would be the reliable way.

Xan, WiseOne's post raises concerns about the poll workers at the voting location quickly checking and tampering with the ballots.

I think she's talking about the poll workers who are receiving "mail-in" ballots at polling places.

Yes, I think I see the difference now. I assumed people sending in mail-in ballots are wanting to avoid the polling locations entirely.

[glennds]

My earlier question still stands.
What would it take for you to be satisfied with early/mail-in/absentee ballots?

[Mark Leavy]

Just brainstorming here, but I would be impressed with some sort of on-line two stage validation system.

Step 1:
Individual voters could log in and see that their votes had been logged and tallied correctly. Perhaps something like this IRS web page, except for votes.

Step 2:
And then, in a more public manner, any voter could log in and see the relevant statistics. I'm not sure what would be appropriate and/or legal here, but maybe a count of how many ballots had been requested, how many had been returned, how those numbers compare with the voter rolls, what the statistical expectation based on population is, how many ballots had been validated as having been sent to the correct address, to a living person, currently registered and specifically requested. Show what percentage of requests/submissions have been turned down because of irregularities.

Stuff like that would go a long ways towards gaining the trust of the public. Or igniting the fires of the conspiracy theorists

[Cortopassi]

Most counties in the country have no restrictions on when you move there you can immediately vote there. Some have up to 30 day waiting periods.

Why don't these democratic billionaires simply move a few hundred thousand democrats, temporarily, to places like Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio? Drop in the bucket cost-wise?

Or just do it with college students, who can choose what state they want to vote in if they go to school out of state.

Joking, but I bet someone's considered this.

[Cortopassi]

My earlier question still stands.
What would it take for you to be satisfied with early/mail-in/absentee ballots?

There will be no satisfactory answer here. I would guess even if there was no Covid and voting was 95% in person, there would be some concern about some aspect that would delegitimize the results if Trump loses.

Only acceptable vote count is one where Trump wins...huuuggggee.

Anything else was fake, or fraud.

[Mark Leavy]

My earlier question still stands.
What would it take for you to be satisfied with early/mail-in/absentee ballots?

There will be no satisfactory answer here. I would guess even if there was no Covid and voting was 95% in person, there would be some concern about some aspect that would delegitimize the results if Trump loses.

Only acceptable vote count is one where Trump wins...huuuggggee.

Anything else was fake, or fraud.

Beg your pardon?

[Cortopassi]

I expect both sides to complain about the other side winning, in various ways.

May sound crazy here, but I also expect calm afterwards regardless of the result.

I think both sides would push very close to that civil war level but cooler heads will win out for the good of the country.

[WiseOne]

My earlier question still stands.
What would it take for you to be satisfied with early/mail-in/absentee ballots?

Good question.

Probably a combination of things. Immediate notification to the voter if a ballot is rejected, so the voter can correct the problem. Secure online confirmation of the recorded vote, or a mailed confirmation so that the voter can check that the vote was recorded correctly.

Of course, the best option is for people to vote in person. I don't understand why the jump to mail-in ballots when there is a much simpler solution: make election day "election week" instead, with polls open daily for several days and people assigned to a specific voting day based on first letter of last name or some such. Problem solved with minimal cost and little fuss.

[Cortopassi]

They know they can't win a fair election,

I just don't understand how you can state that with such confidence. Even the most Trump positive polls has the race pretty even, no? With most having Biden in some sort of lead?

With most minds made up: https://www.thestreet.com/mishtalk/poli ... is-made-up

[glennds]

My earlier question still stands.
What would it take for you to be satisfied with early/mail-in/absentee ballots?

Good question.

Probably a combination of things. Immediate notification to the voter if a ballot is rejected, so the voter can correct the problem. Secure online confirmation of the recorded vote, or a mailed confirmation so that the voter can check that the vote was recorded correctly.

Of course, the best option is for people to vote in person. I don't understand why the jump to mail-in ballots when there is a much simpler solution: make election day "election week" instead, with polls open daily for several days and people assigned to a specific voting day based on first letter of last name or some such. Problem solved with minimal cost and little fuss.

I think these are both very good ideas. A confirmation that the vote has been received and logged would go a long way for many people. Election week or even just a block of days resolves so many issues. You would think the home country to the world's tech industry and a place where we could already file taxes electronically could make these ideas happen.

Of course there is no practical way to provide complete assurance that a national election vote makes it from the County to the State and then from the State count to the Feds.
But if a person is so consumed with mistrust and paranoia, then they probably need more help than voting and politics can provide.
And if the mistrust is widespread, then the voting process isn't really the problem, it's merely a symptom of much deeper societal issues.
I mean, there has to be some point at which trust can be found, and if that point just doesn't exist (anymore), then it's game over.

[Xan]

Of course there is no practical way to provide complete assurance that a national election vote makes it from the County to the State and then from the State count to the Feds.

There are no national elections, and no vote count to be transmitted to the Feds. The only thing close is when the electors elect the president. They vote in person in DC in December. No transmitting required.

[Cortopassi]

They know they can't win a fair election,

I just don't understand how you can state that with such confidence. Even the most Trump positive polls has the race pretty even, no? With most having Biden in some sort of lead?

With most minds made up: https://www.thestreet.com/mishtalk/poli ... is-made-up

Let's assume for the moment that the polls are accurate, even though we know that many people will not admit that they support Trump because they are afraid of violence.

Go to https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/swing- ... ge65up=473, and push the "reset" button to show their base case.

That simulation says Trump loses to Biden.

Now make the tiniest change imaginable: increasing the turnout among "noncollege white" voters by 1%, from 55% to 56%, and see what happens.

Does that answer your question?

Sure, with small changes of how people are going to vote, and what percentage come out to vote, it will swing one way or the other.

You can agree or disagree on the baseline and the previous results and changes to demographics they incorporated over the past four years.

But in any case, it will be close. Either could win. I don't see why you think democrats have to cheat to win?

And your comment about Trump supporters worried about violence, I, personally, do not disclose my preference to anyone outside of here and my immediate family. In fact, I guarantee you that if I am talking with a school parent, esp. if the discussion revolves around the virus and getting kids back to school, they would almost certainly peg me as someone who will vote for Trump.

I think the silence of who you support works both ways. Another personal observation, of those I know who have vocally expressed a preference and I have actually talked to in the past month or two, the vast majority are openly supportive of Trump. Other than a few Biden signs around the neighborhood, no one has actively come out pushing Biden.

[glennds]

Of course there is no practical way to provide complete assurance that a national election vote makes it from the County to the State and then from the State count to the Feds.

There are no national elections, and no vote count to be transmitted to the Feds. The only thing close is when the electors elect the president. They vote in person in DC in December. No transmitting required.

I'll rephrase the larger point, that being however the vote count is tabulated to reflect the popular vote for a county, state, nation, I can't see a practical way to guarantee any individual that the total is accurate. This is important because otherwise there would be no way to know whether the elector is faithful to the will of the voters.

[Xan]

Of course there is no practical way to provide complete assurance that a national election vote makes it from the County to the State and then from the State count to the Feds.

There are no national elections, and no vote count to be transmitted to the Feds. The only thing close is when the electors elect the president. They vote in person in DC in December. No transmitting required.

I'll rephrase the larger point, that being however the vote count is tabulated to reflect the popular vote for a county, state, nation, I can't see a practical way to guarantee any individual that the total is accurate. This is important because otherwise there would be no way to know whether the elector is faithful to the will of the voters.

There is no national popular vote. Anything that's called that is a mirage.

But your larger point is right: there isn't a way to prove that the vote total is accurate. It might be possible to be able to prove to Person A that his vote for Candidate B was counted. It might even be possible to publish a list of one-time identifiers for each voter, along with how they voted. Individuals could find themselves on that list and verify. But there isn't a practical way to guarantee that ONLY actual people who really voted appear on that list.

[Cortopassi]

Of course there is no practical way to provide complete assurance that a national election vote makes it from the County to the State and then from the State count to the Feds.

There are no national elections, and no vote count to be transmitted to the Feds. The only thing close is when the electors elect the president. They vote in person in DC in December. No transmitting required.

I'll rephrase the larger point, that being however the vote count is tabulated to reflect the popular vote for a county, state, nation, I can't see a practical way to guarantee any individual that the total is accurate. This is important because otherwise there would be no way to know whether the elector is faithful to the will of the voters.

I try to deal with 140 sets of parents for marching band, where about 1/4 of them change every year because of graduation. It is really difficult to keep things straight/up to date.

I think all of us would be quite shocked (or maybe not) at how many mistakes are made along the way at all levels when you are talking millions of voters. Not intentional, but just errors that creep in and stay in for a long time. Percentage-wise probably quite small, but in some of these states that makes a difference.

[Tortoise]

Honest question: Given that Fauci and Birx have both publicly stated that in-person voting can be done safely, why are so many blue-state politicians still pushing mail-in voting for this election?

If they don't have ulterior motives, then what is their main reason?

[glennds]

Of course there is no practical way to provide complete assurance that a national election vote makes it from the County to the State and then from the State count to the Feds.

There are no national elections, and no vote count to be transmitted to the Feds. The only thing close is when the electors elect the president. They vote in person in DC in December. No transmitting required.

I'll rephrase the larger point, that being however the vote count is tabulated to reflect the popular vote for a county, state, nation, I can't see a practical way to guarantee any individual that the total is accurate. This is important because otherwise there would be no way to know whether the elector is faithful to the will of the voters.

There is no national popular vote. Anything that's called that is a mirage.

But your larger point is right: there isn't a way to prove that the vote total is accurate. It might be possible to be able to prove to Person A that his vote for Candidate B was counted. It might even be possible to publish a list of one-time identifiers for each voter, along with how they voted. Individuals could find themselves on that list and verify. But there isn't a practical way to guarantee that ONLY actual people who really voted appear on that list.

This is my point. I think we can agree that the US currency as it currently exists would promptly collapse if there was a wide enough loss of confidence in it.
Similarly, if the level of mistrust is wide enough and deep enough, there is a point at which it would not be possible to provide satisfactory proof to voters and the election process itself will collapse. Some level of trust is necessary. At least in a representative based democracy.

When I say national popular vote, I am talking about the collective sum of the state popular votes. I might also call state popular votes to be the effective sum of the county, parish or borough votes. I think we're just splitting semantics and you get my point.

[Xan]

When I say national popular vote, I am talking about the collective sum of the state popular votes. I might also call state popular votes to be the effective sum of the county, parish or borough votes. I think we're just splitting semantics and you get my point.

Your larger point is spot on.

But I don't think the discussion about "national popular vote" is just semantics. It's important to know that there isn't such a thing as a national popular vote, and it's damaging to blithely discuss it as though there is one. For example, states don't count their mail-in or absentee ballots at all unless there's a race where they could make a difference.

[Cortopassi]

Way more voters in most demographics are going to vote for Trump than last time.

This is where we disagree. One of us will be right.

I believe (and I am biased) that a lot of people who found Trump appealing in 2016 vs. the shitty choice of Clinton (like me) have much less reservation about the not as shitty choice of Biden. And throw in 4 years of just being plain exhausted by how Trump operates and sucks every news cycle -- time for a change.

[Mark Leavy]

Axios is reporting that many Democrats are pivoting away from encouraging mail in ballots. Not so much that they are worried about fraud, but that too many ballots may get lost or tossed for irregularities.

Democrats are exponentially more likely to vote by mail than Republicans this year — and if enough mail-in ballots are lost, rejected on a technicality or undercounted, it could change the outcome of the presidential election or other key races.

My impression is that the Democrats are noticing that a lot of their constituency can't be relied on to properly fill out a form and mail it in.

And many of the states that are supporting mail in ballots will be doing it for the first time this year. Screwups are bound to happen in states that don't have any experience. If the screwups are completely random, then the party that does the most "mailing in" will be hurt the most.

[Tortoise]

Looks like the Dems are already hard at work:

Military Ballots Found in the Trash in Pennsylvania, All Were Trump Votes

[Mark Leavy]

Looks like the Dems are already hard at work:

Military Ballots Found in the Trash in Pennsylvania, All Were Trump Votes

In all honesty, this looks like a very small number and fairly isolated.

However... if even one of your ream of condoms in the nightstand drawer has a pinhole through it, it does give one pause.