Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Is your argument here that the minuses are OK because there's also some pluses?
No. I’m saying everybody has a different perspective. What I’m indifferent to or see as a plus or minus someone else might see completely differently. We are likely going to disagree on what the best methods are. That doesn’t mean we are pro voter suppression or pro voter fraud.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Most states allow volunteers to pick up ballots. And yes I agree it's a recipe for fraud.
Obviously you're trying to pick on California here, but virtually every state allows ballots to be collected. The great red state of North Carolina just had an election canceled because a Republican operative collected thousands of votes which never got turned in.
I said "California requires ballots to be postmarked by election day. That tends to work out well enough. But I guess you guys are right - more states should handle elections like Florida."
I just know about it because this was the first election where California used it. It’s a completely non-sensical way of trying to count more ballots and those doing it (in CA it was mostly Democrats) were pretty frank about not collecting ballots from Republicans even if they were asked by the same household.
Not many states allow third parties to collect ballots. That’s very different than allowing family members to turn in ballots.
Democrats refusing to take ballots for Republicans when they're already on site taking other ballots.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/politics/amp/California-s-late-votes-broke-big-for-13432727.php
Wait, you're upset because private citizens weren't forced to transport ballots against their will? You sound like HellToupee when he complained that the volunteer voting buses didn't drive by the Republican neighborhoods.
This article doesn't discuss - or even mention - Democrats refusing to pick up ballots from voters with different ideologies. Instead it has Paul Ryan whining and the person you've quoted here as grumbling because they wanted to speak to his daughter. If he had asked them to drop off his ballot and they refused it might back up your claim. But he clearly does not say that.
You are a guy who once said that you wanted to see increased voter turnout, and now you're suddenly complaining about increased voter turnout? Wow.
Im not understanding where you are coming from. I think having a family or household member drop off a ballot is a lot different than allowing third party political operatives to collect and drop off ballots.
You wrote "...It’s a completely non-sensical way of trying to count more ballots and those doing it (in CA it was mostly Democrats) were pretty frank about not collecting ballots from Republicans even if they were asked by the same household." I asked for an example. The very example you gave offers no support for your claim. He complains Democrats wanted to talk to his daughter and offered to mail in her ballot. There's zero claims by the accuser (Republicans) that they asked the Democrats but were refused. Do you have another example showing Democrats being asked by Republicans to collect their ballots at the same household but refusing? I don't see an issue with Democrats declining to go to Republican's houses to encourage them to vote for Democrats.jonessed said:
The consultant was pretty clear that they solicit Democratic voters and avoid Republican voters even if they are in the same household. They then give an example.
There’s nothing innately fraudulent in operating like this if the law allows it. I just think it’s ripe for elderly fraud and exploitation. It’s not designed to increase voter turnout. It’s designed to be partisan. This goes for every state that allows it.
How is it designed to be partisan if all parties are allowed equal opportunity to participate?jonessed said:
The consultant came right out and said they were targeting only targeting Democratic voters. They gave an example of a political operative coming out to a house and trying to collect ballots from some family members and not others in the same household. It’s not illegal, it’s just a law designed to be partisan in nature.
. I’m not going to waste my time continuing to go around in circles with you.
See, I think that's where you're wrong. There's nothing partisan about it, either in design or implementation.
There's something to be said for a protest vote, even in an RCV system. If you really think that both parties are corrupt, self-dealing leeches, then why not have only a first choice, non-traditional vote and no secondary or tertiary vote?
Yeah, these points were made to me at another board, too. I didn't think that one through too well.
I love that this board got invested in the AZ SOS race like they did. And Ducey appointed McSally today, which makes nobody happy. There's a non-zero chance Hobbs getting elected stopped Ducey from appointing himself.
buttery malesBucky86 said:Not sure where to put this.
The Georgia governor candidate who toured his “deportation bus” has been indicted for insurance fraud
The "lock her up" party sure seems be full of actual criminals.
that guy is special
God bless Republicans:
(CNN)Gov. Paul LePage certified the election results for Maine's 2nd Congressional District after a recount and legal battle dragged out the final result in the race for almost two months, cementing a Democratic victory.
But, LePage -- a Republican firebrand -- made one last jab at the drawn-out process when certifying the election, writing the words "stolen election" next to his signature.
To me the only drawback to RCV is experience - voters not actually using the ranking system.
The AZ GOP just elected Kelli Ward as their State party chairperson yesterday. I was at the AZ Dem reorg and the crowd burst out laughing when this was announced. They basically took all of the bad parts of their party that helped them lose 4 state-wide seats and a majority of Congressional reps and said, "Let's crank this up to 11."
It is surprising and sad. I like him.
A vet, Gina Ortiz Jones, could make that district blue. She lost to Hurd by 0.5% in 2018 and is running again. She checks a lot of boxes: Philippina, LGBTQ, Iraq war, defense intelligence, trade. Hillary won the district by 3.6% in 2016.
There is one if you had bothered to use the search function:
