The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

Most countries vote on the day and you need ID to vote , there are some exceptions of course but why would someone want to vote 3 months in advance for a candidate and then have an issue come up and not be able change your vote , late votes should not be counted . 100m mail in ballot is not good .

Do most countries have their elections on a Tuesday when the vast majority of people are working?

If the time lag between voting and election day is the concern, why have caucuses and primaries up to 11 months in advance?

Just saying mail-in ballots are "not good" doesn't make it so. They've been used, successfully, for years all over the US (the orange p***k even voted that way himself). A few states even conduct ALL of their voting by mail.

[whitey]

The issue I see is that Democrats are very quick to cry voter suppression when in  oftentimes the things they are objecting to are identical to laws enacted by Democratic Secretaries of State in other states.

Well if the Dems are trying to do things like limit early and election day voting and demand notaries for mail-in ballots, fire away and show us where.

So in MA, which has a Democratic Secretary of State, mail in ballots have to be received by Election Day. When Republicans tried to advocate for that in PA they were accused of voter suppression.

[omochain]

The issue I see is that Democrats are very quick to cry voter suppression when in  oftentimes the things they are objecting to are identical to laws enacted by Democratic Secretaries of State in other states.

Well if the Dems are trying to do things like limit early and election day voting and demand notaries for mail-in ballots, fire away and show us where.

So in MA, which has a Democratic Secretary of State, mail in ballots have to be received by Election Day. When Republicans tried to advocate for that in PA they were accused of voter suppression.

Are you saying that the GOP are not working to suppress minority voting?

[J70]

The issue I see is that Democrats are very quick to cry voter suppression when in  oftentimes the things they are objecting to are identical to laws enacted by Democratic Secretaries of State in other states.

Well if the Dems are trying to do things like limit early and election day voting and demand notaries for mail-in ballots, fire away and show us where.

So in MA, which has a Democratic Secretary of State, mail in ballots have to be received by Election Day. When Republicans tried to advocate for that in PA they were accused of voter suppression.

Advocate? In PA, they tried, after the rules had been set to facilitate voting in a pandemic year, and after the votes had been cast, to disqualify those votes and created a big, false stink that there was fraud taking place.

[J70]

I would add, no one is saying that Dems can't be hypocritical or don't politicize issues.

But there is only one side that is hellbent on making it harder to vote and easier to illegitimately suppress the vote on the rationale that turnout is inversely related to their party's success.

[whitey]

The issue I see is that Democrats are very quick to cry voter suppression when in  oftentimes the things they are objecting to are identical to laws enacted by Democratic Secretaries of State in other states.

Well if the Dems are trying to do things like limit early and election day voting and demand notaries for mail-in ballots, fire away and show us where.

So in MA, which has a Democratic Secretary of State, mail in ballots have to be received by Election Day. When Republicans tried to advocate for that in PA they were accused of voter suppression.

Advocate? In PA, they tried, after the rules had been set to facilitate voting in a pandemic year, and after the votes had been cast, to disqualify those votes and created a big, false stink that there was fraud taking place.

Rules set by who?

And the lawsuits began well before the election not after the votes were already cast

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules-pennsylvania-can-count-ballots-received-after-election-day

[J70]

The issue I see is that Democrats are very quick to cry voter suppression when in  oftentimes the things they are objecting to are identical to laws enacted by Democratic Secretaries of State in other states.

Well if the Dems are trying to do things like limit early and election day voting and demand notaries for mail-in ballots, fire away and show us where.

So in MA, which has a Democratic Secretary of State, mail in ballots have to be received by Election Day. When Republicans tried to advocate for that in PA they were accused of voter suppression.

Advocate? In PA, they tried, after the rules had been set to facilitate voting in a pandemic year, and after the votes had been cast, to disqualify those votes and created a big, false stink that there was fraud taking place.

Rules set by who?

And the lawsuits began well before the election not after the votes were already cast

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules-pennsylvania-can-count-ballots-received-after-election-day

The very link you posted shows they lost, at the Supreme Court level, in October. There's no recourse beyond that.

Yet they kept the charade going for Trump's benefit, and tried, after the fact, to get the votes of those who had voted by the rules in PA deemed illegitimate i.e. disenfranchise those voters. It was basically a "f**k you, we don't care that the Supreme Court ruled against us and you voted according to the rules they deemed constitutional. We're going to try to invalidate your vote anyway".

You can't turn around, AFTER people have voted by court-approved rules, and try to invalidate the votes they cast in good faith. Or at least not in a democracy.

But that's what the GOP now is after the takeover by Trump and his cult. They are the anti-democratic party (small "d"). If wide voter participation diminishes their chances, well then wider voter participation is, by definition, illegitimate.

[whitey]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

[J70]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

I said they "tried... to disqualify the votes " after the election.

Which is exactly what they did, despite the rules having already been approved.

And how many votes were in question over the postmark issue?

Was it the millions that Trump and Giuliani were suing left right and centre for weeks to get thrown out?

You'd be better off picking a better hill to die on than the GOP conduct in PA the election just past.

[whitey]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

I said they "tried... to disqualify the votes " after the election.

Which is exactly what they did, despite the rules having already been approved.

And how many votes were in question over the postmark issue?

Was it the millions that Trump and Giuliani were suing left right and centre for weeks to get thrown out?

You'd be better off picking a better hill to die on than the GOP conduct in PA the election just past.

The standards the Republicans were arguing for before the election were identical to standards for mail in ballots that Democratic Secretaries of State had agreed upon in several other states.

The Democrats brought a lawsuit arguing that ballots with non matching signatures, missing/illegible postmarks should be counted

You yourself said the signatures should match and the postmark should be legible.

I guess following that logic, you are in favor of voter suppression

[omochain]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

I said they "tried... to disqualify the votes " after the election.

Which is exactly what they did, despite the rules having already been approved.

And how many votes were in question over the postmark issue?

Was it the millions that Trump and Giuliani were suing left right and centre for weeks to get thrown out?

You'd be better off picking a better hill to die on than the GOP conduct in PA the election just past.

The standards the Republicans were arguing for before the election were identical to standards for mail in ballots that Democratic Secretaries of State had agreed upon in several other states.

What states and by which democratic Secretaries of State. And the context in which they were levied please?.

The Democrats brought a lawsuit arguing that ballots with non matching signatures, missing/illegible postmarks should be counted

Examples please

You yourself said the signatures should match and the postmark should be legible

BTW what logical conclusion show one come to when you are addressing someone with the handle Whitey.

[whitey]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

I said they "tried... to disqualify the votes " after the election.

Which is exactly what they did, despite the rules having already been approved.

And how many votes were in question over the postmark issue?

Was it the millions that Trump and Giuliani were suing left right and centre for weeks to get thrown out?

You'd be better off picking a better hill to die on than the GOP conduct in PA the election just past.

The standards the Republicans were arguing for before the election were identical to standards for mail in ballots that Democratic Secretaries of State had agreed upon in several other states.

What states and by which democratic Secretaries of State. And the context in which they were levied please?.

The Democrats brought a lawsuit arguing that ballots with non matching signatures, missing/illegible postmarks should be counted

Examples please

You yourself said the signatures should match and the postmark should be legible

BTW what logical conclusion show one come to when you are addressing someone with the handle Whitey.

Answer to your first question.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-mail-voting-policies-in-effect-for-the-2020-election.aspx

Answer to your second question regarding signatures. 2 groups who fronted the lawsuit are heavily affiliated with the Democratic Party. There would be 100% crossover in membership

https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsburgh-elections-presidential-elections-fc464c287c18823ff57fedc13facf7e5

The ruling regarding postmarks was issues in a response to a lawsuit taken by Democrats

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules-pennsylvania-can-count-ballots-received-after-election-day


My username has to do with the color of my hair

[whitey]

And now all the hysteria the Democrats and their pals in the media ginned up over the post office last summer and fall makes sense as it was part of the narrative they needed to spin for these extensions as to when ballots would be accepted

[J70]

You said they sued after the election and after the votes had been cast

That is incorrect....they sued before the election

And based on what the PA Supreme Court ruled they were dead right to sue


"In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary."

You, yourself said that ballots received after the election should have a valid postmark

I said they "tried... to disqualify the votes " after the election.

Which is exactly what they did, despite the rules having already been approved.

And how many votes were in question over the postmark issue?

Was it the millions that Trump and Giuliani were suing left right and centre for weeks to get thrown out?

You'd be better off picking a better hill to die on than the GOP conduct in PA the election just past.

The standards the Republicans were arguing for before the election were identical to standards for mail in ballots that Democratic Secretaries of State had agreed upon in several other states.

The Democrats brought a lawsuit arguing that ballots with non matching signatures, missing/illegible postmarks should be counted

You yourself said the signatures should match and the postmark should be legible.

I guess following that logic, you are in favor of voter suppression

And the measures the GOP are attacking have already been in place in many red states for years.

On the signatures and postmarks, yes, I did say that.

Without thinking too much about it, beyond saying that variations in signature must be taken into account.

I hadn't thought about people who are disabled, injured or otherwise unable to normally replicate their signature, which is what the groups in PA were arguing for when they said that questions about the perceived validity of the signature, ALONE, should not be enough to invalidate a vote. Especially in a state where there were/are no standardized, objective protocols for assessing signatures .

On the postmarks, if the ballot is received by the Friday deadline and the postmark is smudged for whatever reason, chances are that is was mailed by the Tuesday, at least given my own personal experience of the US Postal Service. I don't see much of an issue as long as everything else about the ballot is legit. Is it fair to discount someone's vote because of the failures of USPS and their processes? Obviously its not hard to imagine a scenario where there is a small margin and a similar number of smudged postmarks in question. But  we're talking about a tiny number of votes relative to the margin in PA. Trump and Giuliani still tried to undermine the entire election and have ALL of the PA vote thrown out. They tried to have the votes of those who voted by mail thrown out. They tried to have the votes of all those who submitted late ballots thrown out. They didn't care about a few smudged postmarks or a few questionable signature matches.

[J70]

And now all the hysteria the Democrats and their pals in the media ginned up over the post office last summer and fall makes sense as it was part of the narrative they needed to spin for these extensions as to when ballots would be accepted

Party encouraging their voters to avail of absentee voting in presidential election in pandemic year is concerned by actions of Trump donor in charge of postal service in presidential election where Trump is screaming about absentee voting fraud shocker.