Jump to content

Republican Anti-Democracy and Voter Disenfranchisement


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

From last year, just prior to the election:

 

After 7 years of voting by mail, Colorado voters aren't taken in by absentee ballot drama

 

Part of the national drama swirling around the Nov. 3 general election is centered on voting by mail.

But that’s not the case in Colorado.

 

While some states will be sending ballots to all voters for the first time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential health risks of in-person voting, all registered Colorado voters have been receiving ballots by mail since 2013.

 

The habit of voting by mail was established long before that for many Coloradans, said Angela Myers, Larimer County clerk and recorder. About 70% of state voters had already opted to be placed on a “permanent mail ballot” list maintained by the state.

 

Voters enjoyed receiving a ballot in the mail, filling it out at their convenience and returning it by mail or by hand at secure drop boxes by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

 

“We were already 70% of the way there with our voters,” Myers said. “When the legislature became involved, it was an easy call in 2013.”

 

Since 2006, five cases of voter fraud have led to criminal convictions in Colorado, according to a database maintained by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research and education institution.

 

Historically, mail balloting across the country has not had serious problems, said Kyle Saunders, a professor of political science at Colorado State University.

 

“Most of the empirical evidence does not support the idea that fraud is a concern,” Saunders said. “I can’t say that it never happens; nobody can. There have been incidents.

 

 

hey @Scarlet

 

check out the bold from Knapp

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey at least he's willing to admit there are things he doesn't know or fully understand; and then takes the time to research and learn. That is that self awareness thing I was talking about. Some righ

You've already been told why. People of color have higher average wait times at polls. And you can laugh all you want at the 50 minutes but these are averages. There were examples of people waiting fo

And no one has to present ID, they just verify their name and address. And one vote per address counts, so there's no "vote early, vote often" nonsense.   And yet... this Georgia law is SO n

6 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

 

Just voted for mayor, city councilmembers, and few ballot issues the same way this very week. 

 

You have to provide a signature that matches what's on file, right?

 

And you had to show ID to initially register?

Link to post
6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

hey @Scarlet

 

check out the bold from Knapp

 

I included that just for you. If the preeminent right-wing voter fraud watchdog can only find five cases of fraud in 14 years in the most successful vote-by-mail state, I'm thinking we've found the perfect solution for all parties. Just adopt the Colorado system and we're good.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I am advocating for uniform sets of guidelines and oversight. I'm not sure why you think I'm not.

 

Colorado has been conducting vote-by-mail forever now. They have statistically zero cases of election fraud. 

 

Just mail everyone a ballot and be done. It's easy, it's been proven to work, it's safe, secure & free, it promotes democracy... I don't see why anyone would have an issue with something that's working. 

 

 

After some reading, I could probably be convinced to get behind the Colorado model.

 

ID is required when registering, and when voting in person for the first time. Ballots are only sent to registered voters, not addresses. A shorter window of time for the process (15 days I think). Secure/monitored drop boxes. The choice/ability to still vote in person. Signature matching. A prohibition against "electioneering" at poll sites. 

 

It might work on a larger scale..??..

Link to post
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

I included that just for you. If the preeminent right-wing voter fraud watchdog can only find five cases of fraud in 14 years in the most successful vote-by-mail state, I'm thinking we've found the perfect solution for all parties. Just adopt the Colorado system and we're good.

 

Thanks. As posted a minute ago, there is potential. 

 

How does one convince the other 49 States that this CO system could work?

Link to post

3 hours ago, Scarlet said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/%3famp

 

The Heritage Foundation????

 

Lol..the amount of disinformation being spread in this thread is astounding.  

 

The fact of the matter is the past election was the most secure in our history.  You've never been able to answer why then would the Republicans want to make it more difficult to vote. 

 

 

Why wouldn’t you want it even more secure?  And it’s easy to vote even after any law changes.  

Link to post
2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

You have to provide a signature that matches what's on file, right?

 

And you had to show ID to initially register?

 

You can register to vote when you get your ID. So when I moved here I just did it all at once. Then they mail out the ballots. You fill in the circles, put in a sleeve, then put it into another envelope and sign it on the outside, then drop it off at the courthouse or mail it in 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Why wouldn’t you want it even more secure?  And it’s easy to vote even after any law changes.  

 

You can't get more secure than statistically zero fraud. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

When was this tried for them to study?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-69.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwihsvn19-zvAhUbCM0KHV82B2UQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw3ymMcUfDwUWYakzg7m4Q-m

 

They concluded that it is difficult, but I remember comparing primary elections over time and found that a state primary had no different results on weekends compared to weekdays.

 

One interesting thing, is that the GAO notes that things like vote by mail and same day voter registration DO increase turnout. Which is exactly why the GOP is trying to stop it, they have government backed research to prove that mail in voting increases turnout - which is bad for them. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

20 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

This could be your most idiotic post yet.  It's not about lean left or lean right it's about whether or not a source passes fact checking.  

 

You certainly enjoy the use of immoderate quantifiers don't you.

 

I initially only noticed the "Left Bias" vs "Right Bias" arrows and placement. In rechecking, I now notice the "Factual Reporting" columns. Mixed is the grade for the Heritage Foundation. So I asked myself, wonder why and who gave them that designation...?

 

I am not sure why you get to laugh at the Heritage Foundation as a source, obviously proven to be utilized by others here, that's been around since the 70's, while at the same time using this MBFC site to bash them. Who is MBFC? I checked and found:

 

Who owns and runs Media Bias/Fact Check?

Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

Who in the heck is Dave Van Zandt?

Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence. For the record, he also is not the President of the New School, that is a different David E. Van Zandt who is the head of a liberal college in New York City. I am an unaffiliated voter from North Carolina.

Does Media Bias/Fact Check have any employees?

Yes and no. At the moment we have five volunteers who perform source research, writing and assist in fact checking. We hope to be able to offer pay for their services in the future as the website grows.

 

So you will have to forgive me for not noting all of your link earlier...but don't get too upset when I disregard your criticism after seeing this. 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Heritage Foundation as a source, obviously proven to be utilized by others here

 

For the record, I wasn't using them because I find them credible. It's just ironic that the self-proclaimed voter fraud database has basically found little voter fraud.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
50 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

For the record, I wasn't using them because I find them credible. It's just ironic that the self-proclaimed voter fraud database has basically found little voter fraud.

I get the irony. I also realize you didn't choose them as a source where it was imbedded in the article...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(but don't tell Scarlet...)

Link to post
1 minute ago, Scarlet said:

 

Seems to be the Trumpist argument here.

Well, if you have fewer voters and they are only the ones that sit in front of Fox News every night, wouldn’t the world be a better place?

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...