6 ms·
In what state is mail-in voting accounting for a plurality of votes cast in a national election? That's the only way you could claim that it's the primary metho
by choko 6y ago
In what state is mail-in voting accounting for a plurality of votes cast in a national election? That's the only way you could claim that it's the primary method in a given state.
Further, mail-in ballots don't tend to lean toward one party or the other at present, so claiming that it's an attempt at Democrat voter suppression is disingenuous. 538 recently published an article on the matter. I would link it, but it's a pain on mobile and I've given you enough info to find the article yourself. This really is about security, an area in which mail-in ballots are lacking.
- dllthomas 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon > The U.S. state of Oregon established vote-by-mail as the standard mechanism for voting with Ballot Measure 60, a citizen's initiative, in 1998. The measure made Oregon the first state in the United States to conduct its elections exclusively by mail.
- choko 6y agoInteresting. How do they prevent fraud? The goodwill of man isn't an acceptable answer.
- dllthomas 6y agoI understand signature matching to be a part of it. I don't know, beyond that. I would expect the Oregon secretary of state's office, or similar, would have more info. I'll spare you the lmgtfy link.
- choko 6y agoYou should spare the link, since you are making a claim of fact without providing evidence.
- dllthomas 6y agoSorry, claims without evidence? I am not arguing with you. You asked questions. I shared what I knew, made clear that it was my own understanding, made clear that you should do more research, and suggested where that might be fruitful. It's not my responsibility to do that research for you.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Further, mail-in ballots don't tend to lean toward one party or the other at present, so claiming that it's an attempt at Democrat voter suppression is disingenuous. No, claiming it would be effective Democratic voter suppression might be inaccurate (though the issue isn't “who votes more by mail”, but “who votes by mail that would not vote if only allowed to vote in-person”, which are not equivalent questions, so the fact you relate doesn't even make that weaker case.) But that the motivation is partisan (whatever the evidence is about the likely effects) comes straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/08/trump-voting-by-mail-174695 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/08/trump-voting-by-mai... It's not disingenuous to suggest an actor has a nefarious motive when the actor explicitly announces that motive, even if there might be evidence that the act taken would not realize the motivating goal.
- choko 6y agoOk, doesn't change the fact that not adopting vote by mail as a primary method is not voter suppression. I'm not concerned with intent in this case. It also doesn't change that vote by mail has a larger attack surface than in-person voting and is therefore less secure. If voting accessibility is a problem, expand early in-person voting. Given the current climate, I don't trust that either side will not try to unduly influence the election using any means they think that they can get away with.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]