4 ms·

That article has nothing to do with voter fraud. All it shows is that higher turnout seems to hurt Republicans. I won't shed any tears about the demise of a pol

That article has nothing to do with voter fraud. All it shows is that higher turnout seems to hurt Republicans. I won't shed any tears about the demise of a political party that relies on voter suppression to stay in office. From the article itself: "The Democrats are creating a new, highly efficient tool to turn out voters," said Neugebauer, the GOP consultant. "If Republicans can’t find a way to match it, we’re going to lose more elections all over the country."

rayiner 6y ago
Oh please: > Few people noticed when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. In the past, California allowed only relatives or people living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. The new law allowed anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — “harvesting” them, in political slang. Is there any developed country that allows someone other than public employees to handle ballots like this?
- klyrs 6y ago
  Are there widespread cases of fraudulent harvesting? Cases of harvesters telling people how to vote? Is there anything stopping Republicans and Libertarians from running ballot harvesting operations to turn out the vote in districts where they have popular support?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Why does there need to be empirical evidence of widespread cases of abuse before we address a measure that seems ripe for abuse? Was there widespread security breaches based on Spectre before operating system developers implemented mitigations?
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The most notable such case in recent US electoral history was North Carolina's 9th congressional district in 2018, where the fraudulent harvesting was perpetuated in favor of the Republican.
- detaro 6y ago
  AFAIK German law doesn't care how my filled out and double-sealed vote gets to the election office. Although I also don't see a point of why I'd hand it to some party representative when I can just drop it in a mailbox (I guess it might make sense as a service for less mobile people - who also can authorize someone to go fetch the voting materials for them), and I'd guess people just going round and ask to collect vote envelopes would cause lots of suspicion - door-to-door canvassing isn't really a thing here.
nightski 6y ago
You wouldn't shed tears over the death of the little bit of democracy remaining in America and the move to a single party political system? That's truly sad.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Generally, in a two party system, when one party becomes unviable due to nobody particularly wanting it anymore, it either adapts (see both the Tories and Labour in the UK), or fragments and reforms (see the Liberals in the UK). Or just dies and is replaced (see the Federalist Party in the US). Political parties aren't meant to be static (and of course the US Republicans aren't, anyway, and have adapted pretty dramatically over the years, to the point that they're now unrecogniseable from a few decades ago).
  - nightski 6y ago
    It's not unviable though. President Trump won the last election. It was not by majority popular vote, but he did get like 46% of the popular vote. I doubt that will repeat itself this election, but nevertheless saying you desire the death of the voice of such a large amount of Americans is not the same as the demise of a party. Also the claim the Republican party relies on voter suppression to stay in office is dubious at best. I really hope the conservative party does adapt. It's really in a bad spot right now. But that is completely different than what the parent was saying.
    - ilikehurdles 6y ago
      Are you suggesting that people whose parties cannot win elections should be given wins just because it'd be a shame if those people had no voice, and then you use an example from an election where the majority of the vote received no win and no voice? What's your claim, exactly? Why should anyone bemoan a party that goes into obscurity given a fair and accessible elections when their views are incompatible with the majority of voters? Why would anyone shed tears over this? The party will adapt or it will be replaced.

rayiner 6y ago

Oh please: > Few people noticed when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. In the past, California allowed only relatives or people living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. The new law allowed anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — “harvesting” them, in political slang. Is there any developed country that allows someone other than public employees to handle ballots like this?

klyrs 6y ago
Are there widespread cases of fraudulent harvesting? Cases of harvesters telling people how to vote? Is there anything stopping Republicans and Libertarians from running ballot harvesting operations to turn out the vote in districts where they have popular support?
- rayiner 6y ago
  Why does there need to be empirical evidence of widespread cases of abuse before we address a measure that seems ripe for abuse? Was there widespread security breaches based on Spectre before operating system developers implemented mitigations?
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The most notable such case in recent US electoral history was North Carolina's 9th congressional district in 2018, where the fraudulent harvesting was perpetuated in favor of the Republican.
detaro 6y ago
AFAIK German law doesn't care how my filled out and double-sealed vote gets to the election office. Although I also don't see a point of why I'd hand it to some party representative when I can just drop it in a mailbox (I guess it might make sense as a service for less mobile people - who also can authorize someone to go fetch the voting materials for them), and I'd guess people just going round and ask to collect vote envelopes would cause lots of suspicion - door-to-door canvassing isn't really a thing here.

nightski 6y ago

You wouldn't shed tears over the death of the little bit of democracy remaining in America and the move to a single party political system? That's truly sad.

rsynnott 6y ago
Generally, in a two party system, when one party becomes unviable due to nobody particularly wanting it anymore, it either adapts (see both the Tories and Labour in the UK), or fragments and reforms (see the Liberals in the UK). Or just dies and is replaced (see the Federalist Party in the US). Political parties aren't meant to be static (and of course the US Republicans aren't, anyway, and have adapted pretty dramatically over the years, to the point that they're now unrecogniseable from a few decades ago).
- nightski 6y ago
  It's not unviable though. President Trump won the last election. It was not by majority popular vote, but he did get like 46% of the popular vote. I doubt that will repeat itself this election, but nevertheless saying you desire the death of the voice of such a large amount of Americans is not the same as the demise of a party. Also the claim the Republican party relies on voter suppression to stay in office is dubious at best. I really hope the conservative party does adapt. It's really in a bad spot right now. But that is completely different than what the parent was saying.
  - ilikehurdles 6y ago
    Are you suggesting that people whose parties cannot win elections should be given wins just because it'd be a shame if those people had no voice, and then you use an example from an election where the majority of the vote received no win and no voice? What's your claim, exactly? Why should anyone bemoan a party that goes into obscurity given a fair and accessible elections when their views are incompatible with the majority of voters? Why would anyone shed tears over this? The party will adapt or it will be replaced.