6 ms·

Among other reasons, this is in big part happening due to a large push toward mail-in voting come the next Presidential election. It seems that certain politica

by xzlzx 6y ago

Among other reasons, this is in big part happening due to a large push toward mail-in voting come the next Presidential election. It seems that certain political entities think they will suffer at the poles due to the fact that it’ll be easier to vote. easier voting -> more votes -> undesirable outcomes

nxc18 6y ago
The craziest thing about the whole situations is there actually isn’t much evidence that vote by mail favors republicans; and yet they’re willing to degrade postal service to a country more reliant on it than ever, just for a small hope of electoral advantage. Edit: article in case anyone isn’t convinced (I was skeptical at first, given the tone of the discussion): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/vote-by-mail.html/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/vote-by-mail....
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  There are other reasons they want to disband the post office beyond just its impact on voting. If they replace it with private entities it becomes easier to surveil and censor the mail, for instance.
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    The USPS takes an image of the front of the envelope for every first class letter sent in the USA. It's a safe bet that they're doing OCR of the recipient/sender addresses and store it in a database. USPS Informed Delivery is just a customer-facing result of that long standing program.
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      Yes, the goal of surveillance is already being advanced in many ways under the existing structure of the USPS.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      The USPS includes legal protections against your mail being opened, and a mandate to serve everyone. Whereas private companies can be fully employed for government surveillance (third party doctrine), sell bulk records to commercial surveillance companies (equifax, google, etc), as well as refusing service to whomever they like (ala MC/Visa). I agree this isn't the overriding concern of those trying to destroy the USPS, but it's surely a nice bonus.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    There was this incident a while back. Some psychopath sent letters threatening to kidnap young females, rape them, and kill them. He talked about how he had rigged out a van to facilitate this. His letters got turned over to the FBI, since they would up in different states. Turns out that each stamp has microprinting on it that identifies it. Given the stamp, they were able to identify which post office it was sold at. They guessed at approximately when it was sold, and then from the security cameras they identified the letter writer. So... explain how private entities are going to do more surveillance?
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      Private entities will just have terms of service which say they're entitled to open and inspect your mail for any reason they see fit. mindslight's comment above does a good job of touching on some other ways it will enable more surveillance. But yes, the postal service has already been turned to this purpose in many ways and the days of "gentlemen don't read each other's mail" are largely over.
- olliej 6y ago
  The concern for the GOP isn’t that democrats favor voting by mail, it’s that the GOP has worked hard to make it as hard as possible to vote in person in targeted (eg non Republican) communities. Widespread vote from mail defeats that as it means that their selective polling closures, and arbitrary barriers to voting in person, go away
  - xzlzx 6y ago
    This is a great point. That makes a lot of sense.
  - bobsoap 6y ago
    Out of curiosity, what are those barriers?
    - ethanbond 6y ago
      Photo ID laws is a big one. Closing polling stations in minority communities.
      - _-david-_ 6y ago
        Can you name a first world county that doesn't have voter id laws?
        ethanbond 6y ago
        How about this: if Republicans were pushing voter ID laws plus a comprehensive plan to get IDs to every American who wishes to vote, I suspect no one would have any problem with such a proposal. As it stands now, there are large groups of Americans for whom getting a photo ID is a non-trivial task. People without birth records, people who can’t take time off work to go to the DMV, people who don’t know that they go to the DMV to get an ID, people who live hours from the nearest DMV, so on and so forth. Let’s make sure they all get a chance to vote. Any proposal that aims to do that, I believe, would not have the support of the Republican Party, because the Republican Party is uninterested in increasing voter turnout.
ethanbond 6y ago
Republicans. It is Republicans who think more people voting means they will lose. Now is a time to be absolutely frank and direct with our words and our actions. Our democracy is not invincible. It is not inevitable. It is teetering on the brink and if it falls, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will recover. There is exactly one party who is trying to undermine the most basic principle of our democracy, and that is the Republican Party. Every fallen democracy had an election that was unexpectedly their last. Vote, donate, discuss accordingly.
- refurb 6y ago
  Hate to break it to you, but it’s more complicated than that. You may want to do some reading from the other side, you sound like you’re parroting Democratic talking points. NYTimes disagrees with you that higher turnout always helps the Democrats. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upshot/2020-election-turnout-analysis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upshot/2020-election-turn... Typically increased turnout helps the Democrats, but that’s not necessarily true now.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    Being able to produce a counterargument does not qualify the original argument as "parroting talking points".
  - eclipxe 6y ago
    You’re wrong.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    Edited to remove the 3 words, “because it’s true,” that projected from past elections into this election. You’re right that the Republicans may very well be hurting themselves by disrupting Americans’ right to vote. They might be hurting themselves. They are definitely hurting our democracy.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    Then why are republicans fighting so hard to keep people who should legally be allowed to vote from voting? They can’t be doing it because they think it will hurt their chances.
chapium 6y ago
its really bizarre that we allow this while in other countries you get fines for not voting
- cure 6y ago
  There's actually only a small minority of countries where voting is a duty, not a right. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting. Still, it's interesting to think about how that would change the dynamics in the US. I think there is a lot to be said for making voting compulsory.
  - cozzyd 6y ago
    What if everybody got $20 for voting? It would be mostly equivalent to a $20 fine for not voting, but different psychologically.

by xzlzx 6y ago

nxc18 6y ago

The craziest thing about the whole situations is there actually isn’t much evidence that vote by mail favors republicans; and yet they’re willing to degrade postal service to a country more reliant on it than ever, just for a small hope of electoral advantage. Edit: article in case anyone isn’t convinced (I was skeptical at first, given the tone of the discussion): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/vote-by-mail.html/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/vote-by-mail....

AndrewBissell 6y ago
There are other reasons they want to disband the post office beyond just its impact on voting. If they replace it with private entities it becomes easier to surveil and censor the mail, for instance.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  The USPS takes an image of the front of the envelope for every first class letter sent in the USA. It's a safe bet that they're doing OCR of the recipient/sender addresses and store it in a database. USPS Informed Delivery is just a customer-facing result of that long standing program.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Yes, the goal of surveillance is already being advanced in many ways under the existing structure of the USPS.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    The USPS includes legal protections against your mail being opened, and a mandate to serve everyone. Whereas private companies can be fully employed for government surveillance (third party doctrine), sell bulk records to commercial surveillance companies (equifax, google, etc), as well as refusing service to whomever they like (ala MC/Visa). I agree this isn't the overriding concern of those trying to destroy the USPS, but it's surely a nice bonus.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  There was this incident a while back. Some psychopath sent letters threatening to kidnap young females, rape them, and kill them. He talked about how he had rigged out a van to facilitate this. His letters got turned over to the FBI, since they would up in different states. Turns out that each stamp has microprinting on it that identifies it. Given the stamp, they were able to identify which post office it was sold at. They guessed at approximately when it was sold, and then from the security cameras they identified the letter writer. So... explain how private entities are going to do more surveillance?
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Private entities will just have terms of service which say they're entitled to open and inspect your mail for any reason they see fit. mindslight's comment above does a good job of touching on some other ways it will enable more surveillance. But yes, the postal service has already been turned to this purpose in many ways and the days of "gentlemen don't read each other's mail" are largely over.
olliej 6y ago
The concern for the GOP isn’t that democrats favor voting by mail, it’s that the GOP has worked hard to make it as hard as possible to vote in person in targeted (eg non Republican) communities. Widespread vote from mail defeats that as it means that their selective polling closures, and arbitrary barriers to voting in person, go away
- xzlzx 6y ago
  This is a great point. That makes a lot of sense.
- bobsoap 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, what are those barriers?
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    Photo ID laws is a big one. Closing polling stations in minority communities.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      Can you name a first world county that doesn't have voter id laws?
      - ethanbond 6y ago
        How about this: if Republicans were pushing voter ID laws plus a comprehensive plan to get IDs to every American who wishes to vote, I suspect no one would have any problem with such a proposal. As it stands now, there are large groups of Americans for whom getting a photo ID is a non-trivial task. People without birth records, people who can’t take time off work to go to the DMV, people who don’t know that they go to the DMV to get an ID, people who live hours from the nearest DMV, so on and so forth. Let’s make sure they all get a chance to vote. Any proposal that aims to do that, I believe, would not have the support of the Republican Party, because the Republican Party is uninterested in increasing voter turnout.

ethanbond 6y ago

Republicans. It is Republicans who think more people voting means they will lose. Now is a time to be absolutely frank and direct with our words and our actions. Our democracy is not invincible. It is not inevitable. It is teetering on the brink and if it falls, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will recover. There is exactly one party who is trying to undermine the most basic principle of our democracy, and that is the Republican Party. Every fallen democracy had an election that was unexpectedly their last. Vote, donate, discuss accordingly.

refurb 6y ago
Hate to break it to you, but it’s more complicated than that. You may want to do some reading from the other side, you sound like you’re parroting Democratic talking points. NYTimes disagrees with you that higher turnout always helps the Democrats. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upshot/2020-election-turnout-analysis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upshot/2020-election-turn... Typically increased turnout helps the Democrats, but that’s not necessarily true now.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Being able to produce a counterargument does not qualify the original argument as "parroting talking points".
- eclipxe 6y ago
  You’re wrong.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  Edited to remove the 3 words, “because it’s true,” that projected from past elections into this election. You’re right that the Republicans may very well be hurting themselves by disrupting Americans’ right to vote. They might be hurting themselves. They are definitely hurting our democracy.
- evan_ 6y ago
  Then why are republicans fighting so hard to keep people who should legally be allowed to vote from voting? They can’t be doing it because they think it will hurt their chances.

chapium 6y ago

its really bizarre that we allow this while in other countries you get fines for not voting

cure 6y ago
There's actually only a small minority of countries where voting is a duty, not a right. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting. Still, it's interesting to think about how that would change the dynamics in the US. I think there is a lot to be said for making voting compulsory.
- cozzyd 6y ago
  What if everybody got $20 for voting? It would be mostly equivalent to a $20 fine for not voting, but different psychologically.