3 ms·

Jurisdictions set their own rules for time of residency before being allowed to vote (e.g., registration X days before an election, Y days of the past Z days in

Jurisdictions set their own rules for time of residency before being allowed to vote (e.g., registration X days before an election, Y days of the past Z days in the district, etc). Some people do decide where to live based on political considerations. If they are voting in accordance to the rules set by the relevant jurisdictions, I don't see a problem. This happens on "both sides." I will note that it's easier to break the rules and commit voter fraud when you can vote by mail. In person voting at least requires that you be physically present on Election Day. I moved to California and got voting materials from whence I came. I did not elect to commit voter fraud and vote, but I could have pretty easily.

dpark 5y ago
> I will note that it's easier to break the rules and commit voter fraud when you can vote by mail. In person voting at least requires that you be physically present on Election Day. Haven’t most (all?) jurisdictions supported vote by Mail for absentee ballots since a long time ago? All that vote by mail has actually changed is that people can vote from their homes.
- arghnoname 5y ago
  I’ve usually voted by mail a few cycles before COVID. Previously it would depend on jurisdiction. In the jurisdictions I’ve lived in, the voter would have to request a ballot well ahead of the election and sometimes claim some allowable hardship, such as an illness that confines them to their home. This is the first year I’ve gotten election material I didn’t request. I had forgotten to deregister, but the crazy thing is the post office told them I had moved because they forwarded a previous letter. They then sent me more material at the new forwarded address in another state. I don’t think this is nefarious, mostly incompetence. I think fraud happens, always has. Voting by mail probably increases opportunistic fraud. It probably also increases voter participation, so maybe it’s worth it in that sense, not sure. However, I think we need to have rock-solid verifiable and trustworthy elections, even if it’s inconvenient and the fraud it is meant to prevent is theoretical (hacked voting machines, other schemes). It’s very unhealthy for a democracy when large fractions of the population distrust the results. We’ve had both major political parties suggest electoral fraud/shenanigans multiple times over the past 20 years. It’s bad stuff.
  - dpark 5y ago
    > It’s very unhealthy for a democracy when large fractions of the population distrust the results. I fully agree with that. I also think it’s unhealthy for democracy when large swaths of the population feels disenfranchised, though, and there is a lot of that sort of shenanigans going on. I think the push against vote by mail is a mostly a 1)scheme to disenfranchise more voters, and 2) stir up unfounded BS about fraud. It’s well established that high turnout favors democrats. And it’s well established that vote by mail increases turnout.

dpark 5y ago

> I will note that it's easier to break the rules and commit voter fraud when you can vote by mail. In person voting at least requires that you be physically present on Election Day. Haven’t most (all?) jurisdictions supported vote by Mail for absentee ballots since a long time ago? All that vote by mail has actually changed is that people can vote from their homes.

arghnoname 5y ago
I’ve usually voted by mail a few cycles before COVID. Previously it would depend on jurisdiction. In the jurisdictions I’ve lived in, the voter would have to request a ballot well ahead of the election and sometimes claim some allowable hardship, such as an illness that confines them to their home. This is the first year I’ve gotten election material I didn’t request. I had forgotten to deregister, but the crazy thing is the post office told them I had moved because they forwarded a previous letter. They then sent me more material at the new forwarded address in another state. I don’t think this is nefarious, mostly incompetence. I think fraud happens, always has. Voting by mail probably increases opportunistic fraud. It probably also increases voter participation, so maybe it’s worth it in that sense, not sure. However, I think we need to have rock-solid verifiable and trustworthy elections, even if it’s inconvenient and the fraud it is meant to prevent is theoretical (hacked voting machines, other schemes). It’s very unhealthy for a democracy when large fractions of the population distrust the results. We’ve had both major political parties suggest electoral fraud/shenanigans multiple times over the past 20 years. It’s bad stuff.
- dpark 5y ago
  > It’s very unhealthy for a democracy when large fractions of the population distrust the results. I fully agree with that. I also think it’s unhealthy for democracy when large swaths of the population feels disenfranchised, though, and there is a lot of that sort of shenanigans going on. I think the push against vote by mail is a mostly a 1)scheme to disenfranchise more voters, and 2) stir up unfounded BS about fraud. It’s well established that high turnout favors democrats. And it’s well established that vote by mail increases turnout.