4 ms·

2020 was exceptional in the amount of voting that happened by mail. I hope nothing makes that necessary again.

tenacious_tuna 2y ago
> I hope nothing makes that necessary again I hope nothing makes it necessary, but I do hope it becomes commonplace. It's such a better experience to complete a ballot leisurely in one's own home, being able to discuss it with my own family and referencing a plethora of materials, than having to go out of my way to wait in line and have prepared everything ahead of time (and, hopefully, remembered it).
- cdolan 2y ago
  Serious question: Are you certain your vote was counted and not lost? I vote in person because I know when I mail things they don't always get where I intended them to be (and especially when there is a deadline in place)
  - siger 2y ago
    At least NY lets you track your ballot online ("New York Ballot Tracker").
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    I got a text message from my county telling me my vote was counted.
    - mirekrusin 2y ago
      Does it mention your response?
  - palata 2y ago
    In my country, I can just bring the letter and put it in a special mailbox in the city hall in the weeks before the vote. I would trust the mail system, too, but that's beside the point. Just to say it works "asynchronously", too.
  - comrh 2y ago
    In Utah I checked via state website on Election day
  - psadauskas 2y ago
    I got emails from the county (Boulder County, CO) when they mailed me my ballot, when they received it, and when they counted it.
  - SomeCallMeTim 2y ago
    In Colorado you get an email when they mail a ballot to you, another email when they receive your ballot, and a third when it's counted. Colorado came out way against Trump, though, despite having been a swing state in recent memory.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Perhaps folks moved from California to Colorado
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    Couldn't you similarly question voting in-person?
  - tenacious_tuna 2y ago
    In my case I complete my ballot ahead of time and drop it in a ballot box, which are distributed around my city. Then I get an email from my county clerk when my ballot has been counted. I think the concern about things getting lost in the mail is reasonable, but is a separate issue; the mail system is supposed to be a highly trustworthy distribution system for sensitive documents. Hell, it's how you get your passport. That's why it's a state department (in the US, anyway) in the first place: it's an essential government function to have a communications channel with a given citizen. I've been concerned about cuts made to the USPS leading up to the previous election, both because of the obvious impact on the USPS's ability to handle election materials, but also because of the potential impact on the arrival of other essential, time-sensitive documents. (Not essential, but my mother's anniversary card to myself and my partner fully bounced this year, after three weeks in transit. We only live 130 miles apart.) My point is: threat models that center on the mail system somehow being unreliable are a valid concern, but missing the point.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Don't you receive a sample ballot that you can fill out and take with you to the polling location?
- aksss 2y ago
  I don't equate easy with better. I miss the sense of community inspired by going to the local polling place and seeing your neighbors. It's a ritual that has value. Yeah it takes some effort, and if people want to make it a federal holiday, that's cool too. Mail-in ballots have so many more issues with them - lack of privacy (so more room for coercion and harvesting), they make auditability more difficult. Regardless of whether you think the relaxed voting requirements of 2020 led to widespread fraud, it inspired enough distrust that both parties should be advocating to bolster the reliability, auditability, and trustworthiness of the voting process, not decrease it further. The only thing that sucks more than losing an election is losing it under suspicious circumstances. Subject people to that enough times, and it doesn't lead anywhere good, regardless of your political team. Instead, create and enforce policies that improve trust rather than erode it.
- Egregore 2y ago
  How can I be sure that you didn't vote under a gun point or you haven't been bribed?
  - Chilko 2y ago
    How can you be sure that any voter wasn't bribed?
    - Egregore 2y ago
      Usually bribers will want some proof, like a photo of your vote, when you go inside and there are election observers and you're not allowed to use your phone it's more difficult to provide that proof.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Occam's razor: what's more likely a) you get bribed by some external sweepstakes or ad or any which way to vote for a candidate you genuinely don't support. b) you in your home get hit by a vandal with a specific mission to make you vote for their candidate. Remember, this felon does not know when you get your ballot nor when you voted. Hell, which is more likely to be tracked down? The Musk trials will take months. that felon will be arrested before the week ends.
        Egregore 2y ago
        I don't understand what is your point. a) bribing is more probable, happened by foreign country here this Sunday b) it's a lot more dangerous for the entire society, it's not a vandal in your home, if anonymity is not implemented by voting process, then the local gang leader will force you (and all your neighbors) to vote for him, at the date he will tell you and you won't be able to do anything as he will be in power after these elections and will make possible to fake future elections.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
whoiskevin 2y ago
Yes let's make sure no one can vote conveniently ever again. :-p
- tux1968 2y ago
  Sometimes security and integrity matter more than convenience.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    There really isn't more security and integrity with in person elections versus mail. Jimmy Carter spoke about this, literally in some town the sheriff watches you vote and chucks it into the trash if you didn't pick their candidate.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
      This problem is quite easily solved via a correct procedure and poll watchers.
    - brightball 2y ago
      You can’t verify a photo ID in the mail.
      - lesuorac 2y ago
        You can't verify a photo ID in person either lol. There's a whole industry about making fake IDs.
        brightball 2y ago
        Actually…the ID can be scanned and verified against the photo in the system and the person standing in front of you…just like they do at the airport.
        lesuorac 2y ago
waveBidder 2y ago
We need a national voting holiday.
- booleandilemma 2y ago
  I wish we focused on voting for more issues like this instead of just the old punching bags of immigration, gun control, and abortion. We should be discussing more issues! Why isn't there a candidate saying they'll increase the number of holidays, or making public transportation free, or giving people free dogs. Where is the candidate saying they'll make a 4 day work week a reality?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    You're missing the underlying point. When turnout is high, democrats win. Conservatives went after the UPS and lobbied to make it harder in some states to vote by mail. They don't want high turnout. It is sadly a partisan point to "go out and vote" even if they want to appear bi-partisan. > Why isn't there a candidate saying they'll increase the number of holidays, or making public transportation free, or giving people free dogs. Because business owners lobby and don't want that? Follow the money. We see eve in tech with proof of productivity that companies want people to RTO. How do you think industries outside of tech will feel about making workers work less?
    - booleandilemma 2y ago
      Yes so I'm saying let's change it, Johnny.
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    You get that in a multiparty system. When it’s just two, doing something relatively out of the box like proposing a 4 day work week is essentially rocking the boat.
  - hansvm 2y ago
    A few-party system is just what happens with majority-rules voting, ordinary human preferences (a few hot issues much more important than free dogs, free public transportation, or a 4-day work week), and a large enough populace for the law of large numbers to matter. Candidates and voters both align around the hot issues, because candidates who do otherwise lose to voters rejecting them for the one thing they care the most about, and voters who do otherwise have zero influence on the topics they care most about (as opposed to the approximately zero influence a single vote has). That's a problem in all voting systems (that the optimal strategy for candidates and for voters depends on your perceived knowledge of other voters -- you aren't incentivized to vote for the person who you think is actually best, and as a candidate you aren't incentivized to do what you think is best), ignoring some simplifications that sometimes arise in something simpler than a presidential election. However, majority-rules voting is particularly bad at it, especially in a lot of real-world preference distributions. If you came out with a new party, magicked up a billion dollars in advertising, and thoroughly convinced the populace that you'd not screw much up and also make a 4-day work week a reality, you'd still likely lose. I might personally vote for you, but I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't stand a chance. It's a little interesting that we have to vote for a single "president". An interesting byproduct is that _most_ people disagree about _most_ of the decisions (even in the same party), despite perhaps favoring them for one or two important reasons. If there were a neat way to divide up the power over education, abortion, ..., you could achieve a majority of people being happy about all of the major issues and maybe have a little more time to talk about some other (comparatively) minor ones.
booleandilemma 2y ago
I also noticed a strong push to get people to vote by mail this year. What was up with that?

> I hope nothing makes that necessary again I hope nothing makes it necessary, but I do hope it becomes commonplace. It's such a better experience to complete a ballot leisurely in one's own home, being able to discuss it with my own family and referencing a plethora of materials, than having to go out of my way to wait in line and have prepared everything ahead of time (and, hopefully, remembered it).

cdolan 2y ago
Serious question: Are you certain your vote was counted and not lost? I vote in person because I know when I mail things they don't always get where I intended them to be (and especially when there is a deadline in place)
- siger 2y ago
  At least NY lets you track your ballot online ("New York Ballot Tracker").
- anon84873628 2y ago
  I got a text message from my county telling me my vote was counted.
  - mirekrusin 2y ago
    Does it mention your response?
- palata 2y ago
  In my country, I can just bring the letter and put it in a special mailbox in the city hall in the weeks before the vote. I would trust the mail system, too, but that's beside the point. Just to say it works "asynchronously", too.
- comrh 2y ago
  In Utah I checked via state website on Election day
- psadauskas 2y ago
  I got emails from the county (Boulder County, CO) when they mailed me my ballot, when they received it, and when they counted it.
- SomeCallMeTim 2y ago
  In Colorado you get an email when they mail a ballot to you, another email when they receive your ballot, and a third when it's counted. Colorado came out way against Trump, though, despite having been a swing state in recent memory.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Perhaps folks moved from California to Colorado
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  Couldn't you similarly question voting in-person?
- tenacious_tuna 2y ago
  In my case I complete my ballot ahead of time and drop it in a ballot box, which are distributed around my city. Then I get an email from my county clerk when my ballot has been counted. I think the concern about things getting lost in the mail is reasonable, but is a separate issue; the mail system is supposed to be a highly trustworthy distribution system for sensitive documents. Hell, it's how you get your passport. That's why it's a state department (in the US, anyway) in the first place: it's an essential government function to have a communications channel with a given citizen. I've been concerned about cuts made to the USPS leading up to the previous election, both because of the obvious impact on the USPS's ability to handle election materials, but also because of the potential impact on the arrival of other essential, time-sensitive documents. (Not essential, but my mother's anniversary card to myself and my partner fully bounced this year, after three weeks in transit. We only live 130 miles apart.) My point is: threat models that center on the mail system somehow being unreliable are a valid concern, but missing the point.
anon84873628 2y ago
Don't you receive a sample ballot that you can fill out and take with you to the polling location?
aksss 2y ago
I don't equate easy with better. I miss the sense of community inspired by going to the local polling place and seeing your neighbors. It's a ritual that has value. Yeah it takes some effort, and if people want to make it a federal holiday, that's cool too. Mail-in ballots have so many more issues with them - lack of privacy (so more room for coercion and harvesting), they make auditability more difficult. Regardless of whether you think the relaxed voting requirements of 2020 led to widespread fraud, it inspired enough distrust that both parties should be advocating to bolster the reliability, auditability, and trustworthiness of the voting process, not decrease it further. The only thing that sucks more than losing an election is losing it under suspicious circumstances. Subject people to that enough times, and it doesn't lead anywhere good, regardless of your political team. Instead, create and enforce policies that improve trust rather than erode it.
Egregore 2y ago
How can I be sure that you didn't vote under a gun point or you haven't been bribed?
- Chilko 2y ago
  How can you be sure that any voter wasn't bribed?
  - Egregore 2y ago
    Usually bribers will want some proof, like a photo of your vote, when you go inside and there are election observers and you're not allowed to use your phone it's more difficult to provide that proof.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Occam's razor: what's more likely a) you get bribed by some external sweepstakes or ad or any which way to vote for a candidate you genuinely don't support. b) you in your home get hit by a vandal with a specific mission to make you vote for their candidate. Remember, this felon does not know when you get your ballot nor when you voted. Hell, which is more likely to be tracked down? The Musk trials will take months. that felon will be arrested before the week ends.
      - Egregore 2y ago
        I don't understand what is your point. a) bribing is more probable, happened by foreign country here this Sunday b) it's a lot more dangerous for the entire society, it's not a vandal in your home, if anonymity is not implemented by voting process, then the local gang leader will force you (and all your neighbors) to vote for him, at the date he will tell you and you won't be able to do anything as he will be in power after these elections and will make possible to fake future elections.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago

whoiskevin 2y ago

Yes let's make sure no one can vote conveniently ever again. :-p

tux1968 2y ago
Sometimes security and integrity matter more than convenience.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  There really isn't more security and integrity with in person elections versus mail. Jimmy Carter spoke about this, literally in some town the sheriff watches you vote and chucks it into the trash if you didn't pick their candidate.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
    This problem is quite easily solved via a correct procedure and poll watchers.
  - brightball 2y ago
    You can’t verify a photo ID in the mail.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      You can't verify a photo ID in person either lol. There's a whole industry about making fake IDs.
      - brightball 2y ago
        Actually…the ID can be scanned and verified against the photo in the system and the person standing in front of you…just like they do at the airport.
        lesuorac 2y ago

waveBidder 2y ago

We need a national voting holiday.

booleandilemma 2y ago
I wish we focused on voting for more issues like this instead of just the old punching bags of immigration, gun control, and abortion. We should be discussing more issues! Why isn't there a candidate saying they'll increase the number of holidays, or making public transportation free, or giving people free dogs. Where is the candidate saying they'll make a 4 day work week a reality?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  You're missing the underlying point. When turnout is high, democrats win. Conservatives went after the UPS and lobbied to make it harder in some states to vote by mail. They don't want high turnout. It is sadly a partisan point to "go out and vote" even if they want to appear bi-partisan. > Why isn't there a candidate saying they'll increase the number of holidays, or making public transportation free, or giving people free dogs. Because business owners lobby and don't want that? Follow the money. We see eve in tech with proof of productivity that companies want people to RTO. How do you think industries outside of tech will feel about making workers work less?
  - booleandilemma 2y ago
    Yes so I'm saying let's change it, Johnny.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  You get that in a multiparty system. When it’s just two, doing something relatively out of the box like proposing a 4 day work week is essentially rocking the boat.
- hansvm 2y ago
  A few-party system is just what happens with majority-rules voting, ordinary human preferences (a few hot issues much more important than free dogs, free public transportation, or a 4-day work week), and a large enough populace for the law of large numbers to matter. Candidates and voters both align around the hot issues, because candidates who do otherwise lose to voters rejecting them for the one thing they care the most about, and voters who do otherwise have zero influence on the topics they care most about (as opposed to the approximately zero influence a single vote has). That's a problem in all voting systems (that the optimal strategy for candidates and for voters depends on your perceived knowledge of other voters -- you aren't incentivized to vote for the person who you think is actually best, and as a candidate you aren't incentivized to do what you think is best), ignoring some simplifications that sometimes arise in something simpler than a presidential election. However, majority-rules voting is particularly bad at it, especially in a lot of real-world preference distributions. If you came out with a new party, magicked up a billion dollars in advertising, and thoroughly convinced the populace that you'd not screw much up and also make a 4-day work week a reality, you'd still likely lose. I might personally vote for you, but I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't stand a chance. It's a little interesting that we have to vote for a single "president". An interesting byproduct is that _most_ people disagree about _most_ of the decisions (even in the same party), despite perhaps favoring them for one or two important reasons. If there were a neat way to divide up the power over education, abortion, ..., you could achieve a majority of people being happy about all of the major issues and maybe have a little more time to talk about some other (comparatively) minor ones.

booleandilemma 2y ago

I also noticed a strong push to get people to vote by mail this year. What was up with that?