|
Post by BearClause on Oct 9, 2020 14:48:18 GMT -5
The fact is that counties follow specific state rules, but they do the actual running of elections. They pick the polling sites. They pay the poll workers. In most counties they select the equipment, although it might need to come from a state list of certified equipment/software. My county (which is a combination of suburban and rural) has a single county clerk/recorder's office serving as the election office. They determine how many ballot drop boxes they'll use. They've also picked early voting sites. What exactly do you propose? That all this has to be controlled at the state level? That's already screwed things up in states where the state allocates voting equipment resources - like in Georgia. You think the long lines during the primaries in Atlanta were an accident? I'm not sure. I trust state more than county and federal more than state, so the bigger and broader the better but the founders and various states have helpfully built systems that are incredibly vulnerable to manipulation and certain types of fraud. (I'm thinking voting machines here) There's already a federal certification program for voting machines, although it's optional for states to choose from the list. www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/certified-voting-systemsFrankly what you're asking for is never going to happen. It just won't. And again states have messed it up when they solely determine the equipment selection and distribution. They vastly underequipped large metro areas in Georgia.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 9, 2020 14:49:49 GMT -5
The fact is that counties follow specific state rules, but they do the actual running of elections. They pick the polling sites. They pay the poll workers. In most counties they select the equipment, although it might need to come from a state list of certified equipment/software. My county (which is a combination of suburban and rural) has a single county clerk/recorder's office serving as the election office. They determine how many ballot drop boxes they'll use. They've also picked early voting sites. What exactly do you propose? That all this has to be controlled at the state level? That's already screwed things up in states where the state allocates voting equipment resources - like in Georgia. You think the long lines during the primaries in Atlanta were an accident? I'm not sure. I trust state more than county and federal more than state, so the bigger and broader the better but the founders and various states have helpfully built systems that are incredibly vulnerable to manipulation and certain types of fraud. (I'm thinking voting machines here) Bigger and broader has its disadvantages. But one major advantage it has for things like voting is that it increases transparency. For instance, when Abbott made the rule about only 1 drop box per county, it inappropriately applied a restriction that would have been quite reasonable for the smallest counties onto counties with millions of residents. BUT, it was hard to hide. Everyone spotted it immediately. When some county that has 10,000 people in it places their one and only voting registration office right in the middle of the most white town in the county, that can get overlooked by people outside the county.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 9, 2020 15:37:38 GMT -5
I'm not sure. I trust state more than county and federal more than state, so the bigger and broader the better but the founders and various states have helpfully built systems that are incredibly vulnerable to manipulation and certain types of fraud. (I'm thinking voting machines here) Bigger and broader has its disadvantages. But one major advantage it has for things like voting is that it increases transparency. For instance, when Abbott made the rule about only 1 drop box per county, it inappropriately applied a restriction that would have been quite reasonable for the smallest counties onto counties with millions of residents. BUT, it was hard to hide. Everyone spotted it immediately. When some county that has 10,000 people in it places their one and only voting registration office right in the middle of the most white town in the county, that can get overlooked by people outside the county. Local control is probably not going to change, although a lot of times it's up to state election officials to interpret rules. As you noted, the Governor of Texas is rather transparent about what he's doing because his claims about "security" of manned sites where only the voter can hand deliver a ballot after presenting ID just doesn't pass the smell test. Then there's the Ohio Secretary of State who claimed he would be OK with multiple collecting sites if the law was specific about it. He wouldn't wait for his Attorney General to produce an advisory opinion, citing the potential for lawsuits (like in PA). Then he did get sued, lost in federal court, and refused to issue a directive allowing it even after a federal judicial order. After a misstep by the federal judge (who thought that the SoS said that he'd allow drop boxes outside of election offices, but really meaning "outdoors") he ruled that counties must be given the opportunity to establish multiple sites as needed by demand. Heck - there are even federal standards regarding a recommended number of collection sites per population.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 9, 2020 22:31:14 GMT -5
A Federal Court just blocked this "one box per county" order.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 9, 2020 22:51:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 22:53:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by keener on Oct 9, 2020 22:59:14 GMT -5
Looks like this Dowd-bro is stuck on thirds. He should try other fractions when he makes up all his data. Like maybe 2/5ths or 5/13ths.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2020 10:13:54 GMT -5
I honestly think that a strong piece of the foundation/fabric that "America" was built on, is anti-authority. People who hate being told that they can't do what they want to do, because of x,y,z. They hated their respective crowns and their rules, and sailed across an ocean to get away from them. And to keep all of their profits for themselves. Greed is a big part of it, as well. Not having to pay any taxes.
All kind of rolled up into a gross way of (wanting to) live life. You have no right to tell me what I can't do and you have no right to steal my money or my property. And I'll fight you if you try. Come and try to take it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2020 10:32:41 GMT -5
I think the main difference in this case is that it was not just a plan or an idea, to have 12 sites. It was either being setup or was actually implemented, then it was repealed.
The difference with your hypothetical (ie, even the 12 drop-off sites is a "reduction" if you consider hiring lots of people to go to homes to take their ballots, etc.) is that it was never a (near) reality, and then repealed.
Say another way: it would be one thing if Harris was just proposing to have 12 sites, but that hadn't even been voted on to be approved yet (by the committee/council or whatever), and then the gov said they couldn't even vote on that.
Yeah - I think that is a good way of going at this. I mean in the abstract - why is 12 the point where there is no voter suppression? Why not 24 or 1200 drop points. Does only 1 make sense? I think those are good questions. OTH - in my mind, voter suppression occurs when; 1) a person that WANTS to vote is unable to vote without putting forth more than minimal effort, 2) there are different rules for one part of the state compared to another. One could ask - is it fair for Harris County to have 12 drop points and Brewster only 1? Is having 12 in Harris essentially 'voter suppression' for people in Brewster having just 1? I suspect they have a in day polling place in each precinct? Having a drop box for each precinct may be too costly, especially if some form of voter verification is required. Anyway - is anyone in Texas unable to vote w/o minimal effort? This is a good philosophical discussion, and one I'm willing to participate in.
But I first want to re-emphasize the original, differentiating point. The one that cindra made in the post you responded to, that I believe you overlooked. cindra said "Voting is harder for those people". Meaning, there were 12 sites, established and physically available. They were there, to be used. Then, they were taken away (except for one). There is no other way to interpret that than as "an action was taken for the purpose of increasing the difficulty of voting for people".
Do you agree that there is a non-trivial difference between "increase the difficulty for someone to vote" and "not decrease the difficulty for someone to vote"? They can't be exactly equated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2020 10:36:15 GMT -5
FWIW, I never got the impression blue was a Christian conservative. He may be, but I don't see that being stressed. My impression is that he just doesn't think there's that big of a difference between the parties, even with Trump. I don't get it, but he's been pretty consistent. I am political Libertarian and Christian in my personal life. I usually consider them separate. I generally think of public policy in terms of libertarian and personal behavior as Christian. I probably fail on the 2nd one more often than I would like to admit. As for whether there is a big difference between the parties. I rarely agree with the Democrats. I usually agree with the Republicans, but way less than 100%. As much as I enjoy politics (my entire life) - t he fact is that my life isn't going to be materially effected by this (or any other) election. What seems like is going to be a big deal is usually not really a big deal. I personally did fine with Bush and Obama as President.And then the Christian aspect of my personal life - an election really doesn't matter in the big picture. It will change nothing on when I die. Things that seemed like a big deal when I was 25 (Like Thomas confirmation hearing) seemed like a big deal. At 55, I realize that it really didn't materially matter. BTW, I think back to those confirmation hearings. Biden was the fairly young chairman of those committees. Grassley seemed fairly old at the time. And then Strom Thurmond was ridiculously old. And people like Ted Kennedy have long since passed. Just out of curiosity -- can you easily come up with an example or a few, off the top of your head, where you would consider that your life had been materially affected because of the newly elected president? You say that it didn't happen under Bush or Obama. I assume you feel the same for Trump, and that you think that will continue to be the case for Biden.
What would it take, for you to start to feel it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2020 10:41:19 GMT -5
No, really it's not fair for Harris to have 12 drop points and Brewster only 1. After all that would be only one box per 400,000 people for Harris, but 1 box per 9,000 people for Brewster. But even that level of unfairness wasn't enough for Abbott. Oh wait, did you mean it would be unfair THE OTHER WAY AROUND? Did you suddenly forget how to do math? It's starting to seem like it. There are all these moving parts here, but among them include geographic distance, access to transportation, traffic concerns, and (most importantly) lines. I've seen some of these where the lines to drop off a ballot were really long. And most importantly is the willingness of the county elections office to set up multiple sites. Yeah. Again FWIW, here in Hennepin County with 1.2M and driving times of probably 45min-1hr from downtown Mpls (where the county offices are) to the rural west borders, the county is only offering a single drop-off location in downtown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2020 10:45:48 GMT -5
Depends. Some worries are that this is going to be a one-time expense where most voters go back to in-person voting and there are all these machines that were ordered to meet a peak usage that they'll never see again. All IMHO, of course, but every state should just implement no excuse mail-in full-time, even if they're not mailing a ballot to every voter. It's an investment that many other democracies have made and will be good for the health of elections. Agree.
And in these economic times, anything that stimulates spending, even if it is to companies that make machines to automate paper scanning/counting, is a good thing. Keep money flowing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2020 10:48:55 GMT -5
The rules for some people ARE different than others. PA allows multiple drop boxes and no-excuse absentee voting. TX does not. If everyone thought one vote in a vacuum didn't matter, then nobody would vote. Maybe you think your vote doesn't matter, but that's because you're a cynical 3rd party voter in a non-swing state. There are plenty of people who aren't as jaded as you and want to have their voices heard. There's no such thing as a cost-benefit analysis for something with intangible subjective value like voting. And again, this "minimal effort thing" is a. not true (again, read my posts from earlier) and b. irrelevant, because for someone who was planning to drop their ballot off at one of these stations, they no longer can. Voting is harder for those people, and with no gain at all for security/integrity/whatever. I'm just gonna copy paste until I get an answer. And go up a font size this time. Again: I'll repeat until I get a straight answer from the people defending (or being apathetic about) Abbot's policy here. How does getting rid of these ballot drop off sites make voting more secure or democracy more representative? Aren't the positions that 1) one vote matters and 2) vote by mail should be adopted and voter ID struck down because at worst, those would only lead to some relatively rare voter fraud mutually exclusive. Sorry couldn't resist Long past time for some sort of national election commission to manage every election of significance. Its just too easy for local and state governments to mess around with this stuff. Abbot is clearly trying to drive down Democratic voting so the law should be struck down, but at the same time the argument Harris County is making is fundamentally illogical - even though its correct. Basically Harris is saying its unfair for our voters to have to take X amount of time and effort to vote, even though we don't dispute that its legal for people in other counties to have to take >X time and effort to vote. Again its clearly intended to suppress so should be struck down, but there is a giant, gaping fallacy here. Bolded: this only works if you assume/can prove that the benefit of convenience (likely prompting an increase in participation) from vote by mail is actually does incur a non-trivial cost in (potential for) fraud over in-person voting. I just don't know if I can even buy that.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 10, 2020 12:03:00 GMT -5
Yeah - I think that is a good way of going at this. I mean in the abstract - why is 12 the point where there is no voter suppression? Why not 24 or 1200 drop points. Does only 1 make sense? I think those are good questions. OTH - in my mind, voter suppression occurs when; 1) a person that WANTS to vote is unable to vote without putting forth more than minimal effort, 2) there are different rules for one part of the state compared to another. One could ask - is it fair for Harris County to have 12 drop points and Brewster only 1? Is having 12 in Harris essentially 'voter suppression' for people in Brewster having just 1? I suspect they have a in day polling place in each precinct? Having a drop box for each precinct may be too costly, especially if some form of voter verification is required. Anyway - is anyone in Texas unable to vote w/o minimal effort? This is a good philosophical discussion, and one I'm willing to participate in.
But I first want to re-emphasize the original, differentiating point. The one that cindra made in the post you responded to, that I believe you overlooked. cindra said "Voting is harder for those people". Meaning, there were 12 sites, established and physically available. They were there, to be used. Then, they were taken away (except for one). There is no other way to interpret that than as "an action was taken for the purpose of increasing the difficulty of voting for people".
Do you agree that there is a non-trivial difference between "increase the difficulty for someone to vote" and "not decrease the difficulty for someone to vote"? They can't be exactly equated.
Short answer - I don't know. I don't know much (anything) about Texas elections. The definition of 'everyone in the state should have equal/similar access' is tricky and hard to quantify. I think it is important, just not sure how far you go with this. Do you keep polls open for an extra hour in some parts of the state, but not others? Should the cut-off be a set time, or in line? In general, it does seem that this should be kept close to the same. How far do you go for higher density areas? I am good with the possibility that Abbot saying this is about fraud is incorrect. But at the same time, there are limits (financial, ...) to how easy we can make it to vote. Do we put a poll place in every neighborhood? I get back to; Is it possible for everyone to vote with minimal effort. And for this - I believe it is probably easy to vote in Harris county w/ minimal effort. Should they make it easier - does it make sense to have more drop spots - IDK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2020 12:04:21 GMT -5
Yeah - I think that is a good way of going at this. I mean in the abstract - why is 12 the point where there is no voter suppression? Why not 24 or 1200 drop points. Does only 1 make sense? I think those are good questions. OTH - in my mind, voter suppression occurs when; 1) a person that WANTS to vote is unable to vote without putting forth more than minimal effort, 2) there are different rules for one part of the state compared to another. One could ask - is it fair for Harris County to have 12 drop points and Brewster only 1? Is having 12 in Harris essentially 'voter suppression' for people in Brewster having just 1? I suspect they have a in day polling place in each precinct? Having a drop box for each precinct may be too costly, especially if some form of voter verification is required. Anyway - is anyone in Texas unable to vote w/o minimal effort? This is a good philosophical discussion, and one I'm willing to participate in.
But I first want to re-emphasize the original, differentiating point. The one that cindra made in the post you responded to, that I believe you overlooked. cindra said "Voting is harder for those people". Meaning, there were 12 sites, established and physically available. They were there, to be used. Then, they were taken away (except for one). There is no other way to interpret that than as "an action was taken for the purpose of increasing the difficulty of voting for people".
Do you agree that there is a non-trivial difference between "increase the difficulty for someone to vote" and "not decrease the difficulty for someone to vote"? They can't be exactly equated.
For some reason it helps me to reword to, is there a non-trivial difference between: 1. "We are not going to make it easier for people to vote." 2. "We are going to make it harder for people to vote."
|
|