Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on November 17, 2022, 10:01:21 PM
-
Can someone please explain the ballot harvesting? Is it actually better if an individual votes early, at a drop box? Or does it just mean the candidate/party gets more votes if they collect them over a long period? And at specific venues?
Or is it all just about cheating?
-
If done honestly ballot harvesting is basically a way to ensure your side gets as many people to vote as possible. The problem is that the D “harvesters” are collecting ballots that they know would never be filled out, filling them out for the person, and in many cases obtaining ballots that shouldn’t have been sent in the first place. Also arranging for said ballots to be delivered, in large numbers, to various places for harvesting.
-
The way its being done (ok, allegedly being done ;) ) ballot harvesting is a variation on what used to be called "stuffing the ballot boxes."
-
If you remove the corruption, "ballot harvesting" could be looked at as beneficial, though with maybe another name. For instance, if it's about volunteers going to the homes of the elderly or otherwise incapacitated people that might not be able to vote in person or even get to the post office, that's a nice thing.
What seems to mostly be happening (as pointed out above) is that those same people are targeted by activists who "help" them vote for the "right" person, or even take advantage of cognitive disabilities and just take the blank ballot from them and fill it out later. People who do this kind of crap should be put against a wall, not just for trying to manipulate elections, but more for taking advantage of the vulnerable in the name of political activism.
-
Ballot harvesting is when a political group "collects" people's ballots to turn in "on their behalf."
It is illegal in the vast majority of states for obvious reasons.
Ballot harvesters may go door do door, saying, for example, If you want to vote democrat I can help. Or they can only collect from black neighborhoods. Or they may go to nursing homes and fill in the ballots for the people. Or throw away the GOP votes etc.
Frankly, making it easier to vote helps Democrats, as stupid, lazy and unmotivated people usually vote left.
I remember years ago my wife asked on of her friends who she was going to vote for. She said something to the effect of "I don't know. Who is going to give the most free money to poor people?"
These are exactly the kind of people the left wants to vote.
I am a big fan of limited franchise (such as, possibly, only to net tax payers).
Universal franchise has been a disaster, as our 30 trillion dollar debt demonstrates.
-
Ballot harvesting is when a political group "collects" people's ballots to turn in "on their behalf." It is illegal in the vast majority of states for obvious reasons.
It is legal in CA.
Ballot harvesters may go door do door, saying, for example, If you want to vote democrat I can help. Or they can only collect from black neighborhoods. Or they may go to nursing homes and fill in the ballots for the people. Or throw away the GOP votes etc.
Frankly, making it easier to vote helps Democrats, as stupid, lazy and unmotivated people usually vote left.
I remember years ago my wife asked on of her friends who she was going to vote for. She said something to the effect of "I don't know. Who is going to give the most free money to poor people?"
These are exactly the kind of people the left wants to vote.
I am a big fan of limited franchise (such as, possibly, only to net tax payers).
Universal franchise has been a disaster, as our 30 trillion dollar debt demonstrates.
I'm all for going back to a system where the people that get to vote are the people who care enough to pay attention to when and where to vote, and make the effort to get there on the day. Plus limited absentee voting for people with a good reason for it.
The argument a lot of righties/Republicans are making right now is that, until the voting laws are fixed in certain states, Republicans have no choice but to engage in legal ballot harvesting at churches and gun stores, etc. And I have to say, it would be a whole lot of fun to watch Big Media hyperventilate about the evil Republicans collecting votes at the same store where people buy their murder-death-killing machines.
-
If you remove the corruption, "ballot harvesting" could be looked at as beneficial, though with maybe another name. For instance, if it's about volunteers going to the homes of the elderly or otherwise incapacitated people that might not be able to vote in person or even get to the post office, that's a nice thing.
What seems to mostly be happening (as pointed out above) is that those same people are targeted by activists who "help" them vote for the "right" person, or even take advantage of cognitive disabilities and just take the blank ballot from them and fill it out later. People who do this kind of crap should be put against a wall, not just for trying to manipulate elections, but more for taking advantage of the vulnerable in the name of political activism.
Amen.
-
What seems to mostly be happening (as pointed out above) is that those same people are targeted by activists who "help" them vote for the "right" person, or even take advantage of cognitive disabilities and just take the blank ballot from them and fill it out later. People who do this kind of crap should be put against a wall, not just for trying to manipulate elections, but more for taking advantage of the vulnerable in the name of political activism.
I've always been annoyed by the way Democrats drag people to the polls, knowing they'll vote for whatever pretty promises they're offering on the ballot. I do like the way ballot harvesting could help Republicans target "our kind" of voters in the same way.
-
I'm all for going back to a system where the people that get to vote are the people who care enough to pay attention to when and where to vote, and make the effort to get there on the day. Plus limited absentee voting for people with a good reason for it.
I agree completely. The way they are doing it today makes a complete mockery out of the concept of election "day." It wasn't too long ago that it became a de facto election week, and now it seems to be election month.
I miss the clunky old mechanical voting machines I used to vote on. Sure, they were dinosaurs, but they worked. I don't think there was any way they could be fiddled or hacked. Small wonder the Democrats couldn't wait to get rid of them.
-
. . . I miss the clunky old mechanical voting machines I used to vote on. Sure, they were dinosaurs, but they worked. I don't think there was any way they could be fiddled or hacked. Small wonder the Democrats couldn't wait to get rid of them.
I remember voting on those. Usually they had two or more rows of switches to pull - you could either pull each individual switch for each race, or if voting a straight party ticket, there was a "master" switch at the far left end of each row you could use. Campaign literature often gave instructions like "Close curtain - pull Democratic lever - open curtain."
If you wanted to write in someone's name, there was a tiny little window up near the top of the machine where you could - with difficulty - write in someone's name. (If you were tall enough.)
As for fraud . . . there was a minor scandal one year when some of the machines showed up with D votes already tallied before the polls opened, and some of those nasty Republican judges and poll workers made an issue of it. (This was in Chicago. No early voting back then.)
-
I agree completely. The way they are doing it today makes a complete mockery out of the concept of election "day." It wasn't too long ago that it became a de facto election week, and now it seems to be election month.
While still not ideal, if early voting meant that election day was absolutely the deadline for voting, things wouldn't be as bad. There is zero reason, other than a race close enough to require a recount, to not know election results by 2359 election day.
Freakin' CA was sitting at less than 50% votes counted for over a week after election day. I just looked, and they're still only at ~70% today. That's ridiculous. And it's not just about population. Alaska is also reporting only ~80% of votes counted as of today.
-
Ballot harvesting is when a political group "collects" people's ballots to turn in "on their behalf." It is illegal in the vast majority of states for obvious reasons.
Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in only ONE state. The other states have various laws concerning it.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state
I am more concerned with ballot curing. In Clark County, NV the Culinary union was very open about "helping" cure ballots. I am sure they compared the list of ballots needing cured to their membership rolls and only visited them as most vote a straight "D" ticket. I think I am fairly safe saying they had a lot to do with the outcome of the US Senate race in NV both by helping with door to door prior to voting and afterwards with helping people cure their ballots.
bob
-
Well, that is a suprise!
I thought ballot harvesting was illegal most places.
-
Well, that is a suprise!
I thought ballot harvesting was illegal most places.
You would think so. But as long as it is a loophole the political parties can exploit it will never go away.
bob
-
I have to wonder what percentage of the votes at college student centers, etc., were fraudulent... You know some of 'em registered their dogs, cats, goldfish, roomies, etc., and then also voted at home...
-
I have to wonder what percentage of the votes at college student centers, etc., were fraudulent... You know some of 'em registered their dogs, cats, goldfish, roomies, etc., and then also voted at home...
How many of them identify as a goldfish?
-
Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in only ONE state. The other states have various laws concerning it.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state
I am more concerned with ballot curing. In Clark County, NV the Culinary union was very open about "helping" cure ballots. I am sure they compared the list of ballots needing cured to their membership rolls and only visited them as most vote a straight "D" ticket. I think I am fairly safe saying they had a lot to do with the outcome of the US Senate race in NV both by helping with door to door prior to voting and afterwards with helping people cure their ballots.
bob
What is ballot "curing"? That's a term I haven't encountered before.
[Edit] Never mind -- found it.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/924705412/race-for-a-ballot-cure-the-scramble-to-fix-minor-absentee-ballot-problems
Frankly, IMHO if someone is too stupid to be able to sign their ballot with their legal signature, and in the right place on the form, when they have all the time in the world because they're voting ahead of time from the privacy of their own home -- I don't think their vote should be "cured" and counted. I think voting should be a one-shot deal. Do it right, or your vote doesn't count. I don't get a Mulligan if I screw up at the polling place.
And if ballots are going to be "cured," it should only be done by certified election officials, not by volunteer activists -- of any stripe.
And a signature mismatch should never be "cured" -- there's a reason why voter registration rolls have the registrants' signatures on file. That reason is so if the person who shows up at the polling place can't sign the same signature, they aren't allowed to vote. And if an absentee ballot's signature doesn't match the signature on file -- it should be automatically rejected, not "cured."
-
What is ballot "curing"? That's a term I haven't encountered before.
Ostensibly, to correct any errors on the ballot that would cause it to be discarded, such as the voter forgetting to sign it. Ostensibly, the person would take the ballot back to that person to have them sign it.
In practice it provides cover for election fraud, and is basically a euphemism for such.
-
And if ballots are going to be "cured," it should only be done by certified election officials, not by volunteer activists -- of any stripe.
Exactly right, and to my mind, more for confirmation that the ballot actually belongs to the signatory and is not fraudulent.
I believe most jurisdictions let you get a fresh ballot if you screw something up. Just turn in your old ballot within the voting period in person and show ID. You'll just need to make the effort to go to an official polling place to do it.
-
I have to wonder what percentage of the votes at college student centers, etc., were fraudulent... You know some of 'em registered their dogs, cats, goldfish, roomies, etc., and then also voted at home...
That's why we need picture ID . . .
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F2b%2Fcd%2F63%2F2bcd63287a3e1bd010e5938a67db79f0.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=0136ae8d1027b20de94e80819cfdadf37c73e20d49e0a7e56e0a2d0d9f91f8eb&ipo=images)
-
While still not ideal, if early voting meant that election day was absolutely the deadline for voting, things wouldn't be as bad. There is zero reason, other than a race close enough to require a recount, to not know election results by 2359 election day.
Early/Mail-in voting itself isn't the problem in my opinion, it's the poor implementation of it adopted by many states. Florida is proof that it can work well. From what I recall, more people vote early in FL than on election day but there is a hard deadline for those early votes and the biggest difference compared to poorly run states is that in FL election officials are allowed to process & count them before election day.
-
Early/Mail-in voting itself isn't the problem in my opinion, it's the poor implementation of it adopted by many states. Florida is proof that it can work well. From what I recall, more people vote early in FL than on election day but there is a hard deadline for those early votes and the biggest difference compared to poorly run states is that in FL election officials are allowed to process & count them before election day.
But . . . but . . . how do the counters know how many they'll need to help the D win?
-
Early/Mail-in voting itself isn't the problem in my opinion, it's the poor implementation of it adopted by many states. Florida is proof that it can work well. From what I recall, more people vote early in FL than on election day but there is a hard deadline for those early votes and the biggest difference compared to poorly run states is that in FL election officials are allowed to process & count them before election day.
Yep. The big one for timeliness is the hard stop. If you mail in a ballot (or drop it off) it must be at the county supervisor of elections office (not the poll) by 1900 on election day. After that we disenfranchise the poor voter don't accept any ballots. The local news all mention on fri or sat before the election that if you haven't mailed it by then, it's too late.
States that allow the ballots to be postmarked on election day open themselves to waiting two or three days for the postal service to trickle valid ballots in.
-
Haven't some states in the past had trouble with judges forcing them to accept late ballots against the letter of the law?
-
Haven't some states in the past had trouble with judges forcing them to accept late ballots against the letter of the law?
That got me remembering, that to be fair, we should look at military ballots as well. I don't hear much about them now, but I recall a good 20 years ago, the right was up in arms about military ballots needing special dispensation because so many of them weren't making it back to be counted on election day, and at least at the time, military votes skewed quite right.
-
That got me remembering, that to be fair, we should look at military ballots as well. I don't hear much about them now, but I recall a good 20 years ago, the right was up in arms about military ballots needing special dispensation because so many of them weren't making it back to be counted on election day, and at least at the time, military votes skewed quite right.
In defense of Republicans as I recall in many cases troops could fill out and post back ballots with zero delay and still miss deadlines by weeks or more. Mostly because the military postal service sucked so badly.
-
Hoe about this?
Chicago inmates have claimed they are being pressured to illegally vote in the city's mayoral election.
The inmates, some who are accused of murder, argued guards at Cook County Jail were pushing them to vote - despite some being registered in a different jurisdiction.
They claimed the guards were receiving orders from higher up and were 'just doing what I'm told' when confronted over the move.
It comes amid fears of ballot harvesting as insiders claimed the jail was the 'ideal environment' due to no cameras or election observers.
It also raised concerns it could propel Lori Lightfoot back into office, despite her languishing on just 13 percent in the polls.
EXCLUSIVE: Chicago inmates claim jail guards are pressuring them to illegally vote in the mayoral election
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11798187/Inmates-claim-jail-guards-pressuring-vote-illegally-Chicagos-mayoral-election.html
-
^^^ Seems like there aught to be video evidence of that if it's happening. Aren't jails pretty well covered in the common areas? Anyone know if corrections officers have bodycams?
-
^^^ Seems like there aught to be video evidence of that if it's happening. Aren't jails pretty well covered in the common areas? Anyone know if corrections officers have bodycams?
Epstein might have thought that way
-
Epstein might have thought that way
=D I actually thought of that while typing, which is why I specified common areas. Epstein aside, it seems we have video evidence of all kinds of correction officer malfeasance these days. I am also leery of confirmation bias, so I tend to demand more evidence for things that agree with my POV. As much as I'm not a fan of law enforcement, I'll need more than the word of criminals to lend credence to this one.
-
There is a cure for election fraud and ballot tampering. Summary execution. Why? Election fraud and ballot tampering is murder of a Constitutional Republic...which is a tad bit worse than hanging for horse thievery.
-
Anyone know if corrections officers have bodycams?
I don’t know anything about state or federal prison, but the jail deputies for our county jail do not wear body cameras.
My daughters and I had a late-night tour of the new jail before they started to use it and they had plenty of cameras up there. Even got to see the server room where they store the video.