mail in voting

[treee]

(06-10-2020, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks say voting is your "civic duty" we just want it to be a duty that requires no sacrifice of time on our part.

If it doesn't have to be, then why should it be?

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2020, 06:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: So when I said:


I was accurate in my assessment that it could be interpreted as Americans were too lazy when things get hard.  Thanks.

Yeah, we're done here. I didn't say Americans were too lazy to go vote or that we didn't NEED mail in voting.  I see you failed to mention who actually made this personal. Just more of a representation of your high morale character.

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2020, 07:07 PM)treee Wrote: If it doesn't have to be, then why should it be?

Where did I say it should be? Simply making a point of the society of convenience we have become. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-10-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I say it should be? Simply making a point of the society of convenience we have become. 

Ah, so you like to argue about stuff you never said? Sounds like something Skip Bayless would do.

[fredtoast]

(06-10-2020, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks say voting is your "civic duty" we just want it to be a duty that requires no sacrifice of time on our part.

Of course we do.

Please explain to me why ANYONE would want ANYTHING to be harder and more of a sacrifice than it needs to be?

What do you do on election day?  Load a backpack with bricks, blindfold yourself, and then walk barefoot to the polls?

[fredtoast]

(06-10-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Simply making a point of the society of convenience we have become. 

Not like the good old days when people tried to make things much harder than they had to be.

When exactly was that again?

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2020, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay, I am completely confused.

What did you mean when you said Americans found it too inconvenient to walk around the corner?

Why would walking around the corner be too inconvenient?

Where exactly did people refuse to just walk around the corner to vote?

You make these strange comments that make no sense and then get your panties in a wad when someone assumes they mean what they say.

Not trying to start a fight.  Just trying to understand what the **** you meant and what it had to do with mail in voting.  

Sure you're not

(06-10-2020, 08:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Of course we do.

Please explain to me why ANYONE would want ANYTHING to be harder and more of a sacrifice than it needs to be?

What do you do on election day?  Load a backpack with bricks, blindfold yourself, and then walk barefoot to the polls?

I just don't put going to the polls and casting your vote in the "too hard to do" block. I've always felt a degree of responsibility should come with a vote. I think it's a reason the founders established the EC. 

But as long as you're not trying to pick a fight and honestly think I do those things to go vote we can continue to have civil discourse. If not feel free to discuss me with Dino and Breech. 

[jmccracky]

(06-10-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I say it should be? Simply making a point of the society of convenience we have become. 

*made from his tapatalk app* lol

(Its a joke, people!)

[hollodero]

(06-10-2020, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just don't put going to the polls and casting your vote in the "too hard to do" block. I've always felt a degree of responsibility should come with a vote. I think it's a reason the founders established the EC. 

But voting per mail is not irresponsible. It's just convenient (and for many it's not even about convenience). I don't quite grasp the point here.

And from what I heard, the EC was founded for it was the late 18th century and transferring voting results wasn't quite that easy back then.

[BmorePat87]

(06-11-2020, 01:24 AM)hollodero Wrote: But voting per mail is not irresponsible. It's just convenient (and for many it's not even about convenience). I don't quite grasp the point here.

And from what I heard, the EC was founded for it was the late 18th century and transferring voting results wasn't quite that easy back then.

There's a number of reasons for the EC, but you have to understand how it operated when the Constitution was ratified. 

States selected electors to then vote for the President of their choice. Some states didn't even hold elections, the state legislative bodies selected the electors. Some allowed citizens to vote for other citizens to be electors. There was no "winner take all" per state. Elections didn't only take place on one day.

They didn't trust ordinary people.
They couldn't agree on whether Congress should select the President or if the people should
Smaller states wanted a greater influence on the election
Slave states wanted a system where their slave populations could give them more weight 

[hollodero]

(06-11-2020, 01:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's a number of reasons for the EC, but you have to understand how it operated when the Constitution was ratified. 

States selected electors to then vote for the President of their choice. Some states didn't even hold elections, the state legislative bodies selected the electors. Some allowed citizens to vote for other citizens to be electors. There was no "winner take all" per state. Elections didn't only take place on one day.

They didn't trust ordinary people.
They couldn't agree on whether Congress should select the President or if the people should
Smaller states wanted a greater influence on the election
Slave states wanted a system where their slave populations could give them more weight 

Interesting, didn't know half of it. I heard about counting blacks as 3/5 people though. What a gracious gift of God your constitution is.

Ah, that really nauseates me. How everyone, left or right, bows to the everlasting genius of slavery proponents.

Btw. letting Congress select the president imho is actually a good idea. Also, I suppose it's saffe to say creating responsible voters was not one of the major motivations for the EC.

[BmorePat87]

(06-11-2020, 02:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: Interesting, didn't know half of it. I heard about counting blacks as 3/5 people though. What a gracious gift of God your constitution is.

Ah, that really nauseates me. How everyone, left or right, bows to the everlasting genius of slavery proponents.

Btw. letting Congress select the president imho is actually a good idea. Also, I suppose it's saffe to say creating responsible voters was not one of the major motivations for the EC.

Yea, there are some serious fundamental issues with the Constitution, specifically in how it approaches people of color and how it approaches the right to vote and competency of the electorate. 

The argument against a parliamentary system is that an independent executive ensures more checks and balances. The further divided the powers of government are, the harder it is for there to be tyranny. 

However, the EC provides for Congress selecting POTUS if no one gets a majority of EC votes, which happened 4 elections in. The FF assumed this would happen more often than not, so it was a way to appease those who wanted Congress to select.

And, yea, I would say the EC does not concern itself with creating responsible voters. If anything it presumes irresponsibility of the electorate and gives the duties of multiple elections (POTUS and Senate) over to an elite few. The whole premise of the EC was "less educated people will pick educated people to pick the president". 

[Benton]

(06-10-2020, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just don't put going to the polls and casting your vote in the "too hard to do" block. I've always felt a degree of responsibility should come with a vote. I think it's a reason the founders established the EC. 

You live in Kentucky, right? We're pretty fortunate here in that we don't have a lot of poll manipulation. Voters in states like Georgia where you may need to bring two meals and a lawn chair to vote would probably disagree that it's not difficult to cast your vote.

The EC was, in part, established because of the time and distance issues in voting, along with preventing someone democratically elected but who was a potential danger. Which, largely, shouldn't be an issue now for the time and distance as we have the technology. Opting not to use it in favor of making the voting process as difficult as possible doesn't seem to be in the spirit of making everyone vote equal.

[samhain]

(06-11-2020, 03:17 AM)Benton Wrote: You live in Kentucky, right? We're pretty fortunate here in that we don't have a lot of poll manipulation. Voters in states like Georgia where you may need to bring two meals and a lawn chair to vote would probably disagree that it's not difficult to cast your vote.

The EC was, in part, established because of the time and distance issues in voting, along with preventing someone democratically elected but who was a potential danger. Which, largely, shouldn't be an issue now for the time and distance as we have the technology. Opting not to use it in favor of making the voting process as difficult as possible doesn't seem to be in the spirit of making everyone vote equal.

I think Georgia has some scrutiny coming their way.  In this political climate, it's going to be tough for them do get by with "coincidentally" setting polling locations in black communities up to put people in situations where they have to spend half a day in line.  It won't be forgotten this time around.

Here in KY, it seems like it might actually be more of a pain to vote in person.  They're really pushing this vote by mail thing hard, to the point where actual polling locations seem a lot fewer and far between, unless I'm misreading things.

[hollodero]

(06-11-2020, 03:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, there are some serious fundamental issues with the Constitution, specifically in how it approaches people of color and how it approaches the right to vote and competency of the electorate. 

Yeah, or how it allowes every dimwit to go out hung with weapons like a Chechen army... but I digress. I get this made sense when outlaws, hostile native tribes or english armies or whatever, or buffalos and grizzlies, were a clear and present danger. Or to form a militia against tyrants, which imho shows how little trust there was in the system to prohibit just that from the start.

(06-11-2020, 03:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The argument against a parliamentary system is that an independent executive ensures more checks and balances. The further divided the powers of government are, the harder it is for there to be tyranny. 

Well, that works out just splendidly right now, doesn't it. Which is the obvious risk here, that by separating the powers domination of one branch over the other (like flat out taking checks away from Congress) is actually easier as if they were more intertwined. Imho.
Also, if that thought were to be at least consistent, supreme court judges would have to be elected by the people (or whatever the EC is) as well.

- Another downside are permanent lame ducks, a concept so divisive and potentially blocking it does not seem quite reasonable. Which imho came painfully true when McConnell directly told Obama that the senate will oppose him on every turn no matter what. Which, of course, invites ruling by 'executive order' (another quite strange concept) and enhancing said danger of tyranny further.

(06-11-2020, 03:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: However, the EC provides for Congress selecting POTUS if no one gets a majority of EC votes, which happened 4 elections in. The FF assumed this would happen more often than not, so it was a way to appease those who wanted Congress to select.

I did not know that. Interesting.
Sure the problem is that the current EC also establishes a two party system where this can not possibly happen. I take it it wasn't always like that, but it is like that as of now, and it's no wonder that a winner takes all system was established by the two most powerful parties, so every other party is doomed to fail from the start.

(06-11-2020, 03:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And, yea, I would say the EC does not concern itself with creating responsible voters. If anything it presumes irresponsibility of the electorate and gives the duties of multiple elections (POTUS and Senate) over to an elite few. The whole premise of the EC was "less educated people will pick educated people to pick the president". 

Not to mention 4 million unblemished US citizens are not allowed to vote for president at all.

[Belsnickel]

(06-11-2020, 08:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, or how it allowes every dimwit to go out hung with weapons like a Chechen army... but I digress. I get this made sense when outlaws, hostile native tribes or english armies or whatever, or buffalos and grizzlies, were a clear and present danger. Or to form a militia against tyrants, which imho shows how little trust there was in the system to prohibit just that from the start.

It also should be noted, though, that the 2A was written at a time when there were no police forces and we weren't planning on having a full-time standing land force. Our constitution provides for a permanent navy, but not army. The army has to be reauthorized every two years because the FFs didn't like the idea of a permanent army. So law enforcement and defense were left up to the citizenry at the time, but it is no longer the case. This context is often neglected when discussing the 2A.

(06-11-2020, 08:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: I did not know that. Interesting.
Sure the problem is that the current EC also establishes a two party system where this can not possibly happen. I take it it wasn't always like that, but it is like that as of now, and it's no wonder that a winner takes all system was established by the two most powerful parties, so every other party is doomed to fail from the start.

The EC isn't responsible for the two-party system. Even if we went to the popular vote we would remain a two-party country. There are a number of reasons for it which includes the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system as well as our ridiculously under representative legislature (the number of Representatives has stayed the same sine 1911 or so, while our population is 361% of what it was at the time). For instance, were we to have a lower chamber that was as proportional as the Austrian National Council, we would have a House of 6858 people.

[BmorePat87]

(06-11-2020, 08:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, or how it allowes every dimwit to go out hung with weapons like a Chechen army... but I digress. I get this made sense when outlaws, hostile native tribes or english armies or whatever, or buffalos and grizzlies, were a clear and present danger. Or to form a militia against tyrants, which imho shows how little trust there was in the system to prohibit just that from the start.

Depends on who you ask. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being a protection of the right of the individual to own a firearm is a recent invention (Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010). For the longest time it was interpreted as protecting the states from the federal government in being able to regulate an armed citizenry. 

Of course, the fact that our constitution is so open to interpretation causes some issues.

Quote:Well, that works out just splendidly right now, doesn't it. Which is the obvious risk here, that by separating the powers domination of one branch over the other (like flat out taking checks away from Congress) is actually easier as if they were more intertwined. Imho.

Also, if that thought were to be at least consistent, supreme court judges would have to be elected by the people (or whatever the EC is) as well.

- Another downside are permanent lame ducks, a concept so divisive and potentially blocking it does not seem quite reasonable. Which imho came painfully true when McConnell directly told Obama that the senate will oppose him on every turn no matter what. Which, of course, invites ruling by 'executive order' (another quite strange concept) and enhancing said danger of tyranny further.

There's certainly plenty of examples of it failing in the last 4 years. This is of course a direct consequence of politicians not valuing these constitutional principles and having a POTUS with a disdain for democracy. There arguably could be far worse examples of this had we always had an executive selected by the Legislative, but the solution is still abolishing the EC so that fringe candidates cannot win after getting 3m less votes.

There's a lot of good suggestions for reform for SCOTUS. I don't agree with elections, but Buttigieg suggested expanding the bench to include a rotating group of justices with the new justices being selected unanimously by the existing justices.   

Quote:I did not know that. Interesting.
Sure the problem is that the current EC also establishes a two party system where this can not possibly happen. I take it it wasn't always like that, but it is like that as of now, and it's no wonder that a winner takes all system was established by the two most powerful parties, so every other party is doomed to fail from the start.

The 2 party system has roots in the formation of the Constitution, but the EC as written doesn't really do this. It's, as you pointed to, the new changes (winner take all) instituted by these parties that allows them to maintain that hold. 

Quote:Not to mention 4 million unblemished US citizens are not allowed to vote for president at all.

There's still significant disenfranchisement, even with people who are "allowed" to vote. Keeping minorities off voter rolls, delaying registration, closing voting stations to ensure long lines, discouraging voting, not closing business for voting days to hurt lower income voters, etc. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-10-2020, 06:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I replied to you falsely asserting I stated something to another poster who was not discussing me or my point and I made it personal by calling you on it?

Suppress(ive) means "to put an end to the activities of"

Inconvenient means "not easily accessible or at hand."

Lazy means  "averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent."

You just chose to use lazy in an attempt to make my stance appear more divisive, because you ate lacking in morale character. 

Well, walking 8 plus hours one way through hostile territory to cast a vote is inconvenient. Not walking around the corner is averse to exertion or lazy.

You’re not too good at this English stuff. It’s not our fault that you constantly choose the wrong words to describe what you mean then whine when you claim you didn’t literally use the correct word to describe what you obviously suggested. It’s like your superpower.

It’s modern day America during the Information Age. Voting should be convenient and secure. I shouldn’t have to embark on an Oregon Trail-like odyssey and risk dying of dysentery to cast a vote especially when the ideology of American exceptionalism tells us we are the greatest country in the history of the world. Especially since you’ve already admitted you know the reasons for mail in ballots. Even for locals. So once again you’ve taken the Skip Bayless position of arguing against something despite recognizing the need for that something which is one of the main reasons why Skip Bayless is almost uniformly found to be annoying AF.

If voting didn’t require me to take off from work and stand in line outside for hours to vote for a candidate I disliked the least then maybe we currently wouldn’t have an unqualified reality TV star as President whose signature legislation is a series of tweets insulting all the best people he formally hired after they quit in protest.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-10-2020, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I understand the need for mail in voting; and fully support it. I used it numerous times as a member of the Armed Services.


I didn't say people "refuse" to walk around the corner. I stated that we as Americans seem to find it too inconvenient and I used my experiences in Afghanistan to draw contrast.

Folks say voting is your "civic duty" we just want it to be a duty that requires no sacrifice of time on our part.

Here we go again. You understand it. You support it. You used it. You recognize the need for it; even for locals. You yourself even suggested ways of making voting more convenient. Then you complain about people who find voting inconvenient after admitting it can be. WTF? LMAO.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-10-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I say it should be? Simply making a point of the society of convenience we have become. 

So now we’ve reached the point of this thread where you’re talking smack against Americans simply for living in an age of modern day conveniences like indoor plumbing instead of walking barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways through the holler to use the outhouse.

DAMN THOSE CONVENIENCES AND ANYONE SEDUCED BY THEM!