oldschoolskater OP t1_ivg40hr wrote
"He continued: “Pennsylvania is one of only eight states that bans pre-processing of early mail-in ballots, forcing county officials to wait until 7 a.m. on Tuesday to begin opening returned ballots and scanning them into the system.”"
Is anybody opposed to counting votes early? If so why?
I'm for counting votes at least two weeks before the election. Obviously votes that come in at the last minute may take an extra day.
[deleted] t1_ivg5e3k wrote
[deleted]
username-1787 t1_ivg77qn wrote
They don't care who was ahead at midnight either. They're just opposed to the concept of democratic elections in general
ScratchMoore t1_ivg6zqg wrote
And they admit it! They want to stop the counts and come up with these laws as a way to make their whining sound legitimate.
YYYY t1_ivhq3vj wrote
>“Pennsylvania is one of only eight states that bans pre-processing of early mail-in ballots, forcing county officials to wait until 7 a.m. on Tuesday to begin opening returned ballots and scanning them into the system.”"
Keep in mind the the state Republican legislature set it up this way.
demichr t1_ivgmitp wrote
The GOP has allwsys been a propoent of mail in balloting UNTILL TRUMP. The late counting played into his 300 AM cheat. Since around then the mail ins are usually posted. All because of trump ego that he want cheating instead of losing.
drewbaccaAWD t1_ivgw79s wrote
GOP isn't a fan of vote by mail and they were against this even before Trump. Lower propensity voters tend to vote Democrat and they are more likely to vote by mail than on election day... GOP is aware of this and tries to stop it from happening. They don't want it to be easy, they want the party faithful willing to crawl over broken glass to be the only ones to show up. The fewer the number of voters, the more it inherently benefits the GOP.
What changed with Trump is that he actively saw voting by mail as a way of creating chaos in the midst of a pandemic, knowing that by discouraging his supporters from voting that way there would be a larger disparity than usual between in-person voting and mail in ballots. It was all part of his master plan to just claim victory with many votes left uncounted... the only possible way this tosser could ever win by anything remotely close to the landslide he claims.
ScratchMoore t1_ivh7bwm wrote
What amazes me the most is that he is on record, recorded on video/audio, admitting that if he didn’t like the results, he would simply say it was rigged.
He told everyone he would lie, and his chucklefuck followers STILL THINK IT HAPPENED.
No amount of logic or reason will ever be able to crack through the dense skulls of MAGAts. And they are already admitting that they will only accept results that Republicans win, and will challenge any Democrat victories.
Fuck MAGA forever.
Niagaraballs71 t1_ivhj3zh wrote
Can you link us to this video?
[deleted] t1_ivhpbof wrote
Thank you for typing something I haven't heard / seen in a while - chucklefuck. It gave me a good laugh, which was needed!
demichr t1_ivhw4nv wrote
A large segment of GOP felt that Sr. voters would go R and mail in would max Sr vote
Lord_Kano t1_ivk4uiq wrote
>What changed with Trump is that he actively saw voting by mail as a way of creating chaos in the midst of a pandemic, knowing that by discouraging his supporters from voting that way there would be a larger disparity than usual between in-person voting and mail in ballots.
I don't think that Trump is capable of this level of calculation.
drewbaccaAWD t1_ivl0oux wrote
No, but I don't think Trump is capable of looking at a tax form either. He hires more intelligent people to do actual work he isn't capable of.
Several of his inner circle, most notably Steve Bannon, are on video stating this was the plan well ahead of the election.
cocksherpa2 t1_ivhfepm wrote
Who exactly do you think passed our current mail in voting laws if not the Republicans?
drewbaccaAWD t1_ivi71ol wrote
It was state senator Boscola's (D) bill and ultimately signed by Wolf (D).. It was a bipartisan bill in which state R's were initially willing to accept the no excuse required absentee voting that the D's wanted in exchange for eliminating the party line vote, amongst other things. It wasn't an R bill and the expansion of mail in voting was something the D's were pushing, not the R's.
Granted, the R's did ultimately vote for it. And a good number of D's upset with the amendments ultimately chose to not vote for it. Ironic that it's now the R's who want it deemed unconstitutional and thrown out. They claim they were "duped" and the bill doesn't represent what they voted for... Mastriano has written a couple of op-eds on the subject.
Perhaps it's not an issue that falls along a strict partisan divide but you need to look beyond just PA to GOP opinions across the board. Jeff Essmann, the Montana GOP chair didn't hold back his thoughts when his state was debating this in 2017 (long before Trump weighed in on any of this). I lived in WA state for a while and all the pushback I saw to the mail in ballots were coming from R's... and this was back in 2008ish when I was stationed there. Here's Texas AG Ken Paxton's take on the topic granted this came after 2020's general election.
There's also the issue of GOP obsession with voter ID laws which don't line up well with any sort of mail-in ballot which dates well before the 2020 election and any input from Trump sycophants.
And of course there was also this slip up to the SCOTUS, in which a GOP lawyer admits that more restrictions benefit the GOP... reducing mail-in ballots is one form of restriction although maybe the PA GOP wasn't in on the game in 2019 when they ultimately voted for Act 77 before turning on it.
demichr t1_ivhpi8x wrote
They thought they had the senior vote locked. And mail in was the best. The tRump cdme along
DugganSC t1_ivg8twi wrote
I think the argument is basically that, if early results are revealed, it could influence the election. Supposedly, there is already a similar effect where West Coast voting drops as the East Coast areas come back with preliminary results. People figure that the election is already over, since one side has a higher count, so they don't bother voting. Arguably, if all of these vote results are kept secret, there would be no effect like that. However, they are proceeding from the assumption that security is bad, and therefore they probably suspect that such preliminary results would get leaked.
As it is, I feel like our current method of news sources reporting exit polls as if they were actual numbers is somewhat deceptive, and manipulative.
Adam_Rahuba t1_ivho519 wrote
The argument is actually that Republicans get counted first. Then they look like they’re pulling a head and they have a massive lead so what they do is they start spreading disinformation about how democrats are cheating and somehow catching up and overtaking them even though they were in the lead and now all these new votes magically appear
slpgh t1_ivhsbso wrote
If you were to believe that it was possible to illegally add mail in votes then that model would work. Everyone new Dems were voting by mail, the argument that by now they knew how much they needed to win so new ballots were added.
Kidspud t1_ivh4xal wrote
Do you have any articles suggesting that effect? I've studied political science for quite a few years and never encountered research showing that early poll closures on the east coast have that impact.
DugganSC t1_ivh6l9w wrote
Honestly? No. It's one of those things I grew up hearing, which seemed to make sense. Doing a quick search turns up papers like "Do exit polls influence voting behaviors?" which are locked behind pay walls, but the excerpts seemed to indicate that there is an effect scene, albeit a small one, on West Coast voting based upon East Coast exit poll results.
As someone who has studied political science, presumably you may have better access to those scholarly articles than I do.
racinreaver t1_ivig43t wrote
Anecdotally living on the west coast I know folks that didn't go out to vote because of early projections from the east coast. It was more common in the past where you might have to wait in line for an hour or two in lousy weather, but most folks I know now do early voting.
slpgh t1_ivhslrv wrote
My understanding is that they have limited impact because most of the western states are not competitive at least in presidential elections.
And in midterms the effects are localized anyway
burritoace t1_ivguekn wrote
>if early results are revealed, it could influence the election
Maybe that's the argument but I've seen nothing to suggest that it is actually true. I don't even understand what the mechanism for "influence" is here - if people see the vote going one way it seems just as likely to encourage them to vote as not. The argument seems pretty half-baked.
>I feel like our current method of news sources reporting exit polls as if they were actual numbers is somewhat deceptive, and manipulative.
I certainly agree that the way these things are reported is not enlightening and contributes to confusion.
DugganSC t1_ivgxm9q wrote
> Maybe that's the argument but I've seen nothing to suggest that it is actually true. I don't even understand what the mechanism for "influence" is here - if people see the vote going one way it seems just as likely to encourage them to vote as not. The argument seems pretty half-baked.
If voting were zero cost, it probably wouldn't, but most people have to take time off of work, arrange for transport, get childcare, etc. And if it looks like a bygone conclusion, why bother?
burritoace t1_ivh6prw wrote
The people closely watching election returns come in are mostly not the people who make a last minute decision whether or not to vote
DugganSC t1_ivh7k6v wrote
shrug Dunno. Election coverage is easy to find, and a lot of people will likely be stepping out of their workplace at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., and trying to make that final decision as to whether they want to make the effort. I could list a few cases I've known of people who made that last minute decision not to head to the polls, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.
Calm-Obligation-7772 t1_ivi5eh2 wrote
I, unfortunately, did this for the 2016 election. 🙃 Even though I was told I could leave work to vote, I never would have made it home and back in a reasonable amount of time on my break. It was only myself and one other employee closing and we weren't allowed to be alone so I couldn't leave early.
Thought there was no chance in hell Trump would win so I didn't end up voting. Biggest regret. I have not and will not ever miss another election.
IrrumaboMalum t1_ivhtcq1 wrote
It's not just "watching election returns." What if the news shows early voting numbers and says one party is up significantly and you were planning on going out to vote tomorrow.
Are you still going to vote if you're the opposing party? It seems hopeless for your candidate to win now, so why bother?
I'm fine with counting mail-in ballots early as long as the results are kept secure until close of polls - no leaks.
KentuckYSnow t1_ivhrfll wrote
If someone wasn't going to vote already they aren't going to change their mind day of.
throwaway01002030405 t1_ivgdkeu wrote
It’s not just that we can’t count them until the day of, we can’t even prep them. If there are concerns (as mentioned elsewhere) that leaked early results could swing things, certainly we could all agree taking ballots out of their envelopes and getting them ready to be scanned is like… reasonable?
I feel like “certainly we can all agree” is the most hilarious thing I’ve ever said
UnaffiliatedOpinion t1_ivgreko wrote
Lol, we (as a society) can't even all agree on whether these votes are worthy of being counted at all!
tesla3by3 t1_ivgk2mc wrote
I'm opposed to actually counting the votes early, as the count will inevitably leak out. I wouldn't be opposed to preparing the ballots to be scanned- opening, unfolding, etc. But that would also involve additional security measures. Right now the ballots are kept unopened in sealed cases.
demichr t1_ivgoc3u wrote
Most places secure in locked ballot boxes. This was the actual occurance of votes secure and rhen removed; that trumpers used as evidence to acuse illegal stuffed ballots
burritoace t1_ivguku2 wrote
>as the count will inevitably leak out
Does it in other states that do this?
tesla3by3 t1_ivhnksn wrote
It’s only done in like 10 states, but the likelihood of a leak will go up if more states start counting early.
I’d rather see investing in technology to process ballots more quickly.
demichr t1_ivhpaya wrote
The time is gettig them out of envelopes and ready for scanner. Tech cant get much faster.
tesla3by3 t1_ivhrd2x wrote
Which is why I said earlier I would not be opposed to opening and unfolding the ballots in advance.
Or building the technologies to prepare the ballots for scanning.
demichr t1_ivhwohd wrote
Oart of the prep is validation and scanner tech is pretty much maxed out. Usually the faster you the more jams u get you reach a sweet spot for speed / accuracy.
uraturdcutter t1_ivgaifh wrote
In my opinion the GOP essentially hates anything that increases voter participation or the convenience of voting. They are anti mail in voting and love to obstruct anything that changes the voting experience for the better.
drewbaccaAWD t1_ivgwssh wrote
Exactly
https://www.courthousenews.com/montanans-odds-mail-election-replace-zinke/
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1375473948587143172
https://twitter.com/chris_notcapn/status/1401306119461642242
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/heritage-foundation-dark-money-voter-suppression-laws/
Whoever downvoted you is an idiot or a liar.
demichr t1_ivhsm4v wrote
When u read the Zenke article. U will see why Republicans are pushing only voter or immediate family can deliver ballots to boxes. Anything to make voting harder is advantage Rs.
demichr t1_ivhq0y5 wrote
100% trump actually said the more people that vote means R lose. The R got nothing but cultet BS. they are out to get u. Econony and have no solution
Equivalent_Alps_8321 t1_ivi6jrx wrote
Yes because they are ultimately a minority and getting smaller. When more people vote they generally lose.
HotDamn18V t1_ivh5ali wrote
They're anti-voting in general.
cocksherpa2 t1_ivhfrjx wrote
This sub is full of bots or morons, perhaps both
demichr t1_ivht76s wrote
Dont listen to what they say. WATCH what they do. GOP has hook line sinker swallowed the tRump anti mail in Vote
Lord_Kano t1_ivk5199 wrote
> GOP has hook line sinker swallowed the tRump anti mail in Vote
Some of us are old enough to remember when the Democrats didn't like mail-in absentee ballots because the majority of them came from deployed military personnel who tend to vote Republican.
All of politics is game-playing.
uraturdcutter t1_ivhkg5f wrote
Some bipartisanship involved in creating act 77 but at the end of the day has the only people that have fought against mail in ballots or trying to limit the efficiency of mail in ballots are republicans.
Unless I’m misconstruing your reply, it seems as though you are under the impression republicans are for mail in ballots. One candidate for PA governor has spoken out against mail in ballots. I’ll give you 3 guesses which party he is from?
cocksherpa2 t1_iw4saty wrote
The Republicans sponsored and passed the legislation for our current vote by mail system.
Mastrianos opinion on the matter is irrelevant beyond his vote in 2020
uraturdcutter t1_iw4sg1k wrote
Even more irrelevant because he lost.
sutisuc t1_ivgkrae wrote
Republicans are that’s why this is a thing. This way when all the votes from cities and people who voted by mail come in later they can scream “FRAUDDDD” and try to delegitimize results that don’t go their way.
drewbaccaAWD t1_ivgt9he wrote
I think counting mail-in votes starting when the polls open on election day is reasonable... what I think is unreasonable is that there's only one election day. So, I don't know that I agree with you that it should start two weeks early but I can't think of any reason not to start at least one day early so that we have an accurate count when the polls close on Nov. 8.
I'd really like to see some additional early voting options, at least in the larger cities, a few days before election day... options other than mail-in which I just don't personally trust. But regardless, I don't see any reason not to start counting the day before and not releasing any results until polls close on election day.
PolyDipsoManiac t1_ivhw13n wrote
It is to just add extra days to the process and try to inject more fear and uncertainty. You also introduce opportunity to attack the system—if you can stop counting after one day, and you make sure “your guys” get counted first, then you win.
rusty022 t1_ivgguow wrote
What method is used in other places, and around the world? If you count early, is that count public (which could impact future voters)? Don't some people send in a mail-in ballot but then change their vote by voting in-person with a provisional ballot? I think it's legitimately complicated, but far from too complicated to make this work well.
What would you suggest for a statewide mix of in-person and mail-in ballots, combined with provisional ballots?
ryumast3r t1_ivi2519 wrote
38 of the 50 U.S. states (including the 4 most-populous states) allow "processing" of absentee/mail-in ballots prior to election day.
Processing means different things depending on exact state statutes, but can include anything from simply comparing the signature to the voter roll to make sure they match all the way up to running ballots through the scanner but not hitting the "tabulate" button which compiles the results. It usually includes signature match, removing from the envelope, flattening it, and stacking it with other ballots.
This way, when counting can officially begin (again, different depending on the state), all the officials have to do is put it in the machine for tabulation or hit the button to get the result, making the whole process much faster.
In California, for example, the first results published are almost always the mail-in ballots that were received well in advance of election day and have been prepped and were allowed to start being counted up to 29 days prior to the election.
Someone mentioned earlier that this could lead to vote tallies being leaked, however I've never seen that be an issue in California and, being the most populous state, you'd think if it were going to happen that's where it would occur. This is mostly because they aren't tabulated in a central system prior to election day.
throwaway01002030405 t1_ivgijqg wrote
Prep the mail in votes ahead of time so they can be scanned more expeditiously. I think the counties could handle scanning all their mail ins on Election Day. Then just wait until after the polls close to start reporting. Provisionals should be held back until they’re verified as not being a second vote from someone who’s already cast one.
I don’t think you can cancel your mail ballot and vote provisionally after it’s been sent in. You can certainly turn it in and vote in person, but I think once it’s out of your hands and at the county office, it’s… out of your hands
rusty022 t1_ivgj21l wrote
>I don’t think you can cancel your mail ballot and vote provisionally after it’s been sent in. You can certainly turn it in and vote in person, but I think once it’s out of your hands and at the county office, it’s… out of your hands
Hmm, you may be right. I think I recall provisional requires handing in your mail-in ballot at the polling center?
throwaway01002030405 t1_ivgld81 wrote
It’s even a little more granular: if you bring every piece of paper and envelope of your mail in ballot to the polls, a poll worker can accept it and you can vote with a regular day-of ballot. If you forget any of the pieces you have to vote with a provisional. And actually if you forget the whole mail-in ballot entirely you can still vote with a provisional, cause they check to make sure you haven’t sent anything else in before they count it
srpayj t1_ivgkyi8 wrote
If you believe your mail in vote was lost or will not be counted for some technical reason. You can vote provisional. They review each provisional ballot after all the other votes are counted. If they see you already vote by mail or in person your provisional ballot will not be counted. I did this after my mail in ballot got lost in the postal system. The even notified me they counted it…. More than a week later.
Icy-Project861 t1_ivhxr4d wrote
Poll worker here. In PA, this is correct.
Thezedword4 t1_ivi9dqu wrote
Question: if you received a mail in ballot but did not fill it out or send it, do you need to bring it with you to vote like a commenter above is stating?
I received one automatically as did my partner (i think because we did in 2020) but since we had issues with mail in for the primaries, we're both voting in person
Icy-Project861 t1_ivj5egw wrote
If you live in PA, you must bring your mail in ballot with you, or you will have to vote provisional. It will still count as long as you haven’t sent in your mail in ballot, but it will take a few more steps.
Thezedword4 t1_ivlwmlk wrote
Thank you! They gave me all kinds of problems when I brought my mail in ballot in because it had a different address than where I'm registered. But I was at the polling location where I'm registered. Same place I've voted for 10 years. The mailing location and the registered location had the same ballot of people to vote for. My mail in ballot had a different address because I'm renting and move so much so I use my mom's address as I always have. I never had an issue before so I found that odd.
throwaway01002030405 t1_ivj5k8j wrote
Bring everything associated with the mail in ballot to the polls and ask them to cancel it so can you vote on a regular ballot. If you’re missing a piece, it’s not the end of the world, just ask for a provisional ballot.
(If I was the commenter above you you referenced, oops. Still, it’s the very first FAQ here https://www.vote.pa.gov/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Mail-and-Absentee-Ballot.aspx)
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_ivgrpbj wrote
I would be okay with prepping to count, but counting them early feels like it could influence the results.
slpgh t1_ivhs4zg wrote
There’s no way to keep the results secret and they can easily affect turnout on Election Day. This way all we can go by is how many ballots were returned.
We could possibly pre-process
TheBigNate416 t1_ivgxzwx wrote
It’s so republicans can cry fraud when the tally starts increasing for democrats
Odd_Description_2295 t1_ivhbmf4 wrote
Yea... op is an oz voter and a republican
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments