Not many threads have answers, but it seems like this one does. Does anyone object to vote by mail?
I remember reading about the financial problems of the Post Office back in February. There was talk of increasing the number of services Post Offices provided, in the hopes of increasing revenue, because they don't have moneys.
If we're going to increase the burden on the Postal system, we would probably need to toss some moneys their way.
Not many threads have answers, but it seems like this one does. Does anyone object to vote by mail?
I remember reading about the financial problems of the Post Office back in February. There was talk of increasing the number of services Post Offices provided, in the hopes of increasing revenue, because they don't have moneys.
If we're going to increase the burden on the Postal system, we would probably need to toss some moneys their way.
We could make them not have to fund pensions ~80 years into the future or whatever. I think that might help.
Psn:wazukki
+14
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Not many threads have answers, but it seems like this one does. Does anyone object to vote by mail?
I remember reading about the financial problems of the Post Office back in February. There was talk of increasing the number of services Post Offices provided, in the hopes of increasing revenue, because they don't have moneys.
If we're going to increase the burden on the Postal system, we would probably need to toss some moneys their way.
We could make them not have to fund pensions ~80 years into the future or whatever. I think that might help.
I think that increased voter participation would almost certainly lead to greater support for the post office in congress, since high turnout elections favor democrats.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yeah, get more people voting and a lot of these self inflicted wounds would start magically going away.
That could happen. I find it extremely unlikely for the vast, vast majority of people.
Because there are rules to prevent it. Twenty years ago no one would have through corporations would be considered people with religious freedoms either
Just fill in a circle on a piece of paper. Negligible costs per ballot, equal speed, less possibility of tampering, more reliable recounting possibilities (even with receipts, anything that could tamper with a machine's results can likely tamper with the internal paper receipts).
I find it unbelievable that anybody can sincerely say "just fill in a circle on a piece of paper" in the post-Gore-v-Bush world.
Bush - Gore involved punching a whole into a piece of paper- "Hanging chads" and all. There's a lot less ambiguity in taking a marker and filling in a bubble. Its easier to detect optically, harder to fuck up and really clear.
Not exclusively. Scantron spoilage was a major issue in that election as well.
Well, some of the events you just cited in your other post aren't exclusive to scantrons, per se, so much as any sort of electronically read, pencil votes, but yeah, scantrons are terrible. Filling in that little box is harder than most people think it is, especially if you're old, since good vision and fine muscle control are critical. Generally, these machines are total dicks re. interpretation and loose marks, and then PENCIL technology has been proven to be prone to smudging.
First, scantron style ballots (at least in my neck of the desolate Rockies) use markers, not pencils.
Second, they solved the old people problem a long time ago. Here, there are special machines that you can feed a ballot into, put your entries into a touchscreen, and it spits out a completed ballot. In a lot of ways, it's the best of both worlds.
That could happen. I find it extremely unlikely for the vast, vast majority of people.
Because there are rules to prevent it. Twenty years ago no one would have through corporations would be considered people with religious freedoms either
Just fill in a circle on a piece of paper. Negligible costs per ballot, equal speed, less possibility of tampering, more reliable recounting possibilities (even with receipts, anything that could tamper with a machine's results can likely tamper with the internal paper receipts).
I find it unbelievable that anybody can sincerely say "just fill in a circle on a piece of paper" in the post-Gore-v-Bush world.
Bush - Gore involved punching a whole into a piece of paper- "Hanging chads" and all. There's a lot less ambiguity in taking a marker and filling in a bubble. Its easier to detect optically, harder to fuck up and really clear.
Not exclusively. Scantron spoilage was a major issue in that election as well.
Well, some of the events you just cited in your other post aren't exclusive to scantrons, per se, so much as any sort of electronically read, pencil votes, but yeah, scantrons are terrible. Filling in that little box is harder than most people think it is, especially if you're old, since good vision and fine muscle control are critical. Generally, these machines are total dicks re. interpretation and loose marks, and then PENCIL technology has been proven to be prone to smudging.
First, scantron style ballots (at least in my neck of the desolate Rockies) use markers, not pencils.
Second, they solved the old people problem a long time ago. Here, there are special machines that you can feed a ballot into, put your entries into a touchscreen, and it spits out a completed ballot. In a lot of ways, it's the best of both worlds.
That is awesome. I didn't know those existed.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Just fill in a circle on a piece of paper. Negligible costs per ballot, equal speed, less possibility of tampering, more reliable recounting possibilities (even with receipts, anything that could tamper with a machine's results can likely tamper with the internal paper receipts).
I find it unbelievable that anybody can sincerely say "just fill in a circle on a piece of paper" in the post-Gore-v-Bush world.
You guys still had mechanical voting machines though. And frankly that election was probably stolen by the supreme court being asshats about it.
Voting is far too important to technologize. You want it to be an effort which involves tens of thousands of people to count, tally, and run the polling stations, because it distributes and devalues the benefit of centralized fraud attempts - which are the only effective kind.
You can count the ballots essentially instantly with a scantron type ballot counter.
ELM, do the bolded mean that you also oppose PantsB's preference for Scantrons, or does optical ballot tallying not count as "technologizing?"
I definitely oppose using scantrons, or anything else. The Australian vote is hand counted, and machine verified (and not by scantrons - i.e. they are sorted and counted, and then stack is verified to match the count). If the two disagree, we hand count it again, and verify with a different machine until they do.
This is absolutely how it should be done, in my opinion, anywhere, because it involves too many people to effectively compromise.
Just fill in a circle on a piece of paper. Negligible costs per ballot, equal speed, less possibility of tampering, more reliable recounting possibilities (even with receipts, anything that could tamper with a machine's results can likely tamper with the internal paper receipts).
I find it unbelievable that anybody can sincerely say "just fill in a circle on a piece of paper" in the post-Gore-v-Bush world.
You guys still had mechanical voting machines though. And frankly that election was probably stolen by the supreme court being asshats about it.
Voting is far too important to technologize. You want it to be an effort which involves tens of thousands of people to count, tally, and run the polling stations, because it distributes and devalues the benefit of centralized fraud attempts - which are the only effective kind.
You can count the ballots essentially instantly with a scantron type ballot counter.
ELM, do the bolded mean that you also oppose PantsB's preference for Scantrons, or does optical ballot tallying not count as "technologizing?"
I definitely oppose using scantrons, or anything else. The Australian vote is hand counted, and machine verified (and not by scantrons - i.e. they are sorted and counted, and then stack is verified to match the count). If the two disagree, we hand count it again, and verify with a different machine until they do.
This is absolutely how it should be done, in my opinion, anywhere, because it involves too many people to effectively compromise.
How do you handle it if ballots go missing?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think I'm going to need to see citations or such for mail voting voting improving turnout. I don't believe the link is clear. Certainly hasn't helped in the UK or NZ, or if it has, merely to slow down decline in voting in a hard to quantify way.
Posts
There used to be a report on this from the UK government I can't seem to find now. It was a general report on mail-in voting.
I remember reading about the financial problems of the Post Office back in February. There was talk of increasing the number of services Post Offices provided, in the hopes of increasing revenue, because they don't have moneys.
If we're going to increase the burden on the Postal system, we would probably need to toss some moneys their way.
We could make them not have to fund pensions ~80 years into the future or whatever. I think that might help.
I think that increased voter participation would almost certainly lead to greater support for the post office in congress, since high turnout elections favor democrats.
This is more what I was thinking. But in general, the privacy and anonymity of in person ballots make it much harder for someone to coerce votes.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
First, scantron style ballots (at least in my neck of the desolate Rockies) use markers, not pencils.
Second, they solved the old people problem a long time ago. Here, there are special machines that you can feed a ballot into, put your entries into a touchscreen, and it spits out a completed ballot. In a lot of ways, it's the best of both worlds.
I'm willing to bet the number of coerced votes is vastly outweighed by the number of votes lost every time Republicans cut voting days and hours.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That's the AMFE plan.
Of course the AMFE plan also has two options: AMFE Now or AMFE Immediately
That is awesome. I didn't know those existed.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I definitely oppose using scantrons, or anything else. The Australian vote is hand counted, and machine verified (and not by scantrons - i.e. they are sorted and counted, and then stack is verified to match the count). If the two disagree, we hand count it again, and verify with a different machine until they do.
This is absolutely how it should be done, in my opinion, anywhere, because it involves too many people to effectively compromise.
How do you handle it if ballots go missing?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.