I don't really want "murder people who have voted" to become a viable election strategy.
It's about as viable as murder people so they can't vote on election day is
Voting is about the future, the dead have no part of that. There's little reason to count their votes, but also it's not likely worth the effort to try to remove them
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
Legally it makes sense, and is a perfectly fair rule. Tuesday is the actual date of the election, early ballots are just collected prior to be counted on that day. To look at it from another direction, should somebody who turns 18 (or whatever the local voting age is) on election day be able to vote? Of course. Should they be able to register prior to the election, despite being 17 at the time? Most of us would agree that yes, they should. Now...should they be able to cast an early ballot for the election, provided they will be 18 on or before the election day? Should they be able to send in an absentee ballot prior to their birthday, provided they are 18 at the time of the actual election?
Most of us would say yes, right?
By the same logic, somebody who casts a ballot early but dies (or emigrates, or is otherwise disenfranchised) prior to election day probably shouldn't have their ballot counted. The early balloting process is a logistical courtesy, but the date of the election does still matter. Legally it should still matter that you are an eligible voter on the day.
All of that said, I have no faith that this would ever be applied equitably and as such I'd prefer that a ballot cast through the proper process be locked in.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
You do realize this opens a giant can of worms, correct? If dead people's votes don't count, you can just make a whole lot of people whose votes you don't want to count dead.
Just got a text that the post office received my ballot. So it should be all good come election day. Mail in voting was pretty painless in california .
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
It still removes the franchise from those following the rules. Someone who legally votes on their deathbed because they care about democracy shouldn’t have their vote annulled because the right wing is desperately trying to kick out every vote they can in a losing election.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
You do realize this opens a giant can of worms, correct? If dead people's votes don't count, you can just make a whole lot of people whose votes you don't want to count dead.
Yes, that was the Klan's approach after Reconstruction. A time which didn't have early voting available. So allowing the dead to vote it isn't much of a safeguard against electoral terrorism.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
You do realize this opens a giant can of worms, correct? If dead people's votes don't count, you can just make a whole lot of people whose votes you don't want to count dead.
There's nothing stopping people from doing that now. Show up at an opposing groups rally and remove voters before they can vote. I know, in this case it'd be called murder, but it's the same thing.
I think it's interesting and should be looked at. Like I said on one hand it feels fucked up to toss out a ballot because someone dies of cancer after voting, but before election day. Yet at the same time, the dead aren't allowed to vote, and even though you voted early, it's not election day yet.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
You do realize this opens a giant can of worms, correct? If dead people's votes don't count, you can just make a whole lot of people whose votes you don't want to count dead.
... Is this actually a serious argument, or are you goofing? Like c'mon now.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
Legally it makes sense, and is a perfectly fair rule. Tuesday is the actual date of the election, early ballots are just collected prior to be counted on that day. To look at it from another direction, should somebody who turns 18 (or whatever the local voting age is) on election day be able to vote? Of course. Should they be able to register prior to the election, despite being 17 at the time? Most of us would agree that yes, they should. Now...should they be able to cast an early ballot for the election, provided they will be 18 on or before the election day? Should they be able to send in an absentee ballot prior to their birthday, provided they are 18 at the time of the actual election?
Most of us would say yes, right?
By the same logic, somebody who casts a ballot early but dies (or emigrates, or is otherwise disenfranchised) prior to election day probably shouldn't have their ballot counted. The early balloting process is a logistical courtesy, but the date of the election does still matter. Legally it should still matter that you are an eligible voter on the day.
All of that said, I have no faith that this would ever be applied equitably and as such I'd prefer that a ballot cast through the proper process be locked in.
And someone who turns 18 on December 1st doesn't get to vote in that election by dint of a couple weeks. Arbitrary cutoffs are annoying, but there ultimately has to be a cutoff and it will always be arbitrary. Over the age of 18 and alive seems about as fair as you can make it.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
There was an article in Washington Post about a man's father who basically voted as his last act, and contemplating whether the actual act of voting was important enough to make all the effort worth it.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
It still removes the franchise from those following the rules. Someone who legally votes on their deathbed because they care about democracy shouldn’t have their vote annulled because the right wing is desperately trying to kick out every vote they can in a losing election.
The rule most likely wasn't introduced yesterday. So it isn't a rightwing plot in my opinion.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
You do realize this opens a giant can of worms, correct? If dead people's votes don't count, you can just make a whole lot of people whose votes you don't want to count dead.
If this is a likely can of worms than it isn't a democratic election anymore.
Meant to post this when I finished my WI GOTV stuff for the night. Lots of people are very committed to voting.
ohh, and I got an elderly woman Biden voter a ride to go early vote this morning.
THATS A +1 IN A SWING STATE BOYS.
And then this morning, in the call group I'm doing leading/support for, one of my peoples had different old lady who needed help. Boom got them hooked up too.
+1 AGAIN, THATS WHY YOU MAKE CALLS MOTHERFUCKERS.
So get your ass in your chair, put on your headphones, sign up for some shifts, and make some calls.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
It still removes the franchise from those following the rules. Someone who legally votes on their deathbed because they care about democracy shouldn’t have their vote annulled because the right wing is desperately trying to kick out every vote they can in a losing election.
Yeah, I don't see the justification here. If you live long enough to cast a vote, the vote should count. Philosophically, someone near death might still care about the future direction of the country.
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
I mean, my one hope is that disenfranchising 100k votes cast in good faith is a bridge too far for any one judge to attempt. The public won't stand for it.
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
I mean, my one hope is that disenfranchising 100k votes cast in good faith is a bridge too far for any one judge to attempt. The public won't stand for it.
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
I mean, my one hope is that disenfranchising 100k votes cast in good faith is a bridge too far for any one judge to attempt. The public won't stand for it.
If it was red votes you'd have armed milittias showing up at ballot boxes from the right wing and president pumpkin tweeting about antifa.
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
It still removes the franchise from those following the rules. Someone who legally votes on their deathbed because they care about democracy shouldn’t have their vote annulled because the right wing is desperately trying to kick out every vote they can in a losing election.
Yeah, I don't see the justification here. If you live long enough to cast a vote, the vote should count. Philosophically, someone near death might still care about the future direction of the country.
If someone requests and absentee ballot, dies, but their voting intention is known, for instance they filled out a sample ballot, should their heir be able to cast that vote?
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
The public won't stand for it.
What are they going to do about it? Riot?
Honestly? Possibly. Depends how things shake out and how much the individuals in question have to lose.
One judge shredding the ballots of one hundred thousand voters from the bench should be enough to incite violence. I don't advocate for that outcome, nor would I go out and incite it myself. But if we read a story from any other country where people took to the streets and got violent because one man disenfranchised a hundred thousand voters, we'd say that was just people trying to make their voice heard in a failed democracy.
+36
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
+1 for Biden in Central Illinois. Not super-critical given, y'know, Illinois, but local stuff matters and I voted against every Republican that was on the ballot. Our representative's been a piece of crap for ages and they nearly lost in 2018, too. Also there's an amendment for our state constitution on the ballot that will let our state actually tax the wealthy for more than the poor. So that's important, too.
I originally was going to vote by mail but, well, I requested my ballot too late due to...mental health stuff basically. So I filled it out and turned it in to the county election office personally. Because our county doesn't have any other drop boxes, because of course we don't.
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
The public won't stand for it.
What are they going to do about it? Riot?
Honestly? Possibly. Depends how things shake out and how much the individuals in question have to lose.
One judge shredding the ballots of one hundred thousand voters from the bench should be enough to incite violence. I don't advocate for that outcome, nor would I go out and incite it myself. But if we read a story from any other country where people took to the streets and got violent because one man disenfranchised a hundred thousand voters, we'd say that was just people trying to make their voice heard in a failed democracy.
We know what happens when people riot in the face of injustice. It's been happening all summer. What happens is rioters are beaten, arrested, mutilated and abused. The authorities turn a deaf ear.
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
The public won't stand for it.
What are they going to do about it? Riot?
Honestly? Possibly. Depends how things shake out and how much the individuals in question have to lose.
One judge shredding the ballots of one hundred thousand voters from the bench should be enough to incite violence. I don't advocate for that outcome, nor would I go out and incite it myself. But if we read a story from any other country where people took to the streets and got violent because one man disenfranchised a hundred thousand voters, we'd say that was just people trying to make their voice heard in a failed democracy.
We know what happens when people riot in the face of injustice. It's been happening all summer. What happens is rioters are beaten, arrested, mutilated and abused. The authorities turn a deaf ear.
Or what happened on the highway in texas yesterday
+18
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
I think the republican Secretary of State has backed Harris County on curb-side voting?
Yeah, I’d say that’s a situation worthy of a riot.
If a partisan hack judge is throwing out 100K votes to support a tyrant, then you’re not really swinging first by showing up en masse and making yourself heard.
They steal your peaceful voice, they get to hear the other voices.
+1 for Biden in Central Illinois. Not super-critical given, y'know, Illinois, but local stuff matters and I voted against every Republican that was on the ballot. Our representative's been a piece of crap for ages and they nearly lost in 2018, too. Also there's an amendment for our state constitution on the ballot that will let our state actually tax the wealthy for more than the poor. So that's important, too.
I originally was going to vote by mail but, well, I requested my ballot too late due to...mental health stuff basically. So I filled it out and turned it in to the county election office personally. Because our county doesn't have any other drop boxes, because of course we don't.
I've been so disappointed in Ray LaHood's son.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Question: if they do throw out those ballots BEFORE the election (I saw there is a hearing Monday), can those affected vote on Tuesday (assuming they even hear about it)?
i mean that's supposed to be the case if you're dead before you cast your vote
If your dead before "you" cast your vote, then it's not "your" vote. There's still potential for you to change your mind up to the point where you actually cast your ballot (whether by mailing it, turning it into a drop box or voting in a booth) so at best it's someone trying to falsify a vote to what they think you'd want, and at worse it's someone uses your vote to vote fradulently.
Once you've done all that though, then you've voted and the mail is in the possession of government agencies. Even if you die afterwards, you were alive when you cast your 100% legitimate ballot and it should be counted as such.
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
The public won't stand for it.
What are they going to do about it? Riot?
Honestly? Possibly. Depends how things shake out and how much the individuals in question have to lose.
One judge shredding the ballots of one hundred thousand voters from the bench should be enough to incite violence. I don't advocate for that outcome, nor would I go out and incite it myself. But if we read a story from any other country where people took to the streets and got violent because one man disenfranchised a hundred thousand voters, we'd say that was just people trying to make their voice heard in a failed democracy.
We know what happens when people riot in the face of injustice. It's been happening all summer. What happens is rioters are beaten, arrested, mutilated and abused. The authorities turn a deaf ear.
Gonna disagree here. Those weren't riots. They were protests, no matter how much the Administration, conservative media and police organizations wanted to portray them otherwise.
Riots are a whole different thing. Might not have the outcome the rioters want, but there's a difference with how things go (ie, badly) if both sides go into a conflict with violence as realistic option.
+28
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Going through that, it looks like they already lost their case when it came to the Texas Supreme Court, so now, being the party of "state's rights", they are going to the federal courts to try and overrule them.
The public won't stand for it.
What are they going to do about it? Riot?
Honestly? Possibly. Depends how things shake out and how much the individuals in question have to lose.
One judge shredding the ballots of one hundred thousand voters from the bench should be enough to incite violence. I don't advocate for that outcome, nor would I go out and incite it myself. But if we read a story from any other country where people took to the streets and got violent because one man disenfranchised a hundred thousand voters, we'd say that was just people trying to make their voice heard in a failed democracy.
We know what happens when people riot in the face of injustice. It's been happening all summer. What happens is rioters are beaten, arrested, mutilated and abused. The authorities turn a deaf ear.
The protesters weren't being violent and were incredibly restrained.
Now tell them they can't vote, and what other options have they left?
The reason I can see it thrown out is because she is deceased before election day. Like, I can see the reasoning. Don't think it's right though.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
It still removes the franchise from those following the rules. Someone who legally votes on their deathbed because they care about democracy shouldn’t have their vote annulled because the right wing is desperately trying to kick out every vote they can in a losing election.
Yeah, I don't see the justification here. If you live long enough to cast a vote, the vote should count. Philosophically, someone near death might still care about the future direction of the country.
If someone requests and absentee ballot, dies, but their voting intention is known, for instance they filled out a sample ballot, should their heir be able to cast that vote?
I would say no. I realize you have to draw a line somewhere, but "if the person voted legally, their vote should count, regardless of what happens after they voted" seems like the most reasonable place to draw it to me.
i mean that's supposed to be the case if you're dead before you cast your vote
If your dead before "you" cast your vote, then it's not "your" vote. There's still potential for you to change your mind up to the point where you actually cast your ballot (whether by mailing it, turning it into a drop box or voting in a booth) so at best it's someone trying to falsify a vote to what they think you'd want, and at worse it's someone uses your vote to vote fradulently.
Once you've done all that though, then you've voted and the mail is in the possession of government agencies. Even if you die afterwards, you were alive when you cast your 100% legitimate ballot and it should be counted as such.
But early voting is a convenience, something offered to people to make their lives easier if they can't make it to a polling place.
Election day is the first Tuesday in November. Thats when your ballot matters, even if your state allows early counting. If you die before then, your vote shouldn't count by the word of the law. And we have to have arbitrary limits on things at some point or you get anarchy. Oh you turn 18 the day after election, close enough you can vote. Oh you're two days out, well we let one day out vote, where does it end?
It feels wrong and dirty, but sometimes the rule of law doesn't always feel right. This is a fringe case, I'm guessing less than a thousand people in this country cast an early ballot and then die before election day. But we have to have rules and limits.
If not that's how you get a zombie president on the promise of brains...... Which isn't far from thai presidency .
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i think it's pretty easy to draw a line between a dead person casting a ballot and a person dying after their ballot was cast
seems uncontroversial to me
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+45
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
+1 for Biden in Central Illinois. Not super-critical given, y'know, Illinois, but local stuff matters and I voted against every Republican that was on the ballot. Our representative's been a piece of crap for ages and they nearly lost in 2018, too. Also there's an amendment for our state constitution on the ballot that will let our state actually tax the wealthy for more than the poor. So that's important, too.
I originally was going to vote by mail but, well, I requested my ballot too late due to...mental health stuff basically. So I filled it out and turned it in to the county election office personally. Because our county doesn't have any other drop boxes, because of course we don't.
Central IL Represent! Stupid local Republicans... and yeah. I'm with Moniker, I want LaHood to lose SO EFFIN BADLY. And he isn't even my current congresscritter!
i mean that's supposed to be the case if you're dead before you cast your vote
If your dead before "you" cast your vote, then it's not "your" vote. There's still potential for you to change your mind up to the point where you actually cast your ballot (whether by mailing it, turning it into a drop box or voting in a booth) so at best it's someone trying to falsify a vote to what they think you'd want, and at worse it's someone uses your vote to vote fradulently.
Once you've done all that though, then you've voted and the mail is in the possession of government agencies. Even if you die afterwards, you were alive when you cast your 100% legitimate ballot and it should be counted as such.
I mean, by the argument being made, if you die on Election Day, after having voted in person, but before the end of voting, should your vote not be counted, as the deadline for having that vote counted has not yet passed? If you vote at 11:59pm on the Monday, or 12:01am on the Tuesday, should it matter?
I mean, if you use the reasoning that if you're dead before the election is finalized, then shouldn't your vote also not count if you die before the votes are certified? Or go a step further, before the swearing in day?
Also, I'm not sure Republicans want to go the "if you die, your vote doesn't count" route, given how they tend to traditionally swing older voters who are more likely to.
If it's in the window of time for a ballot to be legally cast, by the person who is casting it, it should be counted as a legitimate ballot.
EDIT: Added a caveat, that someone else filling out a ballot in someone else's name because "they know their intent" is NOT ok in this instance. Ballots are secret in a democracy for a reason. I can say I'm voting a certain way in public, and vote differently in the booth, for a host of legitimate reasons.
Posts
It's about as viable as murder people so they can't vote on election day is
Voting is about the future, the dead have no part of that. There's little reason to count their votes, but also it's not likely worth the effort to try to remove them
Legally it makes sense, and is a perfectly fair rule. Tuesday is the actual date of the election, early ballots are just collected prior to be counted on that day. To look at it from another direction, should somebody who turns 18 (or whatever the local voting age is) on election day be able to vote? Of course. Should they be able to register prior to the election, despite being 17 at the time? Most of us would agree that yes, they should. Now...should they be able to cast an early ballot for the election, provided they will be 18 on or before the election day? Should they be able to send in an absentee ballot prior to their birthday, provided they are 18 at the time of the actual election?
Most of us would say yes, right?
By the same logic, somebody who casts a ballot early but dies (or emigrates, or is otherwise disenfranchised) prior to election day probably shouldn't have their ballot counted. The early balloting process is a logistical courtesy, but the date of the election does still matter. Legally it should still matter that you are an eligible voter on the day.
All of that said, I have no faith that this would ever be applied equitably and as such I'd prefer that a ballot cast through the proper process be locked in.
If you are dead, you don't care about the result of the election either way. Dead people shouldn't rule/vote beyond their grave.
You do realize this opens a giant can of worms, correct? If dead people's votes don't count, you can just make a whole lot of people whose votes you don't want to count dead.
It still removes the franchise from those following the rules. Someone who legally votes on their deathbed because they care about democracy shouldn’t have their vote annulled because the right wing is desperately trying to kick out every vote they can in a losing election.
Yes, that was the Klan's approach after Reconstruction. A time which didn't have early voting available. So allowing the dead to vote it isn't much of a safeguard against electoral terrorism.
There's nothing stopping people from doing that now. Show up at an opposing groups rally and remove voters before they can vote. I know, in this case it'd be called murder, but it's the same thing.
I think it's interesting and should be looked at. Like I said on one hand it feels fucked up to toss out a ballot because someone dies of cancer after voting, but before election day. Yet at the same time, the dead aren't allowed to vote, and even though you voted early, it's not election day yet.
... Is this actually a serious argument, or are you goofing? Like c'mon now.
And someone who turns 18 on December 1st doesn't get to vote in that election by dint of a couple weeks. Arbitrary cutoffs are annoying, but there ultimately has to be a cutoff and it will always be arbitrary. Over the age of 18 and alive seems about as fair as you can make it.
The rule most likely wasn't introduced yesterday. So it isn't a rightwing plot in my opinion.
If this is a likely can of worms than it isn't a democratic election anymore.
ohh, and I got an elderly woman Biden voter a ride to go early vote this morning.
THATS A +1 IN A SWING STATE BOYS.
And then this morning, in the call group I'm doing leading/support for, one of my peoples had different old lady who needed help. Boom got them hooked up too.
+1 AGAIN, THATS WHY YOU MAKE CALLS MOTHERFUCKERS.
So get your ass in your chair, put on your headphones, sign up for some shifts, and make some calls.
I mean, my one hope is that disenfranchising 100k votes cast in good faith is a bridge too far for any one judge to attempt. The public won't stand for it.
What are they going to do about it? Riot?
bender-serious.gif
If it was red votes you'd have armed milittias showing up at ballot boxes from the right wing and president pumpkin tweeting about antifa.
If someone requests and absentee ballot, dies, but their voting intention is known, for instance they filled out a sample ballot, should their heir be able to cast that vote?
Honestly? Possibly. Depends how things shake out and how much the individuals in question have to lose.
One judge shredding the ballots of one hundred thousand voters from the bench should be enough to incite violence. I don't advocate for that outcome, nor would I go out and incite it myself. But if we read a story from any other country where people took to the streets and got violent because one man disenfranchised a hundred thousand voters, we'd say that was just people trying to make their voice heard in a failed democracy.
I originally was going to vote by mail but, well, I requested my ballot too late due to...mental health stuff basically. So I filled it out and turned it in to the county election office personally. Because our county doesn't have any other drop boxes, because of course we don't.
We know what happens when people riot in the face of injustice. It's been happening all summer. What happens is rioters are beaten, arrested, mutilated and abused. The authorities turn a deaf ear.
Or what happened on the highway in texas yesterday
If a partisan hack judge is throwing out 100K votes to support a tyrant, then you’re not really swinging first by showing up en masse and making yourself heard.
They steal your peaceful voice, they get to hear the other voices.
I've been so disappointed in Ray LaHood's son.
i mean that's supposed to be the case if you're dead before you cast your vote
Hell, just for bringing the suit, I think I'm going to drop another 20 on Biden and 20 on Hegar
Which is why the people who are really serious about this stuff go straight to that.
We aren't there, in this country. Yet.
If your dead before "you" cast your vote, then it's not "your" vote. There's still potential for you to change your mind up to the point where you actually cast your ballot (whether by mailing it, turning it into a drop box or voting in a booth) so at best it's someone trying to falsify a vote to what they think you'd want, and at worse it's someone uses your vote to vote fradulently.
Once you've done all that though, then you've voted and the mail is in the possession of government agencies. Even if you die afterwards, you were alive when you cast your 100% legitimate ballot and it should be counted as such.
Gonna disagree here. Those weren't riots. They were protests, no matter how much the Administration, conservative media and police organizations wanted to portray them otherwise.
Riots are a whole different thing. Might not have the outcome the rioters want, but there's a difference with how things go (ie, badly) if both sides go into a conflict with violence as realistic option.
The protesters weren't being violent and were incredibly restrained.
Now tell them they can't vote, and what other options have they left?
But early voting is a convenience, something offered to people to make their lives easier if they can't make it to a polling place.
Election day is the first Tuesday in November. Thats when your ballot matters, even if your state allows early counting. If you die before then, your vote shouldn't count by the word of the law. And we have to have arbitrary limits on things at some point or you get anarchy. Oh you turn 18 the day after election, close enough you can vote. Oh you're two days out, well we let one day out vote, where does it end?
It feels wrong and dirty, but sometimes the rule of law doesn't always feel right. This is a fringe case, I'm guessing less than a thousand people in this country cast an early ballot and then die before election day. But we have to have rules and limits.
If not that's how you get a zombie president on the promise of brains...... Which isn't far from thai presidency .
seems uncontroversial to me
Central IL Represent! Stupid local Republicans... and yeah. I'm with Moniker, I want LaHood to lose SO EFFIN BADLY. And he isn't even my current congresscritter!
I mean, by the argument being made, if you die on Election Day, after having voted in person, but before the end of voting, should your vote not be counted, as the deadline for having that vote counted has not yet passed? If you vote at 11:59pm on the Monday, or 12:01am on the Tuesday, should it matter?
I mean, if you use the reasoning that if you're dead before the election is finalized, then shouldn't your vote also not count if you die before the votes are certified? Or go a step further, before the swearing in day?
Also, I'm not sure Republicans want to go the "if you die, your vote doesn't count" route, given how they tend to traditionally swing older voters who are more likely to.
If it's in the window of time for a ballot to be legally cast, by the person who is casting it, it should be counted as a legitimate ballot.
EDIT: Added a caveat, that someone else filling out a ballot in someone else's name because "they know their intent" is NOT ok in this instance. Ballots are secret in a democracy for a reason. I can say I'm voting a certain way in public, and vote differently in the booth, for a host of legitimate reasons.