(05-23-2020, 06:31 AM)Gabe Wrote:

(05-22-2020, 08:01 PM)Last42min Wrote: So, let me throw this out there and see how it's received. I think the big difference between mail in voting between parties is need. I think the DNC NEEDS mail in voting, because their base has been reluctant to get out and vote. They feel like if they can organize and harvest ballots, that will give them an advantage, and I suspect that's true. I also think this is why Republicans are against it. I don't think Republicans NEED mail in voting, and the few areas where it's been expanded, there are questionable tactics, like in NC. Imo, I don't believe Democrats want mail-in voting because they want to fix the election. However, I do think it's a form of "cheating," for lack of a better word. Democrats are more organized and have been mobilizing their voter base for years, so it won't be hard for them to transition to ballot harvesting. I think Republicans will have a hard time adapting to this method, but they will eventually.

I really don't mind the thought of mail-in voting as a general practice, but I can image how annoying election years are going to become. You're going to have people at your doors all the time, with ballots that are pre-selected. "Just sign here," they'll say. The whole thing has the potential to get burdensome and exploitative. I also think that the more partisan the gatherers become, the more likely it is that we are going to see fraud in the form of missing and forged ballots. You're putting a lot of space between the voter and the box. I think we will see a lot of "mishandling." Even though fraud is not widespread now, when the practice expands, so will the abuse. I think there is a ton of potential for fraud in the future.

What if harvesting can only be done if both major parties are present?

1. The flipside to the narrative you're positing is that Republicans would rather have less people voting - hence why Trump/RNC is "sort of" against it. If what you're saying is true, then more people voting overall equals less of a reality of a 2nd term for Trump. 

2. The confusing thing is that Republican voters are getting absentee ballot applications in red/swing states, destroying this entire narrative. Clearest example of talking out of both sides of the mouth on this issue I've seen.

3. I'm 1000% on board with making voting as easy as possible, while being safe & secure at the same time. Expansion of voting capacity should be met with scaled security & safety measures.

1. This is the wrong point to take from my post. I have a problem with low voter turnout being likened to voter suppression. It's not like Republicans are actively trying to dissuade voters. It is the duty of the candidate to mobilize their base. If the voters are not motivated enough to turn up, they probably shouldn't be voting. What's next? Mandatory voting? Imo, we should not be trying so hard to make people who are disinterested in the political system interested. This is the single greatest contributor to demagoguery and populism in our political system. Democrats literally have created community organizers to go into impoverished communities and teach their community how they have been wronged. I have no problem with this. However, if those people still are not interested, it probably has something to do with the candidate or platform. 

2. I didn't say that more people voting is a guaranteed win for Democrats. I said that Democrats are in the best position currently to take advantage of mail-in voting, so I believe part of their push for mail in votes is because they believe they can capitalize on this strategy. Also, I should take this moment to clarify a few things. There is a difference between mail-in voting and ballot harvesting. I realize my post above conflated the two a bit, but I personally believe this is the end game for Democrats. I shouldn't have used the term interchangeably above without clarifying that I see this as the future of US elections. 

So, I want to step back from that a bit and focus just on mail-in ballots. I am all for absentee voting. If you are unavailable to go to the polls, you should have an alternative way to cast your vote. Full stop. I think MOST Americans are on board with this as a general rule. I, personally, am even open and understanding towards those who would want to make voting easier on everyone by making mail-in votes a standard practice. The problem with mail-in ballots (aside from complications of votes being lost/misplaced for typical reasons), is the issue of anonymity. When mail-in voting becomes the norm, it will become easier for a person to be pressured into voting for a particular candidate, be it by a friend, family member, or political activist. I said democrats are in the best position to exploit this system due to their strong presence as community organizers. Republicans will end up doing something similar (to a completely different demographic, and every election season will turn into who can hustle the most. I do not want to see people going door to door encouraging/pressuring other people to vote for their candidate. The beauty of the ballot box with exceptions for people who are out of state or unable to vote is that it drastic limits someones ability to influence a persons personal conviction. When you step behind the curtain, you can vote for who you'd like. 

I realize that some of that is speculative, but it's not unreasonable. I believe the motivation for the change is not based in a genuine desire for more people to vote, but rather a temporary opportunity to tilt the field. The reward is that more (uninformed) voters vote. The drawback is more demagoguery and invasion of privacy. This is made exponentially worse by ballot harvesting. 

Can you honestly tell me this would be a talking point among the democratic party if they didn't think it was advantageous for them?

---