2018 Senate (& House)

[Seattle Husker]

I think most people would be fine with this except that at this point, it appears that it's almost impossible to keep those systems secure. Target can't keep people from hacking its data. So do we think local voting websites would be able to ensure secure, private, and legal voting? I'm not convinced it's possible, but would certainly be open to trying to create a hack-proof system.

I predict if/when that happens, a push will begin to bring down select sites which are deemed to be in violation of "electioneering" near polling locations, since that location is now your desktop. Social will also be impacted. The irony is that the left has been screaming over alleged (and ridiculous) claims that Russian social media bots influenced voters. This would - if anything - make it much easier for them to succeed in this realm, since you'd have a chance to get people fired up and tell them - "don't wait, send a message and go vote RIGHT NOW!!!"

Ultimately, I'd rather have a secure election process than a convenient one.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating online voting yet as I share the same hacking concerns. In Washington state I get a pamphlet and ballot (think scantron) that I complete and stick it back in the mail postage free. Washington State has zero polling stations. There are a very limited number of ballot dropoff points (2-3 for Seattle and suburbs) for those concerned about tampering. If there are any problems with my ballot OR it's being challenged (ie. signature mismatch) I get an email with an appeal process.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What makes you believe that a "casual voter" (your term) is in any way a net positive for our country?

1 person 1 vote. I understand why the extremes of the political spectrum have a desire to limit participation. In fact, limiting participation might be part of the Republican platform now.

 

[Seattle Husker]

How do you verify it is the registered voter with an absentee ballot?

It comes to my address, a locked mailbox. My signature on the form must resemble the one on my registration and/or drivers license. They also have an email address to contact me.

For those worried about too many ballots being mailed to a single address, that's an easy algorithm to write to compare against county tax assessor records for number of rooms in a home.

This isn't that hard. I-9's no longer have to be validated in person so not sure why voting has to be.

 

[Garmel]

In fact, limiting participation might be part of the Republican platform now.

I have to admit you are on to something. I'd like a test similar to what immigrants take to become citizens in order to vote. Seriously, if you don't know what the three branches of government are I really don't care about your participation. There's also just too many people who belong to a certain party who's only reason to vote is so they can get free stuff. I wish they'd stay home instead. You might not want to hear it but it's the truth.

 

[nashhorn]

Yep, limit it to legitimate citizens. Oh heck, I opened the door with legitimate,,,,,but I meant legitimate as in legal I guess, oh man, I meant no illegals, or felons, etc. oh jeez now there are some pushing for felons.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yep, limit it to legitimate citizens. Oh heck, I opened the door with legitimate,,,,,but I meant legitimate as in legal I guess, oh man, I meant no illegals, or felons, etc. oh jeez now there are some pushing for felons.

Felons paid their debt to society, moreso in many cases than the average citizen. If you want to say they are irredeemable then accept permanent criminals. Everyone jailed for life?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

1 person 1 vote. I understand why the extremes of the political spectrum have a desire to limit participation. In fact, limiting participation might be part of the Republican platform now.

Nope. I'm laissez faire, not actively wanting to limit participation. If you can't be bothered, or are too lazy to care about getting to the polling booth, we as a society shouldn't have to kiss your *** to make it easy to vote just to cater to your laziness.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Everyone jailed for life?

Just liberals.

 

[Clean]

Felons paid their debt to society, moreso in many cases than the average citizen. If you want to say they are irredeemable then accept permanent criminals. Everyone jailed for life?

There’s some twisted reasoning. Felons paid their debt to society more so than the average citizen? The average citizen didn’t have any debt to pay, if we’re just talking about criminal activity.

The felon only “paid his debt” because he was caught and forced to do jail time. And what about the felon’s victim? Did he make retribution to them or to their family if they’re dead? No, of course not, but let’s restore all the criminals rights, including the right to vote because we don’t want to be too harsh on them.

 

[theiioftx]

It comes to my address, a locked mailbox. My signature on the form must resemble the one on my registration and/or drivers license. They also have an email address to contact me.

For those worried about too many ballots being mailed to a single address, that's an easy algorithm to write to compare against county tax assessor records for number of rooms in a home.

This isn't that hard. I-9's no longer have to be validated in person so not sure why voting has to be.

Fairly certain you are wrong about I-9’s.

From government website:

When completing Form I-9, you or authorized representative must physically examine each document presented to determine if it reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the employee presenting it. Reviewing or examining documents via webcam is not permissible.

 

[Horn6721]

So ALL absentee ballots are mailed to the correct address and everyone has a locked box and an email address?
See any inconsistency in having an email address but don't think proof of id is required because not everyone has proof of identity?
and no one preys on elderly to harvest ballots?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Seriously, if you don't know what the three branches of government are I really don't care about your participation.

Sadly, we don't require that to win a House Congressional seat, so we probably can't require it of voters.

Felons paid their debt to society, moreso in many cases than the average citizen.

REALLY curious to know what your definition is of the "debt to society" that the average citizen owes.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Fairly certain you are wrong about I-9’s.

From government website:

When completing Form I-9, you or authorized representative must physically examine each document presented to determine if it reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the employee presenting it. Reviewing or examining documents via webcam is not permissible.

Large consulting companies with large work from home populations have been using alternate means for examining documents including but not limited to pictures/copies of documents virtually. The government has allowed for much more flexibility in this space in recent years as workforces are not as much centralized.

My current company with a large work from home call center employee population (1000+) is evaluating options. Having a call center new hire drive 2hrs to a local store just to do an I-9 is a challenge. All other onboarding activities are done virtually, including workstation setup.

 

[Seattle Husker]

REALLY curious to know what your definition is of the "debt to society" that the average citizen owes.

"Average citizen" may have been a bit of an overstatement but there are many citizens that contribute less and take more from society as a whole than a felon that has served their sentence. Should a drug possession conviction be a lifetime sacrifice of your right to government representation (voting)? Y'all may think so but I disagree.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

"Average citizen" may have been a bit of an overstatement but there are many citizens that contribute less and take more from society as a whole than a felon that has served their sentence. Should a drug possession conviction be a lifetime sacrifice of your right to government representation (voting)? Y'all may think so but I disagree.

Ok first of all...

The whole "paid your debt to society" cliche is misleading. A drunk driver who killed someone has not "paid a debt." This is not a transaction where if I kill someone, I can repay that by prison time. That debt is not paid. The requirements under law have been met, but that person has still done what he's done, and his prison time has not entitled him to anything other than that he no longer has to remain in prison and can resume his life. He is not owed forgiveness, trust, or reintegration into a situation where he might pose future danger. We do that at our discretion, and I do believe that's the right thing to do (in most cases.) That phrase implies an obligation on behalf of the state that does not exist. When we allow felons back into any aspect of society, we do so on our terms, which are spelled out typically in the law. They are not "owed," and they have not been earned. The "average citizen" or whatever term you may choose there has not done that. If someone is a net drain on our society (and yes, there are plenty of those), it is because we have set the terms that allow that drain. If you wanna revisit those terms, I am on board with that. But they are what they are, and conflating a (presumably?) law-abiding citizen with a felon is ridiculous.

If you want to talk about specific felony convictions, then the question is a much more specific one about criminal justice reform and what should or should not constitute a felony. Fair question. But to lump that person in with someone who is a thief/murderer who may or may not go back into that lifestyle is wrong. Someone with voting rights should have a vested interest in protecting civilization from people who are, you know... committing felonies. If the question of lax prosecution is one that has a positive impact on your chosen direction in life, then I'm not inclined to let you vote on it. Someone with a proven interest in making it easier to sell drugs near kids has no business voting in elections that may or may not make that easier for him to do.

Do you think this person might be able to wrap up the convicted felon vote?

Rachael Rollins for Suffolk DA | Charges To Be Declined

 

[Seattle Husker]

Ok first of all...

The whole "paid your debt to society" cliche is misleading. A drunk driver who killed someone has not "paid a debt." This is not a transaction where if I kill someone, I can repay that by prison time. That debt is not paid. The requirements under law have been met, but that person has still done what he's done, and his prison time has not entitled him to anything other than that he no longer has to remain in prison and can resume his life. He is not owed forgiveness, trust, or reintegration into a situation where he might pose future danger. We do that at our discretion, and I do believe that's the right thing to do (in most cases.) That phrase implies an obligation on behalf of the state that does not exist. When we allow felons back into any aspect of society, we do so on our terms, which are spelled out typically in the law. They are not "owed," and they have not been earned. The "average citizen" or whatever term you may choose there has not done that. If someone is a net drain on our society (and yes, there are plenty of those), it is because we have set the terms that allow that drain. If you wanna revisit those terms, I am on board with that. But they are what they are, and conflating a (presumably?) law-abiding citizen with a felon is ridiculous.

If you want to talk about specific felony convictions, then the question is a much more specific one about criminal justice reform and what should or should not constitute a felony. Fair question. But to lump that person in with someone who is a thief/murderer who may or may not go back into that lifestyle is wrong. Someone with voting rights should have a vested interest in protecting civilization from people who are, you know... committing felonies. If the question of lax prosecution is one that has a positive impact on your chosen direction in life, then I'm not inclined to let you vote on it. Someone with a proven interest in making it easier to sell drugs near kids has no business voting in elections that may or may not make that easier for him to do.

Do you think this person might be able to wrap up the convicted felon vote?

Rachael Rollins for Suffolk DA | Charges To Be Declined

Sorry, I don't have time to address the entire post. I'll simply say the difference in our perspective is that you jumped directly to murder while I referred to more minor felony convictions (drug possession). Therin lies the challenges in our political discussions. We each go to our extremes with our own biases albeit as you suggest there may be middle ground in redefining the terms.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

If you want to talk about specific felony convictions, then the question is a much more specific one about criminal justice reform and what should or should not constitute a felony. Fair question.

This is where the rubber meets the road. My gut says there are too many felonies on the books to continue to say "all felons cannot vote".

 

[Monahorns]

I think Sangre highlighted the main issue in the disagreement. When two very different actions are categorized the same way by the law, problems ensue.

The government is a very blunt object.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I think Sangre highlighted the main issue in the disagreement. When two very different actions are categorized the same way by the law, problems ensue.

The government is a very blunt object.

This is the point I was trying to make. As I pretty clearly said in my post, if you want to talk about what is classified as a felony or how our criminal justice system is set up, that's fine. But as long as we're talking about allowing felons to vote, we are by definition conflating drug offenders and murderers.

 

[Monahorns]

I missed your point though it was there implicitly. I COULD be convinced that some criminals should have the right to vote.

However, there is a point where a person has demonstrated that they fundamentally don't respect law. Every criminal does that, but at some point there is a thing, call it a felon, where a person goes far enough where the other people should do everything to protect themselves from the "felon". The "felon" can't be trusted to follow the law, even after a few years in prison. Maybe they reform, maybe they don't. The rest of the citizens should be protected from those people because you never know who does or doesn't reform.

I would include murderers, manslaughterers, maybe fraudsters or others who are really really good at theft.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I'd look at the laws on the books back when the colonists were forming this country. I know there were far fewer of them, and I suspect you'd find a "felony offense" was almost always tied to violent crimes against another person's being or property.

I would hold that those felony offenses should still carry the stigma of the loss of voting rights today. At least it would be a good starting point for a more nuanced discussion.

 

[Joe Fan]

¡Viva la revolución!

 

[Joe Fan]

This is ridiculous.....

If you ever wondered why Trump could not get Wall funding through or immigration reform in general, it was more about wobbly Republicans than it was about House Dems. Pew calls them "moderates" but they could also be called Never-Trumpers or just "haters." And you know what haters do.

PEW Research -- "House Republicans who lost re-election bids were more moderate than those who won"

"When Republicans lost their House majority in this year’s midterm elections, the toll was especially high among GOP moderates, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis.

Among the Republican House incumbents who lost their re-election campaigns, 23 of 30 were more moderate than the median Republican in the chamber. No Democratic incumbents running for re-election in the House lost their seats.
* * * *

Prior to Election Day, many members decided not to run for re-election. Out of 36 retirements in advance of the election, 26 were Republicans ....."​

I think the total number of House members who did not run again was ~60. And, in any event, I dont think most of us needed PEW to tell us all of this, but some may have. That number of 'retirements' was unusually high (highest in the last quarter-century) and close to an all-time record. The back-stabbing ******** held off just long enough to hand over control to the other party.

House Republicans who lost re-election bids were more moderate than those who won

Full list http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FT_18.11.09_CongressIdeology_table.pdf

 

[Mr. Deez]

If you ever wondered why Trump could not get Wall funding through or immigration reform in general, it was more about wobbly Republicans than it was about House Dems. Pew calls them "moderates" but they could also be called Never-Trumpers or just "haters." And you know what haters do.

PEW Research -- "House Republicans who lost re-election bids were more moderate than those who won"

"When Republicans lost their House majority in this year’s midterm elections, the toll was especially high among GOP moderates, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis.

Among the Republican House incumbents who lost their re-election campaigns, 23 of 30 were more moderate than the median Republican in the chamber. No Democratic incumbents running for re-election in the House lost their seats.
* * * *

Prior to Election Day, many members decided not to run for re-election. Out of 36 retirements in advance of the election, 26 were Republicans ....."​

I think the total number of House members who did not run again was ~60. And, in any event, I dont think most of us needed PEW to tell us all of this, but some may have. That number of 'retirements' was unusually high (highest in the last quarter-century) and close to an all-time record. The back-stabbing ******** held off just long enough to hand over control to the other party.

House Republicans who lost re-election bids were more moderate than those who won

Full list http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FT_18.11.09_CongressIdeology_table.pdf

So if only these "moderates" (most of whom weren't particularly moderate) had more aggressively pushed to fund the wall, a bunch of voters who voted for Democrats who pledged not to fund the wall would have voted Republican. Yeah, that makes sense.

What you're confusing is correlation for causation. Most of the Democrats who lost in 2010 and 2014 were also moderates. Guys like Brad Schneider and John Barrow lost, while people like Sheila Jackson-Lee and Nancy Pelosi won. Does that mean Schneider and Barrow would have won if they had behaved more like Sheila Jackson-Lee and Nancy Pelosi? No. It means they were from swing districts that could flip in a given election, which isn't surprising. More moderate members tend to represent such districts, because you usually need some crossover support to win them. That also means they're most at risk of getting defeated in a given election regardless of which party they're from.

That's what happened with the Republicans who lost. Their districts flipped on them in a wave election. Now of course, the bigger question is why these districts are swing now when they weren't swing just a few years ago. That should be a concern to anyone who wants Republicans to keep winning.

And again, you're overstating the the retirement excuse. 29 of the 42 Republican seats that flipped were held by incumbents, not open seats. Even if none of those members retired and all were reelected, the GOP still would have lost the House.

 

[Joe Fan]

So if only these "moderates" (most of whom weren't particularly moderate) had more aggressively pushed to fund the wall, a bunch of voters who voted for Democrats who pledged not to fund the wall would have voted Republican. Yeah, that makes sense.....

Ah, MTGP. Why do you always do that? I guess we all cope the best we can. But, yes, these people were the bulk of House members who prevented wall funding and immigration reform from happening, and clogged up the entire system for a year over repeal and replace. These were the big items to me, but they also f'd Trump over in other areas as well.

And I already wrote a long post above about whether Trump is better or worse off without all of these mini-Brutuses. Would refer you back to that. Meanwhile, the single most important issue of the 2016 election will continue to unfold in a positive fashion as Trump reshapes the federal judiciary. Do you ever pause to reflect on that would have looked like with HRC in now? We might already be circling the toilet.

 

[Joe Fan]

This is not difficult. Stop pretending it is.
House-Rs failed on their of their core promises --

-- They refused to fund the Wall
-- They did nothing to end illegal immigration
-- They didn’t repeal Obamacare
-- They stuck their steely knives in the back of the President whenever they could​

Save the time and money, get it for free here

 

[Mr. Deez]

This is not difficult. Stop pretending it is.

It's not difficult. Don't have an ******* as your standard bearer, and don't act like one yourself.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Ah, MTGP. Why do you always do that? I guess we all cope the best we can. But, yes, these people were the bulk of House members who prevented wall funding and immigration reform from happening, and clogged up the entire system for a year over repeal and replace. These were the big items to me, but they also f'd Trump over in other areas as well.

And I already wrote a long post above about whether Trump is better or worse off without all of these mini-Brutuses. Would refer you back to that. Meanwhile, the single most important issue of the 2016 election will continue to unfold in a positive fashion as Trump reshapes the federal judiciary. Do you ever pause to reflect on that would have looked like with HRC in now? We might already be circling the toilet.

I've addressed all your points before. I don't expect you to blame Trump for anything, because it would make you look bad. And that's how most people vote politics now.

 

[Joe Fan]

It's not difficult. Don't have an ******* as your standard bearer, and don't act like one yourself.

We have have been running guys like Kasich, Romney and Jeb for awhile now. It doesnt work. Well, if you are a liberal then you could argue it works, I guess.

 

[Joe Fan]

I've addressed all your points before. I don't expect you to blame Trump for anything, because it would make you look bad. And that's how most people vote politics now.

LOL, its all my fault!