Whistleblower warns Postal Service mail ballot system has catastrophic problems

You should have seen how it was after most Americans could no longer deny the Nixon Malfeasance.

People started getting embarrassed real fast and even before he rode off into the sunset it was not easy to find somebody who would admit to voting for him.

And he got elected twice himself.

Basically it was so disgraceful that in less than a year you couldn't find anybody who ever admitted to voting for Nixon at all. Most voting Republicans actually had, at least the first time, but if anybody even indicated their tendency after that they were ridiculed by other Republicans like "how could you ever support such a crook?", not just from the Democrats. It was just too uncomfortable for a nation of overwhelmingly honest-to-the-bone Americans regardless of which party, nature took its course almost immediately and it was swept under the rug as completely as could be. Not everybody is honest to the bone of course, what you would sometimes hear instead of crickets was "No, I actually didn't vote that time" from some Republicans who still had the bumper sticker that said "Nixon's the One."

It was very much like a mass "suspension of disbelief" for at least a decade after which people acted something like "it was only the very elderly and uninformed who voted for Nixon and they're all dead now so no wonder you can't find someone who was proud to vote for him either time."

The fact it takes hours upon hours is a problem in an of itself, it probably acts as a deterrent to vote for many. I just checked, in Canada it's 3 mandatory consecutive hours without docking pay or other penalities.

Moreover none of the proposed measures would have prevented that, as you said it was in fact an error.

The reason why this issue is so intractable is because the level of disruption must be measured against the risk of disenfranchisement. People would be happier to implement these unneeded security measures if there was more care by those proposing them to address those ways in which legal legitimate voters would be refused a ballot. And the fact they don't ever address those concerns is the whole tell that the disenfranchisement is the point. Instead it's always bad faith "Oh you want the elections to be unsecure, you're overlooking massive security holes!"

At the end of the day the biggest loudmouth in the world got people so mad about an election that they attacked the government, so then we were forced to spend years going over that election with a fine tooth comb only to turn up zilch. Even the Cyberninjas couldn't find the fraud they alleged when given direct unfettered access to voting records.

And yet, we still have to entertain claims about the boogeyman of voting as if they're in good faith. Prove it in just one court under high standards of evidence! But even the biggest loudmouths saying fraud won't say it under oath in front of a judge, because they don't have the evidence to back it up.

It's far past the point that noncitizens voting in elections should be considered the biggest threat to our democracy. No, the threat is an authoritarian, insurrectionist president trying to corrupt the election process.

1 was not yet flagged at the time that I wrote that. Nevertheless, you can reconstruct what was written from the quotes in its responses.

> Which "side" has been fighting tooth and nail for unverifiable mail-in ballots > resisting all investigations of voting integrity?

Basically, the comment asserted that Democrats are "pushing" for mail-in ballots, despite the fact that many Republican-controlled states (notably Mississippi, which recently defended its mail-in voting law) also allow mail-in voting. The comment cast aspersions on the accuracy of mail-in voting, citing no evidence. The comment was apparently informed solely by partisan bias without any basis in the reality of the situation.

In short, it was not a good comment. Did it deserve to be flagged? Probably not. But it was certainly not a thoughtful, well-reasoned defense of the current administration's flagrantly illegal overreach. If this is the kind of comment that you want to see more of on HN, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

>No, they do not.

Yes they do.

>Getting an ID card in most places requires a fee,

False, there are no fees for voter IDs. Please find a state where you believe this is true.

>as well a trip to the DMV or equivalent

Not always.

>and providing documentation such as a birth certificate, which also requires a fee.

False. Many (all?) states provide free birth certificates for voter IDs.

>You take this process for granted

I don't take this process for granted, it's the same process across the first world.

>because you live a privileged life, but for many people, taking a day off work and paying $50 to get an ID is an insurmountable obstacle,

Nice soft bigotry of low expectations. You're so privileged that you actually believe this objectively false propaganda. The fact that you've repeated it to multiple times to virtue signal which may dissuade people to vote is a luxury belief [0]. Who believes luxury beliefs? Privileged peopled.

>If voter ID advocates feel so strongly about their position, they would support mandatory ID.

They do.

>The fact that they don't support mandatory ID

False, they do support free IDs.

>they don't care about securing elections, they care only about excluding the undesirable class from elections.

Repeating propaganda doesn't make it true.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief