281–290 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rigor is needed. Here’s an article talking about 6000 ineligible voters in New Jersey getting ballots. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/30/new-jerseys-nonciti... Surely you agree this is problematic, and oversight is needed? Then extend that one step farther. It wouldn’t be fair to scrutinize only blue states like New Jersey. Red states like Wyoming should be held accountable too, right?
I think it's amusing how partisan your notion of "rigor" is. Because of a run-of-the-mill software error, you want to take away election power from the states and hand it to the federal government, which at the moment is in the hands of someone who has zero credibility regarding running honest elections? Moreover, you find these 400 erroneous votes deeply problematic but you, I assume, did not ask for federal electio…
What you are showing is that problems exist. Clearly, work on election integrity is needed.
Note that in New Jersey, bipartisan work is being done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New Jersey had 6600 hundred non citizens get ballots. If you were writing software, would you overlook a problem like that? https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/30/new-jerseys-nonciti...
> If you were writing software, would you overlook a problem like that? They didn't overlook it. They fixed the error. If you are asserting that this error was a partisan, intentional attempt to change the outcome of the election, you're going to need to provide a lot more evidence before injecting USPS into election policy makes sense.
The American public overwhelmingly wants voter ID, as other countries have, but this is a topic not entertained by one side of the political aisle. Or rather, by the party leaders—- the majority of their voters want voter ID, but the party won’t pursue it!
We can’t just shrug these things off. They are real.
I’d say there is enough to see here that more scrutiny is warranted. It should be bipartisan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm stupid, but why would sending back mean invalid? It gets sent back, it gets investigated and fixed, and back it goes. Am I missing something?
No, the verification they're doing is on the sending side, not receiving. The state sends people ballots, the USPS intercepts them and sends them back to the state if they find an issue. IF this cycle of delays lasts long enough, then some people never receive a mail-in ballot, or receive it too late
Last minute rule changes: redistricting, ballot redesign / reissue, gear swaps, polling locations, etc.
Way bigger than electronic voting, which is what initially motivated by activism.
Source: am a recovering election integrity activist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Abhors democracy" isn't necessarily the right phrase for the on-the-ground majority. The leadership, sure. But not the average folk. "Has such a small imagination that they can't imagine they wouldn't be the majority" is more like it. For all the old fears of "we need the senate so big cities don't run the country" they have a massive blind spot of there being less diversity of thought, and more of a monoculture, in…
Even the house is unfairly tilted towards smaller states because of the 538 limit
I'm all for doubling the size of the house, but that's more to combat gerrymandering. The larger the size of the house, the harder and less impactful it is to gerrymander. Though before that I'd definitely push for federal anti-gerrymandering legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Mos…
The primary motivation for Rupert Murdoch's creation of Fox News was to prevent the Republican party from ever suffering an embarrassing resignation like Nixon again. Present the Republican base with an alternate reality where every accusation against a Republican is a witch hunt, no matter its veracity, and the base no longer has to feel ashamed supporting a crook. Instead, they can stand proud, knowing they support…
Plus the +5 R advantage due to misapportion...
It's a wonder that Democrats ever attain a majority.
And why most criticisms of Democrats (campaigns, messaging, policy, whatever) aren't even wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully they're embarrassed.
[flagged]
But yet here you are.
> There is no room for discourse or nuance.
Try me!
> If you voted for Trump you are a fascist and a pedo and nobody wants to hear your thoughts.
On the contrary, there have been endless articles and discussion about Trump supporters' opinions, to the extent that "New York Times Interviews Twelve Trump Supporters" [1] [2] is a bit of a cliche. I think that your (collective) thoughts have been well expressed and understood by the other side, it's just that most people find those opinions unimpressive, mostly couched in a sort of hero-worship credulity or open hostility to people who are different from you.
> Some opinions that would have been demonstrably in the Clinton/Obama administration would be considered MAGA now.
Sure, public opinion shifts. For example, Republicans used to be the party of limited government and law-and-order. Then they elected a felon who flagrantly violates the Constitution (14th amendment, separation of powers, emoluments clause, etc) and has worked tirelessly to extend the power of the federal government, in the present case to intervene in the Constitutionally-mandated state right of operating elections. Of course "people used to feel differently" is not, on its own, an argument in support for the administration's policies, so I hope you can do better.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/series/voters-voices-trump-administr...
What business is it of the USPS except to transmit all mail regardless of purpose? The fact that the USPS would notice elections were being conducted is perverse.
You're missing the bigger picture. New Mail Voting Rules Moved Forward Despite USPS Officials’ Concerns About Mass Disenfranchisement ( https://www.propublica.org/article/mail-voting-usps-official... ) In a March executive order, President Donald Trump directed the Postal Service to create the new rules, including requiring states to give USPS a list of all voters eligible to receive a ballot in the mail and requirin…
Well. Who could possibly have predicted this. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's amusing how partisan your notion of "rigor" is. Because of a run-of-the-mill software error, you want to take away election power from the states and hand it to the federal government, which at the moment is in the hands of someone who has zero credibility regarding running honest elections? Moreover, you find these 400 erroneous votes deeply problematic but you, I assume, did not ask for federal electio…
Sure, fix those problems too. What you are showing is that problems exist. Clearly, work on election integrity is needed. Note that in New Jersey, bipartisan work is being done.
They do exist. What's interesting is that those are problems created by the same people who are currently trying to disenfranchise people through the current push to takeover state elections through the postal service. So color me skeptical of their alleged "good intentions."