California recall election now has 70 people on the ballot

[SuperMatt]

My only question about mail-in ballots is if they are so simple to use, why do you need ballot harvesting? Are voters too stupid to put it in their own mailbox? Why do people need to go collect them?

”Ballot Harvesting” is a pejorative term, so let’s just say we’re not starting out with an unbiased look at this question. Then we go to “are voters too stupid…” which is more derogatory language that, again, makes one think that this isn’t really an honest question at all.

But let‘s assume the question is an honest one.

Not everybody has ready access to sending mail without some help. Many native Americans are in that position. Many elderly people, especially in nursing homes, are in that situation.

In some states, there are strict prohibitions on having anybody deliver a ballot for you (Alabama for example), while some states have exceptions for family members or caregivers (Georgia for example), and other states are a bit more permissive, allowing the voter to choose who they want to deliver the ballot for them (California for example).

I believe voting should be as accessible as possible, so I support the California way of doing things. Since ballots are sealed and they check signatures on the ballots, I think the biggest worry about asking somebody to deliver a ballot for you is that they secretly dislike you and throw it away instead of delivering it. But the voter chooses who they want to trust, so what is the problem?

It has been pointed out numerous times how extremely rare voter fraud is, and I am not aware of any cases of fraud involving somebody delivering ballots to the post office for those without ready access.

PS - The Heritage Foundation keeps track of every voter fraud instance. There are 1300 over the past 50 years or so. How many billions of votes have been cast over that time period? Also, if you dig into their data, you find a lot of it is people faking signatures on petitions. I see almost nothing in there that would have been prevented by voter ID laws or bans on ballot collection. Voter fraud is a bogeyman.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

My only question about mail-in ballots is if they are so simple to use, why do you need ballot harvesting? Are voters too stupid to put it in their own mailbox? Why do people need to go collect them?

The only thing I can think of is elderly people but I don't really know. But I also don't know why this couldn't be done by Republicans. Since many Republicans tend to be on the end of life side of the hill it seems to me it would benefit them to give them as much opportunity as possible to vote.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

you find a lot of it is people faking signatures on petitions.

Holy shit. You just made me realize we could have avoided this whole mess if Democrats demanded an audit of the recall petition. Using their own version of Cyber Ninjas they could prolong the audit process well past Newsom's term ending anyway.

 

[Deleted member 215]

Seriously though. Republicans do everything they can to subvert an election when they lose. Democrats aren't winning any points by "going high". Just do the same thing they do. Cry fraud before the votes are even in, spend time on audits, and pass laws making it harder for white evangelicals to vote.

 

[Herdfan]

”Ballot Harvesting” is a pejorative term, so let’s just say we’re not starting out with an unbiased look at this question. Then we go to “are voters too stupid…” which is more derogatory language that, again, makes one think that this isn’t really an honest question at all.

But let‘s assume the question is an honest one.

Not everybody has ready access to sending mail without some help. Many native Americans are in that position. Many elderly people, especially in nursing homes, are in that situation.

In some states, there are strict prohibitions on having anybody deliver a ballot for you (Alabama for example), while some states have exceptions for family members or caregivers (Georgia for example), and other states are a bit more permissive, allowing the voter to choose who they want to deliver the ballot for them (California for example).

I believe voting should be as accessible as possible, so I support the California way of doing things. Since ballots are sealed and they check signatures on the ballots, I think the biggest worry about asking somebody to deliver a ballot for you is that they secretly dislike you and throw it away instead of delivering it. But the voter chooses who they want to trust, so what is the problem?

It has been pointed out numerous times how extremely rare voter fraud is, and I am not aware of any cases of fraud involving somebody delivering ballots to the post office for those without ready access.

PS - The Heritage Foundation keeps track of every voter fraud instance. There are 1300 over the past 50 years or so. How many billions of votes have been cast over that time period? Also, if you dig into their data, you find a lot of it is people faking signatures on petitions. I see almost nothing in there that would have been prevented by voter ID laws or bans on ballot collection. Voter fraud is a bogeyman.

If the term "Ballot Harvesting" is a pejorative term, why do news organizations use it?

As for the elderly in nursing homes, that's BS. My mom was in an assisted living facility and they had individual mailboxes and there was also an outgoing mail slot.

I am not asking so much as what happens with the ballots once they are in possession of the county, but what happens before. I for one am not giving my ballot to anyone but the mail carrier (actually I vote in person, but my mom voted by mail-in and I always dropped hers off in the mailbox).

It just seems to me like it is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. If you can get your ballot in the mail to fill out, why can't you just put it back in the same mailbox to return it?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

If the term "Ballot Harvesting" is a pejorative term, why do news organizations use it?

As for the elderly in nursing homes, that's BS. My mom was in an assisted living facility and they had individual mailboxes and there was also an outgoing mail slot.

I am not asking so much as what happens with the ballots once they are in possession of the county, but what happens before. I for one am not giving my ballot to anyone but the mail carrier (actually I vote in person, but my mom voted by mail-in and I always dropped hers off in the mailbox).

It just seems to me like it is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. If you can get your ballot in the mail to fill out, why can't you just put it back in the same mailbox to return it?

I understand the logic of the concerns for potential points of fraud, but how about we first prove a lot of fraud happened first?

I can understand things like voter ID and ballot harvesting, but I don't understand things like limiting voting hours, days, and locations. Was it proven that fraud happens during certain hours, certain days, and at certain locations? What's the point of those limits other than the fact that more people voting historically benefits Democrats?

 

[SuperMatt]

If the term "Ballot Harvesting" is a pejorative term, why do news organizations use it?

As for the elderly in nursing homes, that's BS. My mom was in an assisted living facility and they had individual mailboxes and there was also an outgoing mail slot.

I am not asking so much as what happens with the ballots once they are in possession of the county, but what happens before. I for one am not giving my ballot to anyone but the mail carrier (actually I vote in person, but my mom voted by mail-in and I always dropped hers off in the mailbox).

It just seems to me like it is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. If you can get your ballot in the mail to fill out, why can't you just put it back in the same mailbox to return it?

You falsely assume every nursing home in the world is exactly the same as your mom’s assisted living facility. Bed-ridden people can just get out of bed and go to their mail slot, amirite?

You completely ignored the statement about Native Americans… which can also apply to other people living in remote locations without mail delivery to the person’s home.

It seems like a problem that doesn’t exist TO YOU. That’s because when people point out to you exactly why it is a problem, you accuse them of lying on one example and flat out ignore the other example.

You could educate yourself. Instead you insist on your point of view, and ignore the answers to your question. As I suggested based on the way you framed your question, it was NOT an honest question AT ALL. When you got an answer, you threw it out and doubled down on your personal belief based on gut feelings, anecdotal evidence, etc.

 

[Hrafn]

You falsely assume every nursing home in the world is exactly the same as your mom’s assisted living facility. Bed-ridden people can just get out of bed and go to their mail slot, amirite?

You completely ignored the statement about Native Americans… which can also apply to other people living in remote locations without mail delivery to the person’s home.

It seems like a problem that doesn’t exist TO YOU. That’s because when people point out to you exactly why it is a problem, you accuse them of lying on one example and flat out ignore the other example.

You could educate yourself. Instead you insist on your point of view, and ignore the answers to your question. As I suggested based on the way you framed your question, it was NOT an honest question AT ALL. When you got an answer, you threw it out and doubled down on your personal belief based on gut feelings, anecdotal evidence, etc.

I'm detecting a pattern. Can't say what for sure, though. Hmmm....

 

[SuperMatt]

I thought I recalled a specific example about Native Americans and ballot collection…. Just found it:

Montana law preventing absentee ballot gathering overturned

A Montana judge has struck down a voter-enacted law that restricted third-party collection of absentee ballots.

apnews.com

The law, which limited ballot collection, was passed by Montana voters and was overturned because it was found it disenfranchised many Native Americans.

 

[ronntaylor]

”Ballot Harvesting” is a pejorative term, so let’s just say we’re not starting out with an unbiased look at this question. Then we go to “are voters too stupid…” which is more derogatory language that, again, makes one think that this isn’t really an honest question at all.

But let‘s assume the question is an honest one.

I smell more bullshit than on a cattle ranch. There isn't an attempt to address legitimate question. He himself said he's guilty of what he's questioning (mailing someone else's mail-in ballot).

 

[SuperMatt]

but my mom voted by mail-in and I always dropped hers off in the mailbox).

This is illegal in some states, and considered to be ballot harvesting:

Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma… Kentucky if you didn’t fill out a form for doing so…

Good news, the law in West Virginia doesn’t seem to prohibit what you did.

This table has details for each state. Note, it might be slightly out of date since the Montana law it references was overturned last year.

Table 10: Ballot Collection Laws

This table is part of the Voting Outside the Polling Place report and details who can return an absentee or mail ballot and other restrictions by state.

www.ncsl.org

 

[Herdfan]

This is illegal in some states, and considered to be ballot harvesting:

Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma… Kentucky if you didn’t fill out a form for doing so…

Good news, the law in West Virginia doesn’t seem to prohibit what you did.

This table has details for each state. Note, it might be slightly out of date since the Montana law it references was overturned last year.

Table 10: Ballot Collection Laws

This table is part of the Voting Outside the Polling Place report and details who can return an absentee or mail ballot and other restrictions by state.

www.ncsl.org

Actually she filled it out and I just mailed it. But her ballot also had a place to sign IF someone else helped you fill it out. The only reason I had to mail her to her is she doesn't get real mail to her house or when she was at the assisted living facility, it all went to her PO Box. Which she couldn't get to. So we were 100% legal.

Now since I have been accused in this thread of not asking an honest question, there are 2 points. First, a son taking a ballot to the mailbox for a parent is WAY different from people who go around collecting ballots. Second, just because you might not like the way I asked the question, doesn't diminish the question itself.

As for Native Americans who live in very rural areas, how do they get the ballots in the first place?

If you or anyone else is OK with giving your ballot to someone else hoping they do the right thing, by all means keep doing it. I will not be.

 

[SuperMatt]

Actually she filled it out and I just mailed it. But her ballot also had a place to sign IF someone else helped you fill it out. The only reason I had to mail her to her is she doesn't get real mail to her house or when she was at the assisted living facility, it all went to her PO Box. Which she couldn't get to. So we were 100% legal.

Now since I have been accused in this thread of not asking an honest question, there are 2 points. First, a son taking a ballot to the mailbox for a parent is WAY different from people who go around collecting ballots. Second, just because you might not like the way I asked the question, doesn't diminish the question itself.

As for Native Americans who live in very rural areas, how do they get the ballots in the first place?

If you or anyone else is OK with giving your ballot to someone else hoping they do the right thing, by all means keep doing it. I will not be.

If you’re not even going to read the links provided which have the answers to your questions, and instead just talk about how you harvested a ballot for your mom, then you are rightfully being accused of asking dishonest questions.

The question was answered, you rejected the answer but gave no rebuttal other than your mom, who you claim can mail her ballot herself, but also needs you to mail it for her. A bit of a contradiction there, but it doesn’t seem to bother you. You don’t address the fact that you taking dear old mom’s ballot to the mailbox for her is illegal in multiple states.

To sum it up, you asked a question, then immediately transitioned to:

 

[Herdfan]

You don’t address the fact that you taking dear old mom’s ballot to the mailbox for her is illegal in multiple states.

Well, I didn't address it because it didn't apply to me. And it's not illegal in CA which was the original question. And if it were illegal in mine, I would drive her to the Post Office.

 

[SuperMatt]

Well, I didn't address it because it didn't apply to me. And it's not illegal in CA which was the original question. And if it were illegal in mine, I would drive her to the Post Office.

You don’t care if it doesn’t apply to you. Then why are you worried about people collecting ballots in California?

 

[thekev]

Well, I didn't address it because it didn't apply to me. And it's not illegal in CA which was the original question. And if it were illegal in mine, I would drive her to the Post Office.

They probably lack a compelling reason to ban it. If vote by mail becomes the norm, you might see a shift in protocols. This style of messaging has been successful for Republicans though. If ballot harvesting goes away, they will find a different way to complain about the potential for voter fraud.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Stop me if you've heard this before, since the last guy lost

Fox Host Claims ‘Only Thing’ That Will Save Newsom Is ‘Voter Fraud’

Fox News personalities appear to be setting up the conspiratorial narrative to explain away Newsom potentially surviving a recall vote.

www.thedailybeast.com

Larry Elder baselessly raises possibility of election 'shenanigans' in California recall

Republican candidate Larry Elder told reporters on Wednesday that he believes "there might very well be shenanigans" in the election to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom, continuing the baseless GOP effort to undermine elections by suggesting wrongdoing.

www.cnn.com

When republicans find a song they like, they can't stop playing it to death

 

[Eric]

Stop me if you've heard this before, since the last guy lost





When republicans find a song they like, they can't stop playing it to death

You have to wonder if claims of election fraud are really going to help them here, I get the goal is to turnout more Republicans to the voting booths but you would think it would freak them out even more about mailing in ballots. I think they're just throwing everything at the wall at this point.

 

[SuperMatt]

I am astonished by myopic views such as those that assume “If *I* don‘t need help delivering my ballot, then nobody does. And if they do want help, they are either lazy or stupid.”

What other “honest questions“ go through the minds of people with such worldviews?

Honest question: What is up with wheelchairs? Are people to stupid to figure out how to walk? Maybe they’re just lazy and want somebody to push them around.

Also, I was watching the news and there was somebody waving their arms around during a news conference. They say this is something called “sign language.” What is the point of it? Just listen more carefully or turn up the TV, people….

And at the grocery store, I saw a guy wearing glasses on his face. What’s up with that? I guess he thinks it makes him look smart, but it makes you look dumb. I’m pretty sure you can see fine without them.

And don’t get me started on adult diapers… how lazy are you that you won’t even get up to use the bathroom?

 

[JayMysteri0]

You have to wonder if claims of election fraud are really going to help them here, I get the goal is to turnout more Republicans to the voting booths but you would think it would freak them out even more about mailing in ballots. I think they're just throwing everything at the wall at this point.

It isn't about help or hinder. When this started it was about the fragile ego of one man who believed his brand dictated he can NEVER lose, thus if he did lose as was predicted, it HAD to be because things were rigged. So when that one man did surprisingly win, of course all was right in the world. HIS job performance or lack thereof couldn't be an issue, so when he did finally lose it wasn't because of him. It was finally rigged as he "predicted".

Those that back that man adopted that thinking.

They can NEVER lose, it doesn't matter that their core base is an ever shrinking one, they MUST always win. In their narrative, in their world, there can only be one reality / result EVER from now on. If they don't get it, it must be because others cheated, NOT because their party / platform isn't appealing or even tries to appeal to others. In the minds of the extremists & grifters they are the only ones allowed to win.

That's been made perfectly clear by this group's ( I say this group because there are plenty of republicans who do actually believe in how the system works, because they help it work properly ) approach to rules. Rules are made to be followed for others, but not for them. If the rules aren't getting the results they want, they need to join the system to work to change the rules so that they do insure the results they want. ONLY then do these individuals suddenly believe in rules, and the results that come from them. As long as the narrative that everything is fixed when they lose & right when they win, it motivates more extremists & suckers to the cause that serves them for future efforts.