Crazy how cumbersome it is for some folks to vote today in the us

Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#51
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
2,384
2,611
255
#52
yeah it pretty much sucks. voting needs to be on a day off, not the middle of the work week. yesterday i got some bad news at work (corporate consolidation means lots of people are on the chopping block & the future is looking grim) so after riding the bus home i wasn't in a mood to stand in line even if i would have voted.
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#53
You are in a bubble, and you need to get out of it. What's easy for you yesterday, wasn't for everyone.
Wow. Long lines. The horror. Maybe we can have so a guy goes around door to door and asks people who they would like to vote for? Or perhaps more to your fitting, we can just make an app for it? I mean, who expects a person to stand in line for to perform their civic duty? My God. Riverdale is on.
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#54
It's indisputable that some people have had to wait for hours in line due to insufficient numbers of machines, poll workers, and ballots, as well as machines that don't work.
It's also indisputable that these instances are by FAR the minority of experiences in this country. If you think grasping onto a few stories from the heavy breathing liberal media about how tough stupid people have it is a coherent argument, well, you're probably a dippy liberal.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#55
Wow. Long lines. The horror. Maybe we can have so a guy goes around door to door and asks people who they would like to vote for? Or perhaps more to your fitting, we can just make an app for it? I mean, who expects a person to stand in line for to perform their civic duty? My God. Riverdale is on.
Some people have family responsibilities. Not everyone is an incel.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#59
This whole exchange started because you derpily assumed that everyone’s experience is the same as yours.
I said by and large the system works well. And my experience is probably the most widely shared and mostly experience. There may be some losers and idiots who can't find an ID, but oh well. The point remains. For the most part, our system is effective and easy. Standing in line isn't suppression. You fail at making a coherent argument implying otherwise.

Now go make the fries, dude.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#60
I said by and large the system works well. And my experience is probably the most widely shared and mostly experience. There may be some losers and idiots who can't find an ID, but oh well. The point remains. For the most part, our system is effective and easy. Standing in line isn't suppression. You fail at making a coherent argument implying otherwise.

Now go make the fries, dude.
Yes, I’m quite aware that you don’t understand the topic of the thread (hint, the title says “for some”). Now go pick up your unemployment check.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#61
Wow. Long lines. The horror. Maybe we can have so a guy goes around door to door and asks people who they would like to vote for? Or perhaps more to your fitting, we can just make an app for it? I mean, who expects a person to stand in line for to perform their civic duty? My God. Riverdale is on.
Mail voting all states. Early Voting all stats. And an app would be nice too. Polling places would almost entirely disappear, which is great. More people would turnout and vote too.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#62
Mail voting all states. Early Voting all stats. And an app would be nice too. Polling places would almost entirely disappear, which is great. More people would turnout and vote too.
I'm sure Democrats would LOVE that. But, the rest of us recognize we need to have some sort of semblance of order. Voting by mail and early voting are enough to accommodate the vast majority of people.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#63
I'm sure Democrats would LOVE that. But, the rest of us recognize we need to have some sort of semblance of order. Voting by mail and early voting are enough to accommodate the vast majority of people.
Mail voting alone would get rid of most polling places. Mandate it for all states to provide it at the least.

And fortunately voting can be made even more convenient and faster to processes. App/web voting would seal the deal. The only issue is security. The other hurdles are more easily solvable.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#64
The only issue is security. But there's no reason to be against it other than that.
Security would disqualify the idea almost immediately. When asked about voting by app, tech leaders were largely against it. Some people are even afraid of the facial recognition.

“Mobile voting is a horrific idea,” Joseph Lorenzo Hall, the chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CNN in an email. “It’s internet voting on people’s horribly secured devices, over our horrible networks, to servers that are very difficult to secure without a physical paper record of the vote.”

Marian K. Schneider, president of the election integrity watchdog group Verified Voting, was even more blunt. Asked if she thought mobile voting is a good idea, she said, “The short answer is no.”


https://9to5mac.com/2018/08/07/smartphone-app-voting/
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#65
Security would disqualify the idea almost immediately. When asked about voting by app, tech leaders were largely against it. Some people are even afraid of the facial recognition.

“Mobile voting is a horrific idea,” Joseph Lorenzo Hall, the chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CNN in an email. “It’s internet voting on people’s horribly secured devices, over our horrible networks, to servers that are very difficult to secure without a physical paper record of the vote.”

Marian K. Schneider, president of the election integrity watchdog group Verified Voting, was even more blunt. Asked if she thought mobile voting is a good idea, she said, “The short answer is no.”

https://9to5mac.com/2018/08/07/smartphone-app-voting/
We're already aware of that. Develop solutions and pilot them. It's worth the cost savings, turnout increases and voter satisfaction.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,211
685
1,135
Best Coast
#66
As long as proper validation and fraud prevention systems are in place, you should be able to vote via smartphone.

And it should be ranked choice voting.

Along with simple, cheap, numerous, reliable, trackable, paper ballots everywhere else in physical locations.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#67
We're already aware of that. Develop solutions and pilot them. It's worth the cost savings, turnout increases and voter satisfaction.
How do you develop a secure system using unsecured devices on unsecure networks? And who is going to pay for this? What evidence do you have this would increase turnout or even satisfaction? So many people are upset with the postal service in Oregon, half the people choose to drop the ballots off in person. Which defeats the whole purpose.

Officials say half of all registered voters in Oregon still need to return their ballots to a secure drop-off location by the 8 p.m. Election Day voting deadline.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article221199695.html
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#70
That's purely a hypothetical option, but with the use of sufficiently advanced biometrics it could work.
Perhaps in the future. I'm not sure it's worth the cost right now. Many lower income people can't afford the hardware that makes use of advanced biometrics. And I'm not sure I would rely on the current state of Apple's facial recognition or Samsung's fingerprint ID.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,211
685
1,135
Best Coast
#71
That's the crux of the issue. There isn't proper validation and/or fraud prevention.
I don't think it would be that hard. To get it to the level of our current system wouldn't be that much of a challenge since there isn't a high level of validation and/or fraud prevention in our current system either. Relatively speaking. And we seem to be fine with that.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#72
How do you develop a secure system using unsecured devices on unsecure networks? And who is going to pay for this? What evidence do you have this would increase turnout or even satisfaction? So many people are upset with the postal service in Oregon, half the people choose to drop the ballots off in person. Which defeats the whole purpose.

Officials say half of all registered voters in Oregon still need to return their ballots to a secure drop-off location by the 8 p.m. Election Day voting deadline.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article221199695.html
Tax payers pay for it, and the government gets corproration to help by offering incentives. How to do it is for them to figure out.

Increases to satisfaction would be monumental if you can do it from the app. Travel to location + wait time + travel back. Last time in NC it took me two hours to vote due to lines alone, plus 20 minutes travel time from work. I had an exam to finish off studying for the next day, and more homework to do. Admittedly if I had classes that day I could have voted from college, but I didnt. Or if I took off work, but I'd get an occurrence for calling out. Eliminating all of that only encourages voting.

That just means Oregon's system has improvements to make. This is actually something that I could help with unlike the potential app voting.

I was able to vote just fine with mail ballots, but we need to improve those stats. I was shocked that there were zero polling locations near me within a hours drive due to mail voting. That didn't sit well with me, but it's better so far.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#73
To get it to the level of our current system wouldn't be that much of a challenge since there isn't a high level of validation and/or fraud prevention in our current system either. Relatively speaking. And we seem to be fine with that.
I think there are a lot of us who are rightly concerned about security. It's become quite the issue.
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#74
Tax payers pay for it, and the government gets corproration to help by offering incentives. How to do it is for them to figure out.
Yeah, that's a non-starter for a lot of people. Spending billions so a few don't have to stand in line every two years is a tall task. But, maybe it will become a campaign issue for some. I just don't see it happening.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#75
Yeah, that's a non-starter for a lot of people. Spending billions so a few don't have to stand in line every two years is a tall task. But, maybe it will become a campaign issue for some. I just don't see it happening.
It'll be an easy sale:

It'll save government dollars.
It'll save the entire economy dollars.
It'll reduce reduce voting time, and free up time for you.
It'll reduce the need to make voting day a holiday.
It is convenient and can be done during a 15 minute work break.

There's so many ways to sell it. All that matters is the output. It'll be in with the military projects.
 
Last edited:
Likes: PkunkFury
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#76
How do you develop a secure system using unsecured devices on unsecure networks? And who is going to pay for this? What evidence do you have this would increase turnout or even satisfaction? So many people are upset with the postal service in Oregon, half the people choose to drop the ballots off in person. Which defeats the whole purpose.

Officials say half of all registered voters in Oregon still need to return their ballots to a secure drop-off location by the 8 p.m. Election Day voting deadline.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article221199695.html
No, dropping of your ballot at a secure drop-off location does not defeat the whole purpose.

Oregonians are not dropping off ballots at secure ballot boxes because they are "upset" with the post office, they are doing it because the ballot boxes are more secure, more direct (especially on election day, you know your ballot will make it if you use the box - hence your quote), and don't require stamps. There are secure ballot boxes everywhere here. They are way cheaper to setup, operate, and maintain than public polling places. Mailing your ballot via post is option B for everyone, and it's great we have the option. There have been two or three years I've mailed mine because I was too lazy to go to the library and drop it off. But otherwise, the ballot boxes are plentiful and preferable

Also, why on Earth are you sourcing a Charlotte newspaper for information about Oregon voting?

Oregon voting is freaking amazing. I've never been as happy to vote as I have since moving here. I've yet to miss an election since I moved. It's not just the convenience of never having to line up, not having to touch a gross public machine (in flu season), not having to take off work, etc. It's also the fact that you get your ballot weeks before it's due and you can fill it out at home while you have access to a computer, so you can research every choice. I haven't voted "straight ticket" since moving here, since I have the opportunity to actually visit the campaign pages for even the lowest level county positions. You have time to read and understand ballot measures, and can take in opinions from either side before making a choice. You can make a few choices a night, instead of voting all at once. You can also throw voter parties, which is a great way to get together with friends and make sense of the initiatives and vote together. This is how I was able to learn about Oregon government when I moved here and knew nobody. Friends and coworkers explained the ins and outs of taxing differences and such, and helped me understand the mail in vote. Otherwise, I'd have been alone in a booth, more or less guessing, as I used to
 
Last edited:
Likes: ssolitare
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#78
No, dropping of your ballot at a secure drop-off location does not defeat the whole purpose.

Oregonians are not dropping off ballots at secure ballot boxes because they are "upset" with the post office, they are doing it because the ballot boxes are more secure, more direct (especially on election day, you know your ballot will make it if you use the box - hence your quote), and don't require stamps. There are secure ballot boxes everywhere here. They are way cheaper to setup, operate, and maintain than public polling places. Mailing your ballot via post is option B for everyone, and it's great we have the option. There have been two or three years I've mailed mine because I was too lazy to go to the library and drop it off. But otherwise, the ballot boxes are plentiful and preferable

Also, why on Earth are you sourcing a Charlotte newspaper for information about Oregon voting?

Oregon voting is freaking amazing. I've never been as happy to vote as I have since moving here. I've yet to miss an election since I moved. It's not just the convenience of never having to line up, not having to touch a gross public machine (in flu season), not having to take off work, etc. It's also the fact that you get your ballot weeks before it's due and you can fill it out at home while you have access to a computer, so you can research every choice. I haven't voted "straight ticket" since moving here, since I have the opportunity to actually visit the campaign pages for even the lowest level county positions. You have time to read and understand ballot measures, and can take in opinions from either side before making a choice. You can make a few choices a night, instead of voting all at once. You can also throw voter parties, which is a great way to get together with friends and make sense of the initiatives and vote together. This is how I was able to learn about Oregon government when I moved here and knew nobody. Friends and coworkers explained the ins and outs of taxing differences and such, and helped me understand the mail in vote. Otherwise, I'd have been alone in a booth, more or less guessing, as I used to
Indeed.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#80
Then why aren't candidates making this a campaign issue? If it's so great, will save money and people will love it?
- It's been raised, but the perception is that it won't be secure, so no one tries it.
- The government moves slow on voting options.
- No one has pointed out the "cost of doing business" with our current system. Quantifying that data would make a good case for it.


Automatic voter registration (limited) would also be nice. It takes a ton of effort to get people to vote, let's take a lot of that blood and sweat out of it so we can focus on the other reasons why people don't vote.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#81
Because facts don't change when printed in different papers?
The only fact you posted (which could have been found at any Oregon source as well):

Officials say half of all registered voters in Oregon still need to return their ballots to a secure drop-off location by the 8 p.m. Election Day voting deadline.

was used to prop up an opinion:
So many people are upset with the postal service in Oregon, half the people choose to drop the ballots off in person. Which defeats the whole purpose.

I'm not sure if this opinion was pulled from the Charlotte paper, or this is just something you made up. Either way it's not true. You have two Orgonians explaining to you why they like the Oregon voting system.

Then why aren't candidates making this a campaign issue? If it's so great, will save money and people will love it?
Because it would hurt the political positions of those who benefit from decreased voter turnout. Same reason election day is not a holiday, voter ID laws are en vogue, weird polling place closures and shit like this happens, etc. It's no coincidence that the three states who do this are progressive.

One of my senators has been pushing to make universal mail in voting national for years: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/27/15701708/voting-by-mail

Yeah, that's a non-starter for a lot of people. Spending billions so a few don't have to stand in line every two years is a tall task. But, maybe it will become a campaign issue for some. I just don't see it happening.
This is not spending billions, it's saving millions. Oregon started saving $3 million per election cycle when they started this back in 2000. Savings have certainly increased due to population growth and inflation, plus no need to update user facing voter machines in 18 years... And that's just the actual cost of running polling stations vs handling mail-in ballots. You also have to consider the economic costs of everyone taking off work on election day, everyone clogging up traffic to get to polling places, etc. Universal mail vote removes all of those issues

More info on the benefits, from the guy who helped implement it:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/janfeb-2016/vote-from-home-save-your-country/
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#84
You're conflating the argument. I was referring to creating a secure network to vote by app. I'm all in favor of voting by mail. And the fact that half the people choose to forgo the postal service and drop their ballot off is a fact.
Glad we are in agreement that voting by mail is good. Which state do you live in? Perhaps you'd like to look into supporting initiatives to get it rolling in your state?

Your post I quoted contained the following: "Spending billions so a few don't have to stand in line every two years is a tall task.", my point is that the same can be achieved via vote-by-mail, and billions does not need to be spent.

And I'm not disagreeing with the fact that half the people needed to drop their ballot off in secure boxes on election day (they did not choose to forgo the post office, you are once again projecting your opinion onto Oregon's voting system). I am disagreeing with your opinion that they do it because they are upset with the post the office. If that opinion was not in the article you sourced, then I am taking issue with you injecting your beliefs about Oregon's system into the article you sourced. The article seems to just say that half of Oregon voters had yet to return their ballots on election day, and needed to do so in the drop-off boxes to be counted. This is indeed a fact. If you mail your ballot via post on election day, there's no guarantee it will arrive in time to count. This message is plastered everywhere in Oregon, as, invariably, every year hundreds of people use the regular mail for their ballots on election day (a weakness with this system)

Dissatisfaction with the post office has nothing to do with it
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#86
I am disagreeing with your opinion that they do it because they are upset with the post the office.
I think since postmarks don't count, the tendency to rely on the PO may be a bit unnerving. You even said so yourself, drop off sites are more secure and more reliant. I'd say the cost is relatively the same in terms of time and effort compared to stamps. So why do you think half the people choose to hand deliver their ballot?
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#87
I think since postmarks don't count, the tendency to rely on the PO may be a bit unnerving. You even said so yourself, drop off sites are more secure and more reliant. I'd say the cost is relatively the same in terms of time and effort compared to stamps. So why do you think half the people choose to hand deliver their ballot?
In the context of the quote from the newspaper you posted, half of Oregon's registered voters needed (they could no longer choose) to drop their ballot of at the secure boxes because it was election day morning, and their ballots would likely not be counted if sent through the post office that morning. The last day a ballot can safely be mailed in Oregon is the Thursday before the election. Any day after that there's no guarantee a post vote is counted. Ballots in the ballot boxes, however, are guaranteed to be collected and counted up until 8pm on election day. And note that voter participation rate is never 100%, so all 50% of those registered voters referenced in your source were not dropping ballots off that day

In a wider context, people prefer the secure ballot drops because:
1) they are free (no stamp, probably the biggest one)
2) they are secure (no chance of ballot being lost or opened by anyone not affiliated with the election)
3) they are direct (your ballot goes straight to election counting, you can drop it off last minute)
4) they are plentiful (At least every library has a drop box, and there are others)

The only advantage mailing with post has is that mailboxes are more plentiful (which is enough of an advantage for many). Deep rural voters probably prefer to vote via post. As I said above, having post as an option is a great "option B" if you don't want to trek over to a secure drop. But this does add some confusion to the process, as invariably some people are mailing their votes via post after Thursday and missing the count. I wonder if Oregon addresses this in any way
 
Last edited: