Quote: Lazzard @ 6th November 2020, 9:31 AM

The more people vote, the fairer the result, surely?

View original

In theory yes. But that's not the real issue here, the issue is How that happened. The Republican's Campaign argument is saying Democrats encouraged wider Mail in voting knowing that would lead to more votes, and knowing politically, they would favour Democrats. I think that's a good case for voter manipulation. Trump's bluntly calling it fraud, bit I'd say the former, so it's for the courts to decide if the former equates to any measure of fraud, but that's only if they concede it has taken place.

Encouraging wider mail-in voting is just encouraging more people to vote.
Any campaign that relies on people NOT voting is inherently illegitimate.
It's called voter suppression.

Quote: Lazzard @ 6th November 2020, 10:31 AM

Encouraging wider mail-in voting is just encouraging more people to vote.

View original

As a non lawyer I'd say without including the context of this particular election that's naïve rubbish, with respect, sorry.

Any non biased observers of this election from campaign start to finish (if there actually are any!) could convince a jury or judge that mail in voting became politicised and widely perceived as
Mail in = Very covid concerned (same as) Biden Campaign
Vote in person at booth = Downplaying covid threat (same as) Trump Campaign.
Conclusion - Biased manipulation of voting system. IMO shouldn't happen, and TC has a good case.

Non-lawyer is right.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Mail-in or walk up - people have to still decide which way to vote.
The fact that people who don't believe in Covid are more Trumpy is his problem, not democracy's
If they're a US citizen - they have a vote. Or am I wrong?
In fact, a cynic would say that Trump started playing the "mail-in is not proper voting" schtick for the express purpose of bringing it up at this point. Soon as he saw that mail-in votes were likely to be up, thanks to a combination of fear of a pandemic he denied existed & fear of intimidation, which he encouraged, he started laying the groundwork.
But that's just a theory - and entirely unprovable.
What is a fact is a vote is a vote.

It certainly used to be, before mail in voting was used. I really do think it will be hotly debated now whether a mail in vote really is worth the same as an in person vote, if only for academic or social science purposes. Imo again, no, unless they have a good reason such as disability, or working abroad, everyone should be expected to get off their arse and go to the Local polling station. 'If you simply can't be arsed to, should you have a right to cast your vote?' I think is a point deserving of much mooting and I expect to see it being a hot topic now.

But you are still missing the point here, if I may. Trump's long standing claim is that the Democrats vigorously campaigned for the 'extended use' of mail in voting for THIS election, ostensibly for concerns about getting and spreading Covid 19, but with firm Ulterior motives of believing this would encourage far more of the electorate who normally vote to bother voting, as let's face it, it's a lot less hassle. Those reluctant voters are widely perceived to be 'disenfranchised and disaffected' members of society who are always sought after by parties of the left, in this case the Democrats.

And it has huge potential implications for future elections, as many will claim the Democrats and generally the Left have now found their magic ticket to power, mass mail in voting.

Perhaps there should be some sort of assault course at the polling stations - so that only those who REALLY want to cast their vote get to do so?
You're arguing for a sort of selective democracy, where 'keen-ness' is a pre-requisite for your vote counting.
Yet, if I were to suggest people take an IQ test to decide whether or not their vote counts (which, lets be honest would solve a lot of problems) imagine the uproar!

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 6th November 2020, 10:19 AM

IThe Republican's Campaign argument is saying Democrats encouraged wider Mail in voting knowing that would lead to more votes, and knowing politically, they would favour Democrats. I think that's a good case for voter manipulation. Trump's bluntly calling it fraud, bit I'd say the former, so it's for the courts to decide if the former equates to any measure of fraud, but that's only if they concede it has taken place.

View original

Hands down, the dumbest thing I've read online in the past 14 minutes. Your assertion boils down to: "The Democrats encouraged people to vote, which equates to voter manipulation or outright fraud, and the courts should decide whether that happened."

If this comes to a major legal battle, the Republican-majority Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether certain state and district courts violated the constitution by allowing votes (submitted prior to or on Election Day) to be counted after Election Day. Basically, Trump will be asking the Supreme Court to f**k democracy and then shit all over it. John Roberts will not grant that, I feel, though Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett might decide to betray the Constitution. (But remember that Clarence Thomas owes Joe Biden from 1991).

No, just for the way it used to be, before proxy and postal voting came in. They were introduced here for people who would otherwise lose their right to vote. Still have these alternatives but only for those valid reasons.
[/quote]

Alternatively all those "couldn't be bothered" people will, this time, discover that voting actually makes a difference.
A huge win for democracy.

I don't think most people would agree that voting by post is any less legitimate than voting at a polling station. Postal votes may have been originally introduced for people who were to sick to go out and vote, but that hasn't been true for some time. You are very out of date with your info if you think this is still the case.
Why did so many people vote by post this time? Hmmm... let me see...Perhaps because THERE IS A GLOBAL PANDEMIC HAPPENING!
People were in fact, very sensible to vote by post in such circumstances. And their votes are just as valid as everyone else's.
Why on Earth shouldn't they be? I suspect you know this in your heart and so does Trump. It's a transparent tactic by him to undermine an election which seems to have gone against him.

Quote: Kenneth @ 6th November 2020, 12:26 PM

Hands down, the dumbest thing I've read online in the past 14 minutes. Your assertion boils down to: "The Democrats encouraged people to vote, which equates to voter manipulation or outright fraud, and the courts should decide whether that happened."

View original

No I didn't say that at all and I certainly didn't mean that at all. The Democrats actively campaigned for the US version of the Electoral Commission to drastically widen the usual scope of mail in voting for this election due to concerns about Covid19, and got their wish. Yes I can see the common sense of it from an H&S viewpoint but I can also see it open to accusations of political exploitation by others.

The only practical alternative but political non starter was to postpone the election until they're covid-clear and it's safe again to mix with people. So you can see why it went ahead with Vastly Extended mail in ballots.

You're still claiming that enabling people to vote and encouraging them to vote (without coercion or threats) could be deemed wrong. That won't stand up in the Supreme Court unless the Republican appointees decide that Trump's ego is more important than the majority of voters.

Actually, we're all arguing about the wrong thing.
Trump is not saying mail-in votes are illegitimate (he wishes!) - he's saying there has been wholesale fraud, because of mail-in votes, amongst other things.
To support which he has yet to produce a shred of evidence
True, he has always been against them - acknowledging that they favour democrats - but he, very early on, sowed the seeds of doubt about their 'safety' - a baseless accusation as any investigation of historic mail-in related fraud claims would soon confirm.

Well they certainly didn't do it without the help of The Duchess of Sussex abusing Royal protocol, trust, possibly breaking the law (I believe a case will be taken up) in rallying them against that nasty sexist racist white man.

Quote: Kenneth @ 6th November 2020, 1:01 PM

You're still claiming that enabling people to vote and encouraging them to vote (without coercion or threats) could be deemed wrong. That won't stand up in the Supreme Court unless the Republican appointees decide that Trump's ego is more important than the majority of voters.

View original

Oh - have we moved on from mail-in voting, then?