I’m in Connecticut. Election Day is just that - ONE day.
They argue that people have to wait hours in lines. That they can’t do this, that it’s too onerous. Interesting, I’ve been voting since 1978 and I’ve NEVER had to wait more than a few minutes, more often I walk right up, check in (with ID), and go cast my vote. These places with the miles-long lines seem invariably to be in Democrat-controlled areas. Why can’t they fix the problem - more polling places, more voting machines, whatever would alleviate the problem? Or is it that they don’t WANT to? Because then you can’t bitch about lack of access to the polls and demand all kinds of early and alternative voting methods.
As with voter ID, they could easily fix the problem with just a bit of money. That they don't tells us they want to prop up their straw men more than address whatever issues actually exist.
I like compromise. How about one week of mail-in voting beginning the first Tuesday in November? Those government funded IDs could include a number which could be required in a space on the ballot. Believe it or not, California has a nifty system for supplying (requiring actually) an ID to every citizen. One's driver's license suffices and if one does not drive that license is replaced with a FREE identification card.
To what end, I'd ask? I noted I'm OK with people who can show cause for absentee ballots, but I don't see a benefit to genpop mail in voting that outweighs the integrity question - real and perceived.
I know it doesn't appeal to you, and I'm mostly ambivalent. But there are some to whom it appeals. And it was once agreed, politics is the art of compromise.
Compromise is what you do after asking for your own position. Compromise as a starting point is negotiating against yourself - and we don't even know how a "day-of" rule would play across the electorate.
It would seem more logical that debates are completed prior to early voting.
As for Abrams, it would seem she and her campaign have unofficially surrendered, with voter suppression accusations to follow of course. She's pretty much out of money as observed by the dwindling opposition ads, and the DNC is redirecting funds elsewhere. Then in the debate she took her parting shot after Kemp mentioned how many GA Sheriffs have endorsed him, by saying “As I pointed out before I'm not a member of the good ole boys club, so no I don’t have 107 sheriffs who want to be able to take Black people off the streets." Abrams is too accomplished a politician to make a gaffe like that.
That was heer giving the finger on her way out. She's probably leaving GA but will absolutely be on the national scene in 2024. Look up grifter in "Merriam's" dictionary and it will show her picture.
When I say she is an accomplished politician I don't really mean it as a compliment. She didn't use to make many missteps and had a loyal fan base. I think what happened is that she read too many of her own press clippings. There were so many magazine covers, late night show and cable news appearances. On the View she stated her aspirations to be President. She felt bullet proof and had the perfect platform of voter suppression to run on. As happens so often she eventually fell victim to her own hubris. The Emperor no longer has clothes, and in Abrams case that is not a good visual.
As a matter of policy, the US condemns the use of mailed out ballots in Third World countries as illegitimate and ripe for cheating - we wouldn't accept a foreign leader elected in this manner as legitimate. It's no different when practiced here. Absentee ballots should be a tiny minority of votes and should rarely be decisive - and yet you saw in 2020 how they were, and I suspect that in this election, they will be as well. When hundreds of thousands of ballots are dumped into the mail and "harvesters" are paid by third party actors to ensure they're "voted" the right way, trust in the integrity of the vote itself is lost.
Even if the mail-in system is well-guarded against shenanigans (no comment at the moment on that), the perception that it's more corruptible is itself a big knock against early and absentee voting.
That perception probably appeals to the Leftists who want to expand mail-in voting, because it'll be more prevalent among the Right, who might say "it's rigged, why even bother voting."
Which is the message Trump sent ahead of the GA Senate runoffs, and which probably cost the GOP the majority.
You're spot on about Trump himself costing GA the Senate. As for mail-in voting, I can't even get the USPS to deliver my Amazon packages with any regularity. Currently I have trash bags that have seemingly disappeared in transit. Meanwhile UPS and Fedex boxes keep showing up on time.
I’m in Connecticut. Election Day is just that - ONE day.
They argue that people have to wait hours in lines. That they can’t do this, that it’s too onerous. Interesting, I’ve been voting since 1978 and I’ve NEVER had to wait more than a few minutes, more often I walk right up, check in (with ID), and go cast my vote. These places with the miles-long lines seem invariably to be in Democrat-controlled areas. Why can’t they fix the problem - more polling places, more voting machines, whatever would alleviate the problem? Or is it that they don’t WANT to? Because then you can’t bitch about lack of access to the polls and demand all kinds of early and alternative voting methods.
As with voter ID, they could easily fix the problem with just a bit of money. That they don't tells us they want to prop up their straw men more than address whatever issues actually exist.
Politicians, liars, but I repeat myself.
I like compromise. How about one week of mail-in voting beginning the first Tuesday in November? Those government funded IDs could include a number which could be required in a space on the ballot. Believe it or not, California has a nifty system for supplying (requiring actually) an ID to every citizen. One's driver's license suffices and if one does not drive that license is replaced with a FREE identification card.
To what end, I'd ask? I noted I'm OK with people who can show cause for absentee ballots, but I don't see a benefit to genpop mail in voting that outweighs the integrity question - real and perceived.
I know it doesn't appeal to you, and I'm mostly ambivalent. But there are some to whom it appeals. And it was once agreed, politics is the art of compromise.
Compromise is what you do after asking for your own position. Compromise as a starting point is negotiating against yourself - and we don't even know how a "day-of" rule would play across the electorate.
It would seem more logical that debates are completed prior to early voting.
As for Abrams, it would seem she and her campaign have unofficially surrendered, with voter suppression accusations to follow of course. She's pretty much out of money as observed by the dwindling opposition ads, and the DNC is redirecting funds elsewhere. Then in the debate she took her parting shot after Kemp mentioned how many GA Sheriffs have endorsed him, by saying “As I pointed out before I'm not a member of the good ole boys club, so no I don’t have 107 sheriffs who want to be able to take Black people off the streets." Abrams is too accomplished a politician to make a gaffe like that.
That was heer giving the finger on her way out. She's probably leaving GA but will absolutely be on the national scene in 2024. Look up grifter in "Merriam's" dictionary and it will show her picture.
Is she that savvy? I've seen enough to at least suspect she's a loose-cannon type.
When I say she is an accomplished politician I don't really mean it as a compliment. She didn't use to make many missteps and had a loyal fan base. I think what happened is that she read too many of her own press clippings. There were so many magazine covers, late night show and cable news appearances. On the View she stated her aspirations to be President. She felt bullet proof and had the perfect platform of voter suppression to run on. As happens so often she eventually fell victim to her own hubris. The Emperor no longer has clothes, and in Abrams case that is not a good visual.
As a matter of policy, the US condemns the use of mailed out ballots in Third World countries as illegitimate and ripe for cheating - we wouldn't accept a foreign leader elected in this manner as legitimate. It's no different when practiced here. Absentee ballots should be a tiny minority of votes and should rarely be decisive - and yet you saw in 2020 how they were, and I suspect that in this election, they will be as well. When hundreds of thousands of ballots are dumped into the mail and "harvesters" are paid by third party actors to ensure they're "voted" the right way, trust in the integrity of the vote itself is lost.
Even if the mail-in system is well-guarded against shenanigans (no comment at the moment on that), the perception that it's more corruptible is itself a big knock against early and absentee voting.
That perception probably appeals to the Leftists who want to expand mail-in voting, because it'll be more prevalent among the Right, who might say "it's rigged, why even bother voting."
Which is the message Trump sent ahead of the GA Senate runoffs, and which probably cost the GOP the majority.
You're spot on about Trump himself costing GA the Senate. As for mail-in voting, I can't even get the USPS to deliver my Amazon packages with any regularity. Currently I have trash bags that have seemingly disappeared in transit. Meanwhile UPS and Fedex boxes keep showing up on time.
No way I trust the USPS with my vote ballot.