How Can We Stop Future Stolen Elections?

[Seawytch]

Who remembers a judge throwing a black in jail for 5 years for voting 5 times! IN OHIO! Guess who won ohio.. yea democrats cheated

Trump won Ohio.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The signature on the envelope has to match the signature on the registration. This isn't rocket surgery. People have been voting by mail for years. Some states have been wholly vote by mail for over a decade. It is just as safe and secure as in person voting. Both have strengths and both have vulnerabilities. In the end, election fraud is still exceedingly rare regardless of voting method.

So the person casting the phony ballot signs the envelope and the ballot. Some states don't check the signature on file when they registered to match it to the ballot.

That's besides the fact, if you're too lazy to vote, then you don't deserve to vote. Close down mail in voting with some exceptions.

 

[postman]

Except Alito and Thomas what?! I must have missed their dissents. Can you post them because I can’t find them anywhere

Use your search engine.

I did search. No dissents, unless theres some hidden document you found in whichever sites you use to read lies and propaganda. Go ahead and post a link so I can learn about why these justices saw merit in Trumps case

Alito and Thomas dissented on the argument of whether or not they should accept the case, as a matter of the supreme court having original jurisdiction in matters between states.

But they also agreed with the majority that they would not grant them the injunctive relief they sought.

So it was 7-2 against taking the case, and 9-0 against granting any relief.

 

[Seawytch]

I did search. No dissents, unless theres some hidden document you found in whichever sites you use to read lies and propaganda. Go ahead and post a link so I can learn about why these justices saw merit in Trumps case

US Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito the Only Dissenters - Media Right News

The United States Supreme Court has denied the Texas lawsuit that attempted to overturn the presidential election in four key swing states. Justice Samuel Alito issued his dissent with JusticeContinue Reading

mediarightnews.com

This took me about one minute to find. What's wrong with you?

They didn't dissent on the merits of the case, just whether or not it should be heard. Had they heard it, they still would have ruled 9-0 against Texas.

 

[Mac-7]

It's also going to disenfranchise most of the military, and all the americans working abroad.

I can think of foolproof workarounds for the military

but I’m not going to because any crack in the dam - no matter how well intentioned - creates a breach that corrupt liberals will find a way to exploit

so no exceptions for anyone

 

[Takeusback]

Who remembers a judge throwing a black in jail for 5 years for voting 5 times! IN OHIO! Guess who won ohio.. yea democrats cheated

True, Democrats cheated, but also republicans cheated as well as Independents. But the cases of individuals who break the rules is statistically insignificant. Saying that Biden stole the election is an outrageous lie. Y’all just sound dumb each time you repeat it

I’m citing the state that prosecuted voter fraud which urban areas are demographically mirrors of Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh. Came out with more logical voting numbers.
Democrats cheated.. trump won.. way to much irregularities, and witness

 

[Seawytch]

The signature on the envelope has to match the signature on the registration. This isn't rocket surgery. People have been voting by mail for years. Some states have been wholly vote by mail for over a decade. It is just as safe and secure as in person voting. Both have strengths and both have vulnerabilities. In the end, election fraud is still exceedingly rare regardless of voting method.

So the person casting the phony ballot signs the envelope and the ballot. Some states don't check the signature on file when they registered to match it to the ballot.

That's besides the fact, if you're too lazy to vote, then you don't deserve to vote. Close down mail in voting with some exceptions.

Just stop with that ludicrous "too lazy" ridiculousness. Do you order from Amazon? Get checks in the mail? Bank or pay bills online?

 

[postman]

The signature on the envelope has to match the signature on the registration. This isn't rocket surgery. People have been voting by mail for years. Some states have been wholly vote by mail for over a decade. It is just as safe and secure as in person voting. Both have strengths and both have vulnerabilities. In the end, election fraud is still exceedingly rare regardless of voting method.

Would you rather vote on the internet?
There is far more computer fraud than mail fraud.
And FYI, after the electoral college votes, guess how they transmit the results of the vote to Washington?

Hint, the same folks who handle mail-in ballots.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

They didn't dissent on the merits of the case, just whether or not it should be heard. Had they heard it, they still would have ruled 9-0 against Texas.

Thanks, Nostradamus. Your ability to know what would have happened in events that never did happen is
amazing. I mean ridiculous.

 

[Slade3200]

I did search. No dissents, unless theres some hidden document you found in whichever sites you use to read lies and propaganda. Go ahead and post a link so I can learn about why these justices saw merit in Trumps case

US Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito the Only Dissenters - Media Right News

The United States Supreme Court has denied the Texas lawsuit that attempted to overturn the presidential election in four key swing states. Justice Samuel Alito issued his dissent with JusticeContinue Reading

mediarightnews.com

This took me about one minute to find. What's wrong with you?

Haha, that’s a fake headline buddy. Do you ever read past the bold type?! What Alito said was not a dissent. They ALL dismissed Trumps case because it lacked constitutional merit. The only point that Alito and Thomas made was that cases of that type claims would still be open to rulings and should be filed. See for court cases to move forward they need actual evidence and in this case there was not evidence to justify relief. You need something more than blowhards spouting lies in the media.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This is obviously a very serious problem. My only hope is SCOTUS in that a national standard has to be set including voter ID and verifiable paper ballots while precluding the very apparent problem of mail-in ballots and their harvesting which goes far beyond traditional grass roots politics.

Don't vote. Stay in your controlled, comfortable, right wing bubble of truth. Listen and consume only alt-right media sources, only associate with people who agree with your narrative. Remember, your vote doesn't count....so leave the rest of us in peace!

 

[postman]

Actually it's quite simple. Take the previous election, take the average wait time times the number of polling places, and that's the number you divide by the target number of hours to wait, and that yields the number of polling places you need.

That''s what happened in Arizona a few years ago. Then they got a flood of voters they were not expecting and others made this claim of disenfranchisement and racism. They had too many polls operating in previous elections so they closed one down and combined two of them together.

I should have been more specific. Thar formula is to be used in conjunction with a mathematical model of individual precincts. So it also involves the distribution of those polling places to the areas to be served.

Such as if a state required 100 polling places, you can't spread 99 throughout the state, and put only 1 in it's most populous city.

 

[candycorn]

This is obviously a very serious problem. My only hope is SCOTUS in that a national standard has to be set including voter ID and verifiable paper ballots while precluding the very apparent problem of mail-in ballots and their harvesting which goes far beyond traditional grass roots politics.

National voter registry & national voter id card. Both must be renewed on a regular basis. All registrations must be compared to deaths and incarcerations every year.
Once that card is used in an election as required that person can not vote again until the next election.

That would solve 90% or more of our problems.

But we don’t have a problem with dead people voting or people voting twice.

Have any republicans got away with it?

You guys want voter ids so poor people won’t get them and vote. I say mail in votes are the way in the future. If it was good enough for trump then it’s good enough for the rest of us.

How does requiring an ID disenfrancise anyone? If they are provided free of charge, and you have like 2 more years before the mid terms, plenty of time to get it done. If it is a way to ensure better vote security, how is that a bad thing?

Liberal racism. They think minorities are TOO STUPID to find a way down to the dmv in a two year period.

Voter IDs are so yesterday.

Republicans are going for other means of voter disenfranchisement since most people now have picture IDs

That is the real reason they're against vote-by-mail... they don't want people voting.

Thats far from the truth. Nobody wants to disenfranchise anyone and nobody wants to stop anyone from voting. That is something that liberal media keeps drilling into you folks.

What they do want is to make sure elections are honest and fair, they want to make sure nobody who isn't legally allowed to vote does vote and that ballots are not mailed to dead people, dogs, or people who have moved.

If you could ensure, without any doubt, proveably, that there would be no increased risk of fraud, I bet most Republicans would be all for it, after all, even Republicans like convenience.

Actually, someone here mentioned a way for those things to happen, its call block chain. They mentioned that it would be a way to do the mail in voting, and pretty much eliminate the risks. Would you be in favor of that? If not, why not?

After Biden is sworn in, I will post something in "Debate now" about my ideas for improving the voting system. I'll invite you to comment.

LOL... After he is sworn in eh ?? Nobody wants to hear from anyone who deals in the ways that the Democrat's deal. Save it for your fan base of maybe two or three here, because no one else gives a crap.

You're reading what I wrote but you don't want to hear from me?. Yeah, you're fucking nuts.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Democrats are clearly going to advocate for continued Mail In Balloting. In my opinion, this can only continue if the voter registration rolls are cleaned up. Voters need to be held regularly accountable for keeping their information updated and current. If they don’t, then they must be presumed to no longer living in the the district and therefore their name be purged. They are either dead, fake, moved, or don’t give a shit about voting. In none of these situations should their names be on the lists.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So it was 7-2 against taking the case, and 9-0 against granting any relief.

Oooh. So close to not being a biased ass. You didn't quite make it though.

You have no way of knowing what sort of remedy would have come out of the Texas suit, had the court
grown a spine and actually taken on the suit.

But you act like you do. Try acting like you are not a partisan weasel.

 

[postman]

That's besides the fact, if you're too lazy to vote, then you don't deserve to vote. Close down mail in voting with some exceptions.

Where is that in the constitution?

I'll go a step further. Disenfranchise the handicapped, and the lawmakers wouldn't put up all those handicapped parking spots, or ramps all over the place. Make it so hard to vote that lawmakers only cater to the determined voters.

 

[Slade3200]

Except Alito and Thomas what?! I must have missed their dissents. Can you post them because I can’t find them anywhere

Use your search engine.

I did search. No dissents, unless theres some hidden document you found in whichever sites you use to read lies and propaganda. Go ahead and post a link so I can learn about why these justices saw merit in Trumps case

Alito and Thomas dissented on the argument of whether or not they should accept the case, as a matter of the supreme court having original jurisdiction in matters between states.

But they also agreed with the majority that they would not grant them the injunctive relief they sought.

So it was 7-2 against taking the case, and 9-0 against granting any relief.

Well said... thank you

 

[Seawytch]

Actually it's quite simple. Take the previous election, take the average wait time times the number of polling places, and that's the number you divide by the target number of hours to wait, and that yields the number of polling places you need.

That''s what happened in Arizona a few years ago. Then they got a flood of voters they were not expecting and others made this claim of disenfranchisement and racism. They had too many polls operating in previous elections so they closed one down and combined two of them together.

Arizona fucked up big time. They closed hundreds of polling places. Phoenix closed 70% of their polling places.

Angry Arizona Voters Demand: Why Such Long Lines at Polling Sites? (Published 2016)

The long lines at Arizona polling places this week point toward potential problems ahead nationally at a time when 16 states will have new voting restrictions in place.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Haha, that’s a fake headline buddy. Do you ever read past the bold type?! What Alito said was not a dissent. They ALL dismissed Trumps case because it lacked constitutional merit. The only point that Alito and Thomas made was that other cases making similar claims would still be open to rulings and should not be dismissed on precedent. See for court cases to move forward they need actual evidence. Not just blowhards spouting lies in the media.

Now you show me where Alito and Thomas said anything remotely like that. Both Alito and Thomas thought the case had merit or they wouldn't have expressed the wish that the court accept the case.

For someone that lies with virtually every single post made you are a terrible liar.

 

[postman]

I can think of foolproof workarounds for the military

but I’m not going to ...

so no exceptions for anyone

This seems to be the argument that by restricting the vote to as few people as possible, those few that do vote, are likely to be republican.

If you let everybody eligible to vote, do so, then the majority is likely to be democrats.