A River of Doubt Runs Through Mail Voting in Montana

[Steeleballz 7,550]

32 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Yeah, I am sure it was all because of the pandemic.  Voting is a right for all citizens, but with that right comes some level of responsibility for the person voting.  For instance if your daughter did not respond and fixed her ballot within the timeframe given, should that vote have been counted regardless?   Should the timeframe to correct a ballot be unlimited up until the day of the election?  I know the news media wants to portray any law passed to either strengthen election integrity or otherwise as being voter suppression, but having to actually prove one is legally able to vote should be one of the checks.  Heck, Old Joe and his media acolytes really pressed the whole water at the polls in GA, and when you read the law, it was simply restricting electioneering which I assume you would support.

 

   I think we have asked this question before. Is it constitutional to have a time constraint that infringes on a constitutional right? 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Neonred said:

I was never great with English, but not bad with math.

Just saying if the margin of victory was 80 million then this was the largest landslide victory ever.

 

  There is never a largest. There's always one more decimal place to move.

 

  Actually it was just part of a joke, but it took place across several threads. There has been some inconsistency observed in the way some people were rounding and we had some fun with that.

[Dashinka 24,629]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I think we have asked this question before. Is it constitutional to have a time constraint that infringes on a constitutional right? 

So voting never ends?  Doesn't make any sense as I believe the polls do close at some point in most states.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So voting never ends?  Doesn't make any sense as I believe the polls do close at some point in most states.

 

  Well it would have to end by the certification deadline. So perhaps then, time constraints are not unconstitutional, as long as they don't unduly infringe on people's ability to avail themselves of their rights.

[Dashinka 24,629]

31 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Well it would have to end by the certification deadline. So perhaps then, time constraints are not unconstitutional, as long as they don't unduly infringe on people's ability to avail themselves of their rights.

Just looking at all the constraints placed on other constitutional rights, I guess it is not out of the realm of possibility.  That being said, this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that polls closing on election day at a specific time, or deadlines for submitting absentee ballots is perhaps unconstitutional.

 

[TBoneTX 45,572]

So much of this debate, and the issue of fraudulent votes, could be settled if each jurisdiction thoroughly confirmed its voter-registration lists every other odd-numbered year, and made verified/verifiable updates throughout.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

43 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

So much of this debate, and the issue of fraudulent votes, could be settled if each jurisdiction thoroughly confirmed its voter-registration lists every other odd-numbered year, and made verified/verifiable updates throughout.

 

  That shouldn't be required. Anything that applies to restricting voting rights should be able to apply to any other constitutional rights. How do you feel about gun owner registration lists updated every other year and verifiable updates throughout? Should you only have the right to free speech as long as your are registered to speak freely at your current address?

 

   A simple method of checking would be a federal database that flags any duplicate vote. They screwed that up royally the last time they tried, but It should be workable with today's technology.

[TBoneTX 45,572]

Not quite the same thing.  No one can shoot in the name of a dead gun-owner, and the fraud wouldn't have a payoff.  Eliminate dead, moved-away, and other objectively ineligible names from the rolls, that's all.

[Ban Hammer 13,421]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  That shouldn't be required. Anything that applies to restricting voting rights should be able to apply to any other constitutional rights. How do you feel about gun owner registration lists updated every other year and verifiable updates throughout? Should you only have the right to free speech as long as your are registered to speak freely at your current address?

 

   A simple method of checking would be a federal database that flags any duplicate vote. They screwed that up royally the last time they tried, but It should be workable with today's technology.

that's a whole lot of false equivalence you have there. 
and the federal database is laughable. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

22 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

that's a whole lot of false equivalence you have there. 
and the federal database is laughable. 

 

   The equivalence is not false. If one right can be restricted and/or taken away from law abiding citizens because a few people have done something illegal, then other rights can be subjected to the same kinds of restrictions. Obviously you are passionate about your own favorite rights, but some of us do believe all the other amendments are just as important as the second. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you can use to screw people over.

 

   

 

   

  

 

 

[Ban Hammer 13,421]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The equivalence is not false. If one right can be restricted and/or taken away from law abiding citizens because a few people have done something illegal, then other rights can be subjected to the same kinds of restrictions. Obviously you are passionate about your own favorite rights, but some of us do believe all the other amendments are just as important as the second. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you can use to screw people over.

 

 

i'll agree to not showing id to vote when i don't have to show it to buy a firearm.

[Dashinka 24,629]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The equivalence is not false. If one right can be restricted and/or taken away from law abiding citizens because a few people have done something illegal, then other rights can be subjected to the same kinds of restrictions. Obviously you are passionate about your own favorite rights, but some of us do believe all the other amendments are just as important as the second. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you can use to screw people over.

 

   

 

   

  

 

 

And all the amendments are being restricted in some fashion.  Heck, if the Dems pass a huge voting takeover law where elections will be federalized, the 10th amendment would be the same as toilet paper.  I do love the Dems trashing voter ID laws and saying they are essentially racist, are they saying minorities are not capable of getting some form of ID that they need for almost all other federal or state programs such as buying a firearm, or applying for student aid?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

And all the amendments are being restricted in some fashion.  Heck, if the Dems pass a huge voting takeover law where elections will be federalized, the 10th amendment would be the same as toilet paper.  I do love the Dems trashing voter ID laws and saying they are essentially racist, are they saying minorities are not capable of getting some form of ID that they need for almost all other federal or state programs such as buying a firearm, or applying for student aid?

 

  Perhaps if conservatives hadn't already spent so many years and so many different ways attempting to suppress peoples votes, we wouldn't see these kinds of reactions when it looks like they are doing it again. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

i'll agree to not showing id to vote when i don't have to show it to buy a firearm.

 

  It's never been about proving one's identity to vote. It's been about the restrictions or barriers put in place to do so. Maybe what we should be looking at is why a state passes a law allowing concealed carry permits to be used as voter ID, but decides university student ID's cannot be used to vote. There's a reason certain states have been doing this and it's the same reason so many of these laws end up getting struck down in the end. They are discriminatory.

[Dashinka 24,629]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Perhaps if conservatives hadn't already spent so many years and so many different ways attempting to suppress peoples votes, we wouldn't see these kinds of reactions when it looks like they are doing it again. 

But the Conservatives are all racists according to the Dems.  It is so funny listening to all the hand wringing over the new voting law in GA, when the only thing people bring up is the tighter stance against electioneering.  Interesting how that all works, but I guess it is the uninformed culture of the day.