7 ms·

What does your voting via provisional ballot have to do with anything? Here’s the rules for provisional voting. You’ll note that it has to do with whether or n

What does your voting via provisional ballot have to do with anything? Here’s the rules for provisional voting. You’ll note that it has to do with whether or not you appear on the voting roll in the location you show up to. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/provisional-voting https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/provisiona... It’s “provisional” because it’s only counted once they verify you’re registered to vote and haven’t already voted. It’s already the case that you usually don’t need to show voter ID at the polls in CA. This law would prevent every dipshit city council from enacting their own rules, i.e. it keeps things sane. I thought guys like you preferred smaller government and fewer rules? No idea what you’re going on about with China

proc0 2y ago
The claim is that they check AFTER you casted your vote, whether or not you are registered, but that does not foster confidence in the results... unless we are to believe that all this verification is done extremely quickly and efficiently which is hard to believe. My question would be who exactly is verifying the process of verifying the votes after they are casted, and do people need to go through lengthy legal processes through courts in order to challenge it? If you want to have secure elections, allowing anyone to vote and checking afterward is at best ineffiicient and at worst allows for mistakes and potential fraud that then takes a lengthy legal process in order double check the results... and by that time it could be too late as it would be seen as anti-democratic to question the results. Basically this is all making it a lot harder to trust results in a timely fashion.
- seo-speedwagon 2y ago
  Oh HELL yeah dude, now you’re talking my language. If we’re talking about how much faith we should have in our electoral process, “extremely skeptical at best” is a charitable position. But penny-ante voter fraud is a distraction; incidents are very low and it’s almost always some right wing nut casting a ballot as their dead mom or whatever. The real disenfranchisement happens before a vote is even cast. Parties gerrymandering their districts to hell and back, big purges of “inactive” voters from rolls, candidates colluding to box out opposition from outsiders, massive dark money PACs essentially bribing politicians in broad daylight or serving as effectively personal slush funds, the first-past-the-post system ensuring effective duopoly of political parties, the entire structure being profoundly anti-democratic (why is there an electoral college and not just popular vote? why should someone from Wyoming’s vote count for 10+x my vote thanks to how senators are apportioned? Etc). This shit is just red meat for both sides. BUT, that said, it is overall a good thing to not let local municipalities set up their own bullshit rules on top of all this.
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    >"Oh dude you're talking my language" >Immediately handwaves the point away and changes topics You are the anti-discussion.
    - seo-speedwagon 2y ago
      proc0’s concern was “trusting the results” an election and how this law would impact that. I addressed it in multiple ways: 1. I pointed out that the original concern r.e. provisional ballots is unrelated to this law. 2. I also pointed out that the law codifies existing practice and prevents local municipalities from setting arbitrary rules. This does not loosen any existing practices. 3. And finally I commented on how much larger structural issues than individuals committing voter fraud contribute more towards legitimate mistrust of electoral processes. Feel free to actually comment on any of that if you get bored of scolding and snipping at me.
  - proc0 2y ago
    Sure, we can build a bridge here. I'm not convinced voter fraud is such a "distraction" or insignificant because 1) there is a ton of concern about this with multiple court cases etc., and 2) precisely because there isn't as much transparency in the process of verifying election results. That said, I'm all for fixing most, if not all, of the things you mentioned. I'm just adding one more to that list. Additionally, considering the context of this thread, it's not so much about advocating for voter ID, as much as questioning why it was banned completely from the state.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > I'm not convinced voter fraud is such a "distraction" or insignificant because 1) there is a ton of concern about this with multiple court cases etc. I'm not in the US, I don't care for US politics, however .. Wasn't it the case that one side (Trump's Republicans) bought more than a hundred voter fraud allegations before the courts? Wasn't it the case that not a single one of these cases found in favour of the plaintiffs? That many, if not most, were rejected for lack of any evidence of any real substance? Was it not the case that a number of high profile not-Trump Repuublicans were on record stating this was large a giant waste of time and total BS? Is there any actual solid evidence of actual significant voter fraud that actually took place (aside from a handful of Republicans making single additinal votes in names of their relatives to "prove" it possible) that was accepted by a Court? (ie. none of that 2000 Mules batshit conspiracy fiction)

proc0 2y ago

The claim is that they check AFTER you casted your vote, whether or not you are registered, but that does not foster confidence in the results... unless we are to believe that all this verification is done extremely quickly and efficiently which is hard to believe. My question would be who exactly is verifying the process of verifying the votes after they are casted, and do people need to go through lengthy legal processes through courts in order to challenge it? If you want to have secure elections, allowing anyone to vote and checking afterward is at best ineffiicient and at worst allows for mistakes and potential fraud that then takes a lengthy legal process in order double check the results... and by that time it could be too late as it would be seen as anti-democratic to question the results. Basically this is all making it a lot harder to trust results in a timely fashion.

seo-speedwagon 2y ago
Oh HELL yeah dude, now you’re talking my language. If we’re talking about how much faith we should have in our electoral process, “extremely skeptical at best” is a charitable position. But penny-ante voter fraud is a distraction; incidents are very low and it’s almost always some right wing nut casting a ballot as their dead mom or whatever. The real disenfranchisement happens before a vote is even cast. Parties gerrymandering their districts to hell and back, big purges of “inactive” voters from rolls, candidates colluding to box out opposition from outsiders, massive dark money PACs essentially bribing politicians in broad daylight or serving as effectively personal slush funds, the first-past-the-post system ensuring effective duopoly of political parties, the entire structure being profoundly anti-democratic (why is there an electoral college and not just popular vote? why should someone from Wyoming’s vote count for 10+x my vote thanks to how senators are apportioned? Etc). This shit is just red meat for both sides. BUT, that said, it is overall a good thing to not let local municipalities set up their own bullshit rules on top of all this.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  >"Oh dude you're talking my language" >Immediately handwaves the point away and changes topics You are the anti-discussion.
  - seo-speedwagon 2y ago
    proc0’s concern was “trusting the results” an election and how this law would impact that. I addressed it in multiple ways: 1. I pointed out that the original concern r.e. provisional ballots is unrelated to this law. 2. I also pointed out that the law codifies existing practice and prevents local municipalities from setting arbitrary rules. This does not loosen any existing practices. 3. And finally I commented on how much larger structural issues than individuals committing voter fraud contribute more towards legitimate mistrust of electoral processes. Feel free to actually comment on any of that if you get bored of scolding and snipping at me.
- proc0 2y ago
  Sure, we can build a bridge here. I'm not convinced voter fraud is such a "distraction" or insignificant because 1) there is a ton of concern about this with multiple court cases etc., and 2) precisely because there isn't as much transparency in the process of verifying election results. That said, I'm all for fixing most, if not all, of the things you mentioned. I'm just adding one more to that list. Additionally, considering the context of this thread, it's not so much about advocating for voter ID, as much as questioning why it was banned completely from the state.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > I'm not convinced voter fraud is such a "distraction" or insignificant because 1) there is a ton of concern about this with multiple court cases etc. I'm not in the US, I don't care for US politics, however .. Wasn't it the case that one side (Trump's Republicans) bought more than a hundred voter fraud allegations before the courts? Wasn't it the case that not a single one of these cases found in favour of the plaintiffs? That many, if not most, were rejected for lack of any evidence of any real substance? Was it not the case that a number of high profile not-Trump Repuublicans were on record stating this was large a giant waste of time and total BS? Is there any actual solid evidence of actual significant voter fraud that actually took place (aside from a handful of Republicans making single additinal votes in names of their relatives to "prove" it possible) that was accepted by a Court? (ie. none of that 2000 Mules batshit conspiracy fiction)