Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Should states be adjusting voting laws for November’s election?

Poll - Total Votes: 6
Yes
No
Something else and I will comment with my proposal
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
I’ve in favor of every state sending a voting package automatically to everyone who is a US citizen which includes voter registration forms and a ballot and a return envelope that self seals, no licking. Send out six weeks before election. Cutoff return date three weeks before election date. Announce results on election date. I’d have no prepaid returns, voters add their own return stamps. Eliminate voting in person. Work on an online OPTION elections.

I think everyone should automatically get a complete mail voting and registration package in one shot and not just those who specifically request it. The onus on filling out the paperwork and sending it back is on the citizen. Doesn’t seem like a huge burden for citizens.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
beckyromero · 36-40, F
I mostly agree.

I'd make election day the postmark cut off date.

Have Post Offices stay open late with drive-thru drop-offs like once existed on tax day before e-filing took over.

Pre-paid mail. No stamp needed. The state election divisions will be saving money by not needing as many poling places open. Have some open for people who need to vote with a provisional ballot.

Online voting? No way. We are nowhere near where we need to be to do that securely.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
If the deadline is an Election Day postmark the results are final who knows when. I think people want results on Election Day hence the timings on my suggestion. Those time limits could be adjusted obviously I just made a suggestion. @beckyromero
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@jackjjackson [quote]Those time limits could be adjusted obviously I just made a suggestion.[/quote]

OK, must be postmarked by election [u]and[/u] receieved no later than a week later.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Must be received two weeks before Election Day so results are announced on Election Day. @beckyromero
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@jackjjackson

Official results are never announced on Election Day even now.

Secretaries of State and other election officials can get it done.

They used to count all the paper ballots and we had reasonable results on election night. Should be no difference with paper mail in ballots.
@beckyromero Online voting can be done securely. The technology is there. I'm all for it.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone

Putin's all for it, too, since there's no paper backup for online voting.
@beckyromero There's no paper backup for online bank transactions either. No banks have folded because of it.

There is a security infrastructure that can be put in place beyond what banks use.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone [quote]There's no paper backup for online bank transactions either. [/quote]

Really?

That's funny. I get a receipt after my transactions. I also get a monthly statement in the mail.
@beckyromero That's not what I thought you meant by paper backup but if that's mean, that can easily be done and done securely.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone

The individual machines at individual polling precinct would print a paper ballot for each voter (keeping anonymity) to confirm which then gets put into a sealed voter ballot box.

If the results from the electronic vote are lost or if they are suspected to have been tampered with (hacked), there would be the paper results to fall back on.
@beckyromero You are not old enough to remember the 2000 presidential election in Florida. There were paper ballots. Counting them by hand takes far too long.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone [quote]You are not old enough to remember the 2000 presidential election in Florida.[/quote]

Of course I was.

I was in high school.

[quote]There were paper ballots. Counting them by hand takes far too long[/quote]

Send them to Chicago.

We'll teach 'em how to count ballots.
@beckyromero I was talking about online voting from home, not from precinct voting polls.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone [quote] I was talking about online voting from home,[/quote]

I know. And that's the problem.

There's no paper backup for election officials.
@beckyromero Paper is just a medium, like discs or tape. A secure backup system can be employed that uses a medium better than paper.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone

The difference is that the paper ballot results [b]are confirmed by the individual voter[/b] before being inserted into a secure ballot box that can't be tampered with [b]and can serve as a BACKUP[/b] to electronic voting at the precinct.
@beckyromero 1. There would never be enough time to count them if the electronic system went out.

2. There are ways to have a simple, secure, readable, electronic backup that is tamper proof.

3. A paper printout can even be made immediately of each vote.

I know all of this because IT is my field. I've help design and manage other systems with backup that would easily work with voting.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
We are a long ways from being ready for secure online voting. Voting by mail with as much security as possible is better than no voting. @beckyromero @quitwhendone
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
What happened in Iowa? @quitwhendone
@jackjjackson The technology exists now. I don't know what Iowa's issue was exactly but it was in the aggregation of the votes from the precincts, not the voting at the precincts.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone [quote]There would never be enough time to count them if the electronic system went out.[/quote]

How do you think we counted votes before the computer was invented?
@beckyromero Mechanical machines. In Florida, 2000, they ran out of time counting paper ballots after the election.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone

They didn't "run out of time."

It was because Al Gore requested a statewide recount that wasn't necessary as only a few counties had problems - and only requested the statewide recount [i]after [/i]the few counties that had problems didn't give him enough votes to win.

That wouldn't have happened in Chicago.
@beckyromero Yes, and those few counties ran out of time. The state had to certify the results and send electors to the electoral college before the recount was completed. It was a painstakingly slow process.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@quitwhendone

SCOTUS stopped the recount when Gore wanted [b]the whole state[/b] recounted.

The problem was determining voter intent with a [b]hand recount[/b]. That's what slowed the process. Not the machines.