Republican party sending out mailer in NC

[NewCreation435]

I received recently a mailer from the Republican party that such as the one pictured in this article

Voters in North Carolina have received absentee ballot request forms in the mail with Trump's face on them | CNN Politics

Given the crisis facing the United States Postal Service before a presidential election, the last thing John Herter expected to receive in the mail Saturday was an absentee ballot request form with President Donald Trump's face on it.

www.cnn.com

I thought it was reported that the President is against absentee or mail in voting, yet his party is promoting it in this state (North Carolina).
I threw mine away because if I do vote it will be in person. I have never done in the mail voting.
It was a little odd because I am also not a registered Republican and not a Trump supporter

 

[Lamb]

I received recently a mailer from the Republican party that such as the one pictured in this article

Voters in North Carolina have received absentee ballot request forms in the mail with Trump's face on them | CNN Politics

Given the crisis facing the United States Postal Service before a presidential election, the last thing John Herter expected to receive in the mail Saturday was an absentee ballot request form with President Donald Trump's face on it.

www.cnn.com

I thought it was reported that the President is against absentee or mail in voting, yet his party is promoting it in this state (North Carolina).
I threw mine away because if I do vote it will be in person. I have never done in the mail voting.
It was a little odd because I am also not a registered Republican and not a Trump supporter

That link you gave is about absentee ballots. Republicans are not against it. They're against the mass mail in ballots and there is a huge difference in security.

 

[NewCreation435]

That link you gave is about absentee ballots. Republicans are not against it. They're against the mass mail in ballots and there is a huge difference in security.

to my understanding, the only reason a person would be mailing in their ballot is if they were not going to be present to vote in person. I don't know what you mean by "Mass" mail in ballots and how that is different from a absentee ballot. From everything I have heard there is no actual proof that there is any issues with corruption or fraud. People have been mailing in ballots for years

 

[Lamb]

to my understanding, the only reason a person would be mailing in their ballot is if they were not going to be present to vote in person. I don't know what you mean by "Mass" mail in ballots and how that is different from a absentee ballot. From everything I have heard there is no actual proof that there is any issues with corruption or fraud. People have been mailing in ballots for years

The mass mailing is what the fuss is all about...it's never been about absentee ballots. Mass mailings are what governors want to do and that means that they will be mailing out a ballot to every person in their state so that they can fill it out and return it for their vote. There are no security or checks and balances enforced to make sure that it will be a valid vote! That's why there will be much fraud.

 

[Josiah]

1. In the People's Republic of California, there will be no "in person" voting, it's forbidden. And ballots will be mailed to ALL registered voters at the last known address; this different than in the past when all were sent voter info and in it was a request to vote by mail (no reason needed) - people could request that. By just mailing everyone a ballot, it is thought this will dramatically increase voter turnout in this one-party state where Democrats completely dominate. This is noted as a great advantage of this - it will mean a LOT of people who while registered often don't vote, well... with ballot in hand, perhaps they will. This will make no difference in the presidental election (the devil himself would win here if he/she/it had a "D" after their name), it is thought it will make a difference "down ticket" for those few areas where the Republican might actually have a reason to be on the ballot. The assumption by Democrats is that most of the registered but disinterested/uninformed voters will vote for the Democrat. And that's probably true.

In states that still have two parties, the same strategy will probably impact the presidential election, if the Democrat's assumption holds true there, too... that the uninformed/disinterested voter who otherwise would skip this election is likely to vote for Biden if handed a ballot and can vote easily at home.


2. I think the "problem" some have with this approach is not so much a problem with the US Postal Service but with registration. Sadly people stay registered after they die.... and with Motor Voter and other things, the list of "registered" voters contains folks who should not be voting (perhaps because they're dead). In the past, that dead person had to REQUEST a ballot.... now they'll just get one.... but to what extent this will encourage even more fraud isn't known.


None of this matters much in typical elections.... but when it's close (as it's been in some presidental elections in the past 50 years), it may well be the deciding factor. When things are within 1-2%, which way the fraud leans may be the determining factor.





.

 

[tango]

People like to claim that Trump is saying, without evidence (stress the accusatory tone of the "without evidence") that there will be fraud. To argue otherwise is like arguing that giving someone who normally earns $10/hour an unemployment boost of $15/hour on top of their unemployment won't discourage them from going back to work. Because, you know, if you have the choice between going to work for $10/hour or staying home for maybe $20-22/hour any thinking person will go to work, right?

In one of the NJ primaries they rejected 20% of the mailed in ballots for one irregularity or another. This came up in another thread and I think it was hedrick who posted a pie chart showing the percentage of rejected ballots based on the reason they were rejected. It's well known that USPS isn't the most efficient delivery service imaginable so it's hardly a huge leap of faith to figure some ballots will go missing in the mail. The "hanging chad" issue from 2000 could easily become the "smudged postmark" issue of 2020, which leads to a whole host of other questions. If what matters is when a vote is delivered, any postal worker in a swing state could make an impact on the election by "losing" a box of mail that was likely to support the candidate they would prefer to lose. If it showed up after the election, gee, that's too bad. If what matters is when it was postmarked, how long after election day does the election remain open in case new ballots turn up? If that box of mail appears shortly after the inauguration of the new president, despite containing enough votes to change the outcome of the election, what happens then?

If I recall in the 2000 election both FL and NM went to Bush with margins of under 1000 and under 200. Rejecting 20% of the vote in even a sleepy small town could swing an entire state if the overall margin of victory is less than 200.

Just recently Fauci was quoted as saying it's safe to vote in person. But apparently one party thinks it's necessary to not vote in person. Curiously, it's the same party who insists we "trust the experts".

 

[tango]

1. In the People's Republic of California, there will be no "in person" voting, it's forbidden. And ballots will be mailed to ALL registered voters at the last known address; this different than in the past when all were sent voter info and in it was a request to vote by mail (no reason needed) - people could request that. By just mailing everyone a ballot, it is thought this will dramatically increase voter turnout in this one-party state where Democrats completely dominate. This is noted as a great advantage of this - it will mean a LOT of people who while registered often don't vote, well... with ballot in hand, perhaps they will. This will make no difference in the presidental election (the devil himself would win here if he/she/it had a "D" after their name), it is thought it will make a difference "down ticket" for those few areas where the Republican might actually have a reason to be on the ballot. The assumption by Democrats is that most of the registered but disinterested/uninformed voters will vote for the Democrat. And that's probably true.

In states that still have two parties, the same strategy will probably impact the presidential election, if the Democrat's assumption holds true there, too... that the uninformed/disinterested voter who otherwise would skip this election is likely to vote for Biden if handed a ballot and can vote easily at home.


2. I think the "problem" some have with this approach is not so much a problem with the US Postal Service but with registration. Sadly people stay registered after they die.... and with Motor Voter and other things, the list of "registered" voters contains folks who should not be voting (perhaps because they're dead). In the past, that dead person had to REQUEST a ballot.... now they'll just get one.... but to what extent this will encourage even more fraud isn't known.


None of this matters much in typical elections.... but when it's close (as it's been in some presidental elections in the past 50 years), it may well be the deciding factor. When things are within 1-2%, which way the fraud leans may be the determining factor.





.

You would have thought that the most basic elements of running an election properly would include things like:

1. Only people eligible to vote actually vote
2. People confirm their eligibility to vote before voting
3. Each voter gets one and only one vote

Sadly (1) seems to fall by the wayside for the reasons you mention above, and ongoing issues regarding registering to vote and verifying eligibility. (2) falls by the wayside because apparently it's racist to have to prove you are the person on the voting card - for reasons that remain unclear only whitey finds it easy to get photo ID and the poor brown ones can't do it even given four years notice. (3) also falls by the wayside if voting cards are sent out to everyone because you never know who is filling in the votes for people who should never have received a card in the first place. That said, maybe this will be the first election that dead people start voting Republican.

 

[NewCreation435]

People like to claim that Trump is saying, without evidence (stress the accusatory tone of the "without evidence") that there will be fraud. To argue otherwise is like arguing that giving someone who normally earns $10/hour an unemployment boost of $15/hour on top of their unemployment won't discourage them from going back to work. Because, you know, if you have the choice between going to work for $10/hour or staying home for maybe $20-22/hour any thinking person will go to work, right?

In one of the NJ primaries they rejected 20% of the mailed in ballots for one irregularity or another. This came up in another thread and I think it was hedrick who posted a pie chart showing the percentage of rejected ballots based on the reason they were rejected. It's well known that USPS isn't the most efficient delivery service imaginable so it's hardly a huge leap of faith to figure some ballots will go missing in the mail. The "hanging chad" issue from 2000 could easily become the "smudged postmark" issue of 2020, which leads to a whole host of other questions. If what matters is when a vote is delivered, any postal worker in a swing state could make an impact on the election by "losing" a box of mail that was likely to support the candidate they would prefer to lose. If it showed up after the election, gee, that's too bad. If what matters is when it was postmarked, how long after election day does the election remain open in case new ballots turn up? If that box of mail appears shortly after the inauguration of the new president, despite containing enough votes to change the outcome of the election, what happens then?

If I recall in the 2000 election both FL and NM went to Bush with margins of under 1000 and under 200. Rejecting 20% of the vote in even a sleepy small town could swing an entire state if the overall margin of victory is less than 200.

Just recently Fauci was quoted as saying it's safe to vote in person. But apparently one party thinks it's necessary to not vote in person. Curiously, it's the same party who insists we "trust the experts".

If Trump isn't claiming there will be voter fraud why is a federal judge in Pennslyvania asking the Trump administration to back up his claims that there will be?

Judge orders Trump campaign to produce evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania - ABC17NEWS

A federal judge in Pennsylvania told the Trump campaign and the Republican Party that they must produce evidence they have of vote-by-mail fraud in the state by Friday. The judge’s order, in a high-profile case about vote-by-mail in the battleground state, essentially forces the Trump campaign...

abc17news.com

 

[tango]

If Trump isn't claiming there will be voter fraud why is a federal judge in Pennslyvania asking the Trump administration to back up his claims that there will be?

Judge orders Trump campaign to produce evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania - ABC17NEWS

A federal judge in Pennsylvania told the Trump campaign and the Republican Party that they must produce evidence they have of vote-by-mail fraud in the state by Friday. The judge’s order, in a high-profile case about vote-by-mail in the battleground state, essentially forces the Trump campaign...

abc17news.com

I never said Trump wasn't claiming there would be voter fraud. My focus was on the people who claim that he is making a claim without evidence.

I think that a 20% rejection rate in NJ primaries provides concern enough that the election could end up being decided by those who determine whether a vote is valid rather than the number of votes cast. I forget who the quote was attributed to but there's at least some truth to the adage that it doesn't matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes.

 

[tango]

More Than 550,000 Primary Absentee Ballots Rejected In 2020, Far Outpacing 2016

Tens of thousands of ballots have been rejected in key battleground states, where the outcome in November for the presidency and other races could be determined by a small number of votes.

www.npr.org

It looks like this year's presidential election could easily be determined as much by the ballot rejection rate as how many votes are actually cast. At this rate we might as well just have the US mint strike a special coin with Trump's head on one side and Biden's on the other, and then flip the coin.