USian Mid-term elections - Here we go again!

[IglooDame]

1. Because of laws saying voting can only be done between certain dates (not too early, not late/after election day). You can argue what's wrong with voting too early, but voting too late should be a reasonable limit.

2. I dont understand it either, I always thought most military votes were republican.

My gut suspicion is because either #1 the people are stupid and just trying to reduce ballot counts (and increase the "bad ballot" totals) by any means necessary, or #2 the people are smart and advance polling has shown that while most military votes are Republican, the military has a lot more anti-MAGA GOPers so the net counts are probably Dem-leaning this year.

 

[Bamspeedy]

My gut suspicion is because either #1 the people are stupid and just trying to reduce ballot counts (and increase the "bad ballot" totals) by any means necessary, or #2 the people are smart and advance polling has shown that while most military votes are Republican, the military has a lot more anti-MAGA GOPers so the net counts are probably Dem-leaning this year.

Yes, obviously they are trying to throw out ballots, under the assumption more democrat votes will be tossed than republican (despite some results from last election showed 'heavy republican' areas had the same (or more) 'bad ballots' than 'heavy democrat' areas.

It's not a bad idea to have rules for the date being properly filled out, but it's a really bad look when "We always previously allowed the officials to contact the voter (when possible) to fix the date issues before the election is over so their vote is counted. But now that we lost we are going to not allow that anymore" (or worse: "That should have always been illegal, so we are going to have the (republican controlled) legislature decide the results of the election, disregarding any vote tally", which thankfully was only proposed by few individuals, failed in court and doesn't have mass republican support).

 

[Bamspeedy]

Voted today.

After dropping off kids at school headed to the polling station....or where I thought it was. It moved from a church to city hall. Never would have worked at the old city hall, but new one isn't that bad. Not as large as the church (and much smaller parking lot), but the line went faster. In and out in 10 minutes (at the church two years ago it was 40 minutes). Fewer voters than last election, people not knowing the new location (I saw a few others turning around at the church like I did), are some possible explanations of smaller crowd.

When at the wrong polling station I was near walmart, so stopped there. Walmart crowd was way smaller than the normal 8 AM weekday, so thought "Uh, oh, it's because everyone is out voting, so the line is going to be massive", but that wasn't the case.

Near the polling location (100 feet from entrance) they had a petition to repeal the 1849 abortion law in Wisconsin that went back into effect with Roe vs Wade being overturned.

Machine you put the ballots in was temporarily jammed or something so it was opened with some lady freeing the paper jam or whatever the issue was. (machine was in middle of room with voters on all sides, so any nefarious actions would have been seen, so nothing suspect.)

 

[livinginaz]

It's not a bad idea to have rules for the date being properly filled out, but it's a really bad look when "We always previously allowed the officials to contact the voter (when possible) to fix the date issues before the election is over so their vote is counted. But now that we lost we are going to not allow that anymore" (or worse: "That should have always been illegal, so we are going to have the (republican controlled) legislature decide the results of the election, disregarding any vote tally", which thankfully was only proposed by few individuals, failed in court and doesn't have mass republican support).

Not sure what other states’ mail-in ballots look like, but here in PA they are marked in multiple spots on multiple pages that you must fill the date out. It requires a serious lack of attention to miss it, especially when it’s in the same sentence as the secrecy envelope instruction. I’m surprised there are enough ballots with missing dates for this to be an issue. I guess reading instructions is out of date.

In any event I do believe the election office should work to correct invalid ballots because I think having the votes counted is crucial, it’s just that the office should only do so by having the voter verify that they made the mistake. Again here in PA the election office is good about that. My father failed to put his ballot in the secrecy envelope and he was able to correct the issue without having to vote again in person. Just wish he would read the instructions the first time…

 

[uppi]

1. Because of laws saying voting can only be done between certain dates (not too early, not late/after election day). You can argue what's wrong with voting too early, but voting too late should be a reasonable limit.

I don't see any reason at all to limit voting "too early". There is a natural limit set by when you receive the ballot.

Voting to late needs a limit, sure, but the limit should be set by determining the arrival date, or date of the postage stamp. Some date on the ballot itself should be completely irrelevant.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Not sure what other states’ mail-in ballots look like, but here in PA they are marked in multiple spots on multiple pages that you must fill the date out. It requires a serious lack of attention to miss it, especially when it’s in the same sentence as the secrecy envelope instruction. I’m surprised there are enough ballots with missing dates for this to be an issue. I guess reading instructions is out of date.

In any event I do believe the election office should work to correct invalid ballots because I think having the votes counted is crucial, it’s just that the office should only do so by having the voter verify that they made the mistake. Again here in PA the election office is good about that. My father failed to put his ballot in the secrecy envelope and he was able to correct the issue without having to vote again in person. Just wish he would read the instructions the first time…

When instructions are several pages long, people treat it like a 'Terms of Service' document and skim it (if they look at it at all).

Even if 0.1% of ballots are 'bad', that can be thousands and thousands of votes. Usually doesn't affect the results, but loser won't look at it that way, and exaggerate with "all thrown out votes were for my candidate", and in the extreme cases "I found one improper vote, that means even though I lost by hundreds of thousands of votes, I should have won" ("1 found bad vote surely means there were more, even though I can't give you a number to how many there were....or the number is more than the number I lost by")

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Me & my wife voted today. Voting is a no brainer here. Firstly we live in one of the most competitive districts in the country (Michigan's 3rd) where it could conceivably come down to a single vote. Similarly Michigan overall is pretty purple these days, so the governors race will be competitive. Secondly the Michigan Republican party is full of election deniers and conspiracy theorists this year. For example John Gibbs in the third district is an election denier, and who has said he thinks women having the vote was a mistake. While Tudor Dixon is also an election denier, who believes in a ban on abortion with absolutely no exceptions. Depressingly Trafalgar group released a poll today showing Tudor Dixon ahead of Gretchen Witmer.
Voting was very easy, no queue, took just a few minutes. The only delay was me getting obsessive about filling in the ovals perfectly. I voted for mostly Democrats and Greens (though also for one person from the working class party). I am not actually inherently against voting for Republicans, the problem is as soon as I grow to like a candidate they either quit (see Justin Amash) or get primaried (see Peter Meijer).

 

[JollyRoger]

I voted mainly Democratic, except for a couple of judges where I think that the current office holder should not be on the bench. Saved some -2's for Edmund Ironside for later.

 

[Lexicus]

doesn't have mass republican support).

Yet millions of Republicans are going to vote for candidates for state legislatures who do believe this. So what is the basis for concluding it doesn't have mass Republican support?

I probably won't bother to vote, can't vote for anyone in Congress and don't care about my local races very much. Muriel Bowser is just going to win again regardless.

 

[mitsho]

1. Because of laws saying voting can only be done between certain dates (not too early, not late/after election day). You can argue what's wrong with voting too early, but voting too late should be a reasonable limit.

2. I dont understand it either, I always thought most military votes were republican.

Then simply don't distribute the ballots before it's allowed to vote. That's how it is here. They get sent out 4 weeks in advance or so And too late, well you simply stop opening the envelopes that arrive too late and mark them.

The thing is, it's just such a stupid reason to invalidate votes. Voting should be easy and without hurdles. You want to have as many people participating as possible. As easy as the experiences described in this thread. Unfortunately, this is probably a very affluent white experience and I'm guessing we will see longer lines elsewhere. So much for that

 

[Bamspeedy]

Yet millions of Republicans are going to vote for candidates for state legislatures who do believe this. So what is the basis for concluding it doesn't have mass Republican support?

Didn't know all voters vote for a party because of whatever issue you decide to pick on for a given week.

PolitiFact - Are state legislators really seeking power to overrule the voters?

In a speech on voting rights in Philadelphia, President Joe Biden vowed that his administration would fight back against

www.politifact.com

I voted mostly Democrat, though I did throw the republicans a couple votes (uncontested local races).

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

The thing is, it's just such a stupid reason to invalidate votes. Voting should be easy and without hurdles. You want to have as many people participating as possible. As easy as the experiences described in this thread.

you have to understand that THAT has been a matter of contention among republicans for...well my adult life at least.
they are philosophically at odds with the idea of absentee voting unless it is "absolutely necessary", however one wishes to define that.

most democrats believe oppositely.

I know a lot of people think the voter laws should be a-political, but not even they are really safe.

 

[uppi]

The thing is, it's just such a stupid reason to invalidate votes. Voting should be easy and without hurdles. You want to have as many people participating as possible.

In a functioning democracy, yes. At this point, the US is not really one of those.

 

[RobAnybody]

I voted earlier this morning in North Carolina. Not very crowded, but I was there a little before 8:00 AM EST so not surprising - that's usually what I observe even for the Presidential elections. Voted straight Democrat - mainly because at the state/federal level that was a no-brainer & at the local level I live in one of the very few highly-Dem concentrated areas of the state so it was mostly unopposed Democrats running. Not terribly optimistic for the results tonight, but who knows?

We didn't have any ballot initiatives here, fwiw.

 

[amadeus]

Like we're not even past page one and it's like "one side literally says how they're going to cheat, but it's lazy and typical if the other side complains about that". Gonna be a fun thread

I had only looked into my local constituency and not beyond. Not defending that guy’s statement but just trying to give you my frame of reference.

 

[Arwon]

1) Why do ballots need dates on them? What use would that be? I mean the election and everything can be pre-printed on the ballot.
2) Republicans try to throw out military votes. Isn‘t that an own goal? Or is the goal just to throw doubt on the election in general?

With that said, the state of Democracy in the US is pitiful and only one question remains for me:

3) Are there OECD-election observers present? People from the international community that make sure the election is free and fair? You know, the ones the US insists on in other countries and which even proven democracies allow. I‘m guessing the US thinks again it is better than everyone else.

EDIT: ah found, it, 57 observers will be present, far fewer than necessary: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/us/politics/midterms-osce-election-voting.html

A lot of coverage of elections in the US really struggles to keep in mind that many of the key races are borderline rigged by voter suppression and outright disenfranchisement. The sort of stuff that in other countries would be described by foreign correspondents as "marred by irregularities" and "criticised by civil society observers". When it gets mentioned at all, the running legal battles about literally throwing ballots away and not allowing people to vote are just treated as mundane horse race tactics with no questioning of why these sorts of things are so commonplace.

 

[Remorseless1]

A few months ago, Republican Kansas voted 60-40 to keep abortion legal in the Sunflower State. The world is closing out a third year of a pandemic that has clogged the economy and upended education in unprecedented ways. A major war has been grinding on for eight months. Georgia will CONTINUE to have a black US Senator -- Georgia, the home of Stone Mountain! America has high inflation AND impressive gains in employment. And oh yeah, A former president tried to overthrow the government.

It's impossible to really make rational predictions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm thinking NM will be all blue this go around. The GOP has one house seat hope.

 

[Cutlass]

All the races I can vote in are likely safely blue.

 

[RobAnybody]

It's not looking... terrible for the Dems, right? I mean, not looking awesome, but not terrible? I'm hoping the lack of conversation is people holding their breath? (hope I didn't jinx it)

Walker being up on Warnock right now is disheartening, though

EDIT: I miss my younger days when I didn't really care about elections, much less mid-term elections.