Verifiable, Orderly, & Timely Election Results (VOTER) Act

[wing2000]

We have done the same thing for 200 years, now people are pushing something new.

....yea, silly people. They're acting like there's a pandemic in play.

 

[Pommer]

Exactly. Yet Senator Scott is puporting to change the rules now, 36 days before the election - rules that would apply to all 50 states...

No court in this land would allow such a law to take effect for the 2020 elections.

 

[LostMarbels]

The way you talk they’re bingo-halls filled with people conspiring to stuff the ballot box with phony ballots.

Why not? There are ditches and dumpsters full of real ones. Were all going to play the innocent party now?

 

[Albion]

We have done the same thing for 200 years, now people are pushing something new.

Yes, and it's now just something new. There have been dozens of changes in just the past few weeks, and there is no commonality anymore from one state to the next.

Previously, there had been minor differences, but nothing that would keep the public from knowing who won by at least the day after election day. Now it will probably be weeks or months, unless it's a landslide. Even then, there will be plenty of disputed elections down the ballot and lots of court cases. It'll make Gore vs. Bush look like a piece of cake.

 

[LostMarbels]

....yea, silly people. They're acting like there's a pandemic in play.

It didn't work.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Sealed is not the issue, but he did specifically say that he did not sign it.

He said that he did not sign the ballot. Because there is no provision on the ballot itself for a signature. Rather, he signed the envelope. As he is supposed to. I've voted by mail in two different states now, and neither had any place for me to sign the ballot. For both, I signed the envelope in the location indicated.

 

[LostMarbels]

Yes, and it's now just something new. There have been dozens of changes in just the past few weeks, and there is no commonality anymore from one state to the next.

Previously, there had been minor differences, but nothing that would keep the public from knowing who won by at least the day after election day. Now it will probably be weeks or months, unless it's a landslide. Even then, there will be plenty of disputed elections down the ballot and lots of court cases. It'll make Gore vs. Bush look like a piece of cake.

And at the same time they keep grooming the public that Trump will not accept the results. They do not even bother calling them the probable results.

 

[Sparagmos]

You could actually go vote... like we have for some 200 years. It is possible. Or get your ballot on time. It's no secret it happens in about a month... might want to get it like now....

Ballots haven’t even been mailed in my state.

Why are you talking about this law as if it relates to what voters do? It’s about a deadline on counting ballots. Voters don’t count ballots. And there is no way every precinct can count all of their ballots within 24 hours of the polls closing. So what happens to the ballots that they can’t count before the deadline?

 

[SimplyMe]

I do not understand how people would think an unsigned ballot even makes sense.

Beyond the fact that the US has long had the idea of the "secret ballot?" As has been pointed out, you sign the envelope (of most states) to attest to the validity of the ballots -- that they are your ballots and you filled them out.

Are you sure? Democrats are not going to be able to just keep suing like they used to. Which court is there that is stacked in their favor anymore?

Which courts have ever been stacked in their favor? For example, we have Mitch McConnell who worked to prevent Pres. Obama from nominating judges -- just not Supreme Court judges -- which is why Sen. Reid believed he had to get rid of the filibuster on Judicial nominees.

Additionally, for most of my adult life there have been more Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republicans than Democrats -- even after Obama left office, there were only 4 justices appointed by Democrats. You have to go back to 1946 to find a Chief Justice that was appointed by a Democrat.

This idea that the courts have been "stacked" by the Democrats is revisionist history.

 

[Albion]

He said that he did not sign the ballot. Because there is no provision on the ballot itself for a signature.

So now tell us why anyone would tell us this, and with such passion, when there had been no controversy about it?

 

[LostMarbels]

He said that he did not sign the ballot. Because there is no provision on the ballot itself for a signature. Rather, he signed the envelope. As he is supposed to. I've voted by mail in two different states now, and neither had any place for me to sign the ballot. For both, I signed the envelope in the location indicated.

You don't see any invitation for fraud concerning unsigned ballets? Just put in a stack of other unsigned ballots not in their signed envelopes... voila!

 

[Speedwell]

Of course.

If this law is passed, it will not invalidate already mailed-in ballots. But you invalidated yours on your own by failing to sign the envelope, which is required in Illinois.

There is nothing in the bill which provides for that. And I did sign the envelope, along with a witness as required by law. But the bill specifically requires the ballot to be signed.

 

[LostMarbels]

Beyond the fact that the US has long had the idea of the "secret ballot?" As has been pointed out, you sign the envelope (of most states) to attest to the validity of the ballots -- that they are your ballots and you filled them out.

Then how do you keep people from cheating?

 

[Albion]

Ballots haven’t even been mailed in my state.

Why are you talking about this law as if it relates to what voters do?

Because our friend was calling it all some sort of conspiracy and would definitely invalidate his vote, which has already been cast. This despite the fact that no one else can figure why any of that would be so.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You don't see any invitation for fraud concerning unsigned ballets? Just put in a stack of other unsigned ballots not in their signed envelopes... viola!

Is there any state that requires mail-in ballots themselves to be signed rather than an envelope?

Also, that would be a very simple case of fraud to detect. I'm certain they keep a count of the number of signed envelopes received. If that number does not match the number of ballots cast, then there's a problem. Also, while I'm not savvy to the exact methodology, it seems reasonable to assume that ballots are kept with their envelopes. I would not expect to find a pile of ballots not in their signed envelopes.

 

[wing2000]

Is there any state that requires mail-in ballots themselves to be signed rather than an envelope?

Also, that would be a very simple case of fraud to detect. I'm certain they keep a count of the number of signed envelopes received. If that number does not match the number of ballots cast, then there's a problem. Also, while I'm not savvy to the exact methodology, it seems reasonable to assume that ballots are kept with their envelopes. I would not expect to find a pile of ballots not in their signed envelopes.

...the envelope also has a barcode that is tied to the registered voter (at least that's the case in AZ).

 

[LostMarbels]

Is there any state that requires mail-in ballots themselves to be signed rather than an envelope?

Also, that would be a very simple case of fraud to detect. I'm certain they keep a count of the number of signed envelopes received. If that number does not match the number of ballots cast, then there's a problem. Also, while I'm not savvy to the exact methodology, it seems reasonable to assume that ballots are kept with their envelopes. I would not expect to find a pile of ballots not in their signed envelopes.

I cannot trust seems reasonable nor faith in common man this election. We already have ballots being found thrown out all over the place.

 

[Pommer]

Then how do you keep people from cheating?

You trust that other people are as honest and forthright as you, yourself are.

 

[LostMarbels]

...the envelope also has a barcode that is tied to the registered voter (at least that's the case in AZ).

Is that the code the ends in either an R or a D to correspond with party affiliation?

 

[Speedwell]

Is there any state that requires mail-in ballots themselves to be signed rather than an envelope?

Also, that would be a very simple case of fraud to detect. I'm certain they keep a count of the number of signed envelopes received. If that number does not match the number of ballots cast, then there's a problem. Also, while I'm not savvy to the exact methodology, it seems reasonable to assume that ballots are kept with their envelopes. I would not expect to find a pile of ballots not in their signed envelopes.

At some point they are separated--we are voting by "secret ballot" after all--but before the envelope is opened the signature is verified by comparing it to the signature on the voter rolls. Because I brought my ballot to the Election Board in person rather than mailing it in I got to see it done.