Mail-In Voting

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi folks,

I am starting this to discuss this issue & no other issues regarding how we vote.

Oregon has had Mail-In Voting only since 1998. The measure passed on November 3, 1998, by a margin of 69.4% to 30.6%.

And, not that long ago it was revised to be a postage pre-paid ballot(s).

Vote-by-mail in Oregon - Wikipedia

However, I now see a fair amount of effort ( since the Nov 2020 election ) to restrict what I consider the very best method of voting currently in this country; the system here in Oregon:  the effort to restrict voting has intensified

Arizona House passes bill that would make changes to mail-in voting (msn.com)

Thoughts?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  A voter would be removed from the permanent early voter list only if a voter did not vote in any of the previous "two election cycles," per a House amendment to the bill.

Oregon has something like this; if you fail to mail-in your ballot for the two previous elections, you will be removed from the voting rolls.

 

[wmw999 2,120]

Personally, I like that approach. It’s up to the states as to whether voting is something to encourage, or jealously protect. 
Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,051]

9 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Oregon has had Mail-In Voting only since 1998

For twenty years in the Army - that was my only way to vote. :)

Edited April 21, 2021 by BIGUN

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

14 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

For twenty years in the Army - that was my only way to vote. :)

Hi Keith,

One of my true regrets in life was that I did not vote the very first time I could have.  It was 1962 ( I was 21-22 that year ), I was in the Air Force & stationed in Europe.  At that time, it was not a priority in my life.  I got out in '63 and have never failed to vote in any election since then.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,297]

28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Personally, I like that approach. It’s up to the states as to whether voting is something to encourage, or jealously protect. 
Wendy P. 

I completely disagree. It should be encouraged vigorously at the federal level for every federal election and backed up by inspired community activism. For example, everyone who fails to vote or lives next door to someone who fails to vote should be audited by the IRS. That sort of thing.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

I completely disagree. It should be encouraged vigorously at the federal level for every federal election and backed up by inspired community activism. For example, everyone who fails to vote or lives next door to someone who fails to vote should be audited by the IRS. That sort of thing.

Hi Joe,

Move to Australia; they have a financial incentive to vote.  My best friend in life had to pay a $48 fine for not voting once.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi folks,

And an update:  Inside the Democratic strategy to expand voting rights state by state - POLITICO

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

I am starting this to discuss this issue & no other issues regarding how we vote....

.

.

However, I now see a fair amount of effort ( since the Nov 2020 election ) to restrict what I consider the very best method of voting currently in this country; the system here in Oregon:  the effort to restrict voting has intensified

I'm not sure how you can discuss just this issue in isolation, because the effort to restrict mail in voting is being led by the same people for the same reasons as part of a co-ordinated campaign to restrict all the other types of voting.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Personally, I like that approach. It’s up to the states as to whether voting is something to encourage, or jealously protect. 
Wendy P. 

Except that the states are led by people who are part of a national party, and who have shown themselves quite willing to restrict or encourage voting purely in the ways in which it will help the prospects of that national party in elections to national government.

 

Which is a godawful way to run a democracy.

[wmw999 2,120]

Understood. But it is the way it is. Having state by state differences also allowed Oregon to lead the way, just as it allowed Colorado to lead the way on pot, etc. 

Particularly in such a polarized and stonewalling political environment, it’s a way to move forward. Always best to start from where you actually are, rather than from where you wish you were, or should be. 
Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,254]

23 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Understood. But it is the way it is.

You can't justify a statement of 'this is the way it should be' just by saying 'this is the way it is'. It's meaningless.

Quote

Having state by state differences also allowed Oregon to lead the way, just as it allowed Colorado to lead the way on pot, etc. 

Particularly in such a polarized and stonewalling political environment, it’s a way to move forward. Always best to start from where you actually are, rather than from where you wish you were, or should be. 
Wendy P. 

And having a Federal government allowed them to lead the way on civil rights etc. They are currently better placed to lead the way on voting rights as well, since the states are currently showing themselves to be more than willing run roughshod over them in the pursuit of partisan power.

[BIGUN 1,051]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I completely disagree. It should be encouraged vigorously at the federal level for every federal election and backed up by inspired community activism.

OK You got my attention. You're opposed to Mail-in voting? Or, is this the IRS/Political Organization satire.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

42 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

OK You got my attention. You're opposed to Mail-in voting? Or, is this the IRS/Political Organization satire.

I love mail in voting and it's only partly tongue in cheek having a tax penalty for not voting. As far as inspired community activism goes, what a great way to start exciting neighborhood conversations, right?

So that thing is Bob, and it's not about your dog shitting on my lawn you see, it's just that I need to know you voted before I do my civic duty and call the IRS on you. Are you and Maureen coming to the BBQ Saturday?

[sfzombie13 307]

15 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Understood. But it is the way it is. Having state by state differences also allowed Oregon to lead the way, just as it allowed Colorado to lead the way on pot, etc. 

Particularly in such a polarized and stonewalling political environment, it’s a way to move forward. Always best to start from where you actually are, rather than from where you wish you were, or should be. 
Wendy P. 

how far along with the civil right movement had it not been for the federal support?  how about safety, like using seatbelts?  i could go on, but that makes the point.  i am all about states rights, i even used that line once to justify the civil war, back when i was a passive racist.  like putting toothpaste back in the tube, it can be done, but is messy as hell and takes a long time, never getting fully back to what it was to start with.  in this case, it is the only way to save the voting rights of millions of americans. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

16 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Understood. But it is the way it is. Having state by state differences also allowed Oregon to lead the way, just as it allowed Colorado to lead the way on pot, etc. 

Particularly in such a polarized and stonewalling political environment, it’s a way to move forward. Always best to start from where you actually are, rather than from where you wish you were, or should be. 
Wendy P. 

Sorry Wendy, but this is one of those rare occasions where you are flat out wrong.

Following that philosophy, many states in the south would still be segregated.
I'd bet that South Carolina, Mississippi & maybe Alabama would still have slavery.

The Rs have run a long and fairly effective campaign at the state level to take power. 
Gerrymandering, rules changes, voter ID laws, all of those have led us to where we are.
Now they are using that power to limit voting. 
The new Georgia law is the most blatant example of that.
But there have been a fair amount of other ones.
Again, the Voter ID rules are pretty clearly designed to limit voting by minorities & the poor. Who'd benefit from that?

We need federal protection of voting rights for everyone, just like we needed federal protection of civil rights for minorities back in the 60s.
For the exact same reasons, although the players have switched around some.