California Republican Party Admits Placing Misleading Ballot Boxes

[ecco]

Just one more example of the utter dishonesty of the Republican party.

California Republican Party Admits It Placed Misleading Ballot Boxes Around State
California Republican Party Admits It Placed Misleading Ballot Boxes Around State
Government officials say the receptacles are illegal and could lead to voter fraud, but the party says it will continue the practice.

State officials in California have ordered an investigation into more than 50 deceptively labeled “official” drop boxes.

By Glenn Thrush and Jennifer Medina

• Oct. 12, 2020The California Republican Party has admitted responsibility for placing more than 50 deceptively labeled “official” drop boxes for mail-in ballots in Los Angeles, Fresno and Orange Counties — an action that state officials said was illegal and could lead to voter fraud.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems that the majority of the (small amount of ) voter fraud is done by Republicans.

Why are Republicans so afraid of people being able to vote?

 

[Altfish]

Why are Republicans so afraid of people being able to vote?

I think we know the answer to that one.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There needs to be one federal system. No state bs.

 

[tytlyf]

Voter fraud in extreme cases is usually Republican.

 

[Quetzal]

There needs to be one federal system. No state bs.

While we have the hood open for repairs, might as well make a truly representative system and transition to a popular vote instead.

 

[Polymath257]

There needs to be one federal system. No state bs.

Right. We want Trump to direct the way votes are counted. Or, if you are conservative, we want Obama to do it.

Hard no.

 

[HonestJoe]

There needs to be one federal system. No state bs.

That wouldn't be a solution if it was still under control of politicians in government (the quality of the national politicians is a major part of the problem after all).

All you need are politically independent electoral commissions to manage the entire process, from registration through to results. That can (and would likely need to) still happen at a state level, though something at the federal level to try to ensure a level of coordination and consistency would be good too. Taking the process out of the control of politicians is the key though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

While we have the hood open for repairs, might as well make a truly representative system and transition to a popular vote instead.

That means rural less populated states will be ignored in favor of states with large urban areas and higher populations.

 

[Polymath257]

That wouldn't be a solution if it was still under control of politicians in government (the quality of the national politicians is a major part of the problem after all).

All you need are politically independent electoral commissions to manage the entre process, from registration through to results. That can (and would likely need to) still happen at a state level, though something at the federal level to try to ensure a level of coordination and consistency would be good too. Taking the process out of the control of politicians is the key though.

And, of course, to actually do this, we need at least a Constitutional Amendment. We also would be, in effect, getting rid of the whole state-federal divide, which we might want to ponder a bit.

 

[Polymath257]

That means rural less populated states will be ignored in favor of states with large urban areas and higher populations.

Yes, it would. And because there are fewer people, that would not be a bad thing. Why have the entire country cater to a few people just because of the way we divide up states?

Oh, that's right. It's the whole point of the agreement that actually lead to our current Constitution. it is deeply undemocratic *by design*. That's why the slave states had so much power before the Civil War. That's why some small states have so much now.

Of course, if we *want* an actual democracy, we could change our current system.

Any change along this line probably should require an actual, new Constitutional Convention.

Does anyone *really* want such a thing?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That means rural less populated states will be ignored in favor of states with large urban areas and higher populations.

Land doesn't vote, people do. One person, one vote. Not rural areas 1.5 vote and cities .5 vote.

 

[Nakosis]

I guess California ought to write better laws regarding voting.

They only implied they are illegal. If they were actually illegal, you'd think they could get them removed.

In any case, folks ought to verify their vote was counted anyway.

 

[Left Coast]

It seems that the majority of the (small amount of ) voter fraud is done by Republicans.

Why are Republicans so afraid of people being able to vote?

Voter fraud in extreme cases is usually Republican.

I've seen anecdotal cases of Trump supporters committing voter fraud, but no studies showing a trend. Do either of you know of any?

 

[Polymath257]

I've seen anecdotal cases of Trump supporters committing voter fraud, but no studies showing a trend. Do either of you know of any?

The actual amount of fraud is quite low. So no trend, except that the cases we *do* have tend to be Republican.

Not to mention that Republicans seem to be doing everything they can to make voting difficult for their opponents.

 

[Left Coast]

The actual amount of fraud is quite low. So no trend, except that the cases we *do* have tend to be Republican.

Isn't a tendency a trend? To say that, I'd think we'd need some data to show that of the small amount of voter fraud that exists, a majority (or at least plurality) is Republican.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Land doesn't vote, people do. One person, one vote. Not rural areas 1.5 vote and cities .5

Borders count. Every municipality needs to be considered and receives fair representation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Borders count. Every municipality needs to be considered and receives fair representation.

People count. Not land. Fair representation would be every person's vote weighing the same.

 

[HonestJoe]

And, of course, to actually do this, we need at least a Constitutional Amendment. We also would be, in effect, getting rid of the whole state-federal divide, which we might want to ponder a bit.

I don't think so, though if an amendment were necessary to achieve a positive outcome, I don't see that as a problem in principle (though it obviously would be in practice).

I'm not talking about removing any state/federal divide though. At the moment state governments are responsible for elections at state level and the US Congress at federal level. I don't see why they couldn't delegate those responsibilities to politicly independent electoral commissions at state and federal level respectively. The same processes would go on at the same levels, it'd just be managed by independent professionals rather than partisan politicians pretending to be (or sometimes not even that).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That means rural less populated states will be ignored in favor of states with large urban areas and higher populations.

That's a weird way to say "people would be treated equally."