Regardless what anyone thinks about the security of voting in the US. I'd hope that they could see how massively upending multiple state's voting systems 2 months before the midterms is a really bad idea. Even with the best intentions, implementing such a sweeping untested change so rapidly is a horrible idea.<p>(No, I don't support it regardless, but surely even if you do you could recognize that the timeframe is way too short).
> Postal Service mail ballot system has catastrophic problems<p>Yes. That's the point. The administration doesn't care about fixing whatever hypothetical mail ballot fraud may or may not exist; they are doing this to inject chaos into the election results, giving them cover to claim any result they want or even to just throw out the results entirely. Catastrophic problems are the means to that end.
[flagged]
One can observe and accuse based on that observation. What 'sources' do you expect to see?
They’d said as much explicitly and implicitly with their actions.
The fact that reputable sources were not provided to justify the need for fixes has been reputable source enough.<p>Bullshit is produced for the effect saying it will have.
You mean where the sitting president said they were going to try to rig the midterms?<p>> Provide reputable sources, we can discuss it.<p>His Truth Social account is public. Do we agree that is a reputable source?<p><a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trump-says-he-wants-cancel-elections-here-real-threat" rel="nofollow">https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trum...</a>
Project 2025
voting by mail is pretty popular these days<p><a href="https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absentee-voting" rel="nofollow">https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absente...</a><p>more controversy:<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/us/mail-in-voting-states.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/us/mail-in-voting-states....</a><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/31/us/politics/postal-service-mail-ballots-delays-midterms-voting.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/31/us/politics/postal-servic...</a><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/02/us/politics/postal-service-ballot-screening-system.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/02/us/politics/postal-servic...</a>
Only people willing to physically go to the polls and vote, unless physically unable to do so, should be voting. Mail in ballots also enable ballot harvesting.
What business is it of the USPS except to transmit all mail regardless of purpose?<p>The fact that the USPS would notice elections were being conducted is perverse.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
The entire state of Oregon has done vote-by-mail for the past ~30 years and it seems to have gone fine for them for decades. Then again, their voting by mail wasn't being challenged by an actively hostile Federal government for much of that time.
I'm not American, but if I'm not mistaken, you don't have election day off like in other countries, right?<p>If so, how is that not clearly discriminatory for those who can't afford the time to go.
No, Election Day is not a paid holiday, or even a recognized holiday. Public schools are generally out (at least the ones used as voting precints) but folks have work, and typically most "in person" votes are cast after 5pm (after folks traditionally leave work).<p>Mail in voting has been something that the elderly, infirmed, workers, and folks in the military have done for decades. It's remarkably secure and quite auditable. The issue the right has with it is that the folks that vote by mail (the military notwithstanding) are typically democrats.
> Mail in voting has been something that the elderly, infirmed, workers, and folks in the military have done for decades.<p>Very common for college students who go to school out of state as well. A conspicuously blue voting bloc.
It is not a paid holiday. It isn't an unpaid holiday either. And if you work a minimum wage job, you probably need to work as many hours as you can. And if you don't show up to work on Tuesday, don't bother showing up on Wednesday because you don't have that job anymore.<p>This is absolutely discriminatory against the poor. That's why the republicans fight for these types of restrictions and democrats fight against them.
We have a designated Election Day. It is (as you correctly imply) not a federal holiday. My own perspective is that that is indeed clearly discriminatory, and that some people like it that way.
Everywhere I've lived has early voting too. I usually vote a few days before election day because it's not so busy.
It seems to be nearly a third (short read): <a href="https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absentee-voting" rel="nofollow">https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absente...</a>
How much fraud is proven to be occurring due to mail-in ballots?
Then voting needs to be a national holiday with plenty of polling locations.
While I think that making it a national holiday would be a good idea because it would maximize the number of eligible voters, it would still disenfranchise some people. There are jobs that have to be done 24/7/365 (mostly safety jobs), therefor there will be someone who is stuck at work that day. There are people who work at power companies on Christmas Day just to make sure the lights on Christmas trees light up.<p>I think the best approach is what Georgia has done. No-excuse mail-in for those who want that. And 3 weeks of early voting including Saturdays. And for those who just enjoy standing in lines, there is the official Election Day. If a redneck state can get it done without issues, then we all can do it.
How much fraud happens because of mail-in or early voting?
Perhaps every state should just have one very well-monitored polling place.
That's just fear mongering. Absentee voting by mail has been a thing for centuries. Attempting to limit it to people who are unable to vote in person doesn't do anything to make it more secure, and is a very weak control. It's not like they're going to check up on every single person who claims to have a specific reason they can't get to the polls. Beyond that, no-excuse absentee ballots have been a thing in many states for decades. Three states have been mailing absentee ballots to every voter automatically for a decade or more. Despite this long history, there is no evidence of widespread fraud or other problems resulting from it.
[flagged]
Over and over and over and over again it has been shown that there is no meaningful voter fraud whatsoever. Stop watching Fox News or as I see below reading yahoo news lol
Saying a thing over and over doesn't make it true. Put differently, a lie repeated often enough is not therefore the truth. If you want to go believe in lies, fine, that is your prerogative. If you want to doubt one source, ten sources, or a thousand, nobody can stop you there either. Nonetheless, the truth will remain.
Your vague handwavey manner of writing sounds very presidential.
good thing it's completely illegal for the federal government to interfere with state voting proceedure<p>> <i>For instance, the Postal Service has what the whistleblower claims is a "zero percent failure rate."</i><p>> <i>Mail workers would scan a sample of a batch of mail ballots — about 400 out of a batch of 10,000 or more — to verify it matches what is in the federal mail ballot portal.</i><p>> <i>Under the policy, if even one barcode on a single ballot in the batch doesn't scan properly or the information does not match, the entire batch would be rejected and returned to state election officials so the problem ballot could be addressed, and then the verification process would have to be started again.</i>
This is not the job of the postal service, but of the government. There is zero reason to outsource verification, and the postal service ought to vehemently reject this attempt to shift responsibility. Though I guess they won't, seeing as they are gleichgeschaltet.
> good thing it's completely illegal for the federal government to interfere with state voting proceedure<p>Oh yeah that'll stop them.
Assuming they check 400 out of 10k, and assuming someone would want to cause any meaningful discrepancies >= 1% of the ballots, meaning 100 problematic ballots per 10k batch.<p>This system would catch it 98,3% of the time. Pretty good, I'd say.
They don't care if it's illegal. They'll do it anyway and trust in the tainted result being a fait accompli that the courts can't (or won't) resolve.
It's still funny thinking that there's people out there in 2026 who think that "it's illegal" will stop the Trump administration.
That sample is wrong for statistics, 4% is literally not significant. It's also too much for sample controls