You are going to compare mail in voting in 1776 to mail in voting now? What are you smoking cause I'd like to get that high.
First off, there is a difference between chain of custody absentee mail in voting, and shotgun mail in voting ballots going to everyone. If you want historical issues for voter fraud through such mail in voting in America one such example is regarding Abe Lincoln. Go read the history of it. Even Wapo did a story on it recently. This doesn't take into account other countries that have had historical issues with voter fraud through mail in voting. One should also read the original framer's works on this very subject and why they were very against anything by absentee voting for soldiers in the field for mail in voting.
MAKE AMERICA (BE ABLE TO) READ AGAIN!!physical size of the legislation.
You are going to compare mail in voting in 1776 to mail in voting now? What are you smoking cause I'd like to get that high.
Except for planes, trains, automobiles and a helpful new smart machine capable of analyzing mountains of data for duplicates or inconsistencies.Because mail in voting at it's root is so different these days versus the past by your statements? Whether it was in the past or now, it was putting a ballot in an envelope and sending it through mail to somewhere to be counted. That literally hasn't changed since mail has been around.
Because mail in voting at it's root is so different these days versus the past by your statements? Whether it was in the past or now, it was putting a ballot in an envelope and sending it through mail to somewhere to be counted. That literally hasn't changed since mail has been around.
I think if he actually tried to run for President again, Melania would have him eliminated, regardless of HR-1 or anything else. I don't think he actually wants to run again anyway. He is just grifting as usual.Here's a simple test for you all. If HR1 passes do you think Trump would bother running for president again?
Because mail in voting at it's root is so different these days versus the past by your statements? Whether it was in the past or now, it was putting a ballot in an envelope and sending it through mail to somewhere to be counted. That literally hasn't changed since mail has been around.
This is just incredible. You have absolutely outdone yourself this time.
NopeHere's a simple test for you all. If HR1 passes do you think Trump would bother running for president again?
First off, there is a difference between chain of custody absentee mail in voting, and shotgun mail in voting ballots going to everyone. If you want historical issues for voter fraud through such mail in voting in America one such example is regarding Abe Lincoln. Go read the history of it. Even Wapo did a story on it recently. This doesn't take into account other countries that have had historical issues with voter fraud through mail in voting. One should also read the original framer's works on this very subject and why they were very against anything by absentee voting for soldiers in the field for mail in voting.
But every aspect of what happens after that action has changed dramatically.Because mail in voting at it's root is so different these days versus the past by your statements? Whether it was in the past or now, it was putting a ballot in an envelope and sending it through mail to somewhere to be counted. That literally hasn't changed since mail has been around.
But every aspect of what happens after that action has changed dramatically.
It's weird how the party of small government decides it desperately needs tons of new federal legislation in very specific areas where there is no significant evidence of a problem. Huh. Wonder why.Heritage Foundation tracked voter fraud in all elections at the federal, state and local level back to 1982. They included every case where a prosecutor found an irregularity to be "actionable," whether or not there was a conviction. They say they found 1310 instances of what they claim is "proven" voter fraud, though evidently only about 40 were cases of actual double voting.
They claim this is only a "sampling" of voter fraud not because they didn't look at every election and every court action, but because it doesn't include those who didn't get caught. Go ahead and add a zero, or for that matter, two zeroes, to their total then do some thinking about what that means out of literally billions of votes.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
This is what the nation's leading conservative think tank found.
Show us the fraud or STFU.
That may be true, but the problems for potential fraud are not only based on after that action.
There is a potential of fraud no matter the vehicle used for voting, be it in person voting or mail in voting. If your argument is based on potential fraud happening, then your argument would disqualify every voting option available today including in person voting.That may be true, but the problems for potential fraud are not only based on after that action.
Potential fraud? Show me the massive fraud in states like Oregon who have been exclusively mail since 1998? Meanwhile I bet you don't give 2 shits about Republicans disenfranchising minority voters. I'm not talking potential I mean actual. North Carolina they were found guilty in court racially gerrymandering.That may be true, but the problems for potential fraud are not only based on after that action.
ExplainWould HR1 survive court challenge? We're talking about union voting for president, can federal government regulate union rules on voting?
Would HR1 survive court challenge? We're talking about union voting for president, can federal government regulate union rules on voting?
Each state makes their own rules/law on how their citizens vote. Each state picks the president, so i am asking if federal government can actually set rules on how each state makes up their own voting law?Explain
States can run their elections but Congress can override. It's in the Constitution. That's why we no longer have poll taxes. Feds are there to prevent states from violating people's rights.Each state makes their own rules/law on how their citizens vote. Each state picks the president, so i am asking if federal government can actually set rules on how each state makes up their own voting law?
Each state makes their own rules/law on how their citizens vote. Each state picks the president, so i am asking if federal government can actually set rules on how each state makes up their own voting law?