site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   18858 thread views

USA Election Day 2022 Megathread

Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.

...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t see how ballot harvesting isn’t a concern. Not in the “fake ballots” but in a “kind of quid pro quo not really secret ballot old times machine” way

Well, this is embarrassing. I didn't realize 2000 Mules was more about harvesting than fake ballots or similar. I personally regard ballot harvesting as a form of corruption that obviously shouldn't be allowed.

Ballot harvesting is legal in most states but subject to different rules (except in Alabama where it's unconditionally a felony). I think the idea is that ballot harvesting can be used as a way to introduce fraudulent ballots, but isn't necessarily per se fraudulent by itself.

I would say in some states (family member voting isn’t what most have in mind). Also I believe that some states that allow harvesting require hoops that limit the general usefulness.

With that said, my objection (and many others objection) isn’t necessarily that ballot harvesting is introducing false ballots, but instead that ballot harvesting permits a kind of quid pro quo that the secret ballot was intended to prevent. I’m not saying people are obvious about it but you have activists target areas you know vote X; those activists help people in the community, then come election time they go to the people they help (probably with the candidates name on their person) and ask “hey have you voted — I’d be happy to help you vote and to make it easier I can drop of the ballot myself.”

Now is that fraud? No. Is it even quid pro quo? Not necessarily. But is it highly questionable? I think so.

But is it highly questionable? I think so.

To me it seems virtually indistinguishable from just campaigning or GOTV efforts. What are the minimum changes you'd want to see for the practice to no longer be questionable to you?

Minimum changes is to make that illegal. The reason why it is different is that it changes (1) the ease of which someone can cast a ballot (I might not be willing to go to the precinct but if I don’t really have to do anything) and (2) the activist actually sees who you vote for which puts more pressure into the quid pro quo.

In short, I think it is a terrible process that should only be legal for immediate family members.

the activist actually sees who you vote for which puts more pressure into the quid pro quo.

If there's anyone watching strangers' ballots be marked and taking them to ballot boxes, that's massively illegal and they should be serving jail time, excepting maybe some cases where people legitimately need help filling out their ballot (mainly thinking some elderly/blind people here), which should be handled very carefully.

My understanding of "ballot harvesting" claims is merely that activists were delivering the ballots, with similar GOTV concerns that activists can selectively give rides to the polls to only people they expect to vote the way they want.

If there's anyone watching strangers' ballots be marked and taking them to ballot boxes, that's massively illegal

Do you have a source for this?

The exact laws are state-level, but this very weird website provides the following:

  • Forty-four states have a constitutional provision guaranteeing secrecy in voting (AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, NV, NY, OH, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WV, WY).
  • The six remaining states, and the District of Columbia, have statutory provisions referencing secrecy in voting (DC, NH, NJ, OK, OR, RI, VT).
  • All 50 states and the District of Columbia have legislated specific exemptions to secret voting, mostly to allow voters with disabilities to request assistance in the voting booth, should they wish it. This narrowly tailored exception demonstrates the priority state legislators have placed on ballot secrecy.

You can go read the election laws for any state online. For example, this appears to be the relevant section of Oklahoma's voting laws, although I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. My non-lawyer interpretation is that I see requirements that the ballot be secret, and that description of "ballot harvesting" may cover watching someone fill out an absentee ballot, although it's not clear. And the punishment is not specified there.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats