10 comments

  • cogman10 19 minutes ago
    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.

    (No, I don't support it regardless, but surely even if you do you could recognize that the timeframe is way too short).

    • Terr_ 17 minutes ago
      To go beyond the understatement of "bad idea" (and likely make the subtext into text): This thing is unmistakable malice, not mere incompetence.

      There's no "oops I didn't know" or "oops I timed it wrong" or "oops I didn't know what a court-order was", etc.

  • hackyhacky 1 hour ago
    > Postal Service mail ballot system has catastrophic problems

    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.

    • RickJWagner 58 minutes ago
      [flagged]
      • Geeek 52 minutes ago
        One can observe and accuse based on that observation. What 'sources' do you expect to see?
      • NegativeLatency 47 minutes ago
        They’d said as much explicitly and implicitly with their actions.
      • MithrilTuxedo 42 minutes ago
        The fact that reputable sources were not provided to justify the need for fixes has been reputable source enough.

        Bullshit is produced for the effect saying it will have.

      • toomuchtodo 48 minutes ago
        You mean where the sitting president said they were going to try to rig the midterms?

        > Provide reputable sources, we can discuss it.

        His Truth Social account is public. Do we agree that is a reputable source?

        https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trum...

      • mcmcmc 38 minutes ago
        Project 2025
  • someothherguyy 15 minutes ago
  • MithrilTuxedo 31 minutes ago
    What business is it of the USPS except to transmit all mail regardless of purpose?

    The fact that the USPS would notice elections were being conducted is perverse.

  • nedo_var 1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • s5300 17 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • SoftTalker 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
    • ZekeSulastin 37 minutes ago
      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.
    • torben-friis 56 minutes ago
      I'm not American, but if I'm not mistaken, you don't have election day off like in other countries, right?

      If so, how is that not clearly discriminatory for those who can't afford the time to go.

      • gortok 47 minutes ago
        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).

        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.

        • mcmcmc 34 minutes ago
          > Mail in voting has been something that the elderly, infirmed, workers, and folks in the military have done for decades.

          Very common for college students who go to school out of state as well. A conspicuously blue voting bloc.

      • Arubis 51 minutes ago
        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.
      • fhdkweig 47 minutes ago
        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.

        This is absolutely discriminatory against the poor. That's why the republicans fight for these types of restrictions and democrats fight against them.

      • NDlurker 46 minutes ago
        Everywhere I've lived has early voting too. I usually vote a few days before election day because it's not so busy.
    • someothherguyy 26 minutes ago
      It seems to be nearly a third (short read): https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absente...
    • wpm 47 minutes ago
      How much fraud is proven to be occurring due to mail-in ballots?
    • mchristen 52 minutes ago
      Then voting needs to be a national holiday with plenty of polling locations.
      • fhdkweig 31 minutes ago
        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.

        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.

    • maximilianburke 34 minutes ago
      How much fraud happens because of mail-in or early voting?
    • 1shooner 53 minutes ago
      Perhaps every state should just have one very well-monitored polling place.
      • lukas099 23 minutes ago
        So that the election is decided by the people who live near the one place?
    • wat10000 35 minutes ago
      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.
      • fhdkweig 28 minutes ago
        Agreed. I can't even recall any point in my life when an allegation of fraud was made before Trump came on the scene. I've seen requests for recounts when the margins were close, but never an allegation of malicious intent.
  • thataccount 50 minutes ago
    [flagged]
    • none2585 20 minutes ago
      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
      • thataccount 18 minutes ago
        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.
        • none2585 16 minutes ago
          Amen my white brother. When is senior hour at the buffet? You know how we get in our age
          • thataccount 14 minutes ago
            White, black, yellow, red, or brown. 10 or 90. The truth remains.
    • wat10000 33 minutes ago
      Your vague handwavey manner of writing sounds very presidential.
      • thataccount 31 minutes ago
        It's actually very specific. Look up the previous abuses of the US Postal Inspections Bureau and you will see exactly what I mean and why I've said it the way I've said it.
        • solid_fuel 29 minutes ago
          “It’s very specific”

          “Just look up vague abuses that I’m claiming happened with no evidence”

          • thataccount 27 minutes ago
            • CamperBob2 8 minutes ago
              What does that have to do with anything discussed here?

              Wait'll you hear about the Comstock Act and what the USPS has done to enforce that.

              • thataccount 1 minute ago
                >What does that have to do with anything discussed here?

                I am afraid I haven't enough hours in the day to teach you reading comprehension and implication, poster.

                >Wait'll you hear about the Comstock Act and what the USPS has done to enforce that.

                Careful. You might Bioshock yourself. Wouldn't want a bloody nose and dimensional confusion, would you?

        • wat10000 26 minutes ago
          "Specific" would involve some sort of detail about what these abuses were, or when they happened, or something beyond just "previous abuses of the US Postal Inspections Bureau."
          • thataccount 24 minutes ago
            I figured you were clever enough to do your own searching, but since you didn't take the minimum effort to punch it in a search engine, I gave one example in an above post.
            • wat10000 3 minutes ago
              The fun thing about being extremely vague is that it's inherently unsearchable. I can do a search and find reports of USPIS abuses, but I have no idea if they're the ones you're referring to or not, because you didn't say what you were referring to. And I'm not about to spend a bunch of time trying to work out which ones you meant and how they might connect to voting by mail when you can't be bothered to give even the slightest bit of information.
  • ck2 1 day ago
    good thing it's completely illegal for the federal government to interfere with state voting proceedure

    > For instance, the Postal Service has what the whistleblower claims is a "zero percent failure rate."

    > 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.

    > 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.

    • mafuy 1 hour ago
      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.
      • mcmcmc 37 minutes ago
        You realize USPS is the government right? It’s literally in the Constitution
        • Terr_ 16 minutes ago
          > USPS is the government

          The wrong government! Voter rolls etc. are state responsibilities, not a federal ones.

          Also, don't be fooled for an instant by any crocodile-tears and pearl-clutching from Republicans on this: Nobody with any good intentions for voting would ever try to ram through a unilateral "reform" of the stable status-quo just a couple months before a major election that could interfere with the results.

    • BigTTYGothGF 51 minutes ago
      > good thing it's completely illegal for the federal government to interfere with state voting proceedure

      Oh yeah that'll stop them.

    • grim_io 1 hour ago
      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.

      This system would catch it 98,3% of the time. Pretty good, I'd say.

      • tenuousemphasis 32 minutes ago
        Ok now what's the potential false positive rate?
    • Jordan-117 1 hour ago
      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.
    • gWPVhyxPHqvk 1 hour ago
      It's still funny thinking that there's people out there in 2026 who think that "it's illegal" will stop the Trump administration.
    • downrightmike 1 day ago
      That sample is wrong for statistics, 4% is literally not significant. It's also too much for sample controls
      • daveguy 1 hour ago
        No one ever accused this administration of being competent.
        • emeril 1 hour ago
          maybe so, but it is very vocal about they are the most modest
  • gradus_ad 9 minutes ago
    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.
    • sethherr 6 minutes ago
      Then it’s necessary to make voting a federal holiday. Like it is in other countries.