[kelseyfrog]

> If you have the privilege of voting by mail then be an adult and mail it promptly so it arrives by election day when all ballots should be counted.

Disenfranchisement - the inability to participate in our most sacred institution - shouldn't be based on the variation of mail delivery speeds. It encourages all the wrong incentives. Responsibility rhetoric makes people feel good, but rule clarity is more important that the good feels. We picked a clear deadline - postmark. It prioritizes participation. No one should be disenfranchised because we want fast election results.

[866-RON-0-FEZ]

The disenfranchisement bit is such a tired, worn out trope.

They mail them a month ahead of time.

Developing countries where people struggle with food and sanitation have this figured out and California rightfully deserves to be mocked by them.

Voting is for adults and we don't need to cripple the system to cater to people so irresponsible they can't drop a piece of paper in a box on time. If that's too hard you don't deserve to vote or there is something more nefarious at play.

[kelseyfrog]

Voting is for eligible citizens. If you are an eligible citizen you have a right to have your vote counted. Full stop.

Stop trying to push a disenfranchisement position. It will never be acceptable. Maybe get therapy to deal with the feelings your have about needing quick tabulations? Solving your feelings through disenfranchisement is externalizing whatever inner demons you're fighting.

[866-RON-0-FEZ]

This isn't 'Nam, there are rules.

If your ballot shows up a year later does it deserve to be counted? No, it doesn't.

You seem to be taking the position of the end of Trading Places, screaming "turn those machines back on!"

You set a deadline. Everything past the deadline is discarded. California allows for an 8-day buffer, which is artificial.

Lobby to mail the ballots 8 days earlier if that would make you happy.

[pesus]

You should probably actually look up the rules that actually exist rather than getting upset over the ones you imagined.

[kelseyfrog]

The rule is postmark. You seem to think that the rules you're making up are correct. Maybe don't do that?

[pesus]

You seem to be taking this personally rather than showing any actual problems that exist. Just because you assume something nefarious must be going on with absolutely no evidence to back that up doesn't mean it's true.

[866-RON-0-FEZ]

Because every time basic fraud prevention measures are brought up, everyone acts all cutesy saying show me proof it's ever happened as if the world is somehow honest by default when it comes to elections.

Do you leave your servers wide open with all ports exposed? Do you ask "prove to me we've been owned before" when you're told to put a firewall in place?

I wouldn't want to disenfranchise people sending ICMP traffic my way.

[pesus]

If it's so common, you should be able to prove it rather than condescendingly dismissing it as "cutesy".

> Do you leave your servers wide open with all ports exposed? Do you ask "prove to me we've been owned before" when you're told to put a firewall in place?

The equivalent in this situation would be that you're freaking out about there being tons of "hackers" currently in the servers despite the firewall already being in place, but refuse to prove it and instead insult people and throw out barely-veiled political jabs.

[defterGoose]

...and if you had actually seen our ballot for this primary, you'd know that anyone with a semblance of care to know who they were voting for and why constituted veritable weeks of legwork. The governor's race had like 60 people running, not to mention all the judge seats, etc.