Why Mail-in Voting Is a Terrible Idea

Has anybody noticed what’s going on? There are gangs of armed, enraged goons roaming around many major cities. They have spent months hurting people and destroying buildings. What’s going to happen when there’s no result on Election Night? What’s going to happen when there’s endless bickering about lost ballots that will end up being litigated? Yes, we all know it can happen with in-person voting but with mail-in it’s guaranteed to happen. Can you imagine what the “protesters” will do if we leave them to stew in their brain excrement of suspicion and doubt? And again, yes, they will riot no matter what the election results are. But these are not people who can tolerate uncertainty. They will really blow if we burden their feeble psyches like this.

What can we possibly assume when we see that first the police gets weakened, then marauding crowds are sicced on the population, and then an experiment is conducted on a very large, very complicated country where people are expected to exercise a ton of patience and good faith? This feels like somebody is trying to provoke a civil war.

Also, the mail-in process is a total mess. My husband got a notification from the state that he can do mail-in voting, with instructions and everything. I got nothing. We registered at the exact same time and in the same place but I’m not mentioned anywhere on that consent form for mail-in.

The people who are suggesting mail-in voting are either completely oblivious and self-centered (“but it works in Europe!”) or malevolent. There’s no other explanation.

38 thoughts on “Why Mail-in Voting Is a Terrible Idea”

  1. “What’s going to happen when there’s no result on Election Night?”

    Or what’s going to happen when there’s a result that they don’t like on election night? Isn’t that why they’re there? To put the fear of the mob into voters?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I will be showing up in person at my local voting location on election day. And I will have enough groceries laid in that I do not need to leave the house for a month, after. It’s a sleepy town, but… who knows what will happen?

      Like

        1. Better do it today. Background check system is backed up like crazy with all the new buyers, and the gun shops are barely able to keep any inventory in stock. You may have to order now to get one in six weeks!

          Like

        2. I can’t believe it took you this long to say that.

          The last time I went shopping, Sam’s Club had gun safes for sale at the entrance. But they seemed to be more decorative than anything.

          Like

        3. “I’m thinking of buying a gun.”

          If you’re seriously considering doing this, here’s some practical advice:

          Don’t buy a gun unless you’re committed to getting professional training in how to handle, load, fire, and store it. Otherwise, you may shoot your foot off, especially if you ever to try to use it in a stressful, threatening situation.
          A gun isn’t a toy to bluff with. Don’t ever pull a gun on anyone unless it’s loaded and you’re actually prepared to fire it if necessary.
          Realize that if you do fire it in someone’s general direction, you may kill them whether you intend to or not.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Truer words were never spoken.

            Remember even trained people make mistakes with guns.

            Guns escalate situations and do not de-escalate them.

            Don’t be beguiled by these people who say they were saved by waving a gun — it’s unlikely they needed it. I wave the phone or just say get away from me.

            Marauding bandits, do you really have them where you live and where you go?

            Like

            1. Did Portland and Seattle have them until 15 minutes ago? These were beautiful, safe, wonderful places. And look what they are now.

              I grew up in the USSR, which means we started military training at 7. Then I had 5 years of wartime training in college. Anybody who studied languages (I was an English / German major) had to get 5 years of training in it. Mine was the first year that women were admitted into the translation career track because before the only program in translation was called “military translation.” Nobody needed languages if it weren’t for wartime purposes.

              I remember asking our military professor in 1997 why we needed it. He said it was in case of war with Americans.

              Like

              1. “I grew up in the USSR, which means we started military training at 7”

                Sound of pacifist socialist brains going into overdrive trying to figure out how to massage this message into being something good……

                “in case of war with Americans”

                ahhh you did the heavy lifting for them!

                Liked by 1 person

              2. The reason why I emigrated earlier than I planned was because I didn’t want to pass state exam in military training. We had 4 state exams to graduate from the University: Ukrainian, English, German, and Military.

                I actually didn’t do great on the Ukrainian because the examiner wasn’t a native speaker and was correcting my beautiful, literary Ukrainian into some ridiculous Russianized version.

                Like

              3. “Did Portland and Seattle have them until 15 minutes ago? These were beautiful, safe, wonderful places. And look what they are now.”

                I expect they still are. Normally these things only affect a couple of blocks in the inner city or a few rough neighborhoods. I seriously doubt riots would be allowed to spread into wealthy suburbs.

                Like

              4. But does this mean you have weapons / military training?

                I live in gun country. The military and hunting types know what they are doing. The law and order fantasists do not, and it is this group which is dangerous.

                Like

        4. // I’m thinking of buying a gun.

          Don’t know about your situation except from your words, but thought where you lived was quiet and peaceful, and unlikely to become different.

          I would be worried about guns with a child in the home. And then Klara’s friends too when she becomes older. Kids may do stupid things, not on purpose but because they are kids, no matter how many times one tells them the opposite.

          From 2018 article: “Guns are the second-leading cause of death of children and teens in the United States, after motor vehicle crashes.”

          From 2019 article: “This year, a study in the medical journal Pediatrics said incidents involving guns are estimated to be the third-leading cause of injury-related death among American children 17 and under.”

          I understand a big number of those deaths is criminal – gang violence, but not only.

          Btw, remember when years ago your neighbors voted against connecting your suburb to a city with a railway? Then you couldn’t understand their motives and thought allowing carless access would bring more culture to your sleepy place. Had they connected your suburb to the inner city, I would have understood why guns could be necessary.

          Like

          1. We approach this problem in a very pro-active way, because we live in an area with a very active gun culture– we reliably hear neighbors out target shooting a couple of times a week, and not always from the same direction. Even if I never had a firearm of any kind in my own house, my kids will definitely be visiting homes where there are firearms, so it’s very important to me that they can competently and responsibly handle a situation where they find someone’s gun.

            I have had them memorize the four rules of gun safety, and we’ve discussed them all at length, so that they can explain what each one means. Then, I enforce all of these rules on every single toy they have that even vaguely resembles a gun or projectile-shooter of any kind: bows and arrows, nerf guns, sticks that they are playing guns with, everything. They have to treat it like it’s loaded and could kill someone, or I take it away. I rarely have to do this anymore.

            They’re still kids, and I won’t deliberately put them in a dangerous situation, but I’m reasonably confident they wouldn’t stupidly kill or maim anyone if they came across a friend’s parent’s gun at someone else’s house. In addition, I plan to teach them all to shoot as soon as they get to an age, size, and level of conscientiousness to handle it. Weirdly enough, being taught to handle firearms responsibly goes a long way toward ensuring people won’t do stupid things with guns.

            Like

    2. I do remember how terrified white people here were the night Obama won. They were utterly convinced Black people were going to rush their houses with torches, kill everyone. It’s a really weird fantasy life they had going on.

      Like

  2. So Biden picked Harris. Given her law and order background, is this his way of giving the finger to the loot and burn crowd? If so, I think it’s a smart move.

    Like

    1. “is this his way of giving the finger to the loot and burn crowd?”

      Maybe they can make Gabbard’s rundown of how many people she put in jail into a campaign ad?

      Harris? What was her best primary result? Didn’t she have to drop out in…. December?!?!?

      Like

        1. I don’t think so. She’s not super likeable, but she’s isn’t super polarizing, not like someone like Gillibrand or AOC. She’s a middle of the road candidate. If you follow politics heavily and have really looked into her record on the tech industry, immigration, etc., it’s horrfying, but most people haven’t and won’t. The only people really alienated by this are leftists and progressives who are focused on entirely the wrong things, and honestly, you want to alienate those people.

          Like

            1. It truly is. But unless Trump turns things around soon, it’s a ticket that can beat him. I hope he does because I’d like a better option than those two (right now he doesn’t even seem like a lesser evil to me.)

              Like

    2. “is this his way of giving the finger to the loot and burn crowd?”

      I don’t think Biden wants to give the finger to any potential Democratic voters — but picking Harris will piss off The Nation magazine, which ran several articles by the BLM crowd “demanding” that he not select a prosecutor or anyone connected with law enforcement. 🙂

      Like

  3. 5 states have had mail in voting for decades, and lots of people routinely do absentee ballots in all states. The military do mail in voting. I don’t understand why people imagine this is a new thing

    Like

  4. ” people who are suggesting mail-in voting are either completely oblivious and self-centered”

    Mail in voting works as a form of absentee voting where mailed ballots represent a tiny percentage of the overall vote and are not liable to be crucial in any high stakes race.
    They are a terrible idea for a large country over several time zones (and devastated government infrastructure).

    There was an idea for mail in voting in Poland back in May which everybody (except the government) jumped on with both feet and quickly stomped into the ground pointing out the logistics were impossible (and there was no legislative support – which is an important factor in a country with a civil law system).

    Like

    1. “I’m from Seattle”

      Has it always (or often) been a magnet for homeless/runaway types?
      I remember the documentary Streetwise form 1984 and in the 1990s heard that it was a hub in an informal network of homeless teen drifters…
      I’ve always been kind of fascinated with the Pacific Northwest and thought it was one of the parts of the US I could live in (before realizing me actually living in the US was…. mostly just not a good idea).

      Like

      1. I don’t think of it like that in particular, or not more than other west coast cities, but now that you mention it I think this was part of what the unnecessary police violence was about. There was also a famous time my uncle was picked up for walking, that is, walking for exercise – they decided he must be a homeless or up to no good somehow and took him to some interrogation room with lights, tried to pin crimes on him; in the end he convinced them he’d just been walking for exercise and they said he should drive to prove he wasn’t a vagrant

        Like

      1. // Looters smash the doors of the Ronald McDonald House

        Horrific. If Chicago doesn’t have enough police officers, shouldn’t they ask for federal forces?

        Do I understand it correctly that the mayor doesn’t do it since it would have been a great present to Trump before the election?

        Are there petitions of citizens from places destroyed by riots asking for federal help?

        Anti-Israeli petitions f.e. have no trouble circulating, what about petitions that could actually do good by pushing local reluctant politicians into action? Imagine how the mayor and others would feel if their citizens start signing petitions against them, going to press, and so on. They would stop violence immediately.

        Like

      2. People are always really upset about destruction of property downtown, I note. I also note that when frustration levels get this high, people do destroy things they shouldn’t. Destruction, I have heard, is lamentable if someone in authority does it, but unforgivable if undertaken by someone not in authority.

        Like

        1. // People are always really upset about destruction of property downtown

          There is a good reason for it except unfairly privileging the rich.

          A city without”commercial, cultural and often the historical, political and geographic heart” can stay alive as long as a person once a heart is taken out.

          Destroy central business district often enough, and see how businesses and richer inhabitants of a city move out, how the collected taxes fall through the floor, and the entire city turns into a slum, a ghost city.

          Besides, it wasn’t ‘only’ destroying property. Around 30 families with ill children were trapped in that building. What if somebody ‘frustrated’ decided to set fire to it? After all, “when frustration levels get this high, people do … things they shouldn’t. ”

          What if a group of very frustrated people appeared near your home? They didn’t care that building was a charity; why should they care you volunteer for the incarcerated?

          // Destruction, I have heard, is lamentable if someone in authority does it, but unforgivable if undertaken by someone not in authority.

          Most people disagree with it, I am sure.

          Besides, as a voting citizen in a democracy, people in authority can be kept in check by voters. At least, theoretically.

          If everyone ‘not in authority’ starts destroying, it’s anarchy which is much worse than having a corrupt government.

          Like

          1. Forget about “property.” This isn’t about property. This is a tactic of terrorizing the population in order to push through the neoliberal destruction of welfare. These “protesters” are the wrecking crew of neoliberal economic reforms.

            The only reason why it’s not extremely obvious to everybody is that they are switching off our intellectual faculties by screaming something vaguely race-related.

            Like

            1. // a tactic of terrorizing the population in order to push through the neoliberal destruction of welfare.

              Could you write a post how they are “the wrecking crew of neoliberal economic reforms,” please? Which reforms?

              Defunding police is one example of welfare destruction. How will riots lead to more neoliberal reforms?

              It seems to be an important topic. You refer to it often, yet w/o a post, I (and probably some other readers) fail to understand exactly what you mean and how it will be done. Which excuses will protests provide to destroy what?

              If you wrote your prediction of how events will develop, we could follow and see. Try to analyze together.

              Like

            2. If we accept that the point is to get rid of public services– and the evidence seems clear on this– what do you think is the reason for it? Is it to re-direct the money to other people (like, more well-paid bureaucrats who don’t actually have to do anything that benefits the public, or sweetheart contracts to “privatize” things by channeling
              tax money to people with the right connections)? Or is it more that they can see the resource base shrinking, and they’re scrambling to keep as much as they can for themselves by cutting off all the people and services that don’t benefit them directly? Something else?

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.