Quote (Arsenic_Touch @ Apr 1 2020 07:19pm)
It's only available in select states, majority if not all republicans states are the ones that oppose it because they've admitted that when voter turn out is high, they lose. The bill is to provide the money to get it set up in states that don't have it already set up because it's not something you can just flip a switch and it happens.
That doesn't sound true. If I superimpose 1 map over the other, there are plenty of red states that have mail in voting, and plenty of blue that don't.
All I really see when looking at the mail in map on which states have vs don't is that only a few states are mail-only (and with those, you can still deliver to drop areas, or at least could).
I still fail to understand why billions would be needed. There aren't billions of voters, and more states than not already have absentee systems in place.
I also question the idea that republicans lose when it comes to absentee ballots. What has been seen in Washington and Oregon for decades is that the turnout is greater for both sides, and as is normally the case, metropolitan areas tend to gain more blue votes, rural more red. That doesn't change whether it's in person or mail in. Arizona was the same (Arizona went to Trump, btw).
I can see a mail-only option being a huge problem though. Homelessness is not a viable excuse to prevent a person from voting. Likewise, living on a reservation. Or frequently moving due to socioeconomic concerns. Having "walk in" voting is pretty damned important for a fairly sizeable subset of the population, and overwhelmingly that subset actually votes blue rather than red.
As I said though, I'm more interested in why 2-4 billion would be needed to enlarge a system that already exists in more states than not.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.