Make sure to fill out your ballots properly, or better yet vote in person to be confident yours is counted.

I'll vote in person, that way the GOP doesn't have a thing to bitch about; even though the GOP holds a majority in both the PA House and Senate and passed Act 77.

Nice recap!

I’m voting in person for the exact same reason.

Don't worry if they lose they'll find things to whine about!

Obviously then only possible outcomes are they win or there was cheating!

[removed]

Not just your ballots, but envelopes too.

There's more coming down the pike. Ths court is worrisome.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/06/the-most-terrifying-case-of-all-is-about-to-be-heard-by-the-us-supreme-court

Vote in person if at all possible, and have your ID handy. Be sure to go to the proper voting district to cast your ballot. Check that out before election day.....🙂🙂🙂

I vote by mail but I hand off my ballot at my courthouse. And they ask if you signed the envelope and date it. Why are Republicans afraid of people voting? Could it be they are afraid people will wise up? The GOP is dead. All that remains is a bloated rotting carcass.

They danced around for it too.

Not just that, the election board wanted to have a standardized curing process for problem ballots in all of the counties, the democrats did too. The republicans said, "nah"... decided not to legislate it and now they are trying to go to court to standardize it.

Agreed about the GOP. Already mailed my DATED ballot inside the post office.

Everything in this article is a stretch.

The simple fix is to just follow the rules. Absentee ballot rules are easy to follow and the forms make it very clear what you're supposed to do. Could it be easier? Maybe. Have absentee ballots been used for fraud in numerous previous elections? Absolutely. The easiest way to protect your vote is to follow the process.

I keep reading that the vote was 7-2. Anyone know which liberal justice voted with the conservatives?

States rights is a flawed philosophy. It is likely, given the reaction of this court to the PA case, that they will support state rights. This is very much in line with what republicans have set as their goal since Reagan.

https://bostonreview.net/articles/how-government-ends/

Yes, everyone go vote in person. No need to rely on that mail in ballot. Let’s make sure everything is accounted for.

>States rights is a flawed philosophy

Especially when they don't follow it

Sen Graham in the summer: There is NO national ban on abortion! No one is suggesting that! This is something individual states need to decide on for themselves!

Sen Graham in the fall: We must have a national ban on abortion!!!!

And I bet Congressman Kelly will see no problem with that... Even though he told me he believes Trump should NEVER be expected to concede. It would be too hypocritical, because Hillary once told Biden never to concede if he lost!

Until Mastriano is in, and day before he says Dem places can't use machines.

Also we'll know the results the evening of the election instead of waiting days for them to be counted.

Can you vote in person if you've already requested a mail-in ballot?

According to the Pennsylvania Department of State “If you did not return your mail-in or absentee ballot and you want to vote in person, you have two options: Bring your ballot and the pre-addressed outer return envelope to your polling place to be voided. After you surrender your ballot and envelope and sign a declaration, you can then vote a regular ballot. If you don’t surrender your ballot and return envelope, you can only vote by provisional ballot at your polling place. Your county board of elections will then verify that you did not vote by mail before counting your provisional ballot.”

We can’t have nice things. Vote in person

I'd be afraid the polling place people won't understand this process.

I am confident it gets counted when I vote by mail. You can track every step in the process.

Pennsylvania has a fairly robust training process for the poll workers, but it is always possible that your location will have a poorly qualified judge of elections. It’s key to bring your entire mail-in ballot package to the polling place for surrender - that includes the security envelope. If you are still being turned away and don’t understand why, request a provisional ballot. The only reasons you would not be allowed to vote provisionally are:

• you already sent in a mail-in ballot
• you are not registered to vote in the district
• you are deceased

The constitution is pretty straight forward on this issue. The legislature has the authority to make the rules for voting. The rules say that the ballot has to be dated along with the envelope. ONLY the legislature has the power to change the rules. This was not followed and in this case the judiciary changed the rules when they ruled on the date issue.

The Supreme Court in this matter ruled correctly.

No you won’t because absentee and no excuse mail in ballots still need to be counted. Military personnel stationed abroad and ex pats vote via absentee. Their vote counts, too.

Brown and Sotomayor were the two, so Kegan sided with the majority .

[removed]

Anyone should be concerned about a person voting after election day. Especially when the results are known. That is why the date on the ballot matters.

That is crazy talk.

[removed]

Before COVID the absentee and military ballots usually wouldn't add up to enough votes to change an election given what they counted that night. That's why they were usually able to call the election that night. Then later in the week they would give the official totals.

Yeah. So many fake Democrat voters. Trying to cheat and steal and lie and falsify things. Oh. Wait. That’s the GOP.

So your position is that rules for mail in voting should not be followed?

Why are you so afraid of people participating in elections? Is it because you know your candidate will lose if you let too many people (or the wrong people) vote?

I love America because here, all citizens are allowed to exercise their voice by voting.

I’ll never understand how anyone who loves this country would want to take away votes from fellow Americans.

And what if there are less than 100 votes deciding a statewide race and there are a couple thousand absentee ballots? How do you call that race that night?

They may receive it, but may not count it if it's date is not correct?

That's correct. Same is true if you forget to place your ballot inside the secrecy envelope before placing it in the mailing envelope.

If you're voting by mail, you need to pay close attention to the instructions and follow every step.

The ballots are collected up to election day. Ballots that arrive later aren't counted. The actual date that you put down doesn't actually matter, you could put something ridiculous like 8/34/9338 and it will still be counted, as long as you didn't leave it blank. It's based on arrival date, not the date written on the ballot.

They don't call it when it's that close. They only call it when there is a winner that can't be overcome by the votes that haven't been counted yet. In the past most people went to the polls and voted. Absentee was meant for people that truly couldn't make it to the polls because of health or serious reasons.

You could do everything correctly and your ballot could just get lost in the mail. I personally wouldn't risk that. That's why I vote in person. I would only use absentee if there was no other way possible that I could vote.

[removed]

I'm a student out of state, so I have to vote absentee (and have done so since I started voting). I've never had my ballot get lost in the mail, but there have been long delays. Last fall, I requested my ballot early but only got it the day after the election, more than four weeks after it was sent.

However, if you're not away like I am, you could sign up to vote by mail and use a drop box, and if you end up never receiving your ballot you can still cast a provisional ballot in person. There's also the option of voting early in person at your county's board of elections. That said, I'd probably just vote in person on election day if I could.

It's awesome that you stay involved even though you're out of state. Hopefully the postal service is in a better place this election and the delays aren't as bad.

And now, since it is a legal way to vote, we have to be patient and wait about a week for results. All votes should be counted.

Good luck to you. Hopefully your ballot doesn't get lost in the mail. I know mine will count for sure.

The Third Circuit had ruled on a different principle that says if you make a minor mistake that’s not material to the reason for the rules, that’s not worth losing your vote over. The state courts had generally agreed. Since the purpose of the part that was being signed and dated is to say “I attest that I am who I say I am and I am qualified to vote,” the date part was not “material” because the important date was the date the ballot was received, not the date it was signed.

People were making other mistakes with the date, like putting their birthday or the date of the election there, and election boards were counting them; it was only the undated ballots that were being tossed out.

The Supreme Court did not say anything about why it was reversing the Third Circuit ruling that the ballots should be counted, except to send the case back with orders that it be declared moot. So another case could potentially hinge on the same arguments about the materiality of the date (and there were some cases in state court moving to do so in the Oz/McCormick primary until McCormick conceded).

It won’t get lost, because I will be voting in person. I do not trust republicans to not try and throw out my vote, again, like they did in 2020. You see, in 2020 I had to vote via absentee ballot, because I was working as a judge of elections at a polling station in Westmoreland County. Because of the GOP’s attempt, and specifically my representative’s multiple attempts, to try to invalidate my legally cast ballot, I stopped working the polls so I could vote in person to make sure my vote can never be taken from me, or even threatened to be taken from me, ever again.

You can also drop it off. Sometimes when I’m nervous about it, I drop off mine at our courthouse. There’s a guard and everything.

[removed]

[removed]

While I agree that this should be an easy requirement to follow, the fraud argument is just bullshit. Only the world's dumbest voter fraudster would forget to fill in the date field. There's way more dumb voters than dumb people trying to commit voter fraud - if the election security measures block more legitimate votes than fraudulent votes, then it's a pretty poor security measure.

Mail in ballots are dated by the PO. So if a registered voter dates the envelope correctly but mails it in and arrives late, then the voter’s date is worthless - meaningless. So this rule is a violation of citizens’ voting rights, plain and simple. Except in this fascist anti-American scotus court.

What BS. The default should be to assume the person voted unless there is a real question. Then they should investigate before a vote is tossed out. There is no reason to think that the person didn’t intent to vote if they didn’t fill out a date by mistake.

Voting is supposed to be a sacred right in this country and you people want to throw that away.

I gotta ask why do a mail in ballot if you are physically just handing off the letter in person? No sarcasm genuinely curious.

The voting rights act would like to have a word with you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

>Have absentee ballots been used for fraud in numerous previous elections? Absolutely.

Really? Name 3 that have occurred in the past 10 years.

There's no evidence of widespread fraud, certainly none occurring on the scale that would change the results of an election.

Such a rubber stamp bullshit ruling by scotus. They are going to waltz us right into fascism

Mail-in ballots can be left at ballot specific drop boxes and at the local board of elections. Neither of those involves USPS actually delivering the ballot so there is no date stamp.

Traditionally, people would do this because absentee ballots let you vote early.

If you opted for mail in ballot, use the tracker and make sure your vote was recorded!!! If not, do it in person!!! https://www.pavoterservices.pa.gov/pages/ballottracking.aspx

[removed]

💯 need to own the GOP by voting in person and with an ID

In other words, follow the rules and take personal responsibility for your own ballot.

Yet this is somehow controversial.

Not the person you were asking but I work the polls every other year, but not at my own polling place. I can usually sneak out in the afternoon to vote at my own precinct, but if they're short-handed? Or if my husband is using the car? So I vote absentee to ensure that I get to vote

When I'm not working the polls, I get called last-minute to do full-day trips out of state with less than a week's notice. One year I left for my train before 6am, and got back home at 7:55 - JUST made it back in time to vote.

Why do we only have one day of voting?

This is a valid concern: The polling place where I work every other election or so serves 2 precincts so there are 2 judges. I've watch one competently handle this hand-in. The voters themselves get upset ("why do I need to go home and get my ballot and envelope?") but she is well-trained and stays calm.

The other judge is a mess - an much older guy who is completely overwhelmed by anything other than greeting his neighbors. He sends all his "I requested a ballot but didn't return it" people over to our judge (along with anything else that's even a little bit complex). I shudder to think what would happen if we weren't in the unusual situation of sharing a site with them.

> Neither of those involves USPS actually delivering the ballot so there is no date stamp.

But in those cases the date the ballots arrived will be noted by the officials who empty the drop boxes and staff the board of elections.

Because me and my wife do not wish to go to the place where we vote.

Thank you for your hard work in keeping with the democratic process. I don't know why there is only one day for voting, but your anecdotal evidence proves that mailing the vote early would help others.

Fair I guess.

Not everyone is available to vote in person. Having the day off, say the day before, means they could hand deliver it.

I’m really impressed, I have never watched someone make such a huge leap.

Just so many assumptions about OP. None of which can be inferred from his posting.

That's what I do! But I actually like to get out and vote in person. I meet some nice folks and even met a new neighbor from 3 doors down. There isn't too much division in my area right outside Philly so it's always a nice 15 or 20 minutes of interactions.

Opening the door to officials "correcting" ballots by adding missing fields is one hell of a can of worms.

Either follow the instructions to the letter or simply go vote in person.

> You could do everything correctly and your ballot could just get lost in the mail.

Which is why you drop it off at an official drop box rather than mail it.

You get to vote early and on your time, in addition to being able to thoroughly research the people on the ballot without having to do that beforehand and carry a cheat sheet with you. Also no wasting time standing in line on election day.

This field isn't on a ballot. It's on the envelope. There's no fields to fill out on a ballot except one's election choices.

So let's say a ballot comes in with plenty of time to spare before the election. Let's say it arrives via mail on October 28. But whoops, the voter had a brain fart and dated the envelope "11/25/2022" instead of the day they completed the ballot, 10/25/2022. Shall we throw that ballot out?

I get the not waiting in line bit, but shouldn't you have an idea of who you would be voting for before you get there? Why would I need a cheat sheet to wait in line to vote?

> Shall we throw that ballot out?

Yes we should because:

1. That's the law of the land.
2. It's the only course of action that can be uniformly applied.
3. That voter is an idiot if she can't even follow basic instructions and the commonwealth is better off without her input in the elections.

> That's the law of the land.

How about we change the law of the land to not be petty? This particular issue-- the date on the outer envelope-- does nothing to prevent fraudulent votes, as the office itself knows on what date the ballot arrived. Cut the bureaucratic red tape.

Or go entirely in the opposite direction and eliminate all forms of voting outside of showing up in person on election day with a valid form of ID. No mail-ins, not absentee. Zero.

Plus it'd save a ton of money and be environmentally friendly as we wouldn't have to print any mail-in ballots.

I loved voting via absentee ballot, while I was working a voting poll as a judge of election. But when my federal congressional representative spend the past couple of years and wasted taxpayer funds filing many, many lawsuits to try to overturn my legally cast ballot, I no longer trust Congress or the court system to uphold my right to vote via absentee ballot.

> Or go entirely in the opposite direction and eliminate all forms of voting outside of showing up in person on election day with a valid form of ID. No mail-ins, not absentee. Zero.

So you'ld like to disenfranchise a good percentage of the elderly and disabled, anyone who takes ill on Election Day, anyone schedule for surgery on Election Day, anyone working during the hours the polls are open, and anyone traveling over Election Day?

> So you'ld like to disenfranchise a good percentage of the elderly and disabled, anyone who takes ill on Election Day, anyone schedule for surgery on Election Day, anyone working during the hours the polls are open, and anyone traveling over Election Day?

Yes I'm completely fine with that. All of those things happen to people of all ages, of all political dispositions, and all racial and ethnic backgrounds. It's completely uniform.

Oh, they def happen more to poor people, particularly the having to work part. Rich executives can write their own schedules at work. Rich elderly or disabled persons can more easily get rides to the polls.

But that aside: why? Why are you fine with disenfranchisement? Why do you want to see rightful voters presented with obstacles that prevent them from exercising their right?

Voting is not a sacred right. There are qualifications in order to vote - it's a privilege.

> But that aside: why? Why are you fine with disenfranchisement? Why do you want to see rightful voters presented with obstacles that prevent them from exercising their right?

There will always be disparities in people's access to the polls. It's never 100% uniform. A city dweller can walk down the block whereas someone living in the countryside might have to drive 15 miles. Ditto for people's time constraints, whether they have a baby sitter, whether they can go in the morning, or after work, or anything else.

I consider it more important to have a process that is objectively harder to be gamed or manipulated more important than making it slightly more convenient. If those people actually care about voting then they will find a way to vote.

>If those people actually care about voting then they will find a way to vote.

What, rise from a deathbed? Quit their job?

It's important to remember that when voting in America was started, only a minority of Americans qualified to vote: white landowning males. That part's important, because farm hands and factory workers mostly didn't qualify. They didn't need the time off work to go into town, because they couldn't vote. Right up until 1828, the majority of voters wrote their own schedule.

>I consider it more important to have a process that is objectively harder to be gamed or manipulated more important than making it slightly more convenient.

The problem is that process is being twisted into one of those systems that prevents more rightful votes than it does fraudulent. Is this process doing us any good if a thousand citizens are disenfranchised for every fraudulent vote prevented?

> What, rise from a deathbed?

Are you suggesting the dead should be able to vote? Sounds very Democratic...

> Quit their job?

Polls in the commonwealth are open from 7am to 8pm. If you're in line then you can vote. Nobody has to quit there job to vote and just because it may be more inconvenient to vote earlier or later in the day or rearrange you schedule to do so is not justification alone for accepting the extra risks of those processes.

> It's important to remember that when voting in America was started, only a minority of Americans qualified to vote: white landowning males. That part's important, because farm hands and factory workers mostly didn't qualify. They didn't need the time off work to go into town, because they couldn't vote. Right up until 1828, the majority of voters wrote their own schedule.

Yes and the people that furthered those polices were Democrats. Anything short of showing up to the polls is more likely to be gamed. Mail-in ballots can be lost, modified, mutilated, duplicated. There's plenty of issues that could happen.

> The problem is that process is being twisted into one of those systems that prevents more rightful votes than it does fraudulent.

Mail-in voting is objectively less secure than showing up to the polls. That's indisputable.

If you want to argue about how many less people would be voting then quantify it. You're just making things up without any actual statistics to back it up.

Would it even have an impact on the outcome? Would the "wrong" people be voting or not voting? Would it matter at all?

> Is this process doing us any good if a thousand citizens are disenfranchised for every fraudulent vote prevented?

Haha. You really think it's 1000 mail-in voters that would not vote for every one potential instance of fraud?

Oh I voted drop-off in the primaries, in and out, straightforward. But by the time 2020 general rolled around, I needed some human interaction besides work and errands so I voted in person, low key and nice, mostly with Dems like me 😊. I will probably go in-person again in November, just to get out, do my civic duty and say hi to some old friends and neighbors.

> What, rise from a deathbed? > > >Are you suggesting the dead should be able to vote? Sounds very Democratic...

I'm using hyperbole for humorous effect, but to get pedantic, dead people are not on their deathbeds. They are buried or cremated.

I'm saying there's frail people out there who are very much in their right minds, but not physically up to a trip to the polls.

> Quit their job?

>> Polls in the commonwealth are open from 7am to 8pm. If you're in line then you can vote. Nobody has to quit there job to vote and just because it may be more inconvenient to vote earlier or later in the day or rearrange you schedule to do so is not justification alone for accepting the extra risks of those processes.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that everyone works 9 to 5, and then is just a quick trip away from the polls. The workday and transportation itself can eat up 13 hours. Plus, some people find themselves traveling on Election Day.

> It's important to remember that when voting in America was started, only a minority of Americans qualified to vote: white landowning males. That part's important, because farm hands and factory workers mostly didn't qualify. They didn't need the time off work to go into town, because they couldn't vote. Right up until 1828, the majority of voters wrote their own schedule.

>> Yes and the people that furthered those polices were Democrats. Anything short of showing up to the polls is more likely to be gamed. Mail-in ballots can be lost, modified, mutilated, duplicated. There's plenty of issues that could happen.

I have absolutely no idea why you quoted that part of my post but didn't bother to address it, but okay. I'll move on and look at what you are saying.

>>Mail-in ballots can be lost, modified, mutilated, duplicated. There's plenty of issues that could happen.

Sure there's plenty of issues that could happen. The question is are they happening in any statistically significant numbers. And the answer to that question is no.

People don't want mail-in voting, fine. Then we need to have a couple weeks of elections, not one day, to accommodate everyone. The nation has grown too much to continue on with one-day, in person elections. It worked in 1801, but we need to modernize.

> The problem is that process is being twisted into one of those systems that prevents more rightful votes than it does fraudulent. > > >Mail-in voting is objectively less secure than showing up to the polls. That's indisputable.

Less secure doesn't mean insecure.

>> If you want to argue about how many less people would be voting then quantify it. You're just making things up without any actual statistics to back it up.

I could say the same to you. You keep saying it could increase fraud. What evidence do you have that it does increase fraud And no, I won't accept 2000 Mules. Yes, I watched it. It failed to prove its point. But I enjoyed it because I'm a big fan of bad movies.

Also, is there a point to me arguing that fewer people will be able to vote? Considering that you don't care if people are unable to vote.

>> Would it even have an impact on the outcome?

>The study found that while vote-by-mail did increase overall voter turnout by about 2 to 3 percentage points

.

>increased turnout by 10 percentage points.

>>Would the "wrong" people be voting or not voting?

.

What does that even mean? Myself, I want every rightful voter to vote. But this speaks to something I notice: so many of these steps people offer supposedly to counteract fraud seem to really be about keeping particular populations from voting. Look up North Carolina's 2018 voter ID law.

> Is this process doing us any good if a thousand citizens are disenfranchised for every fraudulent vote prevented? > >>Haha. You really think it's 1000 mail-in voters that would not vote for every one potential instance of fraud?

I'm asking you what numbers you'd find acceptable. And yeah, considering the low rate of fraudulent votes, 1,000 rightful votes prevented vs 1 fraudulent vote prevented really doesn't seem out there.

It’s a good way to make friends in the neighborhood!

> I'm asking you what numbers you'd find acceptable. And yeah, considering the low rate of fraudulent votes, 1,000 rightful votes prevented vs 1 fraudulent vote prevented really doesn't seem out there.

Again, if people truly want to vote then they will arrange their affairs to do so. If they can't then tough beans. It's never going to be exactly the same level of convenience for everybody anyway. The only way to make it truly uniform is to have a single defined process involving showing up at the polls and presenting your ID.

The only acceptable amount of fraud is zero. You seem to think that there's some acceptable level of fraud in order to expand the convenience to some subset of the population. I disagree.

Have a nice day sir.

You are exactly correct. The voting rights act secured the right for minorities. However, that act does not supersede the constitution of the United States. The rules were set by the Pennsylvania legislature as directed. Only the legislature can change the rules. This judge over stepped his legal authority.

> The only acceptable amount of fraud is zero. You seem to think that there's some acceptable level of fraud in order to expand the convenience to some subset of the population. I disagree.

Of course fraud isn't acceptable. But like all crime, it's inevitable. It only rises to a problem when it's statistically significant. And it's not.

Disenfranchising large amounts of people to prevent tiny amounts of frauds is a classic case of ignoring the forest for the trees. That amount of fraud is too small to have any effect on elections. Mass disentrancement does.

>Have a nice day sir.

And you too, maam.

The voting rights act constrained what legislatures could do to curtail equal voting protections for our citizens. To suggest that this type of regulation isn't possible stands in the face of hundreds of years of precedent.

The constitution also holds up the judiciary as a co-equal branch to legislatures that can hold them in check if they step on the constitutionally-protected rights of our citizens. Discarding someone's vote because of a clerical error, when a postmark fulfills the intent and purpose of the hand-written date is fucking stupid, and suggests that dogmatic reading of one part of the constitution is somehow more important than an individual's, or in this case hundreds of individuals' right to vote.

Really? It’s patriotic to throw out a ballot that has been received before Election Day because it’s not dated?

That’s not the stance anyone is taking. The ruling was correct. If you want to make changes you have to do so through the proper avenues.

Uhm. That’s EXACTLY the stance. The ruling is unAmerican.

How exactly?

Explain in detail how this is wrong.

This dude definitely thinks Trump actually won don't even bother 😂

The Republicans want to throw out mailed ballots even though they were received prior to Election Day for a reason that does not have anything to do with ballot integrity. And that is unAmerican. Its a desperate attempt to silence fellow Americans and take away their right to vote. A right that was fought for and our beloved died for. But Republicans want to piss on it.

Cool speech but that isn’t what was ruled on…

Eh, I enjoy this sort of thing, for rea.

"Election fraud" has become a euphemism. No one concerned about election fraud is seriously concerned about election fraud. They are using it as a socially-acceptable cover for what they are really trying to do.

Yeah it was.

“Republicans have sought to throw out undated mail ballots that arrive on time but without a handwritten date on their outer envelopes as required by state law.”

>as required by state law

Right. A law with no purpose but to disenfranchise fellow Americans was passed by our Republican general assembly. Republicans want to nullify the votes of citizens for no other purpose (not to strengthen the integrity of the vote, not to deter fraud, etc) than to disenfranchise those who vote via mail. And that is unAmerican.

Okay.

So address the issue the right way.

What do you mean?

Follow the legislative process to changing a law. The crux of the issue at hand. The process was against standing laws. Change the law through the appropriate governing body and it can’t be challenged.

But the persons with the power to change the law (Republicans are in majority in the general assembly) are more interested in seeing it enforced than changed!

I plan to vote straight Democrat to get laws like this one corrected.

Is there something wrong with paper? Asking for a friend…

But that is how our government functions.

Republicans appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court. They didn’t have to do that. They chose to enforce an unfair law.

They chose to enforce laws as they are written. This isn’t how you correct an unjust law.

They chose to enforce an unjust law instead of change it. Period.

Correct. But they aren’t under any obligation by their constituents to do so. You can’t just change laws without following the proper procedures.

It creates a very dangerous precedence.

So if their constituents were of a higher integrity, and demanded the change on moral grounds (since no one is arguing that the law is rooted in any basis of common good), Republicans would then (and only then)have reason to change the unjust law?

I’m saying if you piss of your constituents you face losing re-election. That’s what drives most politicians.

Arguably a conservative going against this risks upsetting their base and losing votes.

Not sure why this seems weird it’s the root of politics.

I understand what you are saying. I just find it sad that common decency isn’t a value amongst Republicans. You would know better than I.

Why would I know better than you?

Since you are a constituent of these Republican lawmakers.

Damn. Here I thought we had made real progress in your ability to not make baseless assumptions.

You know nothing of me or how I vote.

Cool. Cool.

So you are planning to vote against all Republicans members of the general assembly?

Already voted. I also don’t party vote or vote against a candidate. I evaluate each one and determine how they would best represent me and vote accordingly.

You are hilarious. I will continue to assume that you are voting for Republicans in our general assembly even though you know that they are acting unjustly, and unpatriotically. How sad.

But go ahead and clutch your pearls about my making assumptions.

Conclude all you want. You have nothing to support it and it matters not to me. The best part is you are just running on emotions at this point and no logic, not a good look.

I already voted so now it’s just time to wait and see how things go.

One question. Why would you trust the Republicans to improve our economy when it’s in their interest to trash it while Biden is in office?

It doesn’t take trust. Just look historically. They bungle the economy pretty much every time they are in power.

I voted by mail last year for the first time they give you an update when you're a ballot is received and they give you an update when your ballot has been counted so there is a check balance system in effect