In their defense, they see universal suffrage as a moral good, and they also have a point that depending on what votes are actually being thrown out, genuine votes could be struck.
Like the Sean Parnell lawsuit in PA. There's real chance that hundreds of thousands of mail-in votes could be thrown out. Particularly legitimate ones because the process itself was unconstitutional, based off of the legislature's own incompetence-fraud. Real people, really voting, following the law as it was explained to them, being unable to have their votes counted because the process was wrong.
Worse, it may not be even clear which votes are the ones that should be thrown out. Thanks to the behavior of many of these polling stations, it's now impossible to tell which ones arrived in water coolers in the middle of the night, and which are legitimate. In that case, legitimate votes might have to be thrown out with the illegitimate ones, because there is no way to tell which is which.
One way or another, there probably are going to be legitimate votes thrown out if we throw out the illegitimate ones. That's just going to be the way it is.
The solution to the problems you describe are to have and maintain strict voting standards, not to eliminate those standards. The latter is guaranteed to result in the outcomes we are seeing, which is exactly what the right said would happen while the left was busy eliminating them.
Did any of the Weinsteins support the elimination of these standards? If so, they are complicit in the disenfranchisement of the very voters they claim to want to protect.
Did any of the Weinsteins support the elimination of these standards?
I don't know. I haven't seen them make the argument. I'm just pointing out the logic behind the progressive desire for universal suffrage (which I, myself, already disagree with).
In their defense, they see universal suffrage as a moral good, and they also have a point that depending on what votes are actually being thrown out, genuine votes could be struck.
Like the Sean Parnell lawsuit in PA. There's real chance that hundreds of thousands of mail-in votes could be thrown out. Particularly legitimate ones because the process itself was unconstitutional, based off of the legislature's own incompetence-fraud. Real people, really voting, following the law as it was explained to them, being unable to have their votes counted because the process was wrong.
Worse, it may not be even clear which votes are the ones that should be thrown out. Thanks to the behavior of many of these polling stations, it's now impossible to tell which ones arrived in water coolers in the middle of the night, and which are legitimate. In that case, legitimate votes might have to be thrown out with the illegitimate ones, because there is no way to tell which is which.
One way or another, there probably are going to be legitimate votes thrown out if we throw out the illegitimate ones. That's just going to be the way it is.
The solution to the problems you describe are to have and maintain strict voting standards, not to eliminate those standards. The latter is guaranteed to result in the outcomes we are seeing, which is exactly what the right said would happen while the left was busy eliminating them.
Did any of the Weinsteins support the elimination of these standards? If so, they are complicit in the disenfranchisement of the very voters they claim to want to protect.
I don't disagree.
I don't know. I haven't seen them make the argument. I'm just pointing out the logic behind the progressive desire for universal suffrage (which I, myself, already disagree with).
If the overall vote is tainted by illegal votes, then you toss all the votes and hold a special election. Any other course disenfranchises someone.
Honestly, I'd rather the legislature vote. I'd argue that's a pretty significant political consequence to their voters.