The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Lessons from the 2020 Presidential Election
The importance of the secret ballot and of same day voting
In my post yesterday about the 2020 presidential election, I argued that the widespread use of mail in voting because of Covid distorted the election's results. It did so because when people vote at home instead of in a voting booth with a curtain drawn behind them, family members and partisan canvassers observe how those people vote. The voter will inevitably feel pressure from family members and the canvaser that he would not feel if he voted in a traditional voting booth.
The second problem with mail-in voting is that the headlines and news are constantly changing. The goal of an election should be to capture voter sentiment on Election Day, not election month. All voters should have the same state of the nation and the world in mind when they cast their ballots.
I do not think there was fraud in the counting of votes or vote machine error in the 2020 presidential election. I did therefore misspeak in writing that the results of mail in voting in 2020 were fraudulent. But, I do think that the outcome of the 2020 election was changed because of the use of mail in voting and that this may explain why President Trump lost the counted vote in 2020. People casting votes at home with other people looking at how they were voting probably felt pressure not to vote for President Trump's re-election.
Going forward, President Trump is calling today for the GOP to invest massively in mail in voting, which is perfectly sensible if the Democrats are going to engage in it. A better longterm outcome would be to get back to the secret ballot and have everyone vote in person on one day -- Election Day.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He already wrote all of that
That doesn't mean he remembers any of it.
No Klingers? Bettors? Stompings? you're off your game today Revolting.
Keep talking, Drackman. You helped Mr. Volokh blog his way right off the UCLA campus . . . perhaps you could do the same with respect to Calabresi. (Blackman likely isn't going anywhere until South Texas burns through all of that sweet Leo-Jesus cash.)
Shorter Calabresi-
Um, all that stuff about fraud? Nvm. I meant, um, the results were different because, um, people worried about what other people would think, or something.
Also, mail-in voting was terrible and fraudulent yesterday. But I realized that Trump is saying we should do it. So, it's not actually that terrible.
Yeah, this is low-key the most unintentionally hilarious main post on the VC that I can remember. And this is a blog that increasingly features Josh B., so it' s not for lack of competition.
I don't understand why you won't let him climb down from his earlier position and closer to what conceivably is yours. Truly bizarre response. Sort of reminds me of the "basket of deplorables" episode.
Because of the actual substance of his post!
Seriously, there is a massive difference between recognizing that you wrote something that was truly unhinged (and massively contradicted your own statements from less than a year ago) and this, which ... is just a "never mind" and, more than that, takes the one big point he was making (about mail in ballots, which is still BS) and basically says, "Well, Trump is saying we need to do it, so ... I'm down for it!"
If you don't recognize how bizarre this is, I can't help you. And no, whipsawing between crazy posts is not "closer to {my position}".
Both sides can abuse mail in voting and same day registration. Both lack reasonable safeguards to prevent fraudulent voting. Both lack good mechanisms to catch potential fraudulent voting.
Hey Joe_dallas, why are you still using this sockpuppet? Why have a sockpuppet at all?
Given the left’s pogroms against anyone failing to toe the democrat party line on the 2020 election, it is understandable that anyone in academia must write in guarded tones. It’s not mail-in ballots per se, although mail in ballots have such a propensity for fraud that most other countries have abandoned them. It’s mail in ballots combined with a lack of standards for voter registration, lack of verification of the ballot itself, failure to maintain voter roles, ballot harvesting, unmonitored drop-boxes, and a less than open and honest counting of votes in certain swing states, to state a few problems that we’re supposed to pretend don’t exist.
'Given the left’s pogroms'
Their what now
Not really sure I understand. Do you not understand the word or are you just ignorant of the censorship and forced conformity?
Besides being nonsensical, that's not what the word pogrom means.
You describe the conduct of the fascist left your way and I’ll describe it my way. Or is communist left better? It's a toss up.
So "pogrom" somehow became "forced conformity," whatever that's supposed to mean.
Those of us who aren't in comas understand that the only actual censorship in the US is coming from the Trumpkin right: banning books in FL and TX, eliminating DEI in multiple states, FL's infamous "Don't Say Gay" law.
Keep digging!
BULLSHIT!!!!
Set foot on college campi recently, Nige?
Given the left’s pogroms against anyone failing to toe the democrat party line on the 2020 election...
You could run a drive-in movie theater with that much projection.
Nice try. The left projects. It's all you do. To distract from your censorship, weaponization of the law, the absurd cancel culture and most everything else you side does that is offensive to liberty as we've known it in this country.
You don't display any understanding of what projection is.
In psychology, projection refers to assigning your negative traits or unwanted emotions to others without being aware you’re doing it.
Think about what I quoted. Is it "the left" that has been punishing its members and allies for "failing to toe the...party line on the 2020 election?" How many Democrats that said that they saw problems with the 2020 election and doubt that Biden won legitimately have been primaried or expelled from their state party or driven to not seek reelection? It wouldn't take me long to get more a dozen Republicans that have had those things done to them for not expressing doubt about the accuracy of the 2020 results or otherwise showing enough fealty to Donald Trump.
Yes, it's the left. It's the left targeting its political opponents, it's the left censoring social media, it's the left forcing conformity, it's the left that gives us cancellation culture. It's all the left. Voters choosing not to support one candidate for whatever reason is not objectionable. The left's gross abuses are.
I'll pay you $5000 if you can show one example of "the left" "censoring" anything. On the other hand, I can provide dozens of examples of Republicans censoring books, schools, and social media.
Serious question: did you ever wonder why smart people despise Trump?
Serious question: did you ever wonder why smart people despise Trump?
That's kind of a loaded question. He might not agree that anyone that opposes Trump is smart. To Riva, anyone that was truly smart would support Trump.
For my part, I would find it extremely unlikely for either Trump or Biden to only have supporters or opponents that were smart or stupid and not some of each. No one is "smart" about everything, especially not in politics.
Diturno, how much money do you have?
I could just walk down the list of stuff that FIRE documented at UMass and we'd be in 7 figures -- we'd be in 9 if I listed all of it...
And still dodging what you said that I am criticizing. The complaints you are making about "the left" are things I never said anything about here, and they were also not part of what you had said that I was criticizing. You specifically brought up the "party line on the 2020 election," so I pointed out how Trump has gotten his MAGA allies in the GOP to force the party to toe Trump's line on the 2020 election being stolen, or at least suspect. No one is getting Trump's support that says that Biden won in 2020, and anyone that actually speaks out against Trump's fraud claims has been targeted for 'cancellation' as being a RINO.
I'm not even going to play your game on discussing any of those other things until you deal with that.
Well, well, well, looks like the cat’s out of the bag, and the deep state’s dirty little secrets are spilling faster than a liberal’s tears on election night! Professor Calabresi, a true patriot if there ever was one, has laid bare the ugly truth about the 2020 Presidential Election, and it’s time we listened.
Mail-in voting, my friends, is like handing the keys to the kingdom over to the damn Democrats! It’s like saying, “Here, take my wallet, and while you’re at it, steal my identity too!” You see, when we vote by mail, we invite partisan canvassers and overbearing family members to peer over our shoulders like nosy neighbors. It’s like trying to enjoy a quiet picnic while a herd of elephants dances the tango on your lawn!
And don’t even get me started on the ever-changing news cycle. It’s like trying to hit a moving target while blindfolded! The whole point of an election is to capture the nation’s sentiment at a single point in time, not let the damn liberals manipulate public opinion with their biased headlines!
Now, some of you may be thinking, “Oh, but what about fraud? Was there any funny business?” Well, my friends, let me ask you this: do birds fly south for the winter? Of course, there was fraud! You don’t need a crystal ball to see that the damn Democrats took advantage of this mail-in voting fiasco. They probably had dead
voters casting ballots and illegal aliens voting multiple times!
-Lin
I love the unfalsifiable premise!
If my side loses, it because the fix is always in. From the deep state.
But when we win, it's because, um, something something apple pie!
That's how you know the true believer- he's always up for a coin flip. "Heads" his belief system right, "tails" your facts are wrong.
Looks like we have a real comedian on our hands, folks! But I'm afraid their joke of a commentary falls flatter than a liberal's emotions after a Trump rally. You see, the left loves to mock what they don't understand. They scoff at our unwavering belief in the deep state, attributing it to sour grapes when their shady schemes come to light.
But let me ask you this: who are the true believers now? Are we, the proud patriots who uphold the Constitution and the American way, or are they, the progressive puppets dancing to the tune of big government and cultural decay? I'll give you a hint: it's not the damn Democrats!
You see, the deep state is as real as the nose on your face, and twice as ugly. It's the boogeyman in the closet, the monster under the bed, except it's not imaginary—it's very, very real. It's the shadow government, pulling the strings behind the scenes, working tirelessly to strip us of our freedoms and traditional values.
And when we win, it's not because of some damn apple pie and rainbows fantasy. It's because we speak to the heart and soul of this great nation. We represent the everyday Americans who love their guns, their God, and their right to speak their minds without the damn politically correct police coming after them!
So, let us not be deterred by the left's feeble attempts at humor. We are the true believers, the patriots who see through their charades, and we will continue to shine a light on their hypocrisy and restore this nation to its former glory. It's time to take back what's ours, one laugh, one truth, and one election at a time!
-Lin
"You see, the deep state is as real as the nose on your face, and twice as ugly. It’s the boogeyman in the closet, the monster under the bed, except it’s not imaginary—it’s very, very real."
The deep state is the boogeyman in the closet, the monster under the bed, except it's real. I truly admire the fact that the two analogies that you immediately came up with are ... imaginary.
But look, don't let me (or facts, or reality) stop you. I happen to agree that elections are real. And that they are fair. Which allows your vote to matter just as much as mine.
I truly wish you would actually base your positions on things that matter. It's my experience that most Americans have more in common that what separates us, despite the overcharged rhetoric of internet comments and moron politicians. But that's not in my control.
Hope you have a great weekend, and that you enjoy something other than ... well, this.
Either he is a troll (don't reply) or a satirist (have a good chuckle).
I read that as satire, but I'm lying in the sun and may be sluggish.
I read it as satire too, although in Loki's defense, Poe's law is can be an especially harsh mistress on this blog.
This LL guy is the best to ever to do it IMO.
Other potential Poes tend to end up collapsing the distinction between trolling and genuine belief to the point that you just have to invoke the Rule of Goats.
LL is pretty careful about making it ambiguous enough that the line between troll and genuine belief still plausibly exists.
Yes, if the election is not conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and my side loses, then I am going to say that the election was stolen.
...okay. But here's the thing. I can already guarantee you that if you (as in, the side you root for) wins, the election will be awesome and fair, and if you lose, it won't be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Basically, you're Pauline Kael. You just can't believe that enough people would vote in a different way. I mean, if it makes you feel better, people "on the other side" still can't understand why anyone would vote for Trump, so there's that!
(she didn’t say that!)
Don't let reality get in the way of a good anecdote.
Play it again, Sam.
Right, that's why we need elections that are self-evidently fair. Nobody should be able to go to a nursing home, collect 200 ballots, and drop them in a drop box, without any record of how those votes were cast. Nobody should be counting ballots a week after the election. Counting should only take an hour, with observers verifying procedures.
I know Biden voters, but I do not know anyone enthusiastic about him.
“Counting should only take an hour, with observers verifying procedures.”
This is absurd given the numbers involved and the complexity of ballots. How on earth are we supposed to verify, count, and report well over 150,000,000 ballots submitted over the course of one day that can include everything from president to school board in the space of an hour?
Other civilized countries do it. Lots of US precincts do it. California can take a month or two to count votes. If it takes more than an hour, then they are incompetent or crooked.
Okay give an example of a country with a similar population and ballot and voting procedures as complex as ours that does it in an hour.
You think it takes California a month to "engineer" the election of Democrats?
"Nobody should be counting ballots a week after the election. Counting should only take an hour, with observers verifying procedures."
This could be largely solved by allowing the counting of mail votes as they come in.
Or lots of in-person early voting time and locations.
"Counting should only take an hour, with observers verifying procedures."
I help out with my local elections board. They do a great job. They get provisional results out quickly.
But what you are demanding isn't realistic. Have you every actually done any real election work?
Or voted.
I know plenty of Trump voters. They tend to be worthless bigots, superstitious dumbasses, and disaffected misfits. Often found at the white, male Volokh Conspiracy.
Well, yeah, Sex Offenders tend to be like that, what about the 80,000,000 Trump voters that don't share your "proclivities"??
Frank
How do you believe elderly people in homes should vote? Could we bring a voting machine to each home? Sounds unlrealistic, especially in a time where Republican voters are increasingly against machines. They've become Election Neo-Luddites.
“People ‘on the other side’ still can’t understand why anyone would vote for Trump, so there’s that!”
I don’t disagree with this. But want to add a nuance. In 2016, and when Trump looked to be ahead on Nov 4, 2020, this sentiment among liberals was mixed with a feeling that their worst stereotypes about America are being confirmed: there are just enough voters that are stupid, sexist, racist, and mean to result in Trump. So it combines confusion with a lack of surprise.
I mean. Kinda.
For me, it’s that I know Trump. You know, the pre-Apprentice Trump.
The idea that this guy would ever be President is still shocking to me. I truly don’t understand how he not only became President (which is shocking enough) but that so many people seem willfully blind about who he is and what he has done. It’s like bizarro-world.
Further, the idea that Trump would take over the GOP completely ... I can't even. Again, I feel like I'm in an alternate universe sometimes.
It is amazing!
I chalk it up to a combination of things: 1) many Americans feel they don’t have a voice from either party’s establishment (all-too-often Democrats have failed to appeal to them by belittling them as uneducated), 2) they are willing to project Trump to be a charasmatic, celebrity, anti-establishment savior (even though that image is total bullshit), 3) which is enhanced by the anti-immigrant, pro-tarriff, isolationist policies espoused by Steve Bannon and embraced by Trump, and 4) elected officials embrace Trump because they don’t want to suffer Liz Cheney’s fate (and hence the takeover of the GOP).
I still can’t believe it either
Maybe it’s my inner historian but while everything feels insane in the moment, it’s probably something that has continuity with the past. Someone reading a history of the US, one hundred years from now might be justified in concluding that Trump and Trumpism was more or less inevitable!
Looking forward to John Ganz’s book When the Clock Broke that looks to the early 90s for clues as to how our current politics would emerge.
I don’t believe it was hard to predict in the 1990s a looming divide based on education level in a post-industrial USA with an increasingly globally interconnected economy and more automation (so long as no one could figure out how to keep lesser educated people in high-paying jobs).
What is surprising is Trump is the knight in shining armor. Of all the populists to pick, we end up with the guy who doesn’t give a shit about anyone besides himself and will pathologically lie and screw anyone to advance himself.
“Of all the populists to pick, we end up with the guy who doesn’t give a shit about anyone besides himself and will pathologically lie and screw anyone to advance himself.”
This makes a lot of sense to me! Bush II was too much like his dad. A patrician who was never into red meat. Even when he did bad shit…he always talked about service and higher ideals. He probably believed in it somewhat! He refused (personally) to be anti-Islam after 9/11. He was pretty pro-immigration. He was personally wounded by the idea Katrina happened because he hated black people!
Because admin was such a failure domestically and abroad this incarnation of right wing politics couldn’t last. Romney tried to give it some edge…but he has the same attitudes as Bush and everyone saw that.
So we get to the primary and here’s this rich guy who ditched all that bullshit. Transparent in his self interest. He was mean to JEB! and the uber-dorks who couldn’t pull off the populism they wanted. He never pretended ideals mattered. He didn’t impose any obligations on anyone to care about service, he gave a permission structure for people to be their worst selves. The rise of reality TV and a complete fracturing of media made it so someone who was all surface aesthetics that you could project anything onto made it easy for this type of person to take over.
As for the general: it was a fluke based on a combination of factors. But in the end he assembled a classic coalition: true assholes + traditionalists who think they can control him + dissatisfied people (for whatever reason) who want something new.
I don't think the proposition that Trump voters are not college educated; roughly 30% (For Biden, roughly 40%) - really holds much water. In the overall scheme of things for 2024, I don't think it will matter that much (there are other more important issues voters are thinking about when considering Pres Trump & POTUS Biden)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/
The overall share of the electorate with a college degree is <40%, meaning most voters are not college educated anyway. Turnout rate is not so terribly different btwn college/non-college.
Where are the votes?
It is elderly, at home on fixed income who drive a car and own a home and cognizant, that will be a key demographic in the 2020 election. Particularly in blue states. That demographic turns out to vote, and that is where I see the most value to election messaging.
I ascribe it to the internet, which allowed people to indulge their basest hatreds and live on misinformation. Politically it’s almost entirely a story about the change in the Republican Party beginning with Bob Dole’s overuse of the filibuster in 1993 to block Clinton even when Clinton was proposing traditionally Republican ideas, and then the Gingrich takeover. As for Democrats they pretty much haven’t changed.
Gingrich “took over” in 1994 (not sworn in as Speaker until January 95′) I had a brand new Pentium 120 that I paid $4,000 (inflation adjusted for) for, Modem was separate, as was the sound card and speakers, and I had a Compuserve account where I could type witty posts at the “C:/ prompt”) Don't think the Internets had anything to do with it.
DemoKKKrats haven’t changed? Barry Hussein went from opposing Same Sex Marriage (I have a Sometimes Sex Marriage) to supporting it in under 4 years, following the lead of that Progressive Pioneer, Sleepy Joe Biden
Frank
There is something else going on that people aren't talking about in this thread. I saw it in an article that was reviewing a book. (Too lazy to look it up again right now.) The book was a historical look at Germany in 1932. It points out that the Nazis had actually been underperforming in elections compared to expectations. The position of the book, which the article summarized, is that too many people in positions of power on the conservative side in Germany thought that they could use Hitler for their own ends and then discard him. Hitler was basically an unsophisticated buffoon in their eyes that would burn out before he actually built any real power. The article never mentions Trump or even hints at any lessons for today, but it was impossible not to see the parallels.
Obviously, Trump isn't Hitler. That is counter-productive hyperbole to suggest. But it does explain a lot of what happened. The GOP establishment that didn't like Trump still thought they could use him once he had the nomination wrapped up. And Fox helped him get there by all of the free air time and positive commentary from the likes of Hannity and Fox and Friends. The ones that hated Trump divided into the Never-Trump camp and those that sold their souls to appeal to Trump's fans. Only the ones that became true MAGA believers were enthusiastic about what Trump represented and worked to reshape the GOP in Trump's image.
Whatever, there are reasons why Hitler came to power and don't forget that...
I don’t know what the dynamic is like in the Calabresi household, but no one in my family has ever seen (or asked to see!) my ballot. Nor have I ever run into partisan canvassers breaking in and peeping over my shoulder.
Its far more likely to happen with less sophisticated individuals, the young new voters, the elderly who have developed impaired mental abilities, and the poorly educated. Its far less likely that a person such as yourself with years of business experience, college educations, etc is going to be exposed to that type activity
Why is it "far more likely" to happen with young voters or the less educated? I would think they are actually more likely to have friends and family that don't care enough about politics to pressure them to vote in any way.
It also only makes sense (as an illegitimate reason why Biden won the election) if you assume that Republicans in Democrat households are more likely to be bullied into voting for Democrats than vice versa. Otherwise, it's a wash.
Or, if the likelihood of bullying is equal, maybe that there are more "Republicans in Democrat households" than "Democrats in Republican households"? Certainly, that would be counter-stereotype (as well as counter my own experience and understanding).
It used to be the Factory Foreman who stood behind you and made sure you voted the "right" way -- or you were out of a job.
Now it is the welfare caseworker who does -- or you are off public assistance.
Same thing, different century....
I applaud the Volokh conspiracy for its decision to allow this unhinged conspiracy theorist to continue to post here.
"I do not myself believe that there was fraud in the counting of ballots or voting machine malfunctions. I do believe, however, that the unprecedented use of mail in voting over a period of many weeks, with the loss of the secret ballot, and drop boxes, produced a fundamentally illegitimate Biden victory in 2020 in Pennsylvania and elsewhere."
In other words, yes, the vote count was accurate and there was no fraud but Biden's victory was still illegitimate.
Just fucking priceless.
In a fair election, all votes are cast and counted on Election Day. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing whether the count was valid.
The election had many millions of unverified votes. Calabresis cannot know whether the count was accurate.
I dont have an issue with reasonable use of mail in voting, primarily for the military and other US citizens working overseas. Wide spread use of mail in voting is simply ripe for abuse.
For soldiers on a foreign military base, we could easily have procedures where the base ensures fair voting.
Why is it fair to exclude long haul truckers from voting?
These right-wing nuts haven't thought through any of this. They're just flailing.
Are they too stupid to apply for an Absentee ballot? And that's not a group your side really wants to vote more.
Are you too stupid to understand that we’re discussing a system where they won’t be able to apply for one? Because they wouldn’t exist? Also “my side” wants as many people to vote as possible.
Yeah right, you'd dig up Martin Luther King (jr) if you needed a vote.
Why indeed?
They could vote in whatever jurisdiction they happened to be in on election day. That's what the Soviets did.
"In a fair election, all votes are cast and counted on Election Day."
I hate to tell you this, but we've had lots of unfair elections then. Absentee voting occurred during the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War II, etc., Washington and California had it in the 1970s. Heck, Utah hasn't had a fair election in a decade I guess (is that why Republicans keep winning there?).
"Otherwise, we have no way of knowing whether the count was valid."
Why is that? There's these envelopes, you can just open and count them.
All of them. Votes have never been fully counted on Election Day. When they've historically announced election results on Election Day, it was because the margin of victory was sufficiently large that the uncounted votes couldn't swing the election.
Have you written your Senator to tell them why absentee ballots from those serving in the military should be excluded?
You are one dumb son of a bitch.
And a worthless, bigoted, despicable bitch she was.
Mothers are off limits, I mean, except for yours, Yo Mama so fat, bears steal HER food, Yo Mama so ugly her self portrait hung itself, Yo Mama so stupid, she thinks the Canadian border pays rent!, Yo Daddy asked Yo Mama which one of his friends she was sleeping with, she said, All of them! Yo Mama so old, she knew Burger King when he was Burger Prince!
Frank
This is nonsense. You don't like mail-in voting because it supposedly favors Democrats, not because it is inherently "unfair".
Now that Trump has embraced it, you'll come around. Just wait.
It actually turns out that elections are only fair if the votes are cast within a specific seven hour and forty-four minute window on Election Day. We have no way of monitoring or tracking anything except during this period, and if we did it would be a sin to do so.
Well, I'm of course glad Calabresi walked back some of his 100% whoredom from yesterday.
I've gone back and searched for his past articles where he must have lambasted absentee voting by the military, which has gone on for decades and decades. It is NOT possible to find an environment more prone to having peer pressure going on than inside a military barrack. I haven't seen any Calabresi articles where he whines about this, and how Republicans (members of law enforcement and the military are heavily skewed towards conservatives and Republicans, of course) have benefited from this.
Can someone link to his articles, where he called for the end of military absentee voting/military mail-in voting, since I can't find them on my own.
Yeah, I know that this will mean that brave men and women who are risking their lives will be cut out of the crucial voting process. But, hey, I can't imagine any bad consequences from1,000 trained troops fighting a war in Afghanistan saying their their COs, "Hey, I need 3-5 days, to fly from here to a larger airport, to Germany, to New York, to Biloxi, so I can vote in 2-3 days, and then I'll turn around and reverse those flights, and will be back as soon as possible. Actually, all of us soldiers and medics and doctors and generals need that identical leave, at the exactly same period of time [hat-tip to the genius who got rid of early voting], so I guess that the United States military is taking sort of a siesta to allow for voting."
I cannot see any potential negative consequences resulting from this. Because, surely, Calabresi is not suggesting carving out a special rule aimed just at the most Republican and most conservative segment of the voting population, right?
Calabresi in 2020-
"But I am frankly appalled by the president's recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats' assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate."
Calabresi in 2023-
"Let me, however, be very clear about one thing. I am a Never Trumper. I will vote for any Republican in the primaries over Trump or, if necessary for the Democratic Party's nominee for President over Donald Trump. I am a Never Trumper because of the former President's behavior on January 6, 2021 when he stirred up a crowd, started a riot on Capitol Hill to disrupt the counting of electoral votes, and then declined to call off the riot either with a Tweet or by calling out the National Guard. ... The Senate foolishly failed to convict and disqualify Trump, and so now he is running for re-election. Let me make it crystal clear that I will vote for any Republican and for any law-abiding Democrat, including certainly Joe Biden, in 2024, if Trump is the Republican nominee for president. Trump is loathsome ... So, Trump's name should appear on election ballots in the 2024 presidential election, but I strongly urge my fellow Americans to vote against Trump, almost no matter what else is the alternative."
Also in 2023-
"Trump took the Presidential oath of office at noon on January 20, 2017. Then, knowing that he had lost the 2020 election, he engaged in an "insurrection" on January 6, 2021. ... He lied to the American people for years that the election had been stolen and continues to repeat those lies even to the present day."
Also in 2023-
"Donald Trump is manifestly out of his mind at the age of 77, and he is no longer qualified to be President."
Calabresi in 2024-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Okay, Calabresi has Trump Derangement Syndrome, but he can still be in favor of having a fair election.
TDS wasn't named after Trump for no reason!
This was hilarious, nicely done. A nice chuckle in the early morning. Thanks for that.
“The second problem with mail-in voting is that the headlines and news are constantly changing.”
Yes. This is how linear time works. They also continue to change the day AFTER an election. People can vote on Tuesday and then on Wednesday find things out from the news that would have made them vote differently. People can immediately regret their vote whether they do it bright and early on the first day of early voting or whether they do it just before the polls close on election night.
“The goal of an election should be to capture voter sentiment on Election Day, not election month.”
No. The goal of an election is to select officials for a long period of time. A period much longer than a day or a month. It’s purpose is not capture how they feel on a particular day. People are making a rough guesses on incomplete information about future outcomes in literally every election. Might as well make it logistically easy on the voter and let them decide when they know enough to cast a vote.
“All voters should have the same state of the nation and the world in mind when they cast their ballots.”
This is an impossible goal. For one thing voters will never have the same state of the world in mind when they cast votes. They’ll always view it somewhat differently anyway. And again time is linear, the state of the world is going to be different at 7 am on Tuesday compared to 7 pm. That’s a lot of time for something to happen in the news that could affect one’s vote!
“A better longterm outcome would be to get back to the secret ballot and have everyone vote in person on one day—Election Day.”
This is a terrible idea because every eligible voter can’t vote in person on one day. There aren’t enough polling places or staff to accommodate that. There are very good reasons many people have obligations that prevent this from happening. A neurosurgeon scheduled for an 8 hour surgery on Election Day…isn’t going to be able to vote in person that day. Or truckers. Or pilots. Or any number of other people with jobs and duties that prevent that.
But let’s say it was theoretically possible for everyone to get to their polling place during a 10-12 hour window on a Tuesday. That would be a logistical nightmare if they all showed up. Long lines. Harried staff. Cranky voters. Space and time matter when potentially 240,000,000 people want to do the same thing all at once. The only reason this makes sense is if you want a tiny fraction of the number of eligible voters to deal with that chaos on Election Day. But only extremists who tend to be honest in their extremism admit that.
Does Calabresi propose that everyone be forced to read the newspaper before voting? (Which newspaper?) Because it turns out that nobody is required to actually follow the news at all before doing so.
Let's bring back literacy tests!
The Fraud charges will come when "45" carries 35 states in November
Doesn't your keyboard get sticky from all that lube?
It gets sticky, but it's not from lube
That they will riot is a given -- the question is what will WE do?!?
"People casting votes at home with other people looking at how they were voting probably felt pressure not to vote for President Trump's re-election."
Nobody had other people looking at how they were voting pressuring them to support Trump?
Before 2020, there wasn't a partisan bias in mail-in voting. But lo and behold in 2020, the pressure of people loooking over your shoulder suppressed Trump's vote. Yeesh!
There was a partisan bias in 2020. Everyone agrees to that.
Yes. So what?
No. A disparity and a bias are not the same thing.
There are also events that happen after election day that would have influenced the election if they happened beforehand.
It's beginning to look like the real problem is voting on any day at all.
The online right-wing frustration with linear time continues.
"A better longterm outcome would be to get back to the secret ballot and have everyone vote in person on one day—Election Day."
Cofounder of Federalist Society believes that votes from people serving abroad in the military should not count!
when people vote at home instead of in a voting booth with a curtain drawn behind them, family members and partisan canvassers observe how those people vote. The voter will inevitably feel pressure from family members and the canvaser that he would not feel if he voted in a traditional voting booth.
This idiocy illustrates the assumption these assholes alaways make - that if there is any monkey business it must be the Democrats doing it. Republicans are honest as the day is long, and no GOP canvasser or family member would ever pressure a voter, no Republican would ever violate election law.
What total dishonest crap. Is Mark Meadows out of jail yet?
The last time that I voted in a voting booth with a curtain behind me was in the 1980s. And I've voted in person every time since.
Republicans will leverage inconsistent claims about everything to seek an advantage.
We have a "privacy booth" here that has no curtain and is open at the back. We then take it to the front of the room and insert it into the machine. The "old-fashioned" system was behind a curtain and involved a lever machine. I do not miss it.
I loved the mechanical levers. They made me feel powerful. They should have included a "boom" as you press one down in place.
There was a certain fun aspect to them. The manual books of voters for you to sign in added to the old-timey feel.
Loved the sound it made when you pulled the big lever to cast your vote.
Are you suggesting that maybe Steve hasn't voted in person since the 1980s?
It wouldn't really surprise me if he hadn't...
Prof. Calabresi states that he doesn't think there was fraud in 2020 but that the way people voted may have contributed to Trump's loss. Any election is subject to any number of small events that could affect the outcome. If the Iranians had not taken the embassy staff hostage would Jimmy Carter have been reelected, we don't know. Every election things happen, personal events, local events, or world events, and we don't know what their impact will be on the vote. So, the professor might consider this idea, had former President Trump done a better job at addressing the pandemic he very well might have won the election. But had he won would it be because people did not see him as incompetent or because less people felt the need to vote by mail?
It's far more likely that some small number of people associated with the Reagan campaign privately negotiated with the Iranians to keep holding those hostages than that a massive number of people across the nation conspired to alter the 2020 election but forgot to rig any Senate or other elections.
Look, organizing a vast criminal conspiracy involving thousands of people isn't as easy as it looks. They could only really focus on one word: "Biden".
Focusing the conspiracy on the much more complicated word, "Democrat", would have thrown the whole thing off!
Per Prof. Calabresi, we all need to vote at the same time, since "[t]he goal of an election should be to capture voter sentiment on Election Day, not election month."
Do thoughtful and responsible voters really need to monitor everything that happens in the news, right up to the moment they cast their ballots? How likely is it that such a voter's choice will be changed by one last-minute piece of news?
Feckless and dim-witted voters, on the other hand, are much more likely to vote based on their emotional response to the latest soundbite. Having them all vote at the same point in the news cycle gives campaigns and biased media sources that much more incentive to come up with an "October surprise".
Unfortunately, there's no good way to dissuade voting by the kind of people who're ruled by their emotions rather than their reason. But by spreading out voting over a span of weeks, we can make it harder for candidates to win elections by hitting such people with a tear-jerking or anger-arousing story on the eve of Election Day.
Unfortunately, there’s no good way to dissuade voting by the kind of people who’re ruled by their emotions rather than their reason.
By “good” do you could mean ethically acceptable given our history, or you could mean effective in screening out the feckless.
In general, anything that requires more steps, more effort, and more planning tends to select for less whimsical voters.
But since we’re probably not going to deliberately make voting harder, I’d propose some small reforms:
(a) Remove party labels from the ballot. If you don’t know anything about the candidate we shouldn’t “help” you with a label that has very little connection to any kind of coherent program or belief. (Side benefit – helps kill the Euroweenie idea starting to infect the US, that we’re electing parties rather than people.)
(b) Add an explicit “Don’t Know” option for each office. That way honest but ignorant people can check a box and feel they did their civic duty, rather than feeling like they’re obligated to guess.
All removing the party labels from the ballot would do is have the parties mailing out a checklist of "approved people" for the party faithful to vote for.
Until we get rid of the abomination that is plurality voting we are going to have a two party system - and humans gravitate towards the "team" when that is the case.
I think my favorite part of this wank is "same-day voting is foundational, unless a Republican-leaning constituency feels otherwise".
But dude clearly is in the running for MAGA courtier-philosopher, assuming his liver holds out.
"People casting votes at home with other people looking at how they were voting probably felt pressure not to vote for President Trump's re-election."
Why would it work in one direction? As people have noted, especially in 2020 during COVID, people voted at home in Trump and Biden-leaning districts. The margin of victory was not so narrow that something like this is likely to have changed the result.
Absentee voting has taken place for a long time. I am not aware of this concern -- especially when Republicans supported it -- that it resulted in coercion. How often are the people likely to be split-ballot couples or something anyway?
On top of that, the person would have to fill out the ballot with someone looking over their shoulder. People are always somewhat pressured to vote in a certain way by peer pressure. We are talking marginal effects here, realistically.
Finally, I will respond in a devil's advocate way (after all, I do lean liberal; clearly, SC thinks I am devilish). Is it wrong that people who vote at home do not have a secret ballot? It's a choice on their part. People can and do share with people who they vote for. Some even take selfies, though sometimes that is illegal.
I put aside that the secret ballot is not how voting was originally handled. That's a historical fact but maybe it's relevant if you are an originalist. I understand that is an open-ended term.
Maybe, SC can write a third post tomorrow with a new update.
Perhaps the best long term outcome would be to not nominate someone people are so embarrassed to vote for in front of others.
I don't know, Sleepy seems to have made a career out of it.
Your argument is that fraud happened, but it wasn't fraud and that it was because family members watch people vote? I don't know if you've met any Trump voters, but they don't care if their family knows they vote for him, so that wasn't a factor. I've also voted absentee numerous times while I was in the military and never had someone breathing down my neck watching what I was filling out. Your concerns are about non-factors.
A “the perfect is the enemy of the good”argument if ever there was one.
Absentee ballots and assistance with voting have long been available to categories of people - people in the armed forces, abroad, sick , the disabled, many others. Mr. Calabresi’s argument to disenfranchise them all because their ballots are allegedly imperfect and therefore not wanted is frankly not all that different from historical arguments for literacy tests and other historical barriers to voting that effectively disenfranchise the vulnerable. There is a long tradition of cynically presenting blatant attempts to disenfranchise classes of people as efforts to make balloting more perfect. Mr. Calabresi’s argument fits well within that tradition.
So, does Yale know you're off your meds?
My conclusion is that pandemics play hell with election schedules.
You know how I know "45" is going to be "47"?
National Pubic Radio/Pubic Broadcasting System already playing up this bullshit "Bird Flu" story, good luck getting people to believe it
Frank
Counterpoint: News of Trump’s conviction didn’t move poll numbers at all. Any pressure, if it exists, would pull in both directions nullifying any effect.
Steve’s post yesterday went full-on John Eastman with its “reasoning” of:
- Procedures I don’t like = “Door was open for fraud”
- “Door was open” + results I don’t like = “prima facie evidence” of fraud
- “Prima facie evidence” = burden shifts to winner to prove his votes *aren’t* fraudulent
- Winner fails to prove his votes aren’t fraudulent (because you can’t prove something like that) = election was a rigged fraud; loser won
Today’s post is a total climbdown from that. Maybe someone pointed out this “argument” is identical, and identically idiotic, to that made by Democrats in 2004 and 2016 to deny the legitimacy of Republican election wins?