Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
I removed these external links from the article. Links on broad topics like this are often there for reasons other than to be a good general resource, and are almost always better either omitted or used as a source. Mostly, they fails WP:ELNO #1 (i.e. they should be sources if used at all). Others just push one person's opinion. Numbersinstitute reverted my removal. Putting them here for now.
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: deleted some facts and summaries, which led me to look at the sources more carefully.
Postal ballots being the source of "most significant vote-counting disputes in recent decades" is the opinion of Edward Foley, director of the Election Law program at Ohio State University, and needs to be cited to him. WP:NEWSORG
491 cases 2000-2012 are from News21, which itself is reliable source, funded by Carnegie and Knight Foundation, headquartered at School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Philadelphia Inquirer and NPR also report the findings, and more could be cited, but 3 is enough. Whether 491 is "significant" or "rare" is clearly opinion, and can mostly be left to the reader.
Cases since 2012 are cited to Heritage Fdn which is RS. WP:PARTISAN
Overturning of 15 elections is cited to Heritage's publication, Signal, which is similarly RS. WP:PARTISAN One could find original court filings, but WP prefers a secondary source, which the Signal article is.
In FactCheck, Robert Farley's quotes from experts are RS, when cited to them, but his own opinions are less significant, since he's not expert. WP:NEWSORG
I struggled with how to summarize the findings in the lede, and settled on "limited evidence of fraud..." since there is evidence, and it's not zero, and I thought "some evidence of fraud" implied a value judgment.
Michael Wines, reporter at NY Times, is not an expert on elections, law enforcement or statistical analysis, so his opinion is not RS, "Coordinated fraud by postal voting is hard to pull off undetected, given that officials, political operators, analysts, scholars and journalists can see indicators of large-scale fraud by observing statistical outliers in vote totals, and can confirm instances of fraud by checking signatures and conducting basic detective work." On the contrary, the expert Atkeson, cited by FactCheck, says fraud is very hard to detect. If reliable sources say something similar to Wines, we can put that in the article, and if appropriate also the discussion of statistical tests which have been done on past elections. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 23:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
After all those discussions, the current lede says, "Postal voting has a greater risk of fraud than in-person voting though there are relatively few known instances of such fraud.[8] Per one database, there were 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012; a period in which billions of votes were cast.[9] Processing large numbers of ballots and signature verifications accurately has numerous challenges other than fraud.[10][11][12][13]"
I'd like to add "Election offices rejected 67,000 ballots in the 2018 election [1] and 92,000 in the 2016 election, [2] because mis-matched signatures led officials to believe someone could have forged those ballots. If they were not forged, voters were disenfranchised."
The issue of ballot rejections has been widely covered in the press and is covered in the article, and is important enough to be in the lede. I just wonder about the right way to frame it. Kim9988 ( talk) 02:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
References
In the section of the article titled "Other Challenges" I feel is underrepresented. For example, there is only three sentences that focus on how postal voting solely depends on the usage of the postal service. The article spends very little time explaining how even though postal voting is dependent on the postal service, the financial crisis due to the pandemic has resulted in defunding of the postal service. The defunding of the postal service is vital to postal voting especially in current times as the election is soon thus this section was underrepresented and needs more representation. Tasmia.r ( talk) 19:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)tasmia.r_
In addition, the Fortune article quoted the unfunded liabilities and negative net worth of the USPS - but doesn't address why that is the case, considering that this administration's own reports show the USPS would actually be making a profit by removing the RHB mandate, allowing for capital improvement and further modernization. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/USPS_A_Sustainable_Path_Forward_report_12-04-2018.pdf#page=23 Obsideus ( talk) 20:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
For the purpose of increasing visibility and access, I would like to propose a section in this article that shows a state-by-state breakdown of the policies, deadlines, and procedures for mail-in ballots. Using information from other articles and public sources, the breakdown can be updated as states release their guidelines for November 2020's election.
One question I have is: Is it relevant to include previous instances of fraud during mail-in voting in the Past problems section? What about specific examples, such as a mayor in Miami who, in 1997, fixed his ballots? [1]. RiaVora ( talk) 04:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This topic is of particular relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The new article might be called something like: Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections. -- M2545 ( talk) 11:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
New article has been started with content copied directly from this article. -- M2545 ( talk) 16:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Material from Postal voting in the United States was split to Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections on October 14, 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
I have had my additions to this article removed or undone several times by @Snooganssnoogans and @TJRC. The article makes the statement "It has been argued that postal voting has a greater risk of fraud than in-person voting" and proceeds to give evidence and logical reasons for why this is not the case. The article then fails to have a section which provides the other point of view and reasoning as to why it may be a valid concern. I have inserted my paragraph giving the facts and reasoning for why there may be a concern for voter fraud and have cited various sources of information. I have friends in Illinois who have shared with me ballots for dead relatives which they have received in the mail. So I see this as a real concern and a view which should have the right to put forth the facts and reasoning for its concern.
Those that have concerns about the potential for voter fraud due to impromptu implementations of mail-in-voting in response to covid-19 raise several issues with the way the facts are stated and the conclusions that are reached. The first concern is an understatement of the difference between solicited and unsolicited mail-in-voting.( https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-the-difference-between-absentee-voting-and-universal-vote-by-mail) Solicited mail in votes ensure that a verified voter is receiving a ballot prior to mailing one out. Currently in 90% of states a formal request for mail in voting is required; ten years ago 98% required a formal request.( https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-5-applying-for-an-absentee-ballot-including-third-party-registration-drives.aspx, https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/501577-heres-where-your-state-stands-on-mail-in-voting) These requests are validated against voter registration and government birth and death databases. One of the early adopters of statewide mail in voting, Colorado, has integrated their voter registration with the post office's change of address system, the birth and death database and with the DMV state ID and driver's license systems to ensure ballots are mailed to a verified voter at their correct address.( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/12/how-voting-by-mail-works-colorado/) Other states implemented checks have not been as successful and have experienced cases of voter fraud such as Washington state where cases of registering phony addresses have been found as well as disenfranchisement of voters due to 4000 rejected ballots later found to be legitimate. ( http://www.utahconstitutionparty.com/opposition-mail-ballots-utah/) Those having concerns in the 2020 election are not against mail-in-voting as long as appropriate check are in place to ensure actual living voters are mailed a single ballot at the correct current address. In the 2020 election many states are rushing to implement unsolicited vote by mail systems and already there are reports of individuals receiving ballots for dead relatives or former residents. House Democrats included $25 billion dollars for the USPS in a recent corona virus legislation which included $3.5 billion for national mail in voting. The president raised concern about funding a rushed system of mail-in-voting which is open to fraud. The bill was blocked not only based upon this concern but also justifications for the $21.5 billion dollars allotted for other uses. ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/08/16/separating-fact-from-fiction-on-trump-and-the-post-officeand-why-it-matters/#79543b2f3d74).
It should be reasonable to include the concerns from both sides of a debate. Please consider the validity of adding this section to this article. 2600:1700:4051:43B0:55CE:105A:523A:E175 ( talk) 23:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I have friends in Illinois who have shared with me ballots for dead relatives which they have received in the mailand if your friends complete them and mail them in, they'd be committing voting fraud. Otherwise, they're useless, so throw 'em away and there's no harm. Even if everyone who received a ballot for a dead person actually decided to commit a felony by completing it and sending it in, its effect would be infinitesimal.
the potential for voter fraudThere's a potential for just about anything, but that doesn't mean there's a probability of it, and there's virtually no evidence of it.
It should be reasonable to include the concerns from both sides of a debateWe rely on reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that show mail-in ballots pose a threat of widespread voting fraud.
The president raised concern about fundingbecause "if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again." soibangla ( talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans I have tried to add a piece of information to the "Unequal signature rejection rates", more specifically in the "Rejection rates are higher for ballots that claim to come from young or minority voters" section. This portion of the article cites no possible reason why there might be higher rejection rates amongst young and minority voters. One popular conclusion is there are higher rejection rates amongst these demographics because they do not have as established of a signature as other, more "veteran" voters do. I put a sentence saying "It is believed this may be due to the fact that these demographics of voters are less familiar with signatures, and the act of voting in general" along with four sources to corroborate it. I did look at Snooganssnoogans's reversion note, and it said I only specified young voters, not minorities. This is true, and I will fix that later, but until then, I want to make sure I won't be crucified for fixing that edit.
Here's what the final addition will look like: It is believed this may be due to the fact that these demographics of voters are less familiar with signatures, and the act of voting in general. [1] [2] [3]
This is the addition I will add once I get the all clear.
Now if there's some other reason other than the omission of minorities from my addition, (Which I fixed above) and I speculate there is, can you just tell me now? There's a lot of other people in this talk page complaining about Snooganssnoogans reverting their edits, many of them similar to mine.
Just to recap, the reason why I want to add this addition is because I believe the portion of the article I am adding it to does not tell why there are higher rates of rejection amongst young and minority voters, it just says that there is a disparity, and I want to make that section clearer.
Thanks, JazzClam ( talk) 21:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Currently several passages were obviously written before the general election, eg. "As of July 2020", "will result", "has indicated", "will mail", "is expected", etc. The whole article needs to be edited to change it to a post-election situation. Mcljlm ( talk) 14:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors, this is Jonathan from the USPS here with an edit request. I've gone ahead and added my COI disclosure to this page to follow proper Wikipedia guidelines before presenting content for non-COI editors to review.
Here, I've drafted an additional few sentences to the Expansion in 2020 election section. I believe these should be added because there is new reporting not reflected in the current version of the article, from notable outlets like NPR and the Associated Press, showing that the majority of mail-in ballots and registration materials in the 2020 election were delivered on time, as well as reporting that shows how many election-related materials the USPS handled during the election and how many ballots were ultimately delivered.
I've only used the absolute best sourcing I could find when putting this together to update the section, which can be read below:
Extended content
|
---|
A March 2021 report from the Postal Service's inspector general found that the vast majority of mail-in ballots and registration materials in the 2020 election were delivered to the relevant authorities on time. [1] [2] The Postal Service handled approximately 135 million pieces of election-related mail between September 1st and November 3rd, delivering 97.9% of ballots from voters to election officials within three days, and 99.89% of ballots within seven days. [1] [3] References
|
Thank you so much to any editor who takes the time to evaluate this request, I appreciate your time and knowledge. If there are any questions about this request, please let me know and I'll field them promptly. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service ( talk) 14:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Noted in the inspector general's report was a late-September court order requiring the Postal Service to take such actions, although it said the Postal Service "has historically processed Election Mail in line with First‑Class Mail delivery standards as election day draws nearer." Other courts ordered the Postal Service to reverse or put on hold planned service reductions, including the removal of some sorting machines and blue mail boxes in some cities. The report says the Postal Service "leveraged high-cost efforts such as extra transportation and overtime to improve delivery performance." It found fault with communications about election mail process changes with local mail-handling managers, which it said risked delaying some election mail, and recommended the Postal Service issue clear guidance about those procedures in future elections.If we're to mention this report in the article, then a more comprehensive reading of its conclusions should be presented rather than the simple, two sentences offered in the proposal. Regards, Spintendo 19:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Some of the details you've cited from the report (courts getting involved, USPS enacting measures that slowed mail delivery, fears that election mail might not arrive on time) are already in the second and third paragraphs under the Expansion in the 2020 election section.However, it's important to note that when you describe other text as a backup to your argument, it would be helpful if you included that text in your response using
{{
tq}}
or any other such marking device. If the text already exists in the article, please provide it here on the talk page, taking care to ensure that any references backing up that text are also included on the talk page. Please reactivate the {{
Edit COI}}
template when ready to proceed. Regards,
Spintendo
21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
While members of Congress pushed to expand absentee voting and the CDC and other public health experts advised postal voting as a form of voting which minimizes in-person contact, President Donald Trump claimed that expansion of absentee voting would lead to "levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again." [1] In May 2020, Trump began to claim that postal voting was highly vulnerable to fraud. [2] Fact checkers say there is no evidence of substantial fraud associated with mail voting. [3] [4] In July 2020, Trump suggested postponing the 2020 presidential election based on his unsubstantiated claims about extensive postal voting fraud. [5] [6] [7] [8] The new, Trump-appointed administration of the United States Postal Service made changes which resulted in slower delivery of mail. Donald Trump openly stated that he opposes funding USPS because of mail-in voting. [9] In September 2020, a federal judge issued an injunction against the recent USPS actions, ruling that Trump and DeJoy were "involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service", adding that the 14 states requesting the injunction "demonstrated that this attack on the Postal Service is likely to irreparably harm the states' ability to administer the 2020 general election". [10]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
{{
tq}}
style as well as the yellow highlights that emphasize the passages I referred to above. You can see the new text highlighted in green.
Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (
talk)
16:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Notes
{{
Edit COI}}
template may then be altered.Regards, Spintendo 19:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
While members of Congress pushed to expand absentee voting and the CDC and other public health experts advised postal voting as a form of voting which minimizes in-person contact, President Donald Trump claimed that expansion of absentee voting would lead to "levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again." [4] In May 2020, Trump began to claim that postal voting was highly vulnerable to fraud. [5] Fact checkers say there is no evidence of substantial fraud associated with mail voting. [6] [7] In July 2020, Trump suggested postponing the 2020 presidential election based on his unsubstantiated claims about extensive postal voting fraud. [8] [9] [10] [11] The new, Trump-appointed administration of the United States Postal Service made changes which resulted in slower delivery of mail. Donald Trump openly stated that he opposes funding USPS because of mail-in voting. [12] In September 2020, a federal judge issued an injunction against the recent USPS actions, ruling that Trump and DeJoy were "involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service", adding that the 14 states requesting the injunction "demonstrated that this attack on the Postal Service is likely to irreparably harm the states' ability to administer the 2020 general election". [13] The USPS warned that it could not guarantee that all ballots cast by mail in the 2020 election would arrive in time to be counted. [14] For this reason, election experts advocated that postal ballots be mailed weeks in advance of election day. [15] A March 2021 report from the Postal Service's inspector general found that the vast majority of mail-in ballots and registration materials in the 2020 election were delivered to the relevant authorities on time. [1] [2] The Postal Service handled approximately 135 million pieces of election-related mail between September 1st and November 3rd, delivering 97.9% of ballots from voters to election officials within three days, and 99.89% of ballots within seven days. [1] [3] References
|
Democracy Maps. Availability of No-Excuse Absentee Voting. MAP (Movement Advancement Project). Note asterisk on map next to NY. Below map it says: "Note: New York has enacted legislation to allow no-excuse absentee voting beginning in 2024. Our map will be updated once the law takes effect." -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Table for permanent absentee voting lists has been added to the article. See: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox231. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
I removed these external links from the article. Links on broad topics like this are often there for reasons other than to be a good general resource, and are almost always better either omitted or used as a source. Mostly, they fails WP:ELNO #1 (i.e. they should be sources if used at all). Others just push one person's opinion. Numbersinstitute reverted my removal. Putting them here for now.
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: deleted some facts and summaries, which led me to look at the sources more carefully.
Postal ballots being the source of "most significant vote-counting disputes in recent decades" is the opinion of Edward Foley, director of the Election Law program at Ohio State University, and needs to be cited to him. WP:NEWSORG
491 cases 2000-2012 are from News21, which itself is reliable source, funded by Carnegie and Knight Foundation, headquartered at School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. Philadelphia Inquirer and NPR also report the findings, and more could be cited, but 3 is enough. Whether 491 is "significant" or "rare" is clearly opinion, and can mostly be left to the reader.
Cases since 2012 are cited to Heritage Fdn which is RS. WP:PARTISAN
Overturning of 15 elections is cited to Heritage's publication, Signal, which is similarly RS. WP:PARTISAN One could find original court filings, but WP prefers a secondary source, which the Signal article is.
In FactCheck, Robert Farley's quotes from experts are RS, when cited to them, but his own opinions are less significant, since he's not expert. WP:NEWSORG
I struggled with how to summarize the findings in the lede, and settled on "limited evidence of fraud..." since there is evidence, and it's not zero, and I thought "some evidence of fraud" implied a value judgment.
Michael Wines, reporter at NY Times, is not an expert on elections, law enforcement or statistical analysis, so his opinion is not RS, "Coordinated fraud by postal voting is hard to pull off undetected, given that officials, political operators, analysts, scholars and journalists can see indicators of large-scale fraud by observing statistical outliers in vote totals, and can confirm instances of fraud by checking signatures and conducting basic detective work." On the contrary, the expert Atkeson, cited by FactCheck, says fraud is very hard to detect. If reliable sources say something similar to Wines, we can put that in the article, and if appropriate also the discussion of statistical tests which have been done on past elections. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 23:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
After all those discussions, the current lede says, "Postal voting has a greater risk of fraud than in-person voting though there are relatively few known instances of such fraud.[8] Per one database, there were 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012; a period in which billions of votes were cast.[9] Processing large numbers of ballots and signature verifications accurately has numerous challenges other than fraud.[10][11][12][13]"
I'd like to add "Election offices rejected 67,000 ballots in the 2018 election [1] and 92,000 in the 2016 election, [2] because mis-matched signatures led officials to believe someone could have forged those ballots. If they were not forged, voters were disenfranchised."
The issue of ballot rejections has been widely covered in the press and is covered in the article, and is important enough to be in the lede. I just wonder about the right way to frame it. Kim9988 ( talk) 02:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
References
In the section of the article titled "Other Challenges" I feel is underrepresented. For example, there is only three sentences that focus on how postal voting solely depends on the usage of the postal service. The article spends very little time explaining how even though postal voting is dependent on the postal service, the financial crisis due to the pandemic has resulted in defunding of the postal service. The defunding of the postal service is vital to postal voting especially in current times as the election is soon thus this section was underrepresented and needs more representation. Tasmia.r ( talk) 19:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)tasmia.r_
In addition, the Fortune article quoted the unfunded liabilities and negative net worth of the USPS - but doesn't address why that is the case, considering that this administration's own reports show the USPS would actually be making a profit by removing the RHB mandate, allowing for capital improvement and further modernization. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/USPS_A_Sustainable_Path_Forward_report_12-04-2018.pdf#page=23 Obsideus ( talk) 20:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
For the purpose of increasing visibility and access, I would like to propose a section in this article that shows a state-by-state breakdown of the policies, deadlines, and procedures for mail-in ballots. Using information from other articles and public sources, the breakdown can be updated as states release their guidelines for November 2020's election.
One question I have is: Is it relevant to include previous instances of fraud during mail-in voting in the Past problems section? What about specific examples, such as a mayor in Miami who, in 1997, fixed his ballots? [1]. RiaVora ( talk) 04:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This topic is of particular relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The new article might be called something like: Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections. -- M2545 ( talk) 11:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
New article has been started with content copied directly from this article. -- M2545 ( talk) 16:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Material from Postal voting in the United States was split to Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections on October 14, 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
I have had my additions to this article removed or undone several times by @Snooganssnoogans and @TJRC. The article makes the statement "It has been argued that postal voting has a greater risk of fraud than in-person voting" and proceeds to give evidence and logical reasons for why this is not the case. The article then fails to have a section which provides the other point of view and reasoning as to why it may be a valid concern. I have inserted my paragraph giving the facts and reasoning for why there may be a concern for voter fraud and have cited various sources of information. I have friends in Illinois who have shared with me ballots for dead relatives which they have received in the mail. So I see this as a real concern and a view which should have the right to put forth the facts and reasoning for its concern.
Those that have concerns about the potential for voter fraud due to impromptu implementations of mail-in-voting in response to covid-19 raise several issues with the way the facts are stated and the conclusions that are reached. The first concern is an understatement of the difference between solicited and unsolicited mail-in-voting.( https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-the-difference-between-absentee-voting-and-universal-vote-by-mail) Solicited mail in votes ensure that a verified voter is receiving a ballot prior to mailing one out. Currently in 90% of states a formal request for mail in voting is required; ten years ago 98% required a formal request.( https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-5-applying-for-an-absentee-ballot-including-third-party-registration-drives.aspx, https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/501577-heres-where-your-state-stands-on-mail-in-voting) These requests are validated against voter registration and government birth and death databases. One of the early adopters of statewide mail in voting, Colorado, has integrated their voter registration with the post office's change of address system, the birth and death database and with the DMV state ID and driver's license systems to ensure ballots are mailed to a verified voter at their correct address.( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/12/how-voting-by-mail-works-colorado/) Other states implemented checks have not been as successful and have experienced cases of voter fraud such as Washington state where cases of registering phony addresses have been found as well as disenfranchisement of voters due to 4000 rejected ballots later found to be legitimate. ( http://www.utahconstitutionparty.com/opposition-mail-ballots-utah/) Those having concerns in the 2020 election are not against mail-in-voting as long as appropriate check are in place to ensure actual living voters are mailed a single ballot at the correct current address. In the 2020 election many states are rushing to implement unsolicited vote by mail systems and already there are reports of individuals receiving ballots for dead relatives or former residents. House Democrats included $25 billion dollars for the USPS in a recent corona virus legislation which included $3.5 billion for national mail in voting. The president raised concern about funding a rushed system of mail-in-voting which is open to fraud. The bill was blocked not only based upon this concern but also justifications for the $21.5 billion dollars allotted for other uses. ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/08/16/separating-fact-from-fiction-on-trump-and-the-post-officeand-why-it-matters/#79543b2f3d74).
It should be reasonable to include the concerns from both sides of a debate. Please consider the validity of adding this section to this article. 2600:1700:4051:43B0:55CE:105A:523A:E175 ( talk) 23:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I have friends in Illinois who have shared with me ballots for dead relatives which they have received in the mailand if your friends complete them and mail them in, they'd be committing voting fraud. Otherwise, they're useless, so throw 'em away and there's no harm. Even if everyone who received a ballot for a dead person actually decided to commit a felony by completing it and sending it in, its effect would be infinitesimal.
the potential for voter fraudThere's a potential for just about anything, but that doesn't mean there's a probability of it, and there's virtually no evidence of it.
It should be reasonable to include the concerns from both sides of a debateWe rely on reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that show mail-in ballots pose a threat of widespread voting fraud.
The president raised concern about fundingbecause "if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again." soibangla ( talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans I have tried to add a piece of information to the "Unequal signature rejection rates", more specifically in the "Rejection rates are higher for ballots that claim to come from young or minority voters" section. This portion of the article cites no possible reason why there might be higher rejection rates amongst young and minority voters. One popular conclusion is there are higher rejection rates amongst these demographics because they do not have as established of a signature as other, more "veteran" voters do. I put a sentence saying "It is believed this may be due to the fact that these demographics of voters are less familiar with signatures, and the act of voting in general" along with four sources to corroborate it. I did look at Snooganssnoogans's reversion note, and it said I only specified young voters, not minorities. This is true, and I will fix that later, but until then, I want to make sure I won't be crucified for fixing that edit.
Here's what the final addition will look like: It is believed this may be due to the fact that these demographics of voters are less familiar with signatures, and the act of voting in general. [1] [2] [3]
This is the addition I will add once I get the all clear.
Now if there's some other reason other than the omission of minorities from my addition, (Which I fixed above) and I speculate there is, can you just tell me now? There's a lot of other people in this talk page complaining about Snooganssnoogans reverting their edits, many of them similar to mine.
Just to recap, the reason why I want to add this addition is because I believe the portion of the article I am adding it to does not tell why there are higher rates of rejection amongst young and minority voters, it just says that there is a disparity, and I want to make that section clearer.
Thanks, JazzClam ( talk) 21:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Currently several passages were obviously written before the general election, eg. "As of July 2020", "will result", "has indicated", "will mail", "is expected", etc. The whole article needs to be edited to change it to a post-election situation. Mcljlm ( talk) 14:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors, this is Jonathan from the USPS here with an edit request. I've gone ahead and added my COI disclosure to this page to follow proper Wikipedia guidelines before presenting content for non-COI editors to review.
Here, I've drafted an additional few sentences to the Expansion in 2020 election section. I believe these should be added because there is new reporting not reflected in the current version of the article, from notable outlets like NPR and the Associated Press, showing that the majority of mail-in ballots and registration materials in the 2020 election were delivered on time, as well as reporting that shows how many election-related materials the USPS handled during the election and how many ballots were ultimately delivered.
I've only used the absolute best sourcing I could find when putting this together to update the section, which can be read below:
Extended content
|
---|
A March 2021 report from the Postal Service's inspector general found that the vast majority of mail-in ballots and registration materials in the 2020 election were delivered to the relevant authorities on time. [1] [2] The Postal Service handled approximately 135 million pieces of election-related mail between September 1st and November 3rd, delivering 97.9% of ballots from voters to election officials within three days, and 99.89% of ballots within seven days. [1] [3] References
|
Thank you so much to any editor who takes the time to evaluate this request, I appreciate your time and knowledge. If there are any questions about this request, please let me know and I'll field them promptly. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service ( talk) 14:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Noted in the inspector general's report was a late-September court order requiring the Postal Service to take such actions, although it said the Postal Service "has historically processed Election Mail in line with First‑Class Mail delivery standards as election day draws nearer." Other courts ordered the Postal Service to reverse or put on hold planned service reductions, including the removal of some sorting machines and blue mail boxes in some cities. The report says the Postal Service "leveraged high-cost efforts such as extra transportation and overtime to improve delivery performance." It found fault with communications about election mail process changes with local mail-handling managers, which it said risked delaying some election mail, and recommended the Postal Service issue clear guidance about those procedures in future elections.If we're to mention this report in the article, then a more comprehensive reading of its conclusions should be presented rather than the simple, two sentences offered in the proposal. Regards, Spintendo 19:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Some of the details you've cited from the report (courts getting involved, USPS enacting measures that slowed mail delivery, fears that election mail might not arrive on time) are already in the second and third paragraphs under the Expansion in the 2020 election section.However, it's important to note that when you describe other text as a backup to your argument, it would be helpful if you included that text in your response using
{{
tq}}
or any other such marking device. If the text already exists in the article, please provide it here on the talk page, taking care to ensure that any references backing up that text are also included on the talk page. Please reactivate the {{
Edit COI}}
template when ready to proceed. Regards,
Spintendo
21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
While members of Congress pushed to expand absentee voting and the CDC and other public health experts advised postal voting as a form of voting which minimizes in-person contact, President Donald Trump claimed that expansion of absentee voting would lead to "levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again." [1] In May 2020, Trump began to claim that postal voting was highly vulnerable to fraud. [2] Fact checkers say there is no evidence of substantial fraud associated with mail voting. [3] [4] In July 2020, Trump suggested postponing the 2020 presidential election based on his unsubstantiated claims about extensive postal voting fraud. [5] [6] [7] [8] The new, Trump-appointed administration of the United States Postal Service made changes which resulted in slower delivery of mail. Donald Trump openly stated that he opposes funding USPS because of mail-in voting. [9] In September 2020, a federal judge issued an injunction against the recent USPS actions, ruling that Trump and DeJoy were "involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service", adding that the 14 states requesting the injunction "demonstrated that this attack on the Postal Service is likely to irreparably harm the states' ability to administer the 2020 general election". [10]
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
{{
tq}}
style as well as the yellow highlights that emphasize the passages I referred to above. You can see the new text highlighted in green.
Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (
talk)
16:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Notes
{{
Edit COI}}
template may then be altered.Regards, Spintendo 19:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
While members of Congress pushed to expand absentee voting and the CDC and other public health experts advised postal voting as a form of voting which minimizes in-person contact, President Donald Trump claimed that expansion of absentee voting would lead to "levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again." [4] In May 2020, Trump began to claim that postal voting was highly vulnerable to fraud. [5] Fact checkers say there is no evidence of substantial fraud associated with mail voting. [6] [7] In July 2020, Trump suggested postponing the 2020 presidential election based on his unsubstantiated claims about extensive postal voting fraud. [8] [9] [10] [11] The new, Trump-appointed administration of the United States Postal Service made changes which resulted in slower delivery of mail. Donald Trump openly stated that he opposes funding USPS because of mail-in voting. [12] In September 2020, a federal judge issued an injunction against the recent USPS actions, ruling that Trump and DeJoy were "involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service", adding that the 14 states requesting the injunction "demonstrated that this attack on the Postal Service is likely to irreparably harm the states' ability to administer the 2020 general election". [13] The USPS warned that it could not guarantee that all ballots cast by mail in the 2020 election would arrive in time to be counted. [14] For this reason, election experts advocated that postal ballots be mailed weeks in advance of election day. [15] A March 2021 report from the Postal Service's inspector general found that the vast majority of mail-in ballots and registration materials in the 2020 election were delivered to the relevant authorities on time. [1] [2] The Postal Service handled approximately 135 million pieces of election-related mail between September 1st and November 3rd, delivering 97.9% of ballots from voters to election officials within three days, and 99.89% of ballots within seven days. [1] [3] References
|
Democracy Maps. Availability of No-Excuse Absentee Voting. MAP (Movement Advancement Project). Note asterisk on map next to NY. Below map it says: "Note: New York has enacted legislation to allow no-excuse absentee voting beginning in 2024. Our map will be updated once the law takes effect." -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Table for permanent absentee voting lists has been added to the article. See: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox231. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)