@reality said:

Is simply voting R or D in person actually any different from lazily pressing a button on a phone/app without a half second thought?

I may not have conveyed it properly, but I am citing it as one in the same stating we don't need even more in mass voting not even giving it a glancing thought.

@jax said:

Though it doesn't always work that way as a lot of people vote R or D regardless, but at least it helps buffer against the people who could care less from lazily sitting at home to press a button without half a second of thought.

Is simply voting R or D in person actually any different from lazily pressing a button on a phone/app without a half second thought?  To me, one of the most troubling parts of voting today is that there seems to large masses who simply vote based upon a color/mascot.

MLD hypothetical thought exercise at the start of this is an interesting one.  What might be a more interesting one is if a voter had to take a mini test on each voting item before they can cast their vote.  In short, if you can't correctly answer basics on what you are voting on, you can't vote on it.  

@ballpeen said:

I am not sure I like those.

At minimum I like to hold voting in select places that people have to show up to vote.  I want valid I.D.'s and verification the person is a registered voter.

With a 2 week early voting window, voting isn't any harder for people that going to the grocery store.  I don't want to hear that voting presents a hardship.

Yet people will go out of their way for a pack of cigarettes and a 6 pk but too lazy to vote is nonsense so... I agree with ya peen...

@mld-woody said:

What does that mean to you?

What about electronic voting booths that exist already?

I am not sure I like those.

At minimum I like to hold voting in select places that people have to show up to vote.  I want valid I.D.'s and verification the person is a registered voter.

With a 2 week early voting window, voting isn't any harder for people that going to the grocery store.  I don't want to hear that voting presents a hardship.

@ballpeen said:

No.

I would want actual, verifiable ballots that could be checked.

What does that mean to you?

What about electronic voting booths that exist already?

@mld-woody said:

If we could vote remotely / virtually / over the Internet, and it was completely guaranteed to be 100% legitimate (no hacking, no double voting, only eligible voters, etc) would you support it?

If not, why?

No.

I would want actual, verifiable ballots that could be checked.

@mld-woody said:

peck

So, maybe you would like a giant A.I. machine that could read every person's mind, and vote for them?

gosh, that would really enable mass voting. And, surely there would be no fraud, no mistakes, no hacking....

I wonder is the nuthatch is related to the woodpecker.....

@jax said:

You don't get to determine which citizens do or don't know enough to vote, ultimately. Everyone has a right to.

Ummm

@mld-woody said:

The voter turnout in our country is low compared to other democracies. If our goal is to represent the will of the people we could be doing better.

It's a republic.

Everyone that wants to vote, can vote. What's the new obsession with getting everyone to vote?

@mld-woody said:

Which is funny considering how many of those posters live in their own reality.

Like they live in a democracy?

@jax said:

When did I say no one had a right to vote? I said it doesn't need to be effortless to the point people just click on something in their hand with no cares. I'm not addressing a real life scenario just your stupid what if crap, that's why I said lazy. 

It's fine the way it is, everyone that wants to vote can and does.

I literally never said you said "no one has a right to vote". What are you talking about?

The voter turnout in our country is low compared to other democracies. If our goal is to represent the will of the people we could be doing better. The process should be more accessible. Polling stations get closed and understaffed, etc. We could absolutely do better. But conservatives realize their chances are better the fewer people that vote. 

My scenario is supposed to be what if. That's the point. I'm sorry if you or others can't follow along. Which is funny considering how many of those posters live in their own reality.

Voting should be as accessible as possible. This hypothetical is a way to do that. 

@mld-woody said:

You don't get to determine which citizens do or don't know enough to vote, ultimately. Everyone has a right to. And not getting to a polling station is more than just being lazy.

When did I say no one had a right to vote? I said it doesn't need to be effortless to the point people just click on something in their hand with no cares. I'm not addressing a real life scenario just your stupid what if crap, that's why I said lazy. 

It's fine the way it is, everyone that wants to vote can and does.

@calfoxwc said:

Don't you just wish you had a friend your own age?

Alright, you're such a pathetic moron you can't give a straight answer. Damn shame

@mld-woody said:

 peck peck peck

Don't you just wish you had a friend your own age?

@calfoxwc said:

Woodpecker translation "dammit, if we could just have a voting system where we could win again with eh.....my illegals could vote in presidential elections"

Please, for once in your life, exit the twisted fantasy reality you live in and pay attention. 

@jax said:

If it's too easy to just flick your phone or whatever device on then too many people will vote without a care in the world not making decent well informed decisions.

If you gotta drive in person, then at least you may put effort in to making a well informed vote.

Though it doesn't always work that way as a lot of people vote R or D regardless, but at least it helps buffer against the people who could care less from lazily sitting at home to press a button without half a second of thought.

Plenty of people vote that vote know are misinformed or not informed at all. 

I've pitched ways to increase voter turnout before (national holiday) and it's been shit down by this group. 

You don't get to determine which citizens do or don't know enough to vote, ultimately. Everyone has a right to. And not getting to a polling station is more than just being lazy. 

Voting coming from a larger % of our population, whether you think they're informed or not, would at least get us closer to a true representation of the will of the people 

@fy56 said:

Now that you’ve clarified that polling stations would still be in place, which you didn’t do in the OP, then why not. So yes.  
I took “remotely” solely as being from home.

Ah, ok. My mistake then. My bad. 

If you gotta drive in person, then at least you may put effort in to making a well informed vote.

Though it doesn't always work that way as a lot of people vote R or D regardless, but at least it helps buffer against the people who could care less from lazily sitting at home to press a button without half a second of thought.

@mld-woody said:

I think the lack of human interaction is overblown.

@mld-woody said:

This wasn't a "debate" about the feasibility. Again, so many morons on here think the 2020 election was stolen and they believe ridiculous election lies. No point in "debating" any potential future viability in online voting. 

So in a world where online voting is an option, along with in person, and it's perfectly legitimate, essentially only giving more folks access to voting, you would choose to not have it be an option? 

Why?

Now that you’ve clarified that polling stations would still be in place, which you didn’t do in the OP, then why not. So yes.  
I took “remotely” solely as being from home.

@ibleedbrown said:

I disagree, and it’s not me l’m worried about. It’s mostly younger folks and folks who, for whatever reason, fall into the “online is the new norm for social interaction” mindset. I see it as a divisive factor. 

We'll agree to disagree. I've seen the negative affects of the Internet and social media on the older generation more than younger, amplified from covid lockdowns. 

The Internet can be a place of widespread, diverse human interaction, but only if you seek that out. 

The convenience of not waiting in line to vote, or getting groceries delivered, ideally is to free up time for human pursuits, not just more time inside and online. I agree there are plenty of folks too terminally online. 

@mld-woody said:

I think the lack of human interaction is overblown. Still plenty of places to get it, you just also have the ability to avoid it in more places now. If you want a bunch of human interaction it isn't hard to seek out. 

I disagree, and it’s not me l’m worried about. It’s mostly younger folks and folks who, for whatever reason, fall into the “online is the new norm for social interaction” mindset. I see it as a divisive factor. 

@fy56 said:

Just stop.
My answer was quite evident without having to say yes or no.

It was “no” Woody.

And if you’re just looking for a yes or no answer and not allowing debate, just do a poll.

This wasn't a "debate" about the feasibility. Again, so many morons on here think the 2020 election was stolen and they believe ridiculous election lies. No point in "debating" any potential future viability in online voting. 

So in a world where online voting is an option, along with in person, and it's perfectly legitimate, essentially only giving more folks access to voting, you would choose to not have it be an option? 

Why?

@mld-woody said:

I never said it would be exclusively online. Polling centers would still exist. You'd also be able to vote early and online, at a library or something. 

But yes, another attempt at trying to not answer the question for some reason 

Just stop.
My answer was quite evident without having to say yes or no.

It was “no” Woody.