APS School Board Caucus - Voting Underway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

I really hope you are right that return to school won't be relevant in the fall. I'm not too hopeful -- I think that you have one group of people who will be pushing for a virtual (concurrent) option for the rest of time, and I think there will be others pushing for schools to shut again if there is a resurgence in the winter. The slight possibility that there might be another shut down in the winter is what drove my vote personally.

Of course they will be fully open. I'm sorry you are struggling with this, but you are not seeing things clearly right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

So we're back to presuming malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

So we're back to presuming malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate. Got it.

Nope. I wouldn't be comfortable with ANY candidate providing technology for people to place votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

I don't really care about what Miranda may be doing but collection boxes are managed by election boards, not individual candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

I don't really care about what Miranda may be doing but collection boxes are managed by election boards, not individual candidates.

And wouldn't that be nice if the decisive election for school board were managed by the election board, and not a fake-primary run by party hacks. Yet here we are.

[Anonymous]

Yes, once I saw the statement from Mary trying to sow division and mistrust in the voting process I was out of there. That was the day the decision came out about (lack of) summer school and a statement on that would’ve been much better. I was disappointed. It reminded me of the FOIA communication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

I care. I don't think any candidate should be allowed to have people VOTE on the candidate's devices.

Who actually thinks that is appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, once I saw the statement from Mary trying to sow division and mistrust in the voting process I was out of there. That was the day the decision came out about (lack of) summer school and a statement on that would’ve been much better. I was disappointed. It reminded me of the FOIA communication.

The voting process is fine if the candidates aren't having people vote on the candidate's ipads. WTF?

I thought that email was a random conspiracy theory - I didn't think people were actually doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

I don't really care about what Miranda may be doing but collection boxes are managed by election boards, not individual candidates.

DP. This isn't actually an election and is run by a political party for their endorsement, so that's kinds of different. But that aside, given that the caucus effectively decides the election, what Arlington Dems are doing generally (not just this particular complaint of Kadera's) is kind of the equivalent of a collection boxes being managed by one political party. What all of this gets at is that a caucus for the party's endorsement in an ostensibly non-partisan race is really problematic as a starting point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

I care. I don't think any candidate should be allowed to have people VOTE on the candidate's devices.

Who actually thinks that is appropriate?

I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

I care. I don't think any candidate should be allowed to have people VOTE on the candidate's devices.

Who actually thinks that is appropriate?

I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.

[Anonymous]

Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?