this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
838 points (99.3% liked)

People Twitter

8908 readers
201 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
838
This seems specifically designed to break mail-in voting (USPS postmark rule change) (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by BoycottTwitter@lemmy.zip to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archive links: https://web.archive.org/web/20251229233408/https://bsky.app/profile/goldengateblond.bsky.social/post/3mb5t23bf3k23 or https://archive.is/uvuWB

If you want to vote by mail please do so as soon as you can and consider dropping it off at the counter where they will postmark it right away.

Also if you live in a state where you're allowed to photograph your ballot consider doing so to have proof you voted a certain way.

Note that as a counterpoint the federal register website claims they are just clarifying language to improve public understanding: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/12/2025-15266/postmarks-and-postal-possession

I didn't check that document very closely yet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I still don't see how stamping immediately could reduce the risk of abuse.

Anyone intent on doing so in a position of power can still do so. Maybe they have a stamp for a future date, maybe they "lose" certain mail, maybe they do not empty any of those election mail boxes the week before an election.

[–] ngdev@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

you specifically said you dont see how it would be subject to abuse, not that [different thing than what i was talking about] is less risk prone

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, everything is subject to abuse. The relevant factor is the likelihood and difficulty of such abuse, isn't it? And I don't really see how using the stamped date as an authority reduces either or how not doing so increases either. The way you'd commit abuse changes, sure, but doesn't make abuse any easier/harder in my opinion, just different.

[–] ngdev@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

again, youre just talking about something entirely different. you said you dont see how a certain system was subject to abuse and i made up a possible way. all this talk about some system being more or less subject to abuse than another has nothing to do with the fact you said you couldnt see how a certain system was subject to abuse. i am not making a claim about any system being better than another so i have no idea why youre bringing that up

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

Fair enough, looks like we communicated past each other to some extent. I took your first comment as arguing this system was more subject to abuse.

I edited my comment to better reflect my original intent.