The author seems to take an almost impossibly optimistic view on several of the most concerning factors. The justification for why we shouldn't worry about the US President publicly stating that...
The author seems to take an almost impossibly optimistic view on several of the most concerning factors.
The justification for why we shouldn't worry about the US President publicly stating that he wants to suppress votes is "Trump says a lot of stupid things". That's a direct, in-context quote from the article. We don't need to worry about direct threats because the president talks a lot of crap, so this is probably fine, right?
What of the new postmaster with strong links to that administration, the one publicly in favour of suppressing postal votes? Oh, well, "he [Trump] technically has no control over DeJoy; only the Board of Governors does.". That's fine too, then. The org chart pinned to HR's wall has him answering to someone else, and no member of the modern political class would dream of breaching that word of honour.
And finally, in case you were worried about their upcoming insolvency, you can rest assured that "The $25 billion under negotiation for the post office isn’t actually for mail ballots, but for forgone revenues due to COVID-19". It's a totally different enormous pile of money, so it'll only impact COVID-related mail, not election-related mail. The envelopes clearly know which pool to take their funding from.
Assuming good faith in the first instance is laudable. Assuming good faith after being proven wrong almost every single time for the last four years lies somewhere between staggering naïvety and outright journalistic malpractice.
I can’t say for sure, but here’s what it seems to add up to: if the post office slows down a little, well, we were warned ahead of time, so the states should be able to handle it. The rest can be...
I can’t say for sure, but here’s what it seems to add up to: if the post office slows down a little, well, we were warned ahead of time, so the states should be able to handle it. The rest can be fixed next year. If it’s just a money problem then a bailout would fix it.
Panicking about this is pretending that Trump has more power over events than he actually has. It’s in his best interest to pretend he’s that powerful, but not ours. He bluffs so often that we should be a bit more skeptical by now.
Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won't, my problem is that this article brought me no closer to knowing that. It's flawed enough on the points I do have outside knowledge of that I can't trust the...
Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won't, my problem is that this article brought me no closer to knowing that. It's flawed enough on the points I do have outside knowledge of that I can't trust the conclusions on the points where I don't.
It tells me that removing some sorting machines was already in the pipeline; I don't know whether the answer fully contextualises questions about timing or about geographical targeting. It mentions the Board of Governors, which is designed to have 5 members from each party, and uncritically says that it had six vacancies (out of ten total seats) and a 3:1 Republican majority when DeJoy was appointed; I don't know how much to read into this, but it sure doesn't sound good on the surface, and the author provides no further context. This pattern repeats throughout the piece.
I agree with you that it's important not to play into Trump's grandiosity, but it's also dangerous to minimise the real risks he poses. In this case specifically, it seems incredibly plausible that (a) enforcing these changes at this specific time is a political tactic, (b) removals of machines and boxes are happening in a geographically targeted way, and (c) the (accurate) fact that the general-case plans predate DeJoy's appointment is being used to justify these two targeted actions.
The author makes a relatively positive case for DeJoy's actions, all that's required to believe it is the assumption of good faith. You say yourself we should be skeptical. After many hundreds of demonstrations to the contrary, I'm skeptical of any good faith argument linked to a Trump appointee.
Forgive me if my fears are not assuaged when bad actors stop doing bad actions only when their actions are scrutinized by the public. This is totally backwards. The head of the USPS should come...
USPS is (re)moving blue mail collection boxes.
True, but for cost-efficiency reasons, and they almost immediately stopped.
Forgive me if my fears are not assuaged when bad actors stop doing bad actions only when their actions are scrutinized by the public.
So hopefully DeJoy will have some sort of public statement to explain how he has determined which collection boxes should be moved.
This is totally backwards. The head of the USPS should come out ahead of an action such as this with a public explanation. Why is transparency in such a matter not the bare minimum expectation? Especially if they want to preempt panic from a public concerned about any changes that might reduce the capacity of the USPS right before what is expected to be a substantial increase in mail-in-ballots. The only changes that wouldn’t be concerning right now would be changes that are anticipating an increased volume of mail-in-ballot requests and the ballots themselves.
USPS is (re)moving blue mail collection boxes.
True, but for cost-efficiency reasons, and they almost immediately stopped.
Whether the cost-efficiency reasons are legitimate or not, the timing is what is causing panic.
USPS was destroying mail-sorting machines used to sort mail-in ballots.
True, but likely for cost-efficiency reasons, and this also has reportedly stopped.
Again, cost-efficiency is fine, but I have yet to hear an explanation about why such cost-efficiency motivations have become so urgent, given the timing of these actions just before the election.
But despite the phrasing by Vice that the documentation shows “plans to hobble mail sorting,” the intention does not appear to be to slow the sorting of mail.
The best intentions don’t matter if the effect is still detrimental to a fair election.
The type of mail these machines sort are decreasing in volume, including down more than 15% just this year compared to last year.
Larger trends are fine, and if these changes had happened on time, the optics may have been different. But, in the present, with an upcoming election during a pandemic that is motivating many Americans to avoid the polls in person, the optics are still terrible. Despite the long-term trends, there is bound to be an opposing short-term trend ahead of the general election.
Postal workers argue that USPS should keep the machines, but not use them, in the off chance that they’re needed or parts can be used to fix ones that are being used. I see the reasoning in that, so I would like to hear more from DeJoy on this as well.
A lot of optimism that will have to be vindicated at DeJoy’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee on August 24th.
Apparently, USPS has informally treated both types of election mail the same, expediting both whenever possible. So local election officials have been opting for Marketing Mail in order to save on costs. (Side bar: elections are funded at the local level and chronically underfunded.)
But USPS cannot do that anymore, because it’s costly. And therefore, election mail will be treated as its paid category. And USPS recognizes that its policy changes may cause some service delays.
Again, it’s an issue of optics due to the timing. Why does this change have to happen now? Why is it more important to diminish the USPS’s costs if it will have a detrimental impact on the election? Why is it OK to prioritize cost-savings of a government agency over the franchise of US citizens?
If DeJoy had wanted to undermine the election, he simply could have chosen not to warn the election officials at all.
Or, even better, he could have postponed the changes until after the election.
As Kevin Kosar argues, “USPS delivers 2.8 billion mail pieces per week. Even if 275 million individuals cast ballots by mail the USPS could handle it.” (Currently, approximately 209 million individuals could theoretically do so, so Kosar is being generous.)
I don’t think anyone has doubts that the USPS could handle every single registered voter voting by mail eventually. The issue is that of timeliness—in many states, if you decide to vote by mail, and USPS does not deliver your ballot on time, you will be disenfranchised. The stake is much higher than your monthly issue of Vogue arriving late. The issue for ballots and ballot requests is timely delivery, not eventual delivery.
This is quoting DeJoy himself:
[L]et me be clear that with regard to Election Mail, the Postal Service and I are fully committed to fulfilling our role in the electoral process. If public policy makers choose to utilize the mail as a part of their election system, we will do everything we can to deliver Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards. We do ask election officials and voters to be mindful of the time that it takes for us to deliver ballots, whether it is a blank ballot going to a voter or a completed ballot going back to election officials. We have delivery standards that have been in place for many years. These standards have not changed, and despite any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail.
The statement of "continuing to employ a robust and proven process" directly contradicts the previously described logistical changes that have been discussed throughout this piece. If it’s truly a proven process, why change it now?
Rather, the USPS now has a Postmaster General who is very serious about making cost-efficiency savings, and is in an environment where it has to do it as soon as possible.
Again, the obligative modality of this phrase "has to" here is left unjustified. If your argument rests on this sort of weak assumption that the world cannot be any other way than what you are told reeks of fallacious appeal to an unspoken authority. If you’re going to make a claim like this, you need to cite the operating force (legal or otherwise) that is imposing this mandate, and why such a mandate, in the near-term, is more important than a fair election.
But without legislative action to save USPS, and with no chance of increasing revenues enough due to COVID-19, DeJoy’s only choice is to cut costs.
Again, this mandate is assumed erroneously. Why couldn’t DeJoy work with or otherwise pressure Trump, McConnell, and the Republican senators to pass the funding his agency needs?
Regardless, DeJoy doesn’t have control over that. His job is to balance the budget. Only Congress can decide whether and how to provide USPS any funding.
I reiterate, if your job is to balance the budget, and you have an opportunity to get a major infusion of funds, would the logical action not be to fight for and drum up public support for that? Why don’t we see DeJoy calling on Republicans to take action to help him accomplish this mandate of balancing the budget? The argument that DeJoy must take immediate action to slash costs is spurious.
What’s happening is likely innocent but controversial actions happening at a very bad time. It is possible that some people, like President Trump, have malicious intentions. But so far, DeJoy only appears to only be executing plans that have long been recommended and responding to a budgetary crisis exacerbated by COVID-19.
If those long recommended plans did not take into account the present circumstances, those plans are unlikely to still be good plans.
There are many, many, many things to be worried about right now. Don’t burn yourself out by panicking over this. Keep your fire lit for another fight.
Which fight, in particular? Why is ensuring a fair election not worth panicking over? It seems precisely the thing to panick over.
Also ask your U.S. Representative and Senators, as well as President Trump, to ask the Postmaster General to pause any further efficiency changes until after the November election. Also ask that Postmaster General DeJoy be fully transparent about what changes will happen when and the rationale behind each change. Communication with elected officials, election officials, and the public should be frequent.
One might ask why DeJoy needs to be asked to do this? Why does he need to be dragged in front of the House Oversight Committee at Pelosi and the Democrats’ behest?
For a piece that is intended to lay out facts, there sure are a lot of facts that have been conveniently treaded around, or outright misconstrued based on spurious assumptions.
I found this “fact-checking” piece to be blatantly biased, so I thought I’d contribute my reaction/skepticism. I especially hate it when self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” abuse that term to foist...
I found this “fact-checking” piece to be blatantly biased, so I thought I’d contribute my reaction/skepticism. I especially hate it when self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” abuse that term to foist their opinions.
It’s nice to see a detailed account by someone who seems to know what he’s talking about. But without independent knowledge, all I can do is judge plausibility. Hopefully we will see some other...
It’s nice to see a detailed account by someone who seems to know what he’s talking about. But without independent knowledge, all I can do is judge plausibility. Hopefully we will see some other opinions from people who know stuff.
This is really relieving to read, I needed it. I've been really worried up until now about these changes, but knowing that the Post Office won't cease to function and that these changes were...
This is really relieving to read, I needed it. I've been really worried up until now about these changes, but knowing that the Post Office won't cease to function and that these changes were planned a while back, and that they've stopped them, is greatly reassuring. We still need to get the Post Office back on track, but at least hopefully this doesn't mean that the USPS CEO is trying to prevent people from voting, if what's in this article is true.
The author seems to take an almost impossibly optimistic view on several of the most concerning factors.
The justification for why we shouldn't worry about the US President publicly stating that he wants to suppress votes is "Trump says a lot of stupid things". That's a direct, in-context quote from the article. We don't need to worry about direct threats because the president talks a lot of crap, so this is probably fine, right?
What of the new postmaster with strong links to that administration, the one publicly in favour of suppressing postal votes? Oh, well, "he [Trump] technically has no control over DeJoy; only the Board of Governors does.". That's fine too, then. The org chart pinned to HR's wall has him answering to someone else, and no member of the modern political class would dream of breaching that word of honour.
And finally, in case you were worried about their upcoming insolvency, you can rest assured that "The $25 billion under negotiation for the post office isn’t actually for mail ballots, but for forgone revenues due to COVID-19". It's a totally different enormous pile of money, so it'll only impact COVID-related mail, not election-related mail. The envelopes clearly know which pool to take their funding from.
Assuming good faith in the first instance is laudable. Assuming good faith after being proven wrong almost every single time for the last four years lies somewhere between staggering naïvety and outright journalistic malpractice.
I can’t say for sure, but here’s what it seems to add up to: if the post office slows down a little, well, we were warned ahead of time, so the states should be able to handle it. The rest can be fixed next year. If it’s just a money problem then a bailout would fix it.
Panicking about this is pretending that Trump has more power over events than he actually has. It’s in his best interest to pretend he’s that powerful, but not ours. He bluffs so often that we should be a bit more skeptical by now.
Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won't, my problem is that this article brought me no closer to knowing that. It's flawed enough on the points I do have outside knowledge of that I can't trust the conclusions on the points where I don't.
It tells me that removing some sorting machines was already in the pipeline; I don't know whether the answer fully contextualises questions about timing or about geographical targeting. It mentions the Board of Governors, which is designed to have 5 members from each party, and uncritically says that it had six vacancies (out of ten total seats) and a 3:1 Republican majority when DeJoy was appointed; I don't know how much to read into this, but it sure doesn't sound good on the surface, and the author provides no further context. This pattern repeats throughout the piece.
I agree with you that it's important not to play into Trump's grandiosity, but it's also dangerous to minimise the real risks he poses. In this case specifically, it seems incredibly plausible that (a) enforcing these changes at this specific time is a political tactic, (b) removals of machines and boxes are happening in a geographically targeted way, and (c) the (accurate) fact that the general-case plans predate DeJoy's appointment is being used to justify these two targeted actions.
The author makes a relatively positive case for DeJoy's actions, all that's required to believe it is the assumption of good faith. You say yourself we should be skeptical. After many hundreds of demonstrations to the contrary, I'm skeptical of any good faith argument linked to a Trump appointee.
Forgive me if my fears are not assuaged when bad actors stop doing bad actions only when their actions are scrutinized by the public.
This is totally backwards. The head of the USPS should come out ahead of an action such as this with a public explanation. Why is transparency in such a matter not the bare minimum expectation? Especially if they want to preempt panic from a public concerned about any changes that might reduce the capacity of the USPS right before what is expected to be a substantial increase in mail-in-ballots. The only changes that wouldn’t be concerning right now would be changes that are anticipating an increased volume of mail-in-ballot requests and the ballots themselves.
Whether the cost-efficiency reasons are legitimate or not, the timing is what is causing panic.
Again, cost-efficiency is fine, but I have yet to hear an explanation about why such cost-efficiency motivations have become so urgent, given the timing of these actions just before the election.
The best intentions don’t matter if the effect is still detrimental to a fair election.
Larger trends are fine, and if these changes had happened on time, the optics may have been different. But, in the present, with an upcoming election during a pandemic that is motivating many Americans to avoid the polls in person, the optics are still terrible. Despite the long-term trends, there is bound to be an opposing short-term trend ahead of the general election.
A lot of optimism that will have to be vindicated at DeJoy’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee on August 24th.
Again, it’s an issue of optics due to the timing. Why does this change have to happen now? Why is it more important to diminish the USPS’s costs if it will have a detrimental impact on the election? Why is it OK to prioritize cost-savings of a government agency over the franchise of US citizens?
Or, even better, he could have postponed the changes until after the election.
I don’t think anyone has doubts that the USPS could handle every single registered voter voting by mail eventually. The issue is that of timeliness—in many states, if you decide to vote by mail, and USPS does not deliver your ballot on time, you will be disenfranchised. The stake is much higher than your monthly issue of Vogue arriving late. The issue for ballots and ballot requests is timely delivery, not eventual delivery.
This is quoting DeJoy himself:
The statement of "continuing to employ a robust and proven process" directly contradicts the previously described logistical changes that have been discussed throughout this piece. If it’s truly a proven process, why change it now?
Again, the obligative modality of this phrase "has to" here is left unjustified. If your argument rests on this sort of weak assumption that the world cannot be any other way than what you are told reeks of fallacious appeal to an unspoken authority. If you’re going to make a claim like this, you need to cite the operating force (legal or otherwise) that is imposing this mandate, and why such a mandate, in the near-term, is more important than a fair election.
Again, this mandate is assumed erroneously. Why couldn’t DeJoy work with or otherwise pressure Trump, McConnell, and the Republican senators to pass the funding his agency needs?
I reiterate, if your job is to balance the budget, and you have an opportunity to get a major infusion of funds, would the logical action not be to fight for and drum up public support for that? Why don’t we see DeJoy calling on Republicans to take action to help him accomplish this mandate of balancing the budget? The argument that DeJoy must take immediate action to slash costs is spurious.
If those long recommended plans did not take into account the present circumstances, those plans are unlikely to still be good plans.
Which fight, in particular? Why is ensuring a fair election not worth panicking over? It seems precisely the thing to panick over.
One might ask why DeJoy needs to be asked to do this? Why does he need to be dragged in front of the House Oversight Committee at Pelosi and the Democrats’ behest?
For a piece that is intended to lay out facts, there sure are a lot of facts that have been conveniently treaded around, or outright misconstrued based on spurious assumptions.
It seems like you aren’t adding any new information here? The author of the post isn’t going to see your questions.
I found this “fact-checking” piece to be blatantly biased, so I thought I’d contribute my reaction/skepticism. I especially hate it when self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” abuse that term to foist their opinions.
It’s nice to see a detailed account by someone who seems to know what he’s talking about. But without independent knowledge, all I can do is judge plausibility. Hopefully we will see some other opinions from people who know stuff.
This is really relieving to read, I needed it. I've been really worried up until now about these changes, but knowing that the Post Office won't cease to function and that these changes were planned a while back, and that they've stopped them, is greatly reassuring. We still need to get the Post Office back on track, but at least hopefully this doesn't mean that the USPS CEO is trying to prevent people from voting, if what's in this article is true.