亚马逊aws无法注册
As the coronavirus continues to make basic activities like going to school or visiting a restaurant riskier than ever, there’s been a surge in pressure to find ways to safely manage the 2020 election. The United States Postal Service was launched into the national spotlight last week when President Trump indicated he would block stimulus funding for the post office in order to prevent universal mail-in voting. Meanwhile, a private solution to delivering ballots is gaining traction online: If the post office is unable to (or prevented from) handling all of the mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, could shipping companies like FedEx, UPS, or even Amazon step up to fill in the gap?
由于冠状病毒继续做像基本活动上学或前往餐厅 [R iskier比以往任何时候，有许多人在压力想办法安全地管理2020年大选的激增。 上周，特朗普总统表示，他将阻止对邮局的刺激资金投入，以防止普遍的邮寄投票，美国邮政局因此成为举世瞩目的焦点。 同时，一种用于发送选票的私人解决方案在网上越来越受欢迎：如果邮局无法(或阻止)在2020年选举中处理所有邮寄选票，那么像FedEx，UPS甚至亚马逊这样的运输公司可以采取步骤填补空白？
The idea was most prominently suggested by radio host David Rothkopf, while a similar satirical take by comedian Andy Borowitz suggesting Amazon would offer same-day shipping of ballots spread widely and was taken seriously enough online to merit its own Snopes debunking.
广播主持人戴维·罗斯科普夫(David Rothkopf)最明显地提出了这个想法，而喜剧演员安迪·鲍罗维兹(Andy Borowitz)的类似讽刺意味则暗示，亚马逊将提供当日广泛分发的选票，并在网上受到足够重视，值得进行Snopes的揭穿 。
Privatizing our voting system, even partially, by allowing private carriers to collect ballots would open up a Pandora’s mailbox of logistical and legal problems that aren’t easy (or even possible) to overcome before November.
通过允许私人承运人收取选票使我们的投票系统私有化，甚至部分私有化，将会打开潘多拉(Pandora)关于后勤和法律问题的邮箱，这些邮箱在11月之前很难(甚至不可能)解决。
The biggest question is whether or not it’s legal for shipping companies to collect ballots from voters in the first place.
最大的问题是，运输公司首先从选民那里收取选票是否合法。
University of Memphis law professor Steven Mulroy has argued numerous voting rights cases in front of the Supreme Court, and most recently was an attorney on a case in which the Tennessee Supreme Court decided which residents could use Covid-19 as a valid reason for voting absentee. When it comes to the broader 2020 election, Mulroy explains that whether it’s legal for a private carrier to collect ballots on behalf of the voter depends heavily on where the voter lives.
孟菲斯大学法学教授史蒂芬·穆尔罗伊(Steven Mulroy)在最高法院面前辩论了无数投票权案件，最近是田纳西州最高法院裁定哪些居民可以使用Covid-19作为缺席投票的正当理由的律师。 当谈到更广泛的2020年选举时，穆尔罗伊(Mulroy)解释说，私人承运人代表选民收取选票是否合法在很大程度上取决于选民的居住地。
“There’s no federal prescription against [private carriers collecting ballots] that I’m aware of, and state laws vary,” Mulroy told OneZero. Within states, those laws can be arcane and complex.
“我所知道的，没有针对(私人承运人收取选票的)联邦规定，州法律也有所不同，”穆尔罗伊告诉OneZero 。 在各州内部，这些法律可能是神秘而复杂的。
For example, Tennessee requires absentee ballots to be mailed rather than dropped off in person. Meanwhile, federal law requires uniformed and overseas voters to be allowed to use private carriers like UPS. “As a result, the state of Tennessee is taking the position that it’s too hard to distinguish between [uniformed and overseas voters] and other voters, so anybody who wants to can use FedEx or UPS,” says Mulroy.
例如，田纳西州要求邮寄缺席选票，而不是亲自下票。 同时，联邦法律要求穿制服的和海外的选民可以使用UPS等私人承运人。 “因此，田纳西州的立场是，很难区分[制服和海外选民]与其他选民，所以任何想使用联邦快递或UPS的人都可以，”穆尔罗伊说。
In other states, however, the rules are very different. Wisconsin, for example, requires ballots to be postmarked to be valid and private carriers are not legally allowed to issue postmarks. Voters in that state would be unable to use FedEx or UPS, even if they preferred it.
但是，在其他州，规则却大不相同。 例如，威斯康星州要求将选票盖上邮戳以有效，并且法律上不允许私人承运人发行盖印戳。 即使处于这种状态的选民也不会使用FedEx或UPS。
Meanwhile, even UPS seems to be uncertain about the legality of delivering ballots. On August 14, UPS told Reuters, “State ballots must be postmarked to be considered valid and only the USPS has lawful postmarking status. Therefore UPS, FedEx, and other private parties cannot technically be involved in shipping ballots.” But this is only true in some states. Three days later, UPS issued an updated statement that encouraged voters to seek out their own state’s laws before using a private carrier to deliver their ballot.
同时，即使UPS似乎也不确定交付选票的合法性。 8月14日， UPS告诉路透社 ，“必须将国家投票邮戳标记为有效，并且只有USPS具有合法的邮戳标记身份。 因此，UPS，FedEx和其他私人团体从技术上讲不能参与运送选票。” 但这仅在某些州是正确的。 三天后，UPS发布了更新的声明 ，鼓励选民在使用私人承运人交付选票之前，先了解本州的法律。
There’s also the question of logistics. While companies like Amazon, FedEx, and UPS ship billions of packages every year, they don’t hold a candle to the volume of items that the USPS handles. Combined, the three private carriers account for a little over 10 billion packages in 2019. The post office, on the other hand, shipped over 142 billion pieces of mail in a single year. Of those, 6.2 billion items were packages, making the post office a larger and more accessible shipping organization than any individual private carrier, even before accounting for paper mail.
还有物流的问题。 尽管像亚马逊，联邦快递和UPS这样的公司每年运送数十亿个包裹，但它们对USPS处理的物品数量并不抱有太大希望。 这三家私人航空公司的总和在2019年占了100亿套以上。 另一方面，邮政局一年仅寄出了1420亿封邮件。 在这些包裹中，有62亿个包裹，使邮局比任何单个私人承运商都要大，并且更易于访问，甚至在不算纸邮件的情况下。
That means private carriers have a limited ability to help handle ballots. But some help may be better than none at all.
这意味着私人承运人处理选票的能力有限。 但是，有些帮助可能总比没有好。
“We’re not asking whether FedEx and UPS can completely replace the mail system. We’re asking whether they can supplement it,” says Mulroy. “[The USPS is] just saying there are going to be delays. So, it’s not implausible, it seems to me, to think that [private companies] could supplement the USPS effort.”
“我们不是在问联邦快递和UPS是否可以完全取代邮件系统。 我们正在询问他们是否可以补充它，”穆尔罗伊说。 “ [USPS]只是说将会有延误 。 因此，在我看来，认为[私有公司]可以补充USPS的工作并非不可行。”
But the manner in which private carriers supplement the USPS would have to be handled carefully. Accepting ballots voluntarily sent through the carriers (in states that allow it) would be one thing. But taking over certain routes from the USPS or proactively collecting ballots from voters could potentially run afoul of ballot harvesting laws, which also vary greatly by state.
但是，私人运营商补充USPS的方式必须谨慎处理。 接受通过承运人自愿发送的选票(在允许的情况下)将是一回事。 但是，从USPS接管某些路线或主动向选民收取选票可能会触犯选票收集法，该法律因州而异 。
If, for example, a state or county opted to switch to FedEx for ballot collection along certain routes, requiring voters to use a private carrier over the USPS, it could cause legal problems, especially if such an action favored voters of one party over the other. “Which reinforces the argument that many are making, particularly in the Democratic Party, that what we should do is provide the necessary resources to the USPS, so that the USPS, the government agency that was supposed to be doing this can, in fact, do it in a timely fashion,” said Mulroy.
例如，如果某个州或县选择沿某些路线选择联邦快递进行选票收集，要求选民在USPS上使用私人承运人，则可能会导致法律问题，尤其是如果这种行为在选举中偏向于某一方的选民而不是选民的话其他。 “这强化了许多人正在提出的论点，特别是在民主党中，我们应该做的是为USPS提供必要的资源，这样，原本应该这样做的政府机构USPS实际上可以及时做到这一点。”穆尔罗伊说。
Even if it were possible for private carriers to step in, any change to the electoral system at all could raise potential legal questions. With the election so close, there’s little time left to resolve them before the election. And waiting to resolve them until after could be much more problematic. “In electoral law, generally there’s a strong preference for getting the rules set up ahead of time before you know whether the rules will help Candidate A or Candidate B,” says Mulroy.
即使私人承运人有可能介入，对选举制度的任何改变都可能引发潜在的法律问题。 选举如此接近，在选举前几乎没有时间解决它们。 而等待解决这些问题可能要麻烦得多。 “在选举法中，通常强烈希望提前制定规则，然后再知道规则对候选人A或候选人B会有帮助，” Mulroy说。
“Given how divided we are as a country and given the already high amount of concern there is about election integrity, you want as few unresolved or even theoretical, arguable election controversies as possible because you want to maximize the chance that the public will respect the results of the election,” says Mulroy.
“鉴于我们作为一个国家有多么分裂，考虑到对选举完整性的高度关注，您希望尽可能少地解决未解决的甚至是理论上可争论的选举争议，因为您想最大化公众尊重选举权的机会。选举结果”，穆尔罗伊说。
Even if it could be determined that private companies can play a bigger role in ballot collection than the limited scope they do now, the risk of raising legal questions and undermining confidence in the election results seems to outweigh the benefits of counting ballots faster. For now, the Postal Service’s role in the election remains crucial. The most legally safe way to ensure it can do its job isn’t to solicit extra outside help from private companies, but to provide the post office with the resources it needs.
即使可以确定私人公司可以在选票中发挥比现在有限的更大的作用，但提出法律问题和破坏对选举结果的信心的风险似乎超过了更快地进行选票的好处。 目前，邮政服务在选举中的作用仍然至关重要。 确保它能正常工作的最法律上安全的方法不是从私人公司那里寻求外部帮助，而是向邮局提供所需的资源。
翻译自: https://onezero.medium.com/amazon-cant-save-us-from-the-mail-in-ballot-mess-ae5f3604b7ea
亚马逊aws无法注册
4840
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
