What did Democratic activists do then? They sued to gut every compromise in that bi-partisan bill, including provisions that are common in mail-in voting systems all around the world, like requiring ballots to arrive by election day.
I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by. Once postmarked, delivery is out of the hands of the voter (and, in fact, there are some really fucked up incentives for the party that controls postal delivery).
The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
> I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by.
The purpose of delivered-by is obviously to allow for the election results to be known on election day (or as soon thereafter as possible).
A sensible alternative would be to use postmarked-by, but make the postmarked-by date sufficiently in advance of "election day" to allow for the ballots to have been delivered by then. In practice this is the same result while addressing your concern for intentional postal system delays, since now intentional delays wouldn't change the result so there would be no incentive to do it. (And a large number of ballets mailed well in advance of election day but delivered after would then be highly suspicious, as it ought to be.)
> The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
A delay that was overwhelmed by a different delay in a specific election doesn't mean it isn't a delay.
It's a 50/50 country. We're not going to get results known on election day, if for no other reason than that true absentee ballots (not convenience mail-in ballots) are a thing, and many jurisdictions don't allow them to be counted until election day. Since no proposed policy change gets us the outcome you're looking for, it doesn't make sense to inconvenience (and, really, jeopardize) votes in the name of achieving that goal.
I view not having results on Election Day as being akin to lag in game controllers. It really undermines the feeling that the election result is causally related to the voting.
I was surprised to see how much it upset me to see the NYC mayoral primary drag on.
I think we should be angry when incompetence causes undue delays, which is what happened in New York state, for pretty much the same reason we should be angry about any incompetence. I think the idea that the delays undermine democracy are a canard (they're a canard the Democrats have employed in the past, too). Vote tabulation is complicated because we're complicated.
For example, in 2019, Pennsylvania did a bi-partisan electoral reform allowing widespread mail-in voting: https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-ele...
What did Democratic activists do then? They sued to gut every compromise in that bi-partisan bill, including provisions that are common in mail-in voting systems all around the world, like requiring ballots to arrive by election day.