Voting by Mail?

[Tiberius Lee]

You cannot cover up for an election that had widespread irregularities which could have changed the outcome by saying 1) that the issue is whether or not every last vote was valid, or 2) mistakes were probably made before.

Apart from your “opinion” , do you have any hard evidence such as a Sec of State rejected a result of an election because of wide spared voter fraud, or a court rejected election result because of a voter fraud. If you have none than your “opinion” is absolutely useless in this case.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

You know arguing about “ mail in vote” is completely useless. What we need to talk is “how can we vote online with our smart phone”. That is where rest of the world is moving, may be Americans can “make America great Again” and accept 21st century technology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know arguing about “ mail in vote” is completely useless. What we need to talk is “how can we vote online with our smart phone”. That is where rest of the world is moving, may be Americans can “make America great Again” and accept 21st century technology.

Darn, and I was about to suggest that ballpoint pens were to be banned in voting booths. Feathered quills and inkpots only.

 

[Albion]

Good question! I’ve always heard that voter fraud was very low in Oregon but I went looking for data. The Heritage Foundation (decidedly conservative) has done an in-depth study where you can look at each case state-by state. Here is a link to that:.

In Oregon, we’ve had 15 cases since 2001.

Okay, but now we have to be sure of what we are talking about.

Both sides tend to say "vote(r) fraud" when this subject comes up, BUT that is not the issue, strictly speaking. If it's really "voter fraud," the issue usually is understood to be about an identified individual who engaged in a criminat act with a ballot--deliberately casting more than one ballot, voting in the name of someone else, or something like that. This does occur.

But when referring to the problem, to keep talking about "fraud" is a way of excusing the deliberate invitation to have voting errors and inaccuracies that an insecure voting process makes likely.

So if ballots are just blowing in the wind, so to speak, and insecure, available to unknown parties thinking of engaging in vote fraud, the people who benefit from such doings will take the opportunity to exploit it.

However, in discussions about the voting results and procedures, the tens of thousands of invalid votes that were cast last year in each of the half dozen states that have been most under discussion are not included in the telling by defenders of the voting rules that were put in place expressly for the 2020 election. The election officials who created this porous system and knew what would happen say they were just helping to make it easier for people who couldn't get to the polls in the usual way and pat themselves on the back for having done this to our elections. And then we also get their sympathizers covering for them by speaking of vote "fraud" all the time and meaning by that choice of words, a particular criminal act by a particular person who has been convicted of it.

This allows the apologists for a insecure and therefore unfair election system to excuse it by being careful to use the right jargon. And then we get "Hey. It's not significant."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, but now we have to be sure of what we are talking about.

Both sides tend to say "vote(r) fraud" when this subject comes up, BUT that is not the issue, strictly speaking. If it's really "voter fraud," the issue is about deliberately casting more than one ballot, voting in the name of someone else, or something like that. This does occur.

But when referring to the problem, to keep talking about fraud is a way of excusing the deliberate invitation to have voting errors and inaccuracies that seems to have been a nationwide epidemic last autumn.

So if ballots are just blowing in the wind, so to speak, and available to unknown parties thinking of engaging in vote fraud, the people who benefit from such fraud will take the opportunity to exploit it.

But in discussions about the voting results and procedures, the tens of thousands of invalid votes that were cast last year in each of the half dozen states that have been most under discussion are not included in the telling by defenders of the voting rules that were put in place expressly for the 2020 election. The election officials who created this porous system and knew what would happen say they were just helping to make it easier for people who couldn't get to the polls in the usual way and pat themselves on the back for having done this to our elections. And then we also get their sympathizers covering for them by speaking of vote "fraud" or saying that the number of people arrested and convicted of having changed someone else's ballot, for example, is minimal. "Hey. It's not significant," they so. But it matters what they are pointing to--a handful of convictions of identified criminals or tens of thousands or more cases of invalid ballots being counted as genuine but no individual person has been identified, arrested, and prosecuted.

Sorry, what "tens of thousands of invalid votes"? You keep making that claim but cannot seem to support it.

Your only possible source seems to be the failed Maricopa county fraudit. You remember the Cyber Ninjas, don't you? They were the incompetent biased conservative frauditors that kept making claims and refuting themselves.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The impression I get is that Democratic candidate supporters do not want any safeguards when it comes to mail in voting. They want mass mailing of ballots and no identification, checking of signatures or controls of any kind.

Why is that?

You have to go and register to vote - why not just send a copy of your voter registration card with the mail in ballot that you request.

Requesting ballots has the potential of saving money on printing and postage as well as controlling the flow. It is no more inconvenient, racist (whatever complaint your want), anti Democratic than the process to register to vote. In fact it would be quicker and easier. You can make the request sitting at home in just a couple minutes and then receive the ballots in the mail - bingo - you are done. It would also severely limit the accusations of fraud.

Kills two birds with one stone - so why not do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The impression I get is that Democratic candidate supporters do not want any safeguards when it comes to mail in voting. They want mass mailing of ballots and no identification, checking of signatures or controls of any kind.

Why is that?

You have to go and register to vote - why not just send a copy of your voter registration card with the mail in ballot that you request.

Requesting ballots has the potential of saving money on printing and postage as well as controlling the flow. It is no more inconvenient, racist (whatever complaint your want), anti Democratic than the process to register to vote. In fact it would be quicker and easier. You can make the request sitting at home in just a couple minutes and then receive the ballots in the mail - bingo - you are done. It would also severely limit the accusations of fraud.

Kills two birds with one stone - so why not do it?

Not true. Safeguards exist. What they oppose are pointless and excessive safeguards.

 

[Albion]

Apart from your “opinion” ...

I'll stop there. Posting something like "Apart from your 'opinion'"...your “opinion” is absolutely useless in this case" isn't discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll stop there. Posting something like "Apart from your 'opinion'"...your “opinion” is absolutely useless in this case" merely sends a message that the person posting it doesn't have enough information about the topic to counter what he read.

Why get offended? If one cannot support one's claims all that one has is opinion. For example when posters demand more restrictions on vote by mail I ask why and demand that why be backed up with evidence. There does not appear to be much in the way of voter fraud when it comes to vote by mail. They system is rather safe as it is.

Here is the problem with excessive regulation. It begins to cut down on the number of voters. If the number of voters that are excluded is greater than the amount of fraud then those laws are clearly not justified. That is one of the reasons that laws restricting voting rights have been found to be unconstitutional in the past. One must demonstrate with valid evidence that there is a problem that has to be dealt with.

"But my candidate lost" is not an excuse for more restrictions.

 

[Deviant Writer]

Okay, but now we have to be sure of what we are talking about.

Both sides tend to say "vote(r) fraud" when this subject comes up, BUT that is not the issue, strictly speaking. If it's really "voter fraud," the issue usually is understood to be about an identified individual who engaged in a criminat act with a ballot--deliberately casting more than one ballot, voting in the name of someone else, or something like that. This does occur.

But when referring to the problem, to keep talking about "fraud" is a way of excusing the deliberate invitation to have voting errors and inaccuracies that an insecure voting process makes likely.

So if ballots are just blowing in the wind, so to speak, and insecure, available to unknown parties thinking of engaging in vote fraud, the people who benefit from such doings will take the opportunity to exploit it.

However, in discussions about the voting results and procedures, the tens of thousands of invalid votes that were cast last year in each of the half dozen states that have been most under discussion are not included in the telling by defenders of the voting rules that were put in place expressly for the 2020 election. The election officials who created this porous system and knew what would happen say they were just helping to make it easier for people who couldn't get to the polls in the usual way and pat themselves on the back for having done this to our elections. And then we also get their sympathizers covering for them by speaking of vote "fraud" all the time and meaning by that choice of words, a particular criminal act by a particular person who has been convicted of it.

This allows the apologists for a insecure and therefore unfair election system to excuse it by being careful to use the right jargon. And then we get "Hey. It's not significant."

What court cases has the Trump camp won proving Biden won any state through voter fraud?

 

[Albion]

What court cases has the Trump camp won proving Biden won any state through voter fraud?

Nothing to say in reaction to that rather long post I wrote??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing to say in reaction to that rather long post I wrote??

You have yet to show any evidence at all for "tens of thousands of invalid votes". You have made this claim more than once and never supported it. You tell others to go look for it themselves. We have. It is not to be found. The closest that I found were early claims of the Cyber Ninjas that were later refuted. I even provided a link for you at that time.

 

[JustOneWay]

What court cases has the Trump camp won proving Biden won any state through voter fraud?

I believe he(Trump) won in the State of denial....

but don't quote me on that.

 

[Albion]

You have yet to show any evidence at all for "tens of thousands of invalid votes".

Then I suggest you do a little work yourself if that is a concern of yours. Time and time again, people demand "evidence," often about things that are so well known that you have to wonder if they've been living under a rock.

But of course, the evidence they want is available online in less than a minute, so why don't they look for it before demanding that someone who already knows the score and has passed it along retrace his steps? Is it just a device for buying time? Is it just laziness? Is it simply something to say when stuck for a tart reply? Who knows, but it doesn't really matter.

Best wishes to you.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Then I suggest you do a little work yourself if that is a concern of yours. Time and time again, people demand "evidence," often about things that are so well known that you have to wonder if they've been living under a rock.

But of course, the evidence they want is available online in less than a minute, so why don't they look for it before demanding that someone who already knows the score and has passed it along retrace his steps? Is it just a device for buying time? Is it just laziness? Is it simply something to say when stuck for a tart reply? Who knows, but it doesn't really matter.

Best wishes to you.

Nothing to say about all the posts I've written proving there is no voter mail fraud?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Then I suggest you do a little work yourself if that is a concern of yours. Time and time again, people demand "evidence," often about things that are so well known that you have to wonder if they've been living under a rock.

But of course, the evidence they want is available online in less than a minute, so why don't they look for it before demanding that someone who already knows the score and has passed it along retrace his steps? Is it just a device for buying time? Is it just laziness? Is it simply something to say when stuck for a tart reply? Who knows, but it doesn't really matter.

Best wishes to you.

Well I wasted the minute and got through 4 pages of google search to find a case of an attempted registration scam aimed to produce 8000 registrations. they were caught before 29 registrations were sent and 0 fraudulent votes were cast.
Conclusion your claim is false, both to finding it in a minute and the lazy person is you.
Put up or shut up.

 

[Albion]

Hello again.

Conclusion your claim is false, both to finding it in a minute and the lazy person is you..

Well, I cannot account for you having that kind of trouble finding the information. Or if you even did what you say you did. Some people have trouble with computers, I suppose.

What I do know is that almost always when I've given in to such requests, I found the answer within seconds, not even a minute.

Put up or shut up.

Just use the "ignore" function and your animosity will be resolved.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Well, I cannot account for you having that kind of trouble finding the information.

I can account for it. He can't find things that don't exist. Those claims widespread mail fraud are fables that you and right-wing propagandists made up. That's also why you're unable to provide any evidence at all. You're not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.

 

[Vylo]

Well, I cannot account for you having that kind of trouble finding the information. Or if you even did what you say you did. Some people have trouble with computers, I suppose.

What I do know is that almost always when I've given in to such requests, I found the answer within seconds, not even a minute.


Just use the "ignore" function and your animosity will be resolved.

People have already given the information you seek, repeatedly, you have not given evidence of the fraud you suggest. Considering mail in voting has been doing fine for over 100 years, it can easily be expanded to all.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Well, I cannot account for you having that kind of trouble finding the information. Or if you even did what you say you did. Some people have trouble with computers, I suppose.

What I do know is that almost always when I've given in to such requests, I found the answer within seconds, not even a minute.


Just use the "ignore" function and your animosity will be resolved.

No you made the claim many times, admit it is false or give evidence as to why it may be true. you could have linked it in less time than it has taken you to avoid your responsibility again. As to animosity I assume like you I don't like liars. As to ignore, as you probably also agree, challenging purveyors of false information is a good thing.