Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your "activitst" (of course, LOL) daughter requests a mail-in ballot for you, fills it out, forges your signature, and sends it in. She could do the same thing posing as you at the voting booth. (shrug)
You steal mail-in ballots from mailboxes, forge sloppy signatures, they will be checked, and you send them in. And the police come to your door.
Showing up in person posing as someone else is much more difficult and risky and hard to do it for multiple people. Checking signatures? Get a grip. The people tasked with "verifying" signatures barely have a second to glance at it to see if one is present. They are not qualified to analyze signatures. Even trained experts have to examine signatures closely to determine validity.
Maybe in your fantasy, not in reality. Ignoring for the moment the case of service personnel and state department officials needing to vote remotely, let's address this claim of yours.
"That was when mail-in ballots were used ... " by vacationers with plenty of money. People with more than one home who spend a lot of time away from their place of registry, wealthy people ... businesspeople. It was, and is, a common practice. This is why mail in votes normally skew toward Republicans.
Trump routinely votes by mail in ballot, even now. He is typical for wealthy people, the ideal type to use mail in voting even when they are healthy and home and have plenty of time on their hands. I read an article a few years ago where Kayleigh McEnany, from a wealthy family herself ... as young as she is voted by mail-in ballot ten times! She was born in 1988 for Christ's sake ... that was probably her entire adult voting record at the time. This is the typical mail-in voter you call "legitimate".
You are arguing that these people, who often used mail in voting as a convenience, was more "legitimate".
BS
That kind of 'the wealthy not wanting to rub elbows with common folk' is a more legitimate use of mail-in balloting than avoiding crowds during a pandemic? Nonsense.
Before Trump and his lies and fabrications about mail-in voting, several states had chosen to go all in with mail-in voting. These were bi-partisan decisions where BOTH parties, local Republicans AND Democrats, supported the measure. Not a hint of concern over it by either party.
Showing up in person posing as someone else is much more difficult and risky and hard to do it for multiple people. Checking signatures? Get a grip. The people tasked with "verifying" signatures barely have a second to glance at it to see if one is present. They are not qualified to analyze signatures. Even trained experts have to examine signatures closely to determine validity.
Mail-in ballots and taking forever to 'count' the votes.
The counting time is a separate issue. Many states have rules in place that forbid the counting of mail-in ballots until the polls close. This is totally unnecessary and the delay was predictable and predicted.
The delays were definitely anticipated and announced, and attempts were made in various states to allow the immediate counting of mail-in ballots as they came in, but Republicans opposed that. Of course we know why, resisting that helpful change enabled the false narrative of a stolen election. The Republicans refused to change the rules, to trouble you over it.
Did the counting delay concern you? Of course it did. You were played like a fiddle by your own party. You were manipulated, because it was convenient to them to instill doubts in you over the process. They control you, they control how you think.
Showing up in person posing as someone else is much more difficult and risky and hard to do it for multiple people. Checking signatures? Get a grip. The people tasked with "verifying" signatures barely have a second to glance at it to see if one is present. They are not qualified to analyze signatures. Even trained experts have to examine signatures closely to determine validity.
I am a qualified election judge in a deep red county.
I have personal experience verifying signatures, it is easy and reliable. The variety of handwriting styles is enormous ... quite amazing. Some are just scribbles (think of Trump's for instance), but they are all distinctive.
I have had people shove their driver's license in my face during the process, but I can see the signature on file much better, it is expanded to a large size. They have to sign in front of me, extemporaneously, with nothing to see which they can follow. If they can match it in one fluid try, no further examination is necessary. I can see if their writing is natural and I ask them to recite their address. If there are any doubts I call over the other election judges (from both parties) and we decide together, never had a problem.
Those which can not be resolved are given provisional ballots, which are sealed separately, and the county clerk gets them to review. Rarely necessary.
I am a qualified election judge in a deep red county.
I have personal experience verifying signatures, it is easy and reliable. The variety of handwriting styles is enormous ... quite amazing. Some are just scribbles (think of Trump's for instance), but they are all distinctive.
I have had people shove their driver's license in my face during the process, but I can see the signature on file much better, it is expanded to a large size. They have to sign in front of me, extemporaneously, with nothing to see which they can follow. If they can match it in one fluid try, no further examination is necessary. I can see if their writing is natural and I ask them to recite their address. If there are any doubts I call over the other election judges (from both parties) and we decide together, never had a problem.
Those which can not be resolved are given provisional ballots, which are sealed separately, and the county clerk gets them to review. Rarely necessary.
Except you can't do that with online ballots. For all you know, they practiced for hours or it was traced.
It also is an issue if the person "verifying" the signature even cares.
Except you can't do that with online ballots. For all you know, they practiced for hours or it was traced.
It also is an issue if the person "verifying" the signature even cares.
I thought you were worried about mail-in ballots?
I think they probably care. If they don't, then how can you trust anything? Maybe NOBODY along the line cares.
I mean what are you telling us with all of these protestations? That we shouldn't vote at all? Or are we back to your original assertion that only certain people should be able to vote so that "the best candidate" can win?
I think they probably care. If they don't, then how can you trust anything? Maybe NOBODY along the line cares.
I mean what are you telling us with all of these protestations? That we shouldn't vote at all? Or are we back to your original assertion that only certain people should be able to vote so that "the best candidate" can win?
Not sure how you come to those conclusions. I meant mail-in not online, there is no online voting. Just go to the polls, show your id, and vote.
Perhaps we could overlay a graph of historical voter turnout over a graph of historical congressional approval rating?
sure, if you want to do that by all means proceed with it, but I have absolutely no interest in pursuing this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
