PA Sens Out 249,000 Ballots to Unverified Voters

The Epoch Times is unabashedly conservative (but not the far part) but they are meticulously journalistic and report no made up or false news. In the main section they always report both sides of a story if there are two sides. Their opinions and bias is in a separate section called "Opinions." Half of the paper is non-political or newsy but personal interest and health articles.

 

That's because only one side cares about election integrity, e, free and fair elections.

BTW, when I post one side, I mean the side of libertarians (mostly GOP (if one includes Tulsi Gabard) and the side of authoritarians which include I would say all dems and unfortunately a small percentage of neocons who favor aid to Ukraine and favors the Jan. 6 investigation.

 

Your argument is a strawman argument. Allowing mail in voting usually doesn't guarantee free and fair elections.

 

I admit the Epoch Times is very big on anti-Chinese but their reporting is still meticulously journalistic despite their evident bias.

 

Really, is your link serious?
(1) Only valid voters get mail-in ballots...Well, eligible voters get numerous mail-in ballots and some people who no longer live in the precinct or state receive ballots.
(2) It's very hard to fake ballots...Well, there's no need to fake ballots when the state sends too many ballots out in the first place.
(3) Voters must affirm their identities...Yeah, well, anyone can sign any name to any ballot. Well (and I'll refer to this later in #6), at least in my state, illegal voters aren't prosecuted. Maybe, at worse, 'their hands are slapped'.
(4) It's hard to duplicate mail-in ballots...Well, use my same argument against the 'vicious elimination of ineligible voters nature' of #2.
(5) The post office will notice oddities...Well, is that why, after the 2020 election, batches of ballots arrived mysteriously to vote counting places which were contained in boxes marked property of the post office??
(6) Voter fraud is a serious state and federal crime...Well, see my response to the latter part of #3.

 

I am going to assume that you actually believe what you posted here. I will say this, they are not a credible news source but I respect the belief that you think they are.

 

Is it because they have a political bias on their reporting that you state they are not a reliable source? I put Epoch times as the MSNBC of the right. Do you consider MSNBC reliable?

 

No, it's because they are owned by a cult. Take off the partisan blinders.

 

No, meaning you do not find MSNBC as a reliable source? I guess we can concur there.

Regarding partisan blinders, I read ALL news sources as I understand every agency puts their only political spin and bias on a story. It's the readers responsibility to take the information given and research it and derive your own conclusion based upon your own research. The problem here, on both sides, that you an others take what is being reported from your "reliable" news sources as affirmed truth. I would say if any of us has partisan blinders on, it might be the fella pointing the finger at me.

 

You keep desperately trotting out a rabbit hoping it gets chased. That's as lame as the Chinese cult publication. The deflection partisan game is not you forte.

 

The Epoch Times is meticulously journalistic driven in their reporting, not agenda driven as is MSNBC. Their biases and opinions are strictly identified as such in a completely separate section.

 

Funny how you consider it deflection when I am putting Epoch and MSBC in the same political bias camp, just one is alt right rhetoric while the other is alt left rhetoric.

MSNBC Media Bias

Epoch Time Media Bias

I'm willing to wait to see more information on the story as it's evolving as an emphatic fact that DID take place, is that the US higher court threw out a lower courts ruling that undated ballots could be counted.

Maybe it's time for you to remove your political bias blinders and realize that what is being reported to you, is also flawed and should be further vetted, instead of eating the tripe as if it were fillet Mignon.

 

Still this desperate to hunt with that lame doge of your own but quite construct? That's typical of people that can't see past their partisan blinders. Let me dumb it down, the rabbit hole you have dug hoping to be chased down is already occupied by one, you. The Epoch Times is a publication that's owned and operated by a religious Chinese cult. You deflection and conflation is weak.

 

Your ad hom's are duly noted. It's you that has this fantasy, not I, as I have not advocated for, nor against Epoch times. Not once in our back n forth. I've merely pointed out it is as biased as the cult institutions you support and you shouldn't merely discount it because of you own political blinders.

But hey... you do you.

 

Ahh, playing the projection ad hom victim card now!! Just because you failed at getting the desperation partisan rabbit chased doesn't mean one has to whine about their own MO and blame it on others. That's the problem today, "rules for thee but not for me" Trump supporters. The Epoch Times is owned by a Chinese religious cult, they lack any credibility as a source of news or journalism.

 

Hah!! you continue to chase the rabbit, that you, yourself released. That's the funny part!

I hope you catch him and you have yourself a spectacular day.

 

Not likely, but you may be unaware of your inadvertent admission . The deep end is only for strong swimmers and those with real ability. Sadly, not for the weak like the The Epoch Times Chinese cult "want to believe" partisan believers.

 

PA Supreme court struck down Pennsylvania’s 2019 expanded mail-in voting law that permitted 2.5 million people to vote in 2020:

“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires a qualified elector to present her ballot in person at a designated polling place on Election Day, except where she meets one of the constitutional exceptions for absentee voting,”

The court ruled the legislature’s law unconstitutional. Pennsylvania’s constitution would have to be changed to allow mail-in voting.

WI:

"tens of thousands of ballots were cast in violation of state election laws, including by the use of these drop boxes" - WI Supreme Court

Most secure election ever? PA and WI Supreme courts are not so sure.

 

Also from the MSM.

If a voter’s identification can’t be verified at the time they apply for a ballot, state law does require that the voter still be issued a ballot and be provided an opportunity until the sixth day after the election to provide the proper proof of identification. But counties are not to count the ballot unless the voter provides proof of identification.

If a voter’s identification can’t be verified at the time they apply for a ballot, state law does require that the voter still be issued a ballot and be provided an opportunity until the sixth day after the election to provide the proper proof of identification. But counties are not to count the ballot unless the voter provides proof of identification.



What a stupid system if accuracy is the goal.

 

It's not false at all. That's a cop out, you running scared.

The AP even confirms that those ballots were mailed out to people not yet verified.

But claim they won't count them until they are verified, but puts thus responsibility on the county's.

THEN they give people until 6 days AFTER the election to prove their identity.

It's almost like they are implementing policy that's easy to manipulate.

The OP is exactly factual.

 

Not going to argue it's a fantastic system... just that is was a system put in by Republicans 3 years ago and it's still being followed.

Many voters are stupid.... I'm sure that's something we can agree on... But the BOTD goes to the voter until proven otherwise..

 

Not true... because the OP and others are taking an internal designation and reading more into it than should be read

SNIP
Notably, the “not verified” designation doesn’t mean the voter didn’t provide accurate identification information, nor does it mean their ID wasn’t later verified.
ENDSNIP

The responsibility is always on the county, although they can use state resources to verify voters...

Here's the current count, from the AP and Pa DOS

There are currently about 7,600 ballot applications in Pennsylvania that still require identification verification, according to the Department of State.

 

I doubt accuracy is the real goal here because if it were, everything would move away from mail in ballots and back to in person/Absentee only and people would be forced to use ID and be registered. It would dramatically cut down cheating and greatly enhance election integrity. I would imagine almost everyone in the population wants this, it's leadership, some leadership, wanting elections to be muddied or results to be swung on illegal votes.

 

You ended the snip right before they talked about the voters information wasn't able to be validated through automated processes so remains in a state of "unverified" until they are verified.

The MSM is saying "that's not what it means!" When thats exactly what it means.

I dont understand why people can't be required to register to vote and if they don't, they can't vote. Why does everything have to be made so complicated?

 

They are registered to vote, otherwise they wouldn't be in the system.... What 7,600 of them are is not fully verified to vote by mail, which apparently you have to do to automatically receive a mail in ballot every election...

I registered to vote in VA in the mid 80's, and from my current location in 1993. I've never been asked to "verify" my registration since, although I've never attempted to vote by mail either (and hopefully never will).

I think you guys (and Penn) need to explore how the Western states have successfully done primarily mail in balloting for 20+ years....