How Mail-in Voting Works

Yes, that does concern me. That's why paper trails are essential. Exit polling helps to verify totals as do requirements for hand recounts in the event of close elections.

I'm not sure why we can't go back to paper ballots only - mail and in-person - and count them by hand to begin with. You know, the way they did it for 90% of our existence.

 

Then why cast a ballot at all? Just use the exit polls.

 

I can't buy a new Lexus with somebody's vote. The motive is assigned to the person committing the crime, not the candidate.

Would you risk going to prison, or even losing your job by getting involved in this? Would you do it for free?

Yes. It's irrational to assume otherwise.

 

That's how we vote. The whole world votes with ballots. Exit polls are a check on those ballots. Not sure what you're asking. If you're saying we should scrap ballots and vote by lining up and verbally telling reporters who we want, I don't think such an idea would go over well.

 

Just that exit polls are notoriously inaccurate.

 

The odds of a few hundred votes changing the results of a national election are nil. Probably less than being struck by lightening twice.

 

What keeps people from being bribed to select a candidate? That can't be done at physical polls because there is no way of telling who the person actually voted for.

Same goes for threats and extortion. Whats to keep violent people from saying "you better let me see how you vote before you mail that in and you better vote for my guy or you might lose some kneecaps" or some similar threats. Maybe even losing jobs, etc. Yeah its illegal, but with downsizing of police forces, and in areas that don't get patrolled much as it is that live in fear of criminal elements, whats to stop this from happening?

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't. Especially if this becomes the norm.

 

Have you already forgotten Florida in 2000? A few hundred votes LITERALLY decided the entire national election.

 

Not really. The Democratic primaries prove that. Each organization has its own methods, but they all got it right.

 

Like I said, about the same odds as being struck by lightening twice.

The 2000 election is unique. Won't ever happen again. But it's also irrelevant as we're talking about throwing an election. The odds that 500 votes can be accurately targeted to a district/state/the EC is nil. The possibility itself of such an option is extremely unlikely.

 

You in fact are being lied. We already have multiple instance of multiple ballots showing up at the same some of them addressed to people that haven't lived there in twenty years. And then their is the whole question if ballot harvesting which ought to be illegal in every state but isn't.

 

Yes, and when a likely voter doesn't receive his ballot, he contacts the board and receives another one. If someone tries to use the misdelivered ballot, he will be caught.

There's also the fact that misdelivered ballots are the exception.

 

No he won't because no one will even check.

 

When he requests the replacement ballot, the misdelivered ballot is voided. No one has to check anything; it will show up in the system as voided. It's not a daunting problem. Same thing we do with misdelivered checks. Void one; send another.

 

Not for this they don't. In fact it wouldn't happen if city and states properly purged their voter roles on a regular basis.

 

You'll notice I edited this post. I wasn't clear on what you're getting at, and this doesn't really help. I'm talking about misdelivered ballots that are requested by the voters who didn't receive them, which would be a miniscule amount to begin with.

 

That isn't what's being done. In many states their just sending ballots to everyone currently on the roles unsolicited.

 

It doesn't matter. Likely voters will report misdelivered/undelivered ballots regardless of the method used to send them.

99% of us take care of changes of address with the post office. And 99% of us don't move right before an election. I pulled 99% out of my behind, but I trust you get the point.

 

There are several states that are darned near dead even over the last couple decades (Florida among them), and things are just about as close electorally. Being struck by lightning twice is not a valid comparator, but if thats the argument you want to stick with, then I suppose you have spoken your peace. I happen to think that my argument is far more persuasive, but I am more than happy to let the reader decide.

 

They do it in Canada

 

The lightening strikes metaphor is a rhetorical operator.

Close races are within a percentage point. In a state like Florida, where 9,000,000 votes were cast in 2016, 1% would be 90,000. Five hundred votes is inconsequential in all but extreme, rare circumstances, like 2000.

Secondly, you would have to assume that the fraud all came from one side, which is unlikely, and that the results of each toss-up state were within a few hundred votes. I dunno. Winning the lottery?

 

What part of "death records" do you not understand?

 

Nothing more serious. Not ironic at all. I mean it exactly as you read it.

 

Bullshit. Who will ever know?

 

Who the hell cares what NC does or doesn't do? Anybody can do it! Not rocket science.