What is the purpose of unsolicited ballots being distributed?

Fraudulent votes are just one issue.
"Mishandling" of the ballots after they are cast, intentional otherwise, is another.
Imagine the screams, should Trump win because of a 5,000 vote margin in (state), and after his inauguration, 6000 votes for Biden were found in the back of someone's car.

Voting in person keeps the ballots in possession of the state. Wholesale voting by mail means the ballots can wind up anywhere.

 

What prevents a person from voting in person, having sent his ballot in the day before?

 

Because you don;t understand the argument made
Wholesale, especially unsolicited, voting by mail makes it much easier to mishandle ballots.

 

I think each postal ballot has a unique reference number and so can be cross checked with votes in person

 

I vote in person and it is as safe as going to the grocery store or Home Depot or the latest protest downtown.

 

It's the ballot with my name on it that is floating around I don't want nor to have to rely on government officials to be handling one. I voter should be able to opt out as easy as opting in.
Tell me will EVERY ballot that is mailed out go to an address where the person whose name is on it is currently living and end up in their hands and no one else's? Every ballot?

 

So run it thru the shredder. It's kinda fun.

 

The simple answer is who cares and so what.

It doesn't matter how many ballots go out solicited OR unsolicited. It matters only if and when those are sent in to be verified and counted. The key word here is verified.

Making a big deal out of what is basically junk mail unless it is sent in and verified to be counted is simply just noise. This is truly not a difficult thing to comprehend.

EXAMPLE: The mailman delivers your mail. You open your mail up and find there's a check made out to you for $50,000 but the only way you get that money is if you call or mail back your acceptance of the offer.

Scenario One:
You decide to do nothing and toss it in the trash. You don't receive the money and nothing else happens.

Scenario Two:
You decide to mail back the offer. Your information is VERIFIED before its processed. There are multiple steps included in the verification process. If all information can be verified and is accurate.........ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.........You get the money.

 

I will vote in person too, but maybe people with health conditions, especially the elderly may want to vote by mail - or those with people like that living with them

course here, we vote and are in and out in minutes, some places it can take hours and hours

 

I'm elderly and have health conditions and if they want to vote by mail they can request an absentee ballot. If it takes hours then they should complain to their local election officials and get them replaced and I note it always seems to be where the local officials are Democrats.

 

It goes through government and other hands before it even gets to me.
Why the dodge is this going to be a two way conversation or are you just going to duck and dodge

Tell me will EVERY ballot that is mailed out go to an address where the person whose name is on it is currently living and end up in their hands and no one else's? Every ballot?

 

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You can cheat either system if you are willing to take the risk.

 

Yes, they most certainly are "floating out there somewhere," no need to respond further.

But do keep up the hilarious farce that you and others of your ilk are concerned with the availability of voting to the general public. You fool no one and the transparent rationalizations are counterproductive.

 

Do you expect dead people to apply in person?

 

That is what the high level theiry says. Actuality often differs from theory, sometimes by a lot. Just any real world project manager.

Are you asserting that either erred or fraudulent voting cannot possibly occur in those situations? Dead people votes in Chicago in 1964 was one of the main reasons that Nixon likely could have successfully challenged the vote. (Nixon chose not to contest it because he didn't want to maybe have a constitutional crises.)

 

Can I assume that accounts for all the fraudulent ballots that haven't been discovered?

 

It's a number he made up, because facts don't matter to him.

 

There's no proof of that. It's your story and speculation. Sure, it's theoretically possible for a state to intentionally design such a system to be wide open to fraud I suppose. But that would just be the corrupt state who's to blame.

Once again, NO ONE has been able to explain why Republicans in Washington and Oregon have failed to find widespread fraud associated with vote-by-mail. Both vote-by-mail and voting in person have experienced fraud, but so little as to be inconsequential. The REAL issue is election fraud, which means tricks like closing polling stations forcing voters to travel longer distances and wait in long lines, announcement of the "voting date" being AFTER the real voting date, electronic computerized voting machines with no audit trail and easily hackable, gerrymandering, planting armed thugs at polling stations to intimidate minorities and challenge voters, etc. etc. etc. AND you never mention any of these. Why is that? Why focus on proven mail-in voting?

Nevermind. We both know why and I know you cannot honestly answer that without "tipping your hand".

 

OH, THERE'S PROBABLY UP TO 200 MILLION FRAUDULENT BALLOTS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DISCOVERED!!! MAYBE EVEN THREE TIMES THAT!!!

And maybe you're spewing hysteria and hoping to win by spreading fear and doubt.

 

Yeah except knowing your politics and your history here I don't trust anything you say without a reliable citation.

 

You can assume you're 10 feet tall and irresistible.

What that has to do with the price of caviar in Mongolia is anybody's guess.

This has been studied, and all it is is another daft Right wing talking point.

 

Nobody can prove a potential. Logic, common sense and a common understanding how things generally work unassailably says the potential for voter fraud is greater with mail-in ballots than in-person voting.

 

If you want to claim California has not authorized ballot harvesting, be my guest, and have a ball. I don't need a citation.

 

QUITE]
RodB said: ↑
Can I assume that accounts for all the fraudulent ballots that haven't been discovered?[/QUOTE]

So, you are saying that since I cannot assume I am 10 ft. tall (I'll hold off on the irresistible part) I can assume that your stats do not account for undiscovered fraudulent ballots. I didn't think so.

 

Bullshit. In Oregon our Republicans have scrutinized every ballot in every election for 22 years to find fraud and they find nothing greater than a handful as is also found with in-person voting. Do you suppose that the "problem" in Oregon by which our Republicans fail to find evidence of widespread fraud, might be that our Republicans are inept, ignorant, and lacking in intelligence? Or what?