2022: The most secure election in history

So you don't think state law is a valid reason to...obey state law?

My, how progressive of you!

 

So you call that election rigging? I don't think the Supreme Court would agree with you on that.

 

I do love how Bloomberg wrote this headline!

Election Deniers Air Baseless Fraud Claims Over Arizona Glitches


You see, in newsrooms across the country, the problem isn't the "glitches" it's people noticing the glitches!


Heh, "glitches."

 

The date on the ballot tells you when it was filled out

 

The sig can be used to insure the one who cast the ballot was alive and entitled to vote. I vote in person and I have to sign for my ballot.
edited to say I'm alive.

 

Not necessarily. You can back date it. As long as the date is not after the postmark date, you have no way of knowing if the date listed is when it was actually filled out.

 

I get the signature, we compare them to what's on file to ensure it's not completely the wrong person. This issue wasn't about the signature, though, it was the date that was sued over in Pennsylvania.

 

No, I think you have no other argument other than state law. And if there is no argument for a law, as a conservative, because you're not a liberal right, you should be in favor of wasteful, unnecessary legislation getting in the way of American exercising their rights. Unless you have a reason to keep this law...? No? Cool, then call for its abolishment.

 

That could have been done anytime. Why not go through the legislative process?

But that's what a Conservative would say, follow the law...blah blah blah I'm sure you have no interest in that. Also as a Chesterton Conservative I would say about the law, why was it enacted? What was it's purpose? Explain to me the reason the fence was...I mean the law was enacted in the first place.

 

They should in my opinion. I think the reason no one has is because like me, they see that a date on the ballot is meaningless. And before, they didn't bother with the law. Now that you guys have sued and made the law more known and debated, perhaps they might.

And let's be clear, I'm not talking about ignoring the laws against murder. Why? Because we can all justify those laws pretty easily. I'm talking about a law that you are defending on no basis other than its existence. If that's how you want to do it, fine, but that's not very compelling, is it? By that standard, every law ever made should exist forever, right?

As for its purpose, I have no idea. That's what I'm asking about because I can't think of single reason why someone writing the date on their ballot next to the signature means anything. You're the one upholding the law, why don't you tell us why it's so important.

 

how was it resolved?

 

The date on a check is meaningless but I doubt your bank would accept it that way.

 

A leftie with a disregard for the law? This is unprecedented!

Seriously, if what you got from my post is "by that standard, every law ever made should exist forever" than you either read nothing I wrote or understood nothing I wrote. If you don't like a law, there is actually a normal procedure to get rid of them. I suggest you exercise that in your state.

 

LOL, you know politicians say crap just to get headlines.
What makes our elections not free or fair?
Please provide your details.
Since you claim to have evidence. Present it.

 

The state had a law requiring a date and signature with your mail in ballot. The state previously directed counties to count all ballots with a signature, even if the date was missing, if the ballot arrived before or at the mail in deadline. The republicans sued saying that's not following state law. The state law, however as the judges said in their ruling, may be in violation of federal law as the date requirement could be considered disenfranchising voters. They ordered ballots missing the date be set aside because of that. so as it stands, the ballots aren't invalidated, they just can't be counted at the get go. Or they can be fixed, people have gone in to cure them adding the date as currently required.

 

You with no answer to a question? Also unprecedented. For the record, I'm not responsible for enforcing Pennsylvania law. This is a debate forum, not the police academy. If you love enforcing laws, go do so.

That's what you got from mine. I'm a lefty who supports violating the law. You get to apply stupid hyperbole and I don't?

The bottom line is you know the only answer to this question is to make it harder for people who vote against you to vote. If you had a better answer, you would have said it long ago. It's OK, you're answering it the same with with this dance anyway.

 

LOL, no one is stupid enough to believe that.

...
Trump said: “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

He insisted: “There’s no way I lost Georgia. There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rgia-raffensperger-call-biden-washington-post

 

Lol you just quoted it. He believes that they had hundreds of thousands of votes in Georgia more. So he wanted him to find those LEGAL votes.

 

Now we get to it, "only answer to this question is to make it harder for people who vote against you to vote."

You should have just lead with that. That makes more sense than the phony argument about why not get rid of the law you don't like right now rather than actually go through the legislative process to do it. The truth is virtually any law that makes ballots more secure and reduces fraud you would oppose because they "make it harder for people who vote against you."

 

I did lead with that. I've led with it over and over in this thread and everywhere really. Your gotcha moment isn't a good one. And I also said they should get rid of it via the legislative process. And you should note that your so called victory here will face a federal challenge that even the Supreme Court would have hard pressed to support. So those ballots may be counted anyway.

I don't care if people vote against my interests. That's their right. I don't care if the person I votes for lose, that's a reasonable outcome of any election. I'm not looking for ways to ensure I win every election. YOUR side is. So when you can't justify this law, because it has no valid purpose for election security, that just shows your true colors. Mine were never in doubt. I'm for people engaging in the process and they can't do that if one party decides it's more important for them to win than it is to honor the nation's ideals and traditions. And laws that oppose that I oppose. Sorry if it offends you that I stand for such evils...

 

Isn't it against forum rules to plagarize?
Where's the link to this data?

Your entire case of extensive voter fraud is one case from 2003 and 2008?

From a wiki on the case.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (200, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

So, since 2003, your 1st case of fraud, how many elections in the USA were there?
Is there one every year?
So 19 elections cycle? Assume 1,000,000,000 votes for each election cycle. Which is ridiculously low.
That would be 19,000,000 votes cast in 19 yrs.
How many votes are you claiming were fraud in 2003? 12? 20? 50?
Lets take 50/19,000,000*100% = .000026%.

Since I asked you for percent accuracy, that means about 99.9999974% accurate. That's really really close to 100%.

 

I watched a session of that and the 'fixers' were ticking more than one box. That's just nuts to put people to qualifying votes rather than validating and counting them.

 

Which would be before or on the date of the post stamp.

I am not aware of a time/date stamp on the actual ballot.

And I am only aware of such an issue due to Pennsylvania.

...
Even before the polls opened on Election Day, a potentially significant legal battle erupted in Pennsylvania over whether to count mail-in ballots with an incorrect or missing date on the outside envelope.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/11/legal-battle-in-pennsylvania-over-undated-mail-in-ballots/

 

No he didn't. He knew it. The SoS knew that. And the Gov of Ga knew that.

Just find 11,780 votes. One more than needed to win.

Again, no one is stupid enough to believe he was asking for legal votes.

 

I'm not the one challenging the law on the eve of an election. That's not my state and not my law, but I do believe in the law, and until the law is changed or removed through the normal legal process, the law should be obeyed.

Your position was simply that you didn't like that law...make it go away.