[paraclete]

don't you think this might be a diversion started by Trump along with his many other diversions

[talaniman]

don't you think this might be a diversion started by Trump along with his many other diversions

No doubt at all he is just throwing crap in the game like he always does.

[jlisenbe]

A Trump diversion? Yeah. That's bound to be it. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with legit concerns about a secure and reliable election.

[paraclete]

A Trump diversion? Yeah. That's bound to be it. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with legit concerns about a secure and reliable election.

What makes you think Trump could have any concerns about that, his only concern is what advantages him, which of course are the same concerns the demonrats have

[jlisenbe]

I guess we could start with the questions I asked on this board that no one had answers to.

[paraclete]

why? if we didn't answer then then we arn't going to answer them now, you missed a whole week of discussion, we covered all of that earlier and don't want to endlessly review the issues.

Just face it, there are holes in the electoral process, this is because you think you live in a democracy but you don't

[jlisenbe]

you missed a whole week of discussion, we covered all of that earlier and don't want to endlessly review the issues.

That won't work. I read the discussions I missed. No answers. Try again.

We think we live in a democracy but we don't? Hmm. Definition of democracy. "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Sure sounds a lot like us.

[paraclete]

That won't work. I read the discussions I missed. No answers. Try again but be honest this time.

We think we live in a democracy but we don't? Hmm. Definition of democracy. "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Sure sounds a lot like us.

I always give you my honest opinion, it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. As Tom has taken great pains to point out often, you live in a constitutional republic which is not a democracy

[jlisenbe]

I was referring to your contention that the questions I posed had been answered earlier in the thread and you simply didn't want to repeat them. Sorry. I just rather doubt that. I read the posts that preceded mine and didn't notice anything that even approached being an answer to my questions. Perhaps I missed them. Feel free to post them if I did. I will be happy to admit my error.

As to democracy, we are not a pure democracy. Neither is, to my understanding, anyone else. All democracies operate around a fixed set of "rules". Ours is our Constitution, but all advanced nations have something similar. Otherwise we would be starting over every year, and no one does that. Now being a republic does change things somewhat, but that does not negate the fact that our country is operated by democratically elected representatives and a democratically elected executive.

[talaniman]

We have 50 states empowered to run their affairs and govern as they see fit within the framework of the federal law under that constitution, so why be surprised that there are different answers to your questions? Whether you accept them or not is up to you.

I'm not surprised that a red stater such as yourself criticizes blue state controlled policy, governance and language, and questions the logic, so be it as I do the same, but I've never lived in anything but conservative red states even if it's the blue neighborhood. 8D!

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-vo...d-states-.html

Seems voting is an ever evolving process, imperfect and complicated as well as tedious. States make their own rules. That's the simple answer.

[jlisenbe]

States make their own rules. That's the simple answer.

That is no answer at all. It's simply stating the obvious.

[paraclete]

Told you, no answers here

[talaniman]

That is no answer at all. It's simply stating the obvious.

The obvious IS the answer! Accept it or NOT!

[jlisenbe]

The obvious? You mean that we still don't know the answers to the questions? OK. I accept that.

[tomder55]

When I go vote, I have to show photo ID before I get a ballot. With this new version of mail in voting, how will they know that the people filling in the ballots are registered voters?

They don't and they are content with that reality . The emperor and the Quid went out of their way to oppose even the normal purging of the rolls to eliminate the dead and those who have moved out of the district . They called it suppression to even propose that .

How will they be sure I didn't get three ballots mailed to me by mistake and I sent all three back in? And if they don't know, then how can they be sure that the result is valid?

There is no verification with mail in ballots . Here in bluer than blue NY we have to sign in at the polls . There are poll watchers who compare out signatures to pervious signatures on record .
Nothing like that happens with mail in ballots . They just start counting them. States that allow harvesting are open to even more possibilities of fraud . I heard reports here in NY during the primaries ,that some people tossed the ballots mailed to them thinking they were sample ballots that are sometimes mailed out . AND as I've mentioned already ; it appears to be the norm that around 20% of the mail in ballots were tossed because of various challenges to them during the count . It took 3 weeks to count a couple of the Democrat primary votes ;and the number of ballots disqualified were more than the difference in the contests .

But we know already that is the game plan by the Dems . They don't want the election resolved on November 3 . They want it unresolved on Jan 20 .

[jlisenbe]

The method used in the county in Arizona might be effective, but to have to check signatures for every ballot mailed in would be, I would think, expensive, and if your ballot gets disapproved, I guess you'd never know your vote didn't count.

[Wondergirl]

There is no verification with mail in ballots .

In Illinois there is! As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I received by mail and filled out an APPLICATION for a ballot WITH MY SIGNATURE that is on file and sent it to my county's election commissioner's office. I called a week or so later to make sure they had received my app (which they had) AFTER they verified who I am. Illinois is sending out appplications, NOT ballots. If verifiable apps have been received, the REGISTERED voter will receive a ballot if all his/her information/signature lines up. I also asked about mail-in and in-person vote counting, but you wouldn't believe anything I posted, so I won't fill your head with details.

[Wondergirl]

The method used in the county in Arizona might be effective, but to have to check signatures for every ballot mailed in would be, I would think, expensive, and if your ballot gets disapproved, I guess you'd never know your vote didn't count.

Check the Arizona voting site. It doesn't sound like it works that way. Registration comes first. No ballots are sent out willy-nilly.

https://followmyvote.com/voter-resou...ng-in-arizona/

[talaniman]

Are we forgetting that winning the popular vote doesn't mean you win the election?

[jlisenbe]

WG, it sounds like that amounts to absentee ballots. It's not what we've been discussing. Our topic has been the latest plan to just mail ballots out to everyone on the voter list, requested or not. Not the same thing.