With its unverified voter registrations, 30 day post-election ballot window and ballot harvesting (from places like LA's Skid Row), California's voting rules are designed for fraud. To top it off, imagine requiring ID to vote being illegal to even request of a voter? This isn't a series of unfortunate mistakes. In a one-party state that controls and certifies election outcomes, this is what the dismantling of free and fair elections looks like.
Repeated polls by AP-NORC, Pew, Gallup and others show 75% to 85% support for requiring drivers license or state issued ID - as at least 36 states already require.
They already are, in some states more vigorously than others. "Maintained" by the federal government? The Constitution does not authorize a single, centralized federal voter registration system. Then, something about Tenth Amendment issues.
How many Skid Row folks voted? If they bothered to vote, they had their preferences.
You know that as proposed, this is really just another push to disenfranchise, Mr. Independent.
California only accepts mail in ballots within 7 days after Election Day. Why ask about 30 days? No state accepts them more than 7-dsys after (except, I think, Illinois - 2-weeks for military overseas)
It's one week to be received, 1 month to count. In California, you can use ID's like a debit card, insurance card or health care club to register to vote. The DMV does it automatically. You're OK with ballot harvesting? You have a problem with showing ID?
So you use the homeless population as an excuse ("what do you do...")? Nice try. Half of Americans don't vote in the first place. And these are people without a home, they are addicts and mentally ill mostly. It's not like the NY Times is delivered to their tent.
I can't speak for the "maga push", I don't belong to a party and am not particularly fond of Trump. But do I want clean voter rolls? Absolutely. Is it rocket science? Not at all.
You jumble etablished facts, exaggerations. disputed claims, and normative conclusions. Several of your assertions go beyond what the available evidence demonstrates, such as "attack surface is large by design," "detection mechanisms are deliberately limited," and "has forfeited any presumptive claim." Those conclusions require substantial supporting evidence, which you haven't provided.
Your core facts are usually accurate, but sometimes incomplete or lacking context. Your legal descriptions and terminology are often simplified, and sometimes partially incorrect.
Most of your schtick involves speculative inference presented as implied likelihood. You build from true edge cases to broad systemic conclusions that don't follow from your evidence, or any actual evidence (absent a series of implausible contingencies). I can trace a couple here, but it's not worth the effort, for this audience.
No, I don't like either of those things. It is called "Election DAY" for a reason!I also do not like the fact that the DMV pushes voter registration to everyone who is issued a driver's license. The legislature failed when they opened up DL's to illegals. I also don't like the fact that no one is required to sign the documents to get a ballot and I loathe those machines. We need to go back to the punch cards and hanging chads be damned!
I will be researching the statutes and the California Constitution on your points. Please properly cite them for me. However, it should be codified as "Election DAY" by the federal government and every state in the country. This entire election situation in California is OUT OF CONTROL. Are you in California? Are you aware that California's election statutes fill several volumes of statutes, plus the pocket parts for each individual book? Probably not. In any event, elections in my state lack integrity and that needs to change now.
Legal complexity doesn't correlate in any way with election security, fraud rates or administrative reliability. Other large states (TX, NY, FL) also have extensive and complex election codes. Volume is not a meaningful indicator of integrity. California law is extensive compared with many smaller states because it’s a very large, decentralized county-administered system and it codifies detailed procedures rather than relying heavily on administrative discretion.
Your argument assumes: “more statutory detail” → “more opportunity for fraud” → “lack of integrity”
None of those steps follow automatically. In election administration, detailed statutory frameworks exist specifically to reduce discretion and standardize verification across large systems. Complexity generally brings more detailed procedural safeguards, and reflects more litigation history requiring clarification. It can create administrative burden, but it actually indicates strengthened integrity.
Ditto. I’m a native Californian and a lifelong political independent. The deterioration in voting standards is obvious to long time residents. I suspect these naysayers are out of state.
To establish such a claim would require evidence that the laws or procedures were intentionally created to obstruct fraud investigations, rather than evidence that the system has vulnerabilities or that enforcement could be improved. All publicly available evidence demonstrates otherwise.
Classic Muse - Rhetoric exceeding any evidence, conflating possibility with probability. Just because a small number of ballots might change a close election, does not mean the system is dangerously vulnerable. While true in the abstract, you never estimate how likely such an event actually is. And offer no evidence that the alleged vulnerability has materially affected any outcome.
Close elections alone do not demonstrate that fraud or administrative weaknesses have changed results. You assume that because an outcome might be sensitive to small numbers, exploitation is a realistic threat.
Heavy reliance on anecdotes - more classic muse. The dog-voting case is memorable precisely because it is so unusual. Using an extreme anecdote overstates the prevalence of the problem. Isolated criminal cases are not evidence of systemic failure. The Heritage Foundation database and the Costa Mesa "dog registration" case demonstrate that election crimes occur, but a handful of cases over many millions of ballots cannot establish widespread vulnerability.
Your discussion of California laws omits the stated rationale behind them - namely protecting voter privacy, preventing intimidation, and complying with constitutional and statutory privacy requirements. A balanced analysis would acknowledge both the security and privacy tradeoffs.
As always, you assert claims without supporting evidence. Statements such as "prevention is structurally subordinated to volume" and "the visible state and local response remains episodic" are conclusions, not demonstrated facts. You've provided no comparative data showing California investigates or prosecutes election crimes less aggressively than other states.
Your claim of "zero practical capacity" is overstated. Once a ballot is separated from its envelope, that specific ballot generally cannot be identified and removed without violating ballot secrecy. However, elections can still be challenged, audited, or rerun in some circumstances, and criminal prosecutions remain possible. Saying there is "zero practical capacity" ignores these other remedies.
You assume prevention is the only meaningful safeguard. Modern election systems rely on layered protections: voter registration maintenance, signature verification, chain-of-custody procedures, audits, canvassing, investigations, and criminal penalties. You ignore these mechanisms.
The people defending the CA election process are doing so because that particular scenario is benefiting their party.
If the scenario were reversed in favor of Republicans there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth from every one of them.
That system - witnessed by any sentient human being - is designed to enable fraud, and without any allowed auditable process to take place, even just as a precautionary measure, it will continue to enable fraud to any and all necessary means by those empowered to oversee it - and that’s Democrats.
Well, Alex, easy to see when you are directly over the target. The lib bots/talking heads/liars come out of the woodwork!
There was a new tax on the LA ballot, along with mayor primary. It was easily defeated, until the late slew of magical ballots putting the communist in the runoff. All these magic ballots also were in favor of the new tax, soundly defeated by voters before they appeared. There is little doubt the California/LA "deep state" is in total control of election outcomes. What better way for a one-party state to embed itself, permanently?
With its unverified voter registrations, 30 day post-election ballot window and ballot harvesting (from places like LA's Skid Row), California's voting rules are designed for fraud. To top it off, imagine requiring ID to vote being illegal to even request of a voter? This isn't a series of unfortunate mistakes. In a one-party state that controls and certifies election outcomes, this is what the dismantling of free and fair elections looks like.
To my fellow commenters nearby who accuse the author of exaggeration, I offer these questions:
1. Do you believe it’s unreasonable to ask voters for ID when you need it for everything in modern life?
2. Are you against voter rolls being maintained for accuracy?
3. With all voters receiving mail in ballots, do you really think ballot harvesting is necessary for voters to be able to cast their ballots?
4. With ballots received weeks before elections in California, do you really think we need to include ballots for 30 days after an election?
5. Do you believe those Skid Row voters in L.A. knew what they were voting for and that no compensation was involved?
Repeated polls by AP-NORC, Pew, Gallup and others show 75% to 85% support for requiring drivers license or state issued ID - as at least 36 states already require.
They already are, in some states more vigorously than others. "Maintained" by the federal government? The Constitution does not authorize a single, centralized federal voter registration system. Then, something about Tenth Amendment issues.
How many Skid Row folks voted? If they bothered to vote, they had their preferences.
You know that as proposed, this is really just another push to disenfranchise, Mr. Independent.
California only accepts mail in ballots within 7 days after Election Day. Why ask about 30 days? No state accepts them more than 7-dsys after (except, I think, Illinois - 2-weeks for military overseas)
Agree on the overwhelming demand by Americans for voter ID. California allows up to 30 days to tally ballots. The year is 2026.
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/pdfs/trusted-info/vbm-faq.pdf
I know the rules. I’m a native Californian. Don’t forget my multiple choice questionnaire earlier in the string.
Clearly you don't - unless your wild exaggeration was intentional. A definite possibility, given how "independent" your profile shows you to be.
I didn't see your "multiple choice" questions. I addressed your listed questions.30-days me again.
Here you go Sentry: https://rumble.com/shorts/v7bg4qe?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o&sci=e8e3607b-e61c-4681-a137-569244ae3675
It's one week to be received, 1 month to count. In California, you can use ID's like a debit card, insurance card or health care club to register to vote. The DMV does it automatically. You're OK with ballot harvesting? You have a problem with showing ID?
So you use the homeless population as an excuse ("what do you do...")? Nice try. Half of Americans don't vote in the first place. And these are people without a home, they are addicts and mentally ill mostly. It's not like the NY Times is delivered to their tent.
I can't speak for the "maga push", I don't belong to a party and am not particularly fond of Trump. But do I want clean voter rolls? Absolutely. Is it rocket science? Not at all.
You jumble etablished facts, exaggerations. disputed claims, and normative conclusions. Several of your assertions go beyond what the available evidence demonstrates, such as "attack surface is large by design," "detection mechanisms are deliberately limited," and "has forfeited any presumptive claim." Those conclusions require substantial supporting evidence, which you haven't provided.
I detail my opinion in the op-ed. Do you have any evidence that what I said was incorrect?
Your core facts are usually accurate, but sometimes incomplete or lacking context. Your legal descriptions and terminology are often simplified, and sometimes partially incorrect.
Most of your schtick involves speculative inference presented as implied likelihood. You build from true edge cases to broad systemic conclusions that don't follow from your evidence, or any actual evidence (absent a series of implausible contingencies). I can trace a couple here, but it's not worth the effort, for this audience.
I would like to see a couple examples from you, as I don’t understand the specific criticisms you are making.
I believe you - that you don't understand. But he does.
Foxy is a wannabe-Muse, but much sloppier.
Care to enlighten the rest of us on specifics from this article? Second time I have asked.
I have been voting in California since 1986 and I have seen the process deteriorate from that time to the present. I'm going to agree with Mr. Muse.
Both population and number of registered voters have nearly doubled.
Define "deteriorate." What hasn't deteriorated in California since 1986 - besides home values? Less smog!
You don't like vote-by-mail and early voting.
No, I don't like either of those things. It is called "Election DAY" for a reason!I also do not like the fact that the DMV pushes voter registration to everyone who is issued a driver's license. The legislature failed when they opened up DL's to illegals. I also don't like the fact that no one is required to sign the documents to get a ballot and I loathe those machines. We need to go back to the punch cards and hanging chads be damned!
It's not called that in the US Constitution - Or in any state constitution (that I'm aware of).
"Times, places and manner of holding elections."
In 1845 Congress set a uniform DEADLINE for presidential elections.
"Federalism means divided sovereignty."
"National power, state administration."
"The Union is not the master of the States."
"Constitutional authority must be traced to delegation."
I will be researching the statutes and the California Constitution on your points. Please properly cite them for me. However, it should be codified as "Election DAY" by the federal government and every state in the country. This entire election situation in California is OUT OF CONTROL. Are you in California? Are you aware that California's election statutes fill several volumes of statutes, plus the pocket parts for each individual book? Probably not. In any event, elections in my state lack integrity and that needs to change now.
Legal complexity doesn't correlate in any way with election security, fraud rates or administrative reliability. Other large states (TX, NY, FL) also have extensive and complex election codes. Volume is not a meaningful indicator of integrity. California law is extensive compared with many smaller states because it’s a very large, decentralized county-administered system and it codifies detailed procedures rather than relying heavily on administrative discretion.
Your argument assumes: “more statutory detail” → “more opportunity for fraud” → “lack of integrity”
None of those steps follow automatically. In election administration, detailed statutory frameworks exist specifically to reduce discretion and standardize verification across large systems. Complexity generally brings more detailed procedural safeguards, and reflects more litigation history requiring clarification. It can create administrative burden, but it actually indicates strengthened integrity.
You can search the US Constitution yourself for "Times, places and manner of holding elections," or read here -https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-4/clause-1/congress-and-the-elections-clause
2 U.S. Code § 7 - Time of election
Most countries, even 3rd world ones don’t like vote-by-mail. In fact, only 171 countries out of 204 allow if at all. Some have tried it, like France, and ended it, citing the easy accessibility of fraud to happen. I wrote a Substack about it and included the website that cites the countries who do and don’t do it: https://foxyheterodoxy.substack.com/p/171-countries-out-of-204-do-not-use?r=1qba3o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Ditto. I’m a native Californian and a lifelong political independent. The deterioration in voting standards is obvious to long time residents. I suspect these naysayers are out of state.
Or part of the problem
I am also a lifelong Californian and I appreciate that you stated that you have seen that the elections here are anything honest.
The system in CA is designed to enable fraud
Oregon and Washington are patterned much the same way.
To establish such a claim would require evidence that the laws or procedures were intentionally created to obstruct fraud investigations, rather than evidence that the system has vulnerabilities or that enforcement could be improved. All publicly available evidence demonstrates otherwise.
```Observers noted that the arithmetic required for Raman to erase Pratt’s lead demanded an unusually large share of the remaining ballots```
lmao, citation needed. it's very very simple math and most people who seriously understand elections figured pratt was out on election night
https://observablehq.com/@tophtucker/calculate-the-percentage-of-remaining-vote-needed-to-overc
Classic Muse - Rhetoric exceeding any evidence, conflating possibility with probability. Just because a small number of ballots might change a close election, does not mean the system is dangerously vulnerable. While true in the abstract, you never estimate how likely such an event actually is. And offer no evidence that the alleged vulnerability has materially affected any outcome.
Close elections alone do not demonstrate that fraud or administrative weaknesses have changed results. You assume that because an outcome might be sensitive to small numbers, exploitation is a realistic threat.
Heavy reliance on anecdotes - more classic muse. The dog-voting case is memorable precisely because it is so unusual. Using an extreme anecdote overstates the prevalence of the problem. Isolated criminal cases are not evidence of systemic failure. The Heritage Foundation database and the Costa Mesa "dog registration" case demonstrate that election crimes occur, but a handful of cases over many millions of ballots cannot establish widespread vulnerability.
Your discussion of California laws omits the stated rationale behind them - namely protecting voter privacy, preventing intimidation, and complying with constitutional and statutory privacy requirements. A balanced analysis would acknowledge both the security and privacy tradeoffs.
As always, you assert claims without supporting evidence. Statements such as "prevention is structurally subordinated to volume" and "the visible state and local response remains episodic" are conclusions, not demonstrated facts. You've provided no comparative data showing California investigates or prosecutes election crimes less aggressively than other states.
Your claim of "zero practical capacity" is overstated. Once a ballot is separated from its envelope, that specific ballot generally cannot be identified and removed without violating ballot secrecy. However, elections can still be challenged, audited, or rerun in some circumstances, and criminal prosecutions remain possible. Saying there is "zero practical capacity" ignores these other remedies.
You assume prevention is the only meaningful safeguard. Modern election systems rely on layered protections: voter registration maintenance, signature verification, chain-of-custody procedures, audits, canvassing, investigations, and criminal penalties. You ignore these mechanisms.
😂 BS
The people defending the CA election process are doing so because that particular scenario is benefiting their party.
If the scenario were reversed in favor of Republicans there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth from every one of them.
That system - witnessed by any sentient human being - is designed to enable fraud, and without any allowed auditable process to take place, even just as a precautionary measure, it will continue to enable fraud to any and all necessary means by those empowered to oversee it - and that’s Democrats.
Well, Alex, easy to see when you are directly over the target. The lib bots/talking heads/liars come out of the woodwork!
There was a new tax on the LA ballot, along with mayor primary. It was easily defeated, until the late slew of magical ballots putting the communist in the runoff. All these magic ballots also were in favor of the new tax, soundly defeated by voters before they appeared. There is little doubt the California/LA "deep state" is in total control of election outcomes. What better way for a one-party state to embed itself, permanently?