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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
So basically your argument is just because no one has ever seen a unicorn doesn’t mean unicorns don’t exist. In fact, it’s up to the people who don’t believe in unicorns to prove they don’t exist.
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.
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)
The system in CA is designed to enable fraud
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
So basically your argument is just because no one has ever seen a unicorn doesn’t mean unicorns don’t exist. In fact, it’s up to the people who don’t believe in unicorns to prove they don’t exist.
```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.