Re: Mail-In Voting

On 3/29/24 4:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <mjbe0jdc0o8dq1qknqr5k0153b0rbkgai4@4ax.com>,
  shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:02:49 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>

In article <hd5e0jhgvifuqb437hutgp0vl04revgaos@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:27:17 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>

In article <uu6j76$b577$14@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/28/24 1:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uu3vv9$3kt4j$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/27/24 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>

France banned mail-in voting in 1975 due to fraud.
>
Mexico banned mail-in voting in 1992 due to fraud.
>
Belgium banned mail-in voting in 2018 due to fraud.
>
Sweden rejected a mail-in voting proposal.
>
Italy rejected a mail-in voting proposal.
>
Ukraine rejected a mail-in voting proposal.
>
Russia and Japan do not permit mail-in voting.
>
No Middle Eastern country permits mail-in voting.
>
No Latin American country permits mail-in voting.
>
In the United States, Democrats love mail-in voting and are trying
their damnedest to get instituted everywhere.
>

Why don't we just go back to making a mark on a piece of broken
pottery, and put it in a big wine jar?

>

Because that's WAY better than requesting a ballot online and
filling it out and putting it in the mail - and then track it
online so you can see it was received and accepted.
>
Because one of those ways is a 21st century innovation, and the
others are as incredibly outdated as stone knives and bear skins.

>
And yet it'd still be better than what we have now in mail-in
California, where they're *still* counting the March primary votes.
And not only does Schiff keep gaining votes, but Garvey seems to
somehow be *losing* them.
>
How do vote totals for a candidate go down? Only in California...
>

By math, stupid. The same way they go up.

>
How do you count ten votes for Garvey and then an hour later reduce the
total to eight? Did those two mystery votes exist or not? Did you count
them or not? If you counted them, how could they go away and reduce the
total?
>
If someone gives you a pile of apples to count and then periodically
checks in to see how you're doing, why would there be less apples at the
last check-in than there were at the first?

>
Someone made a mistake in the count in the first place, or someone
counted votes for Garvey but it was provisional and those votes were
later removed. Without hearing from the people responsible there's no
way to know just what happened.

>
It's weird how this only happens to the Republican candidate. We didn't
see any reduction in votes for Schiff. His numbers only rise. Same with
the other Democrat, Katie Porter. Her numbers only go up. Just like
trunk ballots always favor the Democrat by some wild coincidence.

>
Yet we keep running into this sort of thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0xbgHmfjj4
>
Georgia Republican official voted illegally...NINE TIMES
>
Funny how when we find actual voter fraud it's often the Republicans
that are involved. Not that it matters enough for anyone to truly care
about since the numbers are in the tens of cases in the last few
decades amounting to just a few votes. No major voter fraud has been
found to have actually occurred in the USA in our lifetimes.

>
You've got to be kidding. The basic reason Joe Biden threw open the
southern border and left it that way for three years was nothing but a
gigantic voter fraud scheme.

  And you have no verifiable proof of this either, right?  Full on MAGA.
 

>
The Democrats are currently running a long-term voter fraud scheme the
likes and size of which have no rival in human history.