YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm really not sure what big point you're trying to prove here. I feel confident that I've displayed how an honest agnostic would think by not engaging in partisan speculations (as if they are true) and being willing to suspend judgement until all of the facts are in.

My overarching point is that the approach you are advocating -- where we have to wait for "all the facts to come in" before drawing any conclusions -- is impractical. And your criticism of those who don't follow that approach as "jumping the gun" or somehow being "partisan" is completely misguided.

Ask yourself, what is "impractical" about waiting for a long standing agreed upon deadline for challenging the election? Why draw conclusions before that deadline? Because you made up your mind that he would've lost or had no evidence??? That's all I can see a lot of Democrats doing since some were drawing conclusions even before Trump's team had any court cases.

In contrast, as a non-partisan, I waited until the deadline. I not only did so because it was practical (and agreed upon) legal deadline, but I also thought it was possible for Trump's team to find evidence by looking into claims of voter fraud and irregularities. To draw conclusions before that process, and to not even consider that we can at least look into the matter, is not only partisan but also dismissive.

If you stop and think about it, it's actually quite rare to have all the facts. Instead, the vast majority of the time we are confronted with an incomplete set of facts. That means we must necessarily form opinions and reach conclusions (tentatively in proportion to the evidence) by drawing inferences and making probabilistic assessments. That's how science works. That's how history works. That's how our courts work. And it's how you and I make countless decisions in our day-to-day lives.

When people argue their case as if it's absolute truth then they shouldn't expect me to believe that their conclusion is "tentative". Let me also say that tentative conclusions based on NON-scientific evidence should not be treated the same as scientific conclusions.

Yours is what I like to call an epistemology of convenience. When you want to cast doubt on whether the election was fair, you define "fair" in absolute terms, requiring there be "no" fraud, "no" mistakes, and that we have "all" the facts. But when proposing certain election reforms, you define a "fair" election differently, saying it is one where there is "enough" or "adequate" oversight, even though, by your own admission, that wouldn't guarantee no fraud or mistakes. The latter definition is not a "more detailed" explanation of the former, as you suggested, but rather contradicts it. This is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Part of the problem is that you're mixing different issues together.

All I've been asking for is for RECOUNTS and for those to be done under bipartisan oversight, which is allowed under current law, and somehow you're acting as if that's some pie-in-the-sky standard.

Finally, the Trump campaign had the option (and means) to request a full recount in Pennsylvania, just as they had the option to claim there was election fraud in their lawsuits in Pennsylvania court. They did neither. If the aggrieved party in this instance wasn't interested in a recount, I see no reason to withhold judgment on the fairness of the election without one.

If you don't restrict the claim about election fairness to just being about Trump, especially since my points are valid independent of Trump, then perhaps you would see why my position (not knowing if elections are fair) is valid.

Again, this is simply mistaken. At no point have I said that this "can't" happen. I'm simply pointing out that the likelihood of vote totals changing by thousands (let alone tens of thousands) of votes in a recount is very low. That is not an assumption I am making, but a probabilistic assessment.

For the record, Georgia recounts led to Trump adding thousands (around 2,300) to his vote count and not just "hundreds".

Pointing out that something is possible tells us very little. Lots of far-fetched scenarios are, broadly speaking, "possible." But we don't squander our limited time and resources trying to "disprove" every far-fetched possibility or conspiracy theory just to satisfy the most skeptical among us.

I never said to order recounts just because something is possible. My point about Georgia comes after the fact of recounts to show how mail-in ballots can be missed (since thousands were found to not even be scanned) especially when there's more manual processing involved compared to in-person voting. I was advocating for recounts when it came to Pennsylvania and the reason for that is the lack of oversight, which wasn't just a possibility of lacking it, the state actually lacked good oversight.

"Vanishingly low" sounds like a subjective probability assessment.

This is half-right. It's definitely a probability assessment, but, since it's based on objective data, it is not "subjective."

But then you're picking and choosing which objective data/scenarios to weigh in so that is not strictly objective.

Your earlier comments you were acknowledging there was no problem trying to have the best of security

Indeed, I have no objection to most of the reforms you're proposing here, just as I have no problem implementing reforms that would make it easier for people to vote, like automatic voter registration. But I also don't think we should refrain from calling our elections "fair" or "free" now just because they could be marginally better in both respects.

When you have stronger standards for buying alcohol than you do voting, then I can never call such a system "fair". Forget the "free" part as well because you have to be a millionaire and lawyered up (in effect) to be able to run for president.

[The Barbarian]

For instance, can't someone simply take my mail-in ballot and sign it for me and get away with it?

No, this isn't "simple" at all.

First of all, your mail-in ballot is mailed directly to you from your country election office. It would be difficult for a nefarious actor to intercept that before you get it.

Second, this nefarious actor would also have to know your signature. That's also difficult to get. If they can't match it closely enough, the ballot will get rejected.

Finally, this whole scheme depends on you not taking any action after you realize you never got your mail-in ballot. If, instead, you decide to check your state's ballot tracking website or go to the polls on election day to fill-in a provisional ballot, then you'd both be able to cast your vote and also expose this attempted fraud.

And therein lies the problem. In order to actually impact an election through this kind of fraud, these nefarious actors would need to do this tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of times, all the while hoping nobody notices or takes actions that would expose them.

If you've got the time and energy to pull something like that off, you've got the time and energy to do something even more effective in terms of impacting an election: registering new voters. See: Georgia.

I think you've identified the real problem some folks have with the process. It lets people vote, who might not be able to take time off to go vote.

[AgnosticBoy]

I think you've identified the real problem some folks have with the process. It lets people vote, who might not be able to take time off to go vote.

Hey, don't Republicans have jobs, as well, but still are able to make it to the voting places?

Having an easier process for voting sounds like a great idea until you consider the potential sacrifices in security and oversight.

[The Barbarian]

I think you've identified the real problem some folks have with the process. It lets people vote, who might not be able to take time off to go vote.

Hey, don't Republicans have jobs, as well, but still are able to make it to the voting places?

It's easier when you're salaried. The real point is to make it hard for those who are hourly workers to vote. Because they tend to be poorer, minorities, and yes, vote democrat.

Having an easier process for voting sounds like a great idea

The founders of America thought so. But they envisioned every qualified voter being able to vote.

until you consider the potential sacrifices in security and oversight.

Keeping qualified voters from voting by any means is a huge security problem for America. It's how dictatorships get started. Security must be pretty good; all investigations of voter fraud have shown that the vast majority of cases involved preventing qualified voters from voting. Only a tiny percent involved an unqualified voter voting.

[AgnosticBoy]

It's easier when you're salaried. The real point is to make it hard for those who are hourly workers to vote. Because they tend to be poorer, minorities, and yes, vote democrat.

What data do you have to show that hourly wage voters don't vote as much because it is difficult for them to find time off from work? I know I work a lot of hours, and yet I have no problem setting aside time to go vote. I'm not even a Republican.

Just for the record, I'm not even against mail-in ballots just as long as there is good security and oversight. But I am against the narrative that trying to put out there, especially when you don't bring up security.

Does having more security and oversight count as making it harder to vote or suppressing votes?

[The Barbarian]

What data do you have to show that hourly wage voters don't vote as much because it is difficult for them to find time off from work?

Apparently, very few employers will pay an employee for time off to go vote. So hourly workers on a day shift, who chose to vote have to pay for it in lost wages. That's why some politicians want to ban voting by mail. It keeps people from voting. I believe most states require employers to let hourly wage earners vote, but they often lose their wages for that time. Some states, employers don't even have to let workers off to vote. And other states put many restrictions on the right.
https://www.zippia.com/advice/voting-du ... urs-guide/

I know I work a lot of hours, and yet I have no problem setting aside time to go vote. I'm not even a Republican.

See above. And not surprisingly, those states where voters have more rights to vote, are blue states. Republicans know why.

Just for the record, I'm not even against mail-in ballots just as long as there is good security and oversight.

I'd be open to your evidence that there is widespread fraud in mail-in voting. What do you have? Once we get some numbers and the form of fraud, we could then tighten the system up. The problem seems to be getting that evidence.

But I am against the narrative that trying to put out there, especially when you don't bring up security.

I don't bring up problems with dogs posing as voters, either. For the same reason.

Does having more security and oversight count as making it harder to vote or suppressing votes?

According to some advocates of "more security and oversight", it does:

Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump's reelection campaign, made the remarks on Nov. 21 as part of a wide-ranging discussion about strategies in the 2020 campaign, including more aggressive use of Election Day monitoring of polling places.

“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2019/1 ... ssion.html

The statement was at a republican-only meeting. Clark, when the story got out, said that he meant republicans were falsely accused of suppressing votes.

Republican Ben Ginsberg:
"Trump has enlisted a compliant Republican Party in this shameful effort. The Trump campaign and Republican entities engaged in more than 40 voting and ballot court cases around the country this year. In exactly none — zero — are they trying to make it easier for citizens to vote. In many, they are seeking to erect barriers.

All of the suits include the mythical fraud claim. Many are efforts to disqualify absentee ballots, which have surged in the pandemic. The grounds range from supposedly inadequate signature matches to burdensome witness requirements. Others concern excluding absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day but received later, as permitted under state deadlines. Voter-convenience devices such as drop boxes and curbside voting have been attacked....
"...This attempted disenfranchisement of voters cannot be justified by the unproven Republican dogma about widespread fraud. Challenging voters at the polls or disputing the legitimacy of mail-in ballots isn't about fraud. Rather than producing conservative policies that appeal to suburban women, young voters or racial minorities, Republicans are trying to exclude their votes."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics ... index.html

The Palm Beach Post revealed this week that former Florida GOP leaders intentionally designed restrictive voter laws to limit votes from Democrats and people of color. Florida voters, as we saw in this year’s election endured long voting lines and other confusion as a result of reduced voting hours, voter purges, and voter registration restrictions pushed by Republican leaders. In this article, former GOP chairman, former Gov. Charlie Crist, and others revealed that prevention of voter fraud was not the underlying motivation behind voting restrictions; a GOP win was.

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, stated he knew targeting Democrats was the goal. “In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

A GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said Black voters were a concern. “I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that’s a big day when the Black churches organize themselves,” he said.
https://www.kaporcenter.org/florida-gop ... oter-laws/

I do think we need voting security reform. We need to be sure that illegal voting is prevented and that there are no impediments to voting for qualified voters. At present, the evidence indicates that illegal voting is very rare. On the other hand, there is widespread (and often freely-admitted) voter suppression. One of the crazier attempts was in Texas, where the republicans ordered only one drop box for mail-in votes per county. That means that King County, with 272 inhabitants, had one box. So did Harris county with 4,779,880 inhabitants. You probably won't be surprised to hear that Harris County tends to vote democrat. It might have made the difference for Trump in Texas, in which more and more counties have been going democrat in recent years.

[AgnosticBoy]

What data do you have to show that hourly wage voters don't vote as much because it is difficult for them to find time off from work?

Apparently, very few employers will pay an employee for time off to go vote. So hourly workers on a day shift, who chose to vote have to pay for it in lost wages. That's why some politicians want to ban voting by mail. It keeps people from voting. I believe most states require employers to let hourly wage earners vote, but they often lose their wages for that time. Some states, employers don't even have to let workers off to vote. And other states put many restrictions on the right.
https://www.zippia.com/advice/voting-du ... urs-guide/

You have not provided data of why people don't vote. There are no reasons or stats given in your article as to why voters don't vote. Stating that people won't get paid or compensated by their job to go vote doesn't mean people can't vote. People can simply do like me and vote on their day off. There is plenty of time to vote, especially when you consider early voting.

My theory is that low income people don't vote because they are not educated about how much voting matters, either that, or none of the candidates appeal to them.

I know I work a lot of hours, and yet I have no problem setting aside time to go vote. I'm not even a Republican.

See above. And not surprisingly, those states where voters have more rights to vote, are blue states. Republicans know why.

What do you mean by have more rights to vote? Do you mean having easier requirements for voting, like voting without requiring an ID? If so, then that can be a bad thing if security and verification is sacrificed, like having an ID.

Just for the record, I'm not even against mail-in ballots just as long as there is good security and oversight.

I'd be open to your evidence that there is widespread fraud in mail-in voting. What do you have? Once we get some numbers and the form of fraud, we could then tighten the system up. The problem seems to be getting that evidence.

I never said that there was widespread fraud, but rather I've argued that there is less oversight involved with mail-in voting than with in-person voting. But part of my points would also apply depending on the scenario, like if there was just a mass mail out of ballots, even if you didn't request them. Thankfully, there was no large incidence of that that I'm aware of, otherwise, you would likely have cases of people having their mail-in ballots stolen and/or turned in from them, and in some cases we wouldn't know unless the voter reports it. With some 40% of the electorate not voting in some cases in states like Pennsylvania, that would be a big problem.

So I'm more concerned about the increased potential to cheat (not to say it has happened, but you don't want to leave the door open either just in case!) and the decrease in oversight for mail-in ballots.

Does having more security and oversight count as making it harder to vote or suppressing votes?

According to some advocates of "more security and oversight", it does:

Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump's reelection campaign, made the remarks on Nov. 21 as part of a wide-ranging discussion about strategies in the 2020 campaign, including more aggressive use of Election Day monitoring of polling places.

“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2019/1 ... ssion.html

The statement was at a republican-only meeting. Clark, when the story got out, said that he meant republicans were falsely accused of suppressing votes.

Why would having more security suppress votes? Or perhaps I should bring up the type of security. I find poll watchers to be a good thing. If you don't plan to cheat, why would that turn away someone?

Republican Ben Ginsberg:
"Trump has enlisted a compliant Republican Party in this shameful effort. The Trump campaign and Republican entities engaged in more than 40 voting and ballot court cases around the country this year. In exactly none — zero — are they trying to make it easier for citizens to vote. In many, they are seeking to erect barriers.

All of the suits include the mythical fraud claim. Many are efforts to disqualify absentee ballots, which have surged in the pandemic. The grounds range from supposedly inadequate signature matches to burdensome witness requirements. Others concern excluding absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day but received later, as permitted under state deadlines. Voter-convenience devices such as drop boxes and curbside voting have been attacked....
"...This attempted disenfranchisement of voters cannot be justified by the unproven Republican dogma about widespread fraud. Challenging voters at the polls or disputing the legitimacy of mail-in ballots isn't about fraud. Rather than producing conservative policies that appeal to suburban women, young voters or racial minorities, Republicans are trying to exclude their votes."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics ... index.html

The way I see it is that the less security then the more potential for cheating. I'd would want signature matching, otherwise how do you know someone else is not signing it? What are these other "burdensome" requirements? Again, if people are not planning to cheat, why complain about security and oversight?

The Palm Beach Post revealed this week that former Florida GOP leaders intentionally designed restrictive voter laws to limit votes from Democrats and people of color. Florida voters, as we saw in this year’s election endured long voting lines and other confusion as a result of reduced voting hours, voter purges, and voter registration restrictions pushed by Republican leaders. In this article, former GOP chairman, former Gov. Charlie Crist, and others revealed that prevention of voter fraud was not the underlying motivation behind voting restrictions; a GOP win was.

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, stated he knew targeting Democrats was the goal. “In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

A GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said Black voters were a concern. “I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that’s a big day when the Black churches organize themselves,” he said.
https://www.kaporcenter.org/florida-gop ... oter-laws/

I do think we need voting security reform. We need to be sure that illegal voting is prevented and that there are no impediments to voting for qualified voters. At present, the evidence indicates that illegal voting is very rare. On the other hand, there is widespread (and often freely-admitted) voter suppression. One of the crazier attempts was in Texas, where the republicans ordered only one drop box for mail-in votes per county. That means that King County, with 272 inhabitants, had one box. So did Harris county with 4,779,880 inhabitants. You probably won't be surprised to hear that Harris County tends to vote democrat. It might have made the difference for Trump in Texas, in which more and more counties have been going democrat in recent years.

Perhaps some Republicans are using voter requirements to deter some voters who may not be willing to go to through the process, but if those requirements go towards ensuring security and verification, then I see no problem with that. I can see if requirements NOT involving security were being put in place, like having only one polling place for people to vote, and keeping it far away from low income areas. But if the requirements involve security then I don't see that as "suppression".

In fact, I'm for making it easier to access these voting places AND increasing security. You seem to only be focused on one aspect, and that's where I disagree with you.

[The Barbarian]

You have not provided data of why people don't vote.

Just showed you. Many states have laws that make it harder for wage earners to vote.
https://www.zippia.com/advice/voting-du ... urs-guide/

There are no reasons or stats given in your article as to why voters don't vote. Stating that people won't get paid or compensated by their job to go vote doesn't mean people can't vote.

It just means that they have to give up money to do it. Which as you know, discourages voting.

People can simply do like me and vote on their day off.

Unless they have a day job and don't get weekdays off.

My theory is that low income people don't vote because they are not educated about how much voting matters, either that, or none of the candidates appeal to them.

As you have seen, it's mostly because it costs them money.

What do you mean by have more rights to vote?

Laws that make it easier for wager earners to get time to vote.

Do you mean having easier requirements for voting, like voting without requiring an ID?

It's true that ID laws are sometimes rigged to make it harder for them. Mostly by accepting ID that poor and minority people are less likely to have. But in this instance, it's mostly by limiting opportunities to vote.

I'd be open to your evidence that there is widespread fraud in mail-in voting. What do you have? Once we get some numbers and the form of fraud, we could then tighten the system up. The problem seems to be getting that evidence.

I never said that there was widespread fraud, but rather I've argued that there is less oversight involved with mail-in voting than with in-person voting.

So if there isn't widespread fraud, what's the problem?

Does having more security and oversight count as making it harder to vote or suppressing votes?

According to some advocates of "more security and oversight, it does:
Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump's reelection campaign, made the remarks on Nov. 21 as part of a wide-ranging discussion about strategies in the 2020 campaign, including more aggressive use of Election Day monitoring of polling places.

“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2019/1 ... ssion.html

The statement was at a republican-only meeting. Clark, when the story got out, said that he meant republicans were falsely accused of suppressing votes.
(more examples given)

Why would having more security suppress votes?

Has to be the right kind. The kind republicans are trying to impose.

Or perhaps I should bring up the type of security. I find poll watchers to be a good thing.

Already there. Parties can name watchers, who are allowed to observe the counts.

I'd would want signature matching, otherwise how do you know someone else is not signing it?

That's what happened in Georgia and Pennsylvania. They have to match.

Perhaps some Republicans are using voter requirements to deter some voters who may not be willing to go to through the process, but if those requirements go towards ensuring security and verification, then I see no problem with that.

If they are used to keep qualified voters from voting, they are illegal. Supreme Court has so ruled.

[Purple Knight]

If they are used to keep qualified voters from voting, they are illegal. Supreme Court has so ruled.

By that definition, you could easily say that if one single person who would have voted, instead chooses not to, the measure has kept a qualified voter from voting.

I have to defend the Republican side here despite not being on the right by a huge margin. If you're saying (well, if the Supreme Court is saying) it's better not to have some security measure because some lazy person might not vote, screw that lazy person. No. Go vote. If you don't care about the process enough to go through some reasonable measure then that's a good part of the process.

Furthermore, without security, results are meaningless. Do you want a bunch of racists and deplorables to be able to say that they won until the end of Time because you couldn't prove to them that they didn't?

If we want everybody that lives under a certain government to be able to have a say in that government, that's fine, but that's a separate question. And once someone is voting twice or stealing ballots, someone else's say is sacrificed. Arguably mail-in ballots make it easy to do that. And by the way, ballot harvesting if at all selective meets the qualification of keeping some qualified voters from voting: The ones you didn't go out and harvest.

[The Barbarian]

If they are used to keep qualified voters from voting, they are illegal. Supreme Court has so ruled.

By that definition, you could easily say that if one single person who would have voted, instead chooses not to, the measure has kept a qualified voter from voting.

Now let's turn that around. Since voter fraud is extremely rare, (I'm open to any checkable data that says otherwise) you could easily say that if one single person votes fraudulently, it would be O.K. to keep large numbers of qualified voters from voting. I don't think that works.

I have to defend the Republican side here despite not being on the right by a huge margin. If you're saying (well, if the Supreme Court is saying) it's better not to have some security measure because some lazy person might not vote,

That's not what they wrote. Any laws intended to keep qualified voters from voting are unacceptable. Since there are a good number of statements by republicans that such is their intent, that's sufficient.

Furthermore, without security, results are meaningless.

As you have seen, security is more than adequate to stop unqualified voters. When Trump and his lawyers tried to claim fraud, they failed, because there is no evidence of widespread fraud. The major voting fraud in the U.S. involves keeping qualified voters from voting.

Do you want a bunch of racists and deplorables to be able to say that they won until the end of Time because you couldn't prove to them that they didn't?

Notice how it went for them, this time. It was easy to prove they didn't. The counts and voter checks all came out right.

If we want everybody that lives under a certain government to be able to have a say in that government, that's fine, but that's a separate question. And once someone is voting twice or stealing ballots, someone else's say is sacrificed. Arguably mail-in ballots make it easy to do that.

Show us the numbers. Checkable source.

And by the way, ballot harvesting if at all selective meets the qualification of keeping some qualified voters from voting: The ones you didn't go out and harvest.

Now that actually happened in a statewide race. But it was, as you would expect, for a republican candidate. And as you might also expect, they got caught. I think you made my point for me.