More smoke.American Hardwood said:Smoke and mirrors? His example presented pure logic. It is quite true. My mother has dementia. I could very easily have filled in her ballot and signed her name to it. The system is inherently insecure.Watermelon Man said:This is just the smoke and mirrors stuff that the whole BIG LIE is based on.Keegan99 said:
Not alternative at all.
I realize you like to think the process somehow masks those flaws, but it does not.
A simple thought experiment is all that's necessary.
If I receive, say, a senile family member's ballot at my home, fill it out, and submit it, complete with a reasonable signature (since I know what it looks like) and other identifying information (since I have access to all of that), then how can the election authorities possibly know that it was I, not my family member, that completed and submitted the ballot? The family member, being senile, would be wholly unaware.
The inability to protect against that scenario - and countless others - is why the process is inherently insecure. The controls are inadequate since the ballot is unmonitored.
A secure process does not just work the overwhelming majority of the time. It is not just assumed to be ok if there are no reported problems. No, it must be bulletproof, so that a nefarious actor is plainly unable to abuse it.
Voting by mail has gaping holes ripe for exploit.
How many of these kind of shenanigans do you think are going on? Is there any reason to believe it is primarily one-sided? If you had any evidence that this actually occurs, why do you have to keep playing these "but, it COULD happen" games instead of laying out the evidence?
Sure, the system is not bulletproof. There is no way to make it bulletproof and still have it be fair to all people. Our representative democracy (or, democratic republic, take your choice) works because the leaders have to promote ideas that appeal to the majority of voters in order to achieve or remain in power. When you start to restrict the number of voters, it doesn't take long for the ideas of the leaders to no longer represent those of the people.
The simple fact is that mail-in voting is secure and used in a large number of US States, the people living there like it (both Democrats and Republicans), and it is used to elect both Democratic and Republican leaders. You don't even try to refute this, but simply continue to whine, "it's obviously unfair, my guy didn't win."
It doesn't matter how many times the shenanigans take place, once is enough to prove the system doesn't work.
The only way it IS fair to all people is to have it bulletproof. One single instance of fraud makes it unfair to every single legitimate voter by definition.
Where is the restriction to vote in all of this? Talk about smoke and mirrors.
Your entire post is illogical and full of spin.
Your addle-minded mother, did you fill out her ballot and sign her name to it? If you did, then you are creating the problem you are trying to solve. If you didn't, it kind of supports the idea that the problem is only an imaginary one, as this is not proof that it happens but rather, that it is a rare occurrence. So, either you causing a problem to make your solution appear attractive or imagining one for the same reason. No substance. Smoke.
As long as we are going to have a secret ballot, there is no way to make it 100% bullet-proof. This is more smoke. We can, and have, however, design a system that prevents fraud on a scale large enough to affect the outcome of the election.The internal audit procedures performed by the various election boards showing no massive fraud or mistakes is evidence that the system works. It is the responsibility of those who feel our system does not meet this goal to provide evidence that it does not. "My guy didn't win" is not such evidence.
