A River of Doubt Runs Through Mail Voting in Montana

[TBoneTX 45,572]

The loudly denied truth continues to emerge.  Oh, and before anyone dismisses the source: this originally appeared in RealClearInvestigations.

Quote

A River of Doubt Runs Through Mail Voting in Montana

by John R. Lott, Jr.  |  March 27, 2021

 

A mountainous, 2,600-square-mile region with a population of approximately 119,600 does not seem like your typical setting for machine politics.  Yet a recent audit of mail-in ballots cast there found irregularities characteristic of larger urban centers—on a level that could have easily swung local elections in 2020, and statewide elections in cycles past.  [...]

 

Continues here:   https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/27/a-river-of-doubt-runs-through-mail-voting-in-montana/  

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

37 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

The loudly denied truth continues to emerge.  Oh, and before anyone dismisses the source: this originally appeared in RealClearInvestigations.

Are you saying that the votes for Trump in Montana were potentially fraudulent?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

  I think we have to round Biden's win margin down to 80 million votes over this. Just to be safe.

 

  Really though, our right to vote is constitutionally mandated. Start setting too many restrictions and it could set a precedent for how we look at other constitutional rights. 

[TBoneTX 45,572]

26 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Are you saying that the votes for Trump in Montana were potentially fraudulent?

We really don't know, do we?  The similarly-signed ballots would need to be inspected for voting patterns in either direction, among other analyses.  Fraud would be fraud, in either direction.

Edited March 29, 2021 by TBoneTX

[Neonred 3,576]

5 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  I think we have to round Biden's win margin down to 80 million votes over this. Just to be safe.

 

 . 

??

[Dashinka 24,629]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  I think we have to round Biden's win margin down to 80 million votes over this. Just to be safe.

 

  Really though, our right to vote is constitutionally mandated. Start setting too many restrictions and it could set a precedent for how we look at other constitutional rights. 

Considering nationwide popular vote for the President is entirely meaningless, do whatever you want.  As to setting restrictions to vote, I really don't see having to prove one's identity as being overly restrictive, but I suppose it must be.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Dashinka

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Considering nationwide popular vote for the President is entirely meaningless, do whatever you want.  As to setting restrictions to vote, I really don't see having to prove one's identity as being overly restrictive, but I suppose it must be.

 

  Rejecting votes is overly restrictive. Follow up to confirm wouldn't be.

[Dashinka 24,629]

31 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Rejecting votes is overly restrictive. Follow up to confirm wouldn't be.

Except they don't actually follow-up do they?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

39 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Except they don't actually follow-up do they?

 

  I'm not sure what they do. I think it varies by state. I'm just saying if they want to standardize voting laws to improve accuracy, they shouldn't be rejecting votes without a systematic attempt to confirm an identity or errors with missing information. 

 

  My daughter turned 19 last year, so her first time voting, and she actually forgot to sign her mail in ballot. Under Colorado law, they contact you within 3 days, and then you have 8 days (IIRC) to make the required corrections and return the information.

 

  A system can't just be "too bad, better luck next time". There is a constitutional right to vote. There has to be a due process before that is forfeit.

[yuna628 9,686]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Considering nationwide popular vote for the President is entirely meaningless, do whatever you want.  As to setting restrictions to vote, I really don't see having to prove one's identity as being overly restrictive, but I suppose it must be.

It makes sense on the surface of things, but when looking deeper, in many examples given before, there are many ways having to prove something to vote can become restrictive in many scenarios. Mostly because of the archaic patchwork of laws each State has regarding obtaining identity documents.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, Neonred said:

??

 

  I didn't understand it at first either, but apparently the math works out.

[Dashinka 24,629]

12 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I'm not sure what they do. I think it varies by state. I'm just saying if they want to standardize voting laws to improve accuracy, they shouldn't be rejecting votes without a systematic attempt to confirm an identity or errors with missing information. 

 

  My daughter turned 19 last year, so her first time voting, and she actually forgot to sign her mail in ballot. Under Colorado law, they contact you within 3 days, and then you have 8 days (IIRC) to make the required corrections and return the information.

 

  A system can't just be "too bad, better luck next time". There is a constitutional right to vote. There has to be a due process before that is forfeit.

Yeah, I don't have any problems with people being able to fix their ballots, but the rules put in place in our last election were hodgepodge at best.  The SoS in MI was recently slapped down for her rule that signatures of mail-in ballots need not be verified.  Seems like that decision should have been put in place way before November 2020, but whatever.

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It makes sense on the surface of things, but when looking deeper, in many examples given before, there are many ways having to prove something to vote can become restrictive in many scenarios. Mostly because of the archaic patchwork of laws each State has regarding obtaining identity documents.

Yes, but elections are local.  I have absolutely no appetite for having the Feds takeover elections, they are already expensive enough.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Yeah, I don't have any problems with people being able to fix their ballots, but the rules put in place in our last election were hodgepodge at best.  The SoS in MI was recently slapped down for her rule that signatures of mail-in ballots need not be verified.  Seems like that decision should have been put in place way before November 2020, but whatever.

 

  Well the systems in place in 2020 probably do need to be looked at, because they were put in place relatively quickly in response to the pandemic. It's unlikely we would have naturally evolved to those types of systems that quickly without examining the potential issues. There is nothing inherently wrong that can't be addressed legitimately.

 

   Unfortunately some of the legislation I've seen isn't necessarily designed to be addressing that issue so much as it is at making voting more difficult or inconvenient. We have a long history of voter suppression in this country already, and it's not that hard to see through. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Steeleballz

[Dashinka 24,629]

46 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Well the systems in place in 2020 probably do need to be looked at, because they were put in place relatively quickly in response to the pandemic. It's unlikely we would have naturally evolved to those types of systems that quickly without examining the potential issues. There is nothing inherently wrong that can't be addressed legitimately.

 

   Unfortunately some of the legislation I've seen isn't necessarily designed to be addressing that issue so much as it is at making voting more difficult or inconvenient. We have a long history of voter suppression in this country already, and it's not that hard to see through. 

Yeah, I am sure it was all because of the pandemic.  Voting is a right for all citizens, but with that right comes some level of responsibility for the person voting.  For instance if your daughter did not respond and fixed her ballot within the timeframe given, should that vote have been counted regardless?   Should the timeframe to correct a ballot be unlimited up until the day of the election?  I know the news media wants to portray any law passed to either strengthen election integrity or otherwise as being voter suppression, but having to actually prove one is legally able to vote should be one of the checks.  Heck, Old Joe and his media acolytes really pressed the whole water at the polls in GA, and when you read the law, it was simply restricting electioneering which I assume you would support.

[Neonred 3,576]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I didn't understand it at first either, but apparently the math works out.

I was never great with English, but not bad with math.

Just saying if the margin of victory was 80 million then this was the largest landslide victory ever.