How mail in votes are counted

The problem with that analogy, other than just being wrong, is that the hands it passes through are not checking anything. They are just passing it onto the next destination. And every time they pass it on, there is the chance they will send it to the wrong destination.

 

To what address would the ballot a homeless person be mailed to?

Your post is ridiculous. How many homeless would you need to make the least bit of difference. How much would you pay them that they (and you) would risk going to jail?

Your post does prove one important point. It shows, once again, how Trump loyalists are so desperate to justify "The Leader's" nonsense, that they are willing to abandon all sense of reason, logic and any pretense of being in touch with reality.

You have made my case.

 

Post office. I have had mail sent to a post office while travelling numerous times.

Back to my original question. At what number of potentially fraudulent votes do you become concerned?
And again, the problem with mail in ballots is not just fraud, it is also mistakes.

 

For mail-in ballots they compare it to the signature with which the person registered to vote.

 

Which doesn't mean that the voters didn't get to vote.

 

You need an address.

I'm not concerned at all about fraudulent votes.

 

No. I have had mail forwarded to just a post office. Are you saying a homeless person is not allowed to vote?

 

We're not talking about a mailer for a sale at the local car dealership. We're talking about a ballot! Focus!

In Florida, they make it almost impossible. This is a Republican controlled state. Would you expect anything different? Repressing the rights of the people is the only way they can remain in power.

 

And that makes a difference how? If I am travelling, I still have the right to vote. I called our county recorder and had my wife's absentee ballot request sent out of state.

I don't anything about Florida, but in my republican controlled state, they can vote. If nothing else, what about the person who has lived and voted in a state all his life and gets evicted?

 

Sorry to hear you're homeless.

 

You're making things up. The hands that touch product at work do indeed check the product. It's their job. Just like ballots. Read this, then get back to me. If you're not going to read it, we can try a different subject.

How are mail-in ballots counted?

You make it sound like ballots are being tossed around mindlessly, with nothing to even suggest why this would occur. It's a job. And like my job, people check their work. The analogy is perfect.

But back to the original argument; the odds of getting caught in illegal activity increase as the number of actors grows, and this is assuming all the actors are criminals. Having lots of people involved in an operation prevents fraud, and redundancy corrects error.

 

You manage to misinterpret just about everything. I would say that is intentional.

 

For that to be true for mail in ballots, every postal employee would have to open up the ballot or ballot request and make sure it is accurate. They don't "check" anything. They just send it on to the next destination.

We get someone else's mail probably on a weekly basis. I check the address and if it is not to me, I just put it back in the mailbox and raise the flag. I assume that other people occasionally get our mail. I can only hope they drop it back in the box.

Going through extra steps does not insure redundancy. It only means that someone else handled the product with another chance to screw it up. .Most products are not like newsprint which everyone can read.

 

The post office delivers ballots. It doesn't process them. What they check is whether the mail gets delivered. That's their job.

There it is. I'm calling BS. I've never gotten anyone else's mail on a weekly basis. Maybe twice a year. Maybe. And every check, credit card, bank statement, bill, merchandise, magazine, or anything else I've requested over the last six decades has arrived. Blaming the post office is lame. Guess what? If your ballot doesn't arrive, you can request a new one. Just like if your check doesn't arrive. We've been over this already. Time to stop beating it.

Lol. That makes no sense.

 

I strongly recommend you not call me a liar.

What is it about this that makes no sense? "Going through extra steps does not insure redundancy. It only means that someone else handled the product with another chance to screw it up. .Most products are not like newsprint which everyone can read."

"Going through extra steps does not insure redundancy." Is self explanatory.

"It only means that someone else handled the product with another chance to screw it up." Everyone makes mistakes. The more people involved, the more likely there will be mistakes.

"Most products are not like newsprint which everyone can read." Self explanatory.

 

So you may find this interesting since you are a great advocate of science I guess all those verification experts are all aware of this, right

SEPT. 23, 2016
Why Your Handwriting Keeps Changing, Even in Adulthood

And then there is this

Lots of variables, I think we just use legal ID until we have enough people trained in the field of forensics

But I'm sure all them folks checking signatures are more then qualified in the realm of the left

 

Wow this is clearly not your subject Golem

A voter without a permanent address has five options for voting in a mail-in election:

 

That's fine but the question that neither you nor the poster who came up with this nonsense has answered is how many homeless would make a difference, and how much would you pay them to be worth it for them (or you) to risk going to prison?

 

I strongly recommend you don't get your panties in a bunch. If I don't believe you, I'm gonna call you on it. I explained why. Everyone here who opposes mail-in voting says the same thing, and it's only they who always get everyone else's mail. Doesn't affect anyone else, nor me. I'm calling you on it. It doesn't matter whether you like it. Certainly you understand the difference between exaggeration and lying. I didn't call you a liar.

(I'm a very cordial poster. Never had a problem with you. Don't want one. "I strongly recommend" is not how you want to address me. K? Peace?)

Redundancy corrects errors. Get it right, to begin with.

 

The rule is on the forum is that you do not call someone a liar either directly or implying. You could have simply said that was not your experience. Same message, but more gentlemanly..

 

It was an off the cuff remark. We converse often. Have I ever disrespected you? I don't think I have, but if so, you have my apologies.

I didn't call you a liar. I think you're exaggerating. Big difference. Point is, there's no need to be defensive. And don't make threats.

 

You said "There it is. I'm calling BS.". I have been called out for less.

 

That's me. Not meant as an insult. You should know me better than that.

What would you say if one side made the exact same claim that nobody else had experienced? I'm sure it would seem like everyone was exaggerating to score a political point from that side. You'd think the same thing I did. It's not personal. It's a logical argument.

 

Wow, I suppose creative thinking is king.. How about someone "Like Bloomberg" buys off homeless and other do the same thing around the country to vote a particular party Ya-ya I know it's miniscule, but it's still corruption none the less, right..

BTW, is you signature still the same as when you first registered where you hail from? Or are you going to refute those findings and be the first to have the identical signature today that you had 1-2 or five years ago. Also, do you still insist that those verifying these signatures are really qualified to do so

 

So let me see if I understand this. Bloomberg would risk going to prison to buy off homeless votes. Not to sway and election (because, as you say, it's "miniscule")... just for the sake of corruption.

Ok. So your post gets the prize for bringing up the most ridiculous conspiracy theory of the week.

At least as qualified as the people who verify them in person. But don't let obvious logic stop you. Looks like you have another conspiracy theory in mind to try to outdo the first one. Let's hear it.... Signature verification is not a big deal. As a matter of fact, unlike in-person voting, the signatures and the ones they were verified against become public record and can be verified again and again by anybody who cares to do so. And both parties have many volunteers... caring to do so...

As for my sig, it's meant to try to keep Trump supporters on track, focused on the discussion, and as informed as, for them, is humanly possible. For that reason my sig changes to try to account for the next strawman they will come up with. Like trying (always unsuccessfully) to attack my sig instead of doing the research.