|
There is no one process for identifying fraud, there are many processes as the elections are run by the States, not some, "central voting authority." That being said, in California, specifically, it's analogous to dual-factor authentication. On your ballot, you write your signature. You have ballot checkers who look at that signature, and check it against one already on file with the State Government, from sources like a voter registration application or driver's license. So to make a claim that, "Fraud is high enough to make a difference," - let's say, 0.1% over those ballots not already rejected to be charitable, you would have to fake a percentage of 22 million votes (assuming rounding up to 10 million). So keep in mind, 220,000 ballots were already rejected for not being able to be verified by the State. Beyond that, the 0.1% requirement would mean that 21,780 additional ballots within the remaining 21,780,000 ballots would need to be, "fraudulent," in order to make the election, "not valid," using a charitable definition. What is the definition of fraudulent? It doesn't mean, "I don't like this person who voted," or, "voting with malicious intent." It means - the law was broken, creating illegal interference with the process of an election. Election fraud can take place around in-person voting and absentee/mail-in voting. It can occur at different points of the election process, from registration to the tallying of ballots. Types of election fraud include [ballot stuffing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud#Ballot_stuffin...), voter registration fraud, absentee/mail-in ballot vote fraud, and using fraudulent signatures. To support the claim, "fraud is not extremely rare," you would have to demonstrate that 21,780 ballots were illegal, by either party mind you, through any combination of the above reasons. Or, you would have to at least define how many votes need to be illegal in order to mean, "not extremely rare," and then demonstrate a case for why we passed that threshold. I have not read any convincing arguments on this entire thread demonstrating anything convincing even in the slightest, either evidence based or even just a semblance of a rational argument explaining why it might be true. All I read on here is hand waving ignorance and raw emotions. On the other hand, what I see election authorities in California do, is A) Maintaining a list of possible registered voters or drivers licenses tied to addresses with signatures on file. B) Cross referencing those signatures on the ballots submitted. C) Allowing observers in to observe the process at any time. |