| This is pretty much the state/corporate media TV explanation you're giving. There's no good reason other than narrative that the mail-in ballot ratios would not closely trend the in person voting. It's sampling the same population.
Please provide some evidence that Republicans don't vote by mail. Imagine if Putin lost the in person vote by a large margin, but won mail-in ballot vote by a huge percentage. And those votes came from inner city Moscow, inner city St. Petersburg, his party strongholds. The winning margin from votes from the poorest citizens, a demographic that rarely votes, but this time voted in record numbers like never before. And their will is apparently in opposition to rest of the country. That alone would be good enough reason to be suspicious. At minimum if you're going to have an election with mail-in ballots in the US and you want the citizens to trust the results. There needs to be some way to tie the paper ballot to the person for audit purposes. Otherwise, the losing side, will assume it's printers doing the voting. Hence the J6 protest that turned riot. At least with an in person ballot you have some upper bound of how many people came out to vote, to verify the results against. With mail-in voting. You could literally delay announcing the results of election and print out as many votes as needed to overcome any margin. It makes cheating on a mass scale much easier. |
Most of my statements are from first-party sources like government reports and court filings. My statements about the election results stem from monitoring I did of the results as they arrived on election day. I'm a data nerd and there's a lot of fun data to play with around election time. The results of course were of significant national interest as well. I stayed up for multiple days going over the results, and am proud to say I called Pennsylvania on Tuesday by looking at the Northampton County returns. They turned out to be a good bellwether for how the rest of the state was going to go.
> Please provide some evidence that Republicans don't vote by mail.
Don't take my word for it. Here are some exit polls:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...If you are hearing the things I'm saying in state/corporate media, I would say that's because they are truthfully reporting on what happened.
> That alone would be good enough reason to be suspicious.
You tried to make this seem nefarious, but let me restate what you wrote. People in Democratic-friendly areas voted heavily for Democrats. That's not suspicious. What would be suspicious is if Trump won places which are known to vote Democratic. That Democrats won in cities is one of the least surprising outcomes of the election.
Do you want to know how Trump really lost the election? It wasn't because of poor people voting extra in cities. It wasn't even because he lost Georgia, because it wasn't critical in his path to victory.
What really sunk Trump were people who voted a straight Republican ticket except for Trump. Think about that. They either left it blank, or wrote in someone else. They didn't even vote for Biden really, although some did. But House and Senate Republicans actually got more votes than Trump did. All of this consternation about Democrats being responsible for Trump's loss is misplaced. If he would have stayed off of Twitter, I bet he would have won easily.
> With mail-in voting. You could literally delay announcing the results of election and print out as many votes as needed to overcome any margin.
This would be caught easily, because it would result in a bunch of envelopes with no paper trail. The attack you describe was alleged quite often during the 2020 election, but the mail-in voting process does not really work as you may expect, so the attack is not feasible.
The first protection is that you need to have requested a ballot for one to be printed. If ballots are printed indiscriminately, there would need to be a corresponding record of requests for those ballots. Even if ballots are sent without a request, as is done in California, there would still need to be a record of the envelope's provenance. Where did it come from, who handled it, etc.
Secondly, there is a signature match process. You have to put your ballot in a security envelope with a signature to be matched against others. If the signature does not match then the ballot will be cast provisionally, and the voter will be contacted to correct it.
Actually this requires more verification than voting in-person. Mail-in voting is one of those things were people think it is less secure, so it's scrutinized more, making it actually the most secure way to vote.
But anyway, I can only describe my local election process, I'm not aware of how every place works. Either way, I don't see why in-person voting is not just as vulnerable to the attack you describe.