A note from Peg Cage: This article was written by a friend who worked the Colorado 2014 General Election in Boulder County. It's a bit lengthy but goes into eye-opening detail about what he experienced during one of the first elections using the All-Mail ballot system. “Bob” would like to remain anonymous so when he works another election, he will be able to work free from scrutiny and report again on changes in the system.
A GREAT DEAL OF INTELLIGENCE CAN BE INVESTED IN IGNORANCE WHEN THE NEED FOR ILLUSION IS GREAT.
CAN THERE BE AN HONEST ELECTION WITH ALL MAIL IN BALLOTS?
Everyone has an opinion to this question but very, very, few have any real information or understanding of how this process actually works. Tragically this includes those who push for all mail in balloting. Never forget all the misinformation, ignorance and deception used to force through “Obamination” care, how horrible it is, the damage it is doing to health care, and the freedom of Americans to choose what is best for them. In Colorado alone in 2014, 335,000 people lost their current insurance, and rates have gone up as much as 305% in only one year for some in order to keep insurance.
In order to decide if any system is a good system we need to know how it works. The key to mail in balloting is signature verification, in other words, making sure that the voters “live” signature on the mail in ballot envelope matches their signature of record. Everyone would agree that this is the ONLY safety net against voter fraud and that without this step, there should be no mail in balloting. At first glance, it would seem a simple thing to compare two signatures to determine if they match. So lets take a look at the process. For the record, in Colorado, there is no standard verification process. Each Counties Clerk and Recorders office is left to decide how verification is done. This is a problem in its own right. The information in this presentation was provided by an appointed signature verifier in Colorado's 2014 November election and relates to the system put in place by the Boulder County Clerk and Recorders Office.
Before becoming an election judge who has the responsibility to accept or reject signatures, training is required. In a classroom setting appointed judges are given a 28 page handout that explains how to determine if a signature is genuine or a fraud. Then a video of a police official is shown explaining in greater detail the 28 page handout. In about 45 minutes, all the following information is discussed regarding signatures.
Rhythm, speed, roundness, smoothness, legibility, artistic, awkwardness, pressure-variation, exaggerated features, slant, (overall, and one letter compared to others in the same word), spacing (overall spacing, spacing between words, and spacing within words), size (overall size, and proportional size of individual letters one to the other), alignment (to the base line and imaginary base line, does it slope down or up, or is it level), pressure (overall and one letter relative to another), pen lifts (within one word and specific letters), letter formations, embellishments, curvature of strokes, connecting strokes, size change within signatures, letter formation pairs, placement of dots and t's, starts and finishes (unique ways that people start or end their signatures), illness/trauma signatures, guided or assisted signatures, and traced signatures.
These are just the listed topics with no detailed discussion of what to look for in each topic. Imagine how much detail must be presented in each of these topics in order to understand exactly what you must look for in each. Now think of how much time would be required in court by an EXPERT in signature fraud to prove a signature to be a fraud by discussing these numerous variables. Now imagine taking your seat at a computer screen that shows two pairs of signatures and keeping in mind all the variables to consider, make your decision up or down, and make it in mere seconds. Everyone in the State of Colorado is voting and you can't dance around or you will be sitting there till Hell freezes over and election results will not be known until the next election cycle is over with. OK this is an exaggeration, because you would be removed and replaced long before then by someone who is willing to be less conscientious. Are you feeling comfortable?
Up to now the discussion has centered on the background knowledge needed to verify signatures. Next we need to look at the system itself and see both how it works and fails to work.
Let us start with an overview. Ballots are collected from around the state and brought into processing centers. The envelopes are arranged in all the same orientation so that a machine can scan the voters signature on the envelope and the bar code which identifies the voter and thus can link to a signature reference data base for verification purposes.
Ballots are compiled into batches and held until there are enough batches for the verifiers to process them. Each batch has an identifying number. An election official then assigns specific batches to specific judges for verification purposes. Two judges from different party affiliations are paired together so there is accountability and fairness. Pairs can consist of a Republican and a Democrat, or either of these paired with an Unaffiliated. Each of these pairs when assigned a batch of signatures must sign a log sheet that records the batch number, each verifiers name, date and time of day. Once this is completed and the verifiers are logged into computers, the work begins. Two sets of signatures show on the split screen (left and right) along with the typed name of each voter. One of these signatures is the “live” signature which was scanned from the envelope, and the other is a data base signature. If the two signatures match each other but do not match the typed voter name they should be rejected because the vote is not that of the person the ballot was assigned to.
In order for a signature (therefore vote) to be accepted the judge operating the mouse must activate a drop down box for that voter. A second judge then must enter a key stroke to accept the vote. If no key stroke is entered, the vote is rejected. If the judge operating the mouse moves from the first set of signatures to the second set before the judge operating the key stroke key has accepted a good vote, (which can happen by mistake), that vote is rejected by default. Neither judge operates both the mouse and the key stoke key. This is to prevent any one judge from having total control over accepting or rejecting a vote.
It seems harsh to reject a vote simply by a timing error of a key stroke judge coordinating with the mouse operator, but in all cases wether by willful decision to reject, or by some error, any non approved vote is rejected. Otherwise errors or disputes would result in accepted votes.
To counter the possibility of a vote being rejected by mistake on the first tier of examination, all rejected signatures are passed on to a second tier of judges for review. The process for this review works the same as the first review except that in the second level the two judges can access a bit more information (a few more data base signatures for example) to help in determining if the signature is valid or not. If it is determined to be good by both judges, it is accepted at this point. If it is rejected on second review either intentionally or by mistake, it proceeds to the third level of review.
It is in this third and final review level that a great amount of data can be accessed about the voter. And in this third level, the two judges have the actual physical mail in envelope and ballot in hand. When the scanning number from the voter ballot is entered into the computer by one of the two judges (one from different affiliations as before) a number of data fields open automatically from the data base.
Information such as voters name, age, gender, physical address, birthdate, drivers license number, and social security number, all open automatically. In addition to this, the judges have the ability to dig even deeper. They can access the names of all other registered voters at that address, as well as their information. The judges can also reference a larger number of data base signature references that can be originated from many different sources such as drivers license, voter registration signatures, and signatures from other legal documents that the voter would have signed in the past. As many as 10 additional signatures can be in the data base.
Since most readers at this moment should have identity theft crossing their minds, lets briefly discuss that. At first glance it might appear that these third tier judges have access to too much sensitive information and that the voter could be exposed to identity theft or harassment as a result. While this is a possibility, it would be very unlikely because these judges have a large backlog of disputed signatures to review. They can not go home at the end of the day until they have processed every one of the questioned ballots and their scheduled shift is 12 hours for starters. And the process they need to follow is very time consuming (up to 3 or 4 minutes in some cases) as compared to the few seconds taken on the first tier. These judges do not care about the SS number of a voter, they are accessing the larger numbers of signatures to see if they can find a match to the ballot signature, and checking other data mentioned above if needed. They would have to have a photographic memory (and a fast one at that) to remember all the data needed for identity theft. They could not write it down because it would be seen by the other judge. It is possible that both could play the theft game together but again the odds work against this. Also the election judge that is overseeing all levels should pick up on this because the two judges would be falling behind on their work load.
Let us now discuss why the third tier judges would need access to so much sensitive data. While there are many different circumstances that would require this access, I will present only one for sake of time. Let's take an example of a household of four, Mom, Dad, and two college age kids. They all list their residence at the same address. First, the judges notice that one of the signatures on their screen shows Jane Doe. But the printed name on the screen (automatically pulled by the bar code on the mail in envelope) shows John Doe. It is likely that the parents could have sat down at a table together to fill out their ballots but when they put their ballots into the mail in envelopes they mixed up the envelopes with Jane signing John's and vs. vs. By being able to pull up other signatures than just the one assigned to the ballot in question, the judges could see if Jane's signature matches Jane in this household and John matches John's. If this turns out to be the case these two ballots will be accepted.
What about the two kids? What if their signatures don't match? They also can be seen to be in the same household and because their ages show, the judges can see they could likely be in college or living elsewhere. They can search the data base for the children's signatures to see if there is a match. If they can find no matches, it is an obvious conclusion that Mom or Dad likely signed and voted fraudulently for their kids and these votes should be rejected.
If any vote is rejected in this third and final review, these two judges must write codes on the mail in envelope that correlate to a written list of reasons for rejection as well as how many signatures they examined before rejecting the vote. This rejected ballot goes into a box and it is required that a letter is sent to the voter within 48 hours stating that their signature could not be verified and that they need to sign an affidavit saying that their signature was actually theirs. The voter has a limited but fair number of days to respond. If they do not respond, their vote is not counted.
Up to this point we have learned how the signature verification process works and in this last example, why sensitive data is exposed. With these understandings, let's expose the many failings of this system. First will be a list of the problems followed by a brief discussion of each.
Switched envelopes (ballots)
False addresses listed for voters
Ineligible voters voting
Intentionally fraudulent votes
Out of State voters
Time constraints on all three tiers
Fraudulent party affiliation
Lack of signatures in data base
Source of data base signatures
Cross checking eligibility of voters
Same day registration
Switched envelopes (ballots): An example of a married couple mistakenly signing each others ballot envelopes was given previously and in this example the switch was allowed because household information was available. In order to accept switched marital votes BOTH signatures must match the names on file otherwise BOTH votes must be rejected. It is also possible that a married couple could have different physical addresses listed which would also prevent comparing household signatures resulting in both votes being rejected.
Name changes: Sometimes a woman may sign her envelope with her new married name and if the data base has not been updated her name will never match her maiden name in the data base resulting in her vote being rejected.
False addresses listed for voters: On one occasion when a household search was done to verify a signature on level 3, between 15 and 18 different names came up. And they had no commonality. The last names were all different. Anyone remember how in the Blues Brothers movie Wriggly Field was listed as their address to throw off the police?
Ineligible voters voting: This group can include but is not limited to people that have not been residents for a long enough time to legally vote, illegal aliens, convicted felons, dead people. Remember, all the judges have is two signatures to look at.
Intentionally fraudulent votes: Parents signing and voting for their kids, and fictitious voters.
Out of State voters: I personally know of a case where people who own property in Boulder County have moved to another state and have been residing there full time for years, yet still get their mail in ballot and vote in Colorado.
Affidavits: Affidavits are a joke. In all cases involving them, all the person has to do is to sign them and promise their particular case is honest. There is NO verification of facts. Imagine a bank robber on trial and his defense attorney tells him “all you have to do is sign this affidavit saying you didn't rob the bank and you go free”. Is that a good thing?
Time constraints on all three tiers: Remember the 28 pages of information full of tiny details on how to determine a fraudulent signature from a real one? Now every signature in the state of Colorado has to be verified. You have a second or two on tier one to determine up or down. A bit more on tier two, and perhaps only 3 or 4 minutes to scour all the data available on tier 3. This is not enough time on any level to be fair and accurate. (More on this later).
Reverse strokes: This relates to the above paragraph, but it is important to focus on it in a bit more detail. Reverse strokes refers to how one particular person forms a particular letter as apposed to anyone else. Lets take the capital letter “A” for example. In cursive writing, it can be determined if the circle of the “A” was made in a clockwise or counterclockwise manner. It isn't always easy and it takes time ----- time you don't have in any of the 3 review tiers. In my case on level 1, one judge I was paired with at random was very adept at spotting this indicator and I picked up on it myself. Later on when I was paired with a different judge and pointed this out in a signature under review, they commented on how observant I was and agreed with my assessment of that particular signature. But think of how many bad signatures get by because neither one of a paired set of judges picks up on this. Or any one of the other critical variables discussed in the 28 pages of training?
Electronic signatures: Everyone knows what an electronic signature is. And everyone knows how little they match their own paper written signature. They are horrible and usually bear absolutely no resemblance to the real thing. Yet they are allowed in the signature verification process. You would think that with election judges of strong and opposite views, there would not be any areas of agreement when it comes to mail in balloting. Yet this is one where there is absolutely universal agreement. NO ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE DATA BASE. If that is not bad enough consider this. On the final tier 3 level of verification where the judges can mine the data base for as many as 10 signatures to look for a match, there was one data base that contained only ONE signature. An electronic signature. Guess what happened to that vote.
Party affiliation fraud: One major way to protect against fraud in the voter verification process is that two judges of different affiliation are pared together. Yet this was compromised in Colorado's 2014 November election. It is common knowledge in Colorado that Boulder County is the democratic equivalent to the political sewer known as Chicago. In the 2014 November election, a poll watcher observing the signature verification process saw obviously fraudulent signatures being approved by multiple pairs of judges. When the observer looked up the Republican signature verifiers name in the Republican voter registration roll, they could not be found. Those same names however were found in the Democratic voter registration rolls. It was determined on further research that a number of Democrats had changed their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican a few weeks before the election and then signed up to be election judges. You do the math on fairness here. In this case a formal protest was filed with the Colorado Secretary of States office and signature verification at that location was stopped until verified Republican's could replace the Democrat imposters. But it was too late to challenge all the votes that had been previously accepted.
Lack of signatures in data base: This problem is not an issue until a ballot has been rejected all the way to the final 3rd tier of review. This is the only level where the data base is large enough to access as many as 10 signatures. I have seen cases where there are only two or three in that data base and as mentioned above one case where there was only one. I don't know why in some cases there is an inadequate number of signatures to draw from. But it is safe to assume that neither do the people pushing mail in balloting, and that is a big problem.
Source of data base signatures: What is the source for data base signatures and what requirements must the signature meet to be placed in the data base in the first place? The answer for the source is “anywhere”. The answer to the signature requirements is “none”. There are no guidelines, no rules, no accountability. Electronic signatures get by on this basis. What an open door for fraud.
Cross checking eligibility of voters: I sat in the office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder, Hillary Hall for several hours and observed “voters” discussing mail in ballot issues. It was quite an education. Bottom line on this issue comes back to voters that are still on the voter rolls in Colorado even though they have lived full time in other states for years. There is not any cross checking to see if any individual has voted in any other state in the past that is still on Colorado's rolls. I know this because of personal knowledge of abuse. Perhaps cross checking is not done because of the large cost involved. But cost is no excuse to allow fraud. If people had to vote in person as has been the tradition in America for over 200 years it would be tough for someone to fly all around the country to vote in person. And what about cross checking for those 18 non related people who listed the same “Wrigley Field” address. Any cross checking here? Obviously not. There are no safeguards here and the barn door is wide open to fraud.
Same day registration: In Colorado, this Democrat party pushed feature combines the best of several ways to cheat and cast a fraudulent ballot. First of all in order to legally same day register a voter has to have resided in Colorado for a minimum time period. What does this individual have to do to prove legal residency? Simply sign an affidavit stating they have lived here for the minimum numbers of days. Think about this for a moment. How is anyone in the Clerk and Recorders office going to verify that with absolutely no time before the vote is cast? More to the point, will the effort be made? I think we all know the answer. Even more serious – how will the affidavit signature of the same day voter be verified? What data base is there for someone who has only been in Colorado for a very short time? Of course it is clear that no one would ever lie about this, knowing they could never be caught. This clarity must be especially true for Colorado Democrats because it is only their party that pushes same day voting.
Handwriting issues: There are many problems associated with comparing signatures but they have been detailed already and you are now savvy to some of them. Critics could say to all these problems “they make up a small percentage of votes casted and therefore should not cause all mail in balloting to be banned”. To expose that argument as unsustainable, answer the following question. What percentage of signatures of all those examined by verifiers clearly and easily match such that both judges would immediately say it is good?
The answer from all different affiliations of judges is 10%. 15% if you use your imagination. This means that in 90% of all cases, the judges are trying to find some small scrap of logic, anything at all to find that signatures match. Even the harshest critics of mail in balloting would agree that there is no way that 90% of the signatures are fraudulent. But how can it ever be accurately and fairly determined which of them are fraudulent when there are all these problems preventing accuracy?
There can also be the case where the signatures on the screen match each other, but do not match the name on the assigned ballot envelope that is typed out above. It is far too easy to look only at the signatures to see if they match each other with no thought to matching the typed name. I can speak from experience that few judges take the extra time to make this cross check because the work load is vast.
One more point on signatures needs to be made. Signatures change over time. Everyone knows this and no one would disagree. So if you want an accurate and fair election you would want a law to be in place that would require periodic updating of a voters signature. Oh but that would be too difficult to accomplish so lets just sweep this problem under the carpet. For those who would adopt this tactic, consider the following.
When I sat observing in the Boulder County Clerk and Recorders office, I saw an elderly woman come in and explain to the clerk that she no longer writes her name in cursive. She now prints and wanted to update her signature so it wouldn't be rejected in the mail in process. Here was a conscientious, honest voter doing the right thing. Praise the Lord. Trouble is, her updated signature may never be placed into the data base and even if it were, how would it be set aside from all the other ones such that only it would be selected as the signature of record in future elections? This honest woman's vote will be rejected in each and every coming election unless by some miracle the new and printed signature is somehow selected by chance. The people who pushed for this mail in ballot sewer should have to answer to this woman.
You now have a more clear understanding of the many problems associated with mail in balloting. It is worth noting that in Colorado, this system was pushed through the Democratically controlled House and Senate in 2013 and rubber stamped by a Democratic governor. Not one Republican representative voted for it. Not one Republican voted for Obamanation care either, and how has that been working out for the country? So what kind of spin does the Democrat leaning liberal press put on this disaster?
Lets take a look at the Boulder Daily Camera “news”. On November 3, 2014 the front page top headline read “ Claims haven't panned out”. Subtitle below read “ Clerks: Despite attention, voter fraud is rare”. The article then went on to say “Before Democrats in the legislature passed the new law in 2013, GOP leaders said sending ballots to every registered voter, including those who didn't vote in the previous even-year general election, would be an invitation to fraud” -------- “But clerks note that each ballot is screened to make sure the signatures match voter registration records”. Isn't that comforting knowing all the failures of signature verification as noted above?
The article went on to say “In addition to safeguards, voter fraud is a felony that carries a penalty of up to three years in jail and a $100,000 fine for each misused ballot”. That statement is a joke. Prove it you say? Can anyone tell me how many people have been convicted of voter fraud under this statute? How many? According to the Daily Camera, “A national database of voter fraud cases, compiled by ------ Arizona State University, found that Colorado has had 22 election-fraud cases since 2000. In 19 cases those responsible took plea deals. Does anyone believe that there were really only 22 cases of voter fraud in Colorado in 2000? Please.
Secretary of of State Scott Gessler was quoted in the article saying “To get to the punishment, you have to have someone detecting it, and you have to have someone willing to prosecute it, Gessler said, referring to local election officials and county prosecutors. That hasn't been the case”. End quote.
This is why the jails are not clogged with voter fraud people and why voter fraud should not be made more easy by passing mail in voting laws that have no accountability.
Following the brush off article of November 3, the Boulder Daily Camera ran another article titled “Dismissed” on Election day, November 4. This article discussed a law suit brought by a Republican Party poll watcher against the Boulder County Clerk, Hillary Hall, for not allowing election watchers to observe the entire process of signature verification. This law suit was centered around the fact that election watchers were only being allowed to observe the first level of signature verification but not the second or third levels of verification where more personal voter data was open for review. The lawsuit contended that because the two higher levels of review prohibited the oversight of watchers, voter fraud could be happening on those levels. The lawsuit was absolutely correct on that point.
Boulder County Clerk, Hillary Hall in this article argued back that “state law prohibits watchers from accessing the confidential information stored in the state database that displays on the screen during the signature verification process. Ideally, there would be a way for the (states) SCORE database screen to not display that information, Hall said. “But we don't have a way to do that yet.” End quote.
I agree that it is not good for observers to see all the personal voter data as I discussed at length above, but at the same time no independent accountability in the upper two levels of voter verification is unacceptable. But when Hall says “but we don't have a way to do that yet” my hair stands on end. Democrats such as Hall rammed this law down the throats of all Colorado residents with not one Republican vote. So they created this accountability problem and identity theft problem all on their own. Sounds just like Nancy Pallosie's famous quote “ we have to pass this in order to find out what's in it”. Pallosie's quote applies equally to a bowel movement but the bottom line is if there is no accountability in a system, the system should be thrown out until accountability can be restored.
It is noteworthy that in this article not only did the Republican's have these concerns, but so also did Marilyn Marks, an unaffiliated watcher for the Libertarian Party who in the article said “other parties' watchers share the concerns Davis expressed in his suit”. She went on to say “not only were watchers not party to the second stage of signature verification, but signatures that are not disputed are often looked at for such a small amount of time that watchers can't challenge a decision to allow a signature they think looks suspect”.
“Mary Eberle, a watcher for the American Constitution Party, also filed a complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State about the same issue Davis sued over, Marks and Hall confirmed. And if that isn't enough to give you pause, “County Democratic Chair Dan Gould said that, as a watcher, he had brought up the same issue as Davis to county election staff. Staff explained the issues with confidentiality and he was satisfied with that explanation, he said”.
Isn't it interesting to note that every political party but the democrats had concerns with the verification process? To accept the liberal democratic spin on this issue, the following would have to be true. Everyone from all three parties who expressed problems with mail in balloting, would all have to be wrong in every argument against mail in balloting. And the one party that wrote the laws and passed them with not one other party vote, would have to be right on every counter argument. You do the math.
The Daily Camera had one great final statement from Boulder County Clerk Hillery Hall.
“ These people are the ones opposed to the mail-in ballot,” Hall said. “That's what it comes down to. By interfering with the process, they're objecting to the fact that we vote by mail.” That statement is so factually and politically bankrupt it would not pass the “obviously stupid test” of any rational person. But that is the kind of arguments made by people when facts and reality expose their deception.
Finally it should be noted that in Colorado, for each county election results to be accepted, they must be certified by each counties election judges. There is one judge, one vote from each political party so that fairness and honesty in the election process is preserved. Because so many parties objected to the many problems as explained here, and a majority of the judges would not certify the process, the 2012 AND 2014 votes in Boulder County, Colorado WERE NOT CERTIFIED AND WERE REJECTED.
Let us not ram all mail in balloting down our throats in order to find out later how many ways it fails.
Rebuttal to Omaha World Herald's November 24, 2014 article “Mail-in voting is worth a look”.
In this article a number of assumptions were made with no way to verify them, and much ignorance and misinformation was put forth as fact. Always remember the following:
A GREAT DEAL OF INTELLIGENCE CAN BE INVESTED IN IGNORANCE WHEN THE NEED FOR ILLUSION IS GREAT.
So what ignorance and illusion was promoted in the World Herald? Douglas County Election Commissioner Dave Phipps “told the Associated Press that such a move could save taxpayers money, cutting the need for poll workers and polling place equipment.” Here is a news flash for Dave. To verify signatures in great quantity it is necessary to have rows and rows of computers, many election judges to view and verify the signatures, software to make it all work, scanners for the scanning of the mail in ballots, and weeks of counting rather than a few days. But Phipps was quoted as saying only that such a move could save taxpayers money. No supporting data was provided to address all the additional costs just mentioned. Way to go Phipps for not looking past your nose at reality. Sarpy County Election Commissioner Wayne Bena, in the World Herald article also agreed that moving to all mail-in elections would save money. Foolishness is rarely limited to one person.
The World Herald article went on to say “Critics of all-mail elections raise several important issues. Before Nebraska considers such a change, those should be examined”. There are far more than several important issues as the accompanying document to this note shows, but for now let us stay with the World Herald article. The Herald continues -----
“Among the concerns: Would the ballots be secure from beginning to end if no longer strictly controlled by the county and the voter as they are at polling places?” The answer to this is no. In Colorado anyone can “volunteer” to take your mail in ballot to a secure drop off site. In any geographic location, everyone knows where heavy democrat or republican voter concentrations are located. All that would be needed is for someone of the opposite affiliation to pick up and then “lose” those ballots to sway the outcome of the election. Who would ever know?
The article continues, “Can a foolproof process be devised for signature verification? Are there sufficient protections to guard against voter fraud and to make certain the person to whom the ballot was sent is the person who casts that vote?” Please read the expose on this but also remember nothing is foolproof if politics is involved. Next question in the Herald, “Would voters casting ballots away from a polling place remain free of outside influences?” In Colorado's 2014 election, residents at an old folks home were presented their mail in ballots by a “volunteer” who helped them fill them out. When an overseer witnessing this complained, the complaining witness was removed from the facility. You haven't heard about this because the liberal press is loath to report news that exposes the problems their agenda creates. “If elections day were replaced with election month, would ballots be cast before voters have all the information about candidates of ballot initiatives?” Common sense (which eludes many politicians) says absolutely no. “ Would verifying and counting the all mail-in ballots actually be any faster?” This does not appear to be the case in Colorado but in any case speed is not relevant. The only consideration should be an honest and fair election.
The World Herald ended its embarrassing plug for all mail-in balloting with “The change to mail-in elections might make voting easier and improve participation. An admirable goal.” What a horrible inconvenience it is for the poor voter to have to show up in person to cast their vote and what an insult to all the veterans who ever fought and died for a free and honest America. Let us therefore replace honesty, integrity, and honor, with fraud, cheating, unaccountability, and laziness. Yes that will make America strong.
This voter fraud problem regarding all mail in balloting I believe is so large that it can easily throw elections. The liberal press will not expose these problems as shown by the examples in the document above.