In Person Voting Is The Solution

Mall in voting is vulnerable. So is intercepting and replacing paper ballots. These are all basic "chain of custody" issues. There is no perfect system, so the question becomes, are safeguards on place to address potential fraud.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/inside-the-vote-mail-in-voting-security

If you have paper ballots, you have a receipt. You know who voted and who they voted for.

Do random audits to verify with voters that the ballot is accurate.

But it is currently at the states discretion how to handle voting. Barring congressional action it will stay that way.

Apologies if I was unclear. I disagree with the premise of your meme.

All forms of voting that aren't the equivalent of an in person show of hands is susceptible to fraud, so our actual concern in all cases is whether security in place is sufficient to identify and prevent fraud.

All I see is rejections of premise, not implementation. I share concerns, but honestly I have those same concerns with all voting methods. Concerns that my vote isn't really being counted. How would I know?

One thing I like about mail in is the ability to verify your vote has been received. I wish we (anyone who wants to) could self audit regardless of method. Of course MS is behind the times and I had to go in person and I'm pretty sure I voted with a generic ballot that didn't have my info in it. I don't think they could identify whether my specific vote was recorded, much less whether my recorded vote reflected my selection.

Any time

Laugh all you want. Irrelevant just knocked you the f%#$ out.

I mean, damn.

Toxic much? ',:^)

Are you implying that you are not? By the way, I heard that you got the banhammer yesterday, what was it for? I don't mean to be rude but my guess is toxicity.

Then why did you take 2 days to respond? did it take you THAT long to think of a comeback?

You called him out for the genetic fallacy and then attacked his source

If you also falling pray to the genetic fallacy was supposed to be ironic, then yes you should have been more clear.

Or are you claiming that "that information is true" refers to his post and not yours? Because again, you should have been more clear.

We, as in your audience genetically. Though I could have also meant irrelevant and me or the royal we. I don't see how it matters, but I'm always happy to address any question you might have as clearly as I'm capable.

Irrelevant's source was https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-sentinel/ which is actually the first thing that comes up if you search for independent sentinel. The sentinels actual site is like number 5 on the list.

I'm still not sure you are tracking: you called irrelevant out for laughing off your source instead of content and then immediately laughed off his source instead of content.

You frequently dismiss MSM out of hand. But we should have known you were joking/exaggerating this time?

Why Do Most Countries Ban Mail-In Ballots?: They Have Seen Massive Vote Fraud Problems
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3666259

1). You ignored the cited case in the paper where elections where overturned because of mail-in fraud, the cited commission report that mail-in ballot have the biggest potential of fraud, and the massive fraud in other countries before the tightened their laws. It is if you didn't bother checking any of the citations and just repeated you talking point.

2). You asked me to state my argument, not the papers, which you actively ignored hat paper's argument to boot.

LOL, that isn't a newspaper article. It's a peer reviewed study on the Social Science Research Network. A such your objection that's based on a completely different review is irrelevant and you scripted response shows your own biases.

False, everything i said is true. You gave a media source review. That is completely different from a fully cited research paper open for peer review.

Try going back to what I actually said and comprehending it.

Throwing's a tantrum doesn't make you right. The actual source is the Social Science Research Network. And you have no evidence of the Crime Prevention Research Center is propaganda either. Rather your clearly trying to find an excuse to ignore facts you don't like so you are misusing a fact check site without even properly citing it so people can see for themselves what that site actually says or even check to see the sites own possible biases or rep.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/

Now lets see what the happens when you fact check the facts checkers.
https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.php
"Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation."

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/heres-what-to-expect-from-fact-checking-in-2019/

"Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

"The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias."

As your own evidence doesn't backup your claims, you are the propaganda for blatantly lying.

So you lying again to cover previous lies and willful ignorance on your part,

Wow nice of you to ignore 90% pf my post so you can pretend that you haven't lied.

SSRN doesn't just hold the info like you suggest, they actually review submissions and they are peer reviewed before being finalized and published. So I find your liberty claims another lie.

I read them, but your last post reviewing a completely different site show you do not.

LOL, your own review doesn't list them as extreme right wing nor propaganda. A peer reviewed study is open to be fact check by everyone, which you have not even tried to do. As if is you seem to have decided that the study and the facts therein must be false because it doesn't have the proper bias rather than looking at the facts. And now that is becoming clear you're starting to lie.

Actually you have not fact checked or even attemted a fact check at all.

LOL, I read quite a bit of it. So you're denying basic reality to cover your lies and lack of an actual argument.

Nice of you to list that the source is not considered fake news and not to include the relevant info either.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/

"Overall, we rate the Crime Prevention Research Center Right Biased based on strongly advocating for guns and the conservative agenda. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting based on a few failed fact checks. (9/2/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 5/24/2019)"

LOL, making up stuff for me to feel is not the same as offering a actual argument. I've seen more factual error for major trusted new sources with better ratings that than are listed here. You're also misusing you new check site by their own standards and ignoring that they have no real authority in his area.

Wow, a Fox said the Hen House was safe. Imagine that. https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/trey-trainor-fec-trump-2020-election/2020/11/06/id/995772/

Nether of what people believe without actual evidence matter. Proof matters, not talking head, feels, or insults.

Wow, nice to change what you asked for.

1). Lie
2). That is like citing Wikipedia
3). Lie
4). Lie
5). you ignored all the stuff you don't like again.

LOL, you're not right until proved wrong. Nothing would stop me from reading it afterward so you asking for this is just basic nonsense.

Mail-in ballot have less security and thus create a bigger incentives for fraud. Also the paper list measure that many counties take to cut that number down that the USA doesn't use.

You didn't make a counter point, you ignored what you asked my to do and your still not listening to what I said.

No, it really isn't. That would be an Ad Hominem to make a declaration of being false based off of that. That it has been fully sourced, reviewed by SRNN, and further peer reviewed before being published means a lot here. It is not an article where you need to take the word of those who wrote it or the site that hosted it, but a scientific paper where you need to lay out all the evidence for review.

Spam, spam, spam. You only have insults and lies.

You're the one that misused a fact check site and removed your mask in order to snarl at me.

LOL. Those two points relation to the other and the later is a lie. You you're self proved that you are misusing the site with a screenshot. Your pattern of ignoring facts that you don't like and then lying for cover show that you are not interested in the truth, but affirming your own feels.

1). Lie
2). Like citing wikipedia
3). Lie
4). Lie
5). Still ignoring all the stuff you don't like.
Bonus points for spam.

Lets me know when you have something other than insults and lies.