I personally will only vote by mail, all other options seem like more effort same reward.   

Omni, I tried. I really tried. To give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you, or anyone, are too lazy and inconvenienced by voting at an ID validating polling place in a normal year, where polling places are in every community, then you don’t deserve to vote.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hawaii-just-saw-its-highest-primary-turnout-voted-by-mail-2020-8

I understand there are other methods.  Early voting, walk in etc.  I am not saying everyone has to vote my mail. Just that its a good option.  More options the better.  I personally will only vote by mail, all other options seem like more effort same reward.   

would you testify in-person against proposed anti2a legislation such as magazine and "assault rifle" bans?

https://www.businessinsider.com/hawaii-just-saw-its-highest-primary-turnout-voted-by-mail-2020-8

I understand there are other methods.  Early voting, walk in etc.  I am not saying everyone has to vote my mail. Just that its a good option.  More options the better.  I personally will only vote by mail, all other options seem like more effort same reward.   

The more methods allowed for voting, the less secure the process becomes depending on the percentage of voters exercising the less secure methods.

Let's say you have a LOTTO ticket that won and is worth over $1 million.  You have several options:

- Mail it in
- Hire a lawyer in that area to claim it for you (requires using mail or courier service)
- Have a friend or relative in that area claim it for you (requires using mail or courier service)
- Get on a plane, book a hotel and deliver the ticket in person

There may be others, but as long as you signed the back of the ticket, mailing it to the LOTTO office is a valid claim method.

Ignoring all other factors, which method would you choose based solely on your understanding of the chances the ticket will arrive, and you'll get your money??

Being lucky enough to win doesn't mean you'll come out on top of every decision you make after that.

New election ordered in NJ race marred
by voter fraud charges

PATERSON, N.J. — A judge has ruled that a new election will be held in November for a
disputed Paterson City Council seat, just weeks after the race’s apparent winner and a
sitting councilman were charged with voter fraud.

State Superior Court Judge Ernest Caposela issued his ruling Wednesday.

Alex Mendez had won a special election on May 12 to fill the seat, but claims of voter fraud
were soon raised. An investigation was then launched after the Us Postal Service’s law
enforcement arm told the state attorney general’s office about hundreds of mail-in ballots
located in a mailbox in Paterson, along with more found in nearby Haledon.

Ultimately, the Passaic County Board of Elections decided not to count 800 ballots cast in the
race.

Voter fraud charges were brought in June against Mendez, Paterson Council Vice President
Michael Jackson and two other men: Shelim Khalique, of Wayne, and Abu Rayzen, of Prospect
Park. An attorney for Councilman William McKoy, who had been defeated by Mendez, then
successfully sought an injunction that barred Mendez from being sworn into office.

All four defendants have maintained their innocence.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/20/new-election-ordered-in-nj-race-marred-by-voter-fraud-charges/

 

So, you CLAIM mail-in balloting is a "good option".  This NJ election would have never been defrauded had the ballots not been sent via the Post Office.

That's MY evidence.  Until the system is proven to be secure, trusting it is stupid -- but we already know how you evaluate "risk".

would you testify in-person against proposed anti2a legislation such as magazine and "assault rifle" bans?

Tbh I shy away from that,  for personal reasons.

Wait what?  I'm pretty sure security cam video/photos and cellphones and other digital photos etc have been used in court...

I'm not a lawyer, but I was always taught that because a digital format can be manipulated
that it can't count as fact without an un-broken chain of evidence.  I forgot to add that part.
My Bad.

The more methods allowed for voting, the less secure the process becomes depending on the percentage of voters exercising the less secure methods.

Let's say you have a LOTTO ticket that won and is worth over $1 million.  You have several options:

- Mail it in
- Hire a lawyer in that area to claim it for you (requires using mail or courier service)
- Have a friend or relative in that area claim it for you (requires using mail or courier service)
- Get on a plane, book a hotel and deliver the ticket in person

There may be others, but as long as you signed the back of the ticket, mailing it to the LOTTO office is a valid claim method.

Ignoring all other factors, which method would you choose based solely on your understanding of the chances the ticket will arrive, and you'll get your money??

Being lucky enough to win doesn't mean you'll come out on top of every decision you make after that.

You are not the first to come up with these scenarios.  Obviously I would choose the most secure,  but voting isn't winning the lotto.  Tbh,  I care far less about voting.  My one vote will never sway an election.  I always vote but if my ballot didn't get delivered one year, oh well.  So the weight of consequences are far different. 

Here's another little gem that sings the praises of mail-in voting .....   

Even when there's no intentional fraud, stuffing the ballot box, illegal aliens voting in great numbers, or other attempts to game the system, mail-in balloting just doesn't have the same degree of success as in-person voting.

USPS Fails Mail-In Ballot Test

CBS News decided to test the system upon which the government will entrust the sanctity
of the ballot this November. And the U.S. Postal Service flubbed it.

This is not about gaming the system, or voter fraud, or stuffing the mail with fake ballots
from illegal aliens. This is about the competency of the USPS to deliver official ballots sent
through the mail on time, and to the right people. They proved that the 100 million or more
Americans who plan to mail in their ballots should not expect their vote to be counted unless
they mail it weeks prior to the election deadlines in each state.

And even then there’s no guarantee it will be processed and counted.

The parameters of the test were simple and straightforward. CBS mailed 100 ballots to
locations across Philadelphia in an experiment to see how long it took the ballots to arrive.
A post office box was set up to receive the returned ballots.

A few days later, another 100 ballots were mailed to another 100 locations in the city. The results
should frighten Democrats who claim they are all about “every vote being counted.”

A week after initial ballots were sent, most ballots appeared to be
missing from the P.O. box.

“I don’t see anything back there for you,” a postal worker told Dokoupil
when he received the mail. “That’s all I have back there right now.”

After asking for a manager and explaining the situation to them, the
votes were found.

“They had them somewhere else,” the postal worker said.

Ho-hum, well, no one is perfect. That’s the point, isn’t it?

The mysterious problems at the local post office also included missorted mail.

“We got a birthday card from Mike to Ronnie,” Dokoupil said, as he read a
postcard mistakenly placed in “CBS This Morning’s” P.O. box. “Have a sweet
b-day. Get it? There’s a bee on top.”

The postcard, along with another piece of missorted mail, was then sent to the
correct recipient.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/07/25/usps-fails-mail-in-ballot-test-n697455

I'm not a lawyer, but I was always taught that because a digital format can be manipulated
that it can't count as fact without an un-broken chain of evidence.  I forgot to add that part.
My Bad.

All the searching I did shows that it is 100% allowed.  Obviously showing that its reasonably authentic. 

https://www.chamberslawfirmca.com/can-video-taken-by-a-handheld-device-be-used-as-evidence-in-a-criminal-case/
https://attorney-myers.com/2014/03/photo-video-evidence/

Tbh I shy away from that,  for personal reasons.

All this talk about "bringing Democrats over the 2a side" is just meaningless rhetoric from you. This is why your validity is being attacked. You're either too lazy, too naive or too ignorant to do anything except type away behind a keyboard. You stated yourself, that the range is too far for you to shoot. WTF?
You sound like a colossal, Stonehenge-worthy monument for idiocy.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was always taught that because a digital format can be manipulated
that it can't count as fact without an un-broken chain of evidence.  I forgot to add that part.
My Bad.

For many years after the PC scanners became common, the law still treated a FAXed signature as a legal signature, but they balked at saying a digitally copied signature on a PC was the same.

Now, with newer technology, the authenticity of a digital document and the signature can be verified.  So, yes, a scan of a handwritten signature, a digitally signed document using an encrypted key, and a document signed using a third-party verification service like DocuSign are all legal in court now.

Even digital photos that were once viewed as easy to manipulate are admissible as long as a forensic expert can verify the contents of the document are unaltered from the original create date and time.  With digital watermarks, that become quite easy now.

I used to save checksums of my important documents. That could be used in an instant to see if the document has been altered.

All this talk about "bringing Democrats over the 2a side" is just meaningless rhetoric from you. This is why your validity is being attacked. You're either too lazy, too naive or too ignorant to do anything except type away behind a keyboard. You stated yourself, that the range is too far for you to shoot. WTF?

Without delving into personal/family reasons,  I advocate in ways comfortable/applicable to myself. I have attended rallies but draw the line around there.   I am willing to meet you in real life still.  But just because people have levels of things they are willing to do does not take away from their efforts.  I am a little lazy. 

You are not the first to come up with these scenarios.  Obviously I would choose the most secure,  but voting isn't winning the lotto.  Tbh,  I care far less about voting.  My one vote will never sway an election.  I always vote but if my ballot didn't get delivered one year, oh well.  So the weight of consequences are far different.

So, in your OPINION, the mail is secure enough to select the most powerful 2 people in the nation, and by most measures in the world, but it's not secure enough for you to trust something of financial value?

This conversation is not about YOU as an individual.  It's about the process used IN ALL STATES.  Nobody give a flying fuck whether you think YOUR vote counts.  It's about whether or not PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ, GA, NC and FL can trust the results of a mail-in election.  THAT does impact us all, including you.

I guess you still have a "Big Picture", "Forest for the Trees" impediment.

So, in your OPINION, the mail is secure enough to select the most powerful 2 people in the nation, and by most measures in the world, but it's not secure enough for you to trust something of financial value?

This conversation is not about YOU as an individual.  It's about the process used IN ALL STATES.  Nobody give a flying fuck whether you think YOUR vote counts.  It's about whether or not PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ, GA, NC and FL can trust the results of a mail-in election.  THAT does impact us all, including you.

I guess you still have a "Big Picture", "Forest for the Trees" impediment.

Yes if its 99.5% that's good enough for me.  But obviously in your scenario I had the option of 99.9% which required a significant amount more effort,  but for money it was worth it.  For a vote, nope.

Without delving into personal/family reasons,  I advocate in ways comfortable/applicable to myself. I have attended rallies but draw the line around there.   I am willing to meet you in real life still.  But just because people have levels of things they are willing to do does not take away from their efforts.  I am a little lazy.

We established that a long time ago, but it took until now for you to admit it.

At this point, I'm starting to think having you give you opinion on gun control bills might not be wise.

Yes if its 99.5% that's good enough for me.  But obviously in your scenario I had the option of 99.9% which required a significant amount more effort,  but for money it was worth it.  For a vote, nope.

Where did you get this 99+% BS?

Did you not read the article I posted about the test?  Even without malicious parties messing with the system, the Post Office lost MOST of the ballots.  That's 50% or more GONE.

Do you even read these post, or do you just type like an out-of-control Zombie Troll?

Where did you get this 99+% BS?

Did you not read the article I posted about the test?  Even without malicious parties messing with the system, the Post Office lost MOST of the ballots.  That's 50% or more GONE.

Do you even read these post, or do you just type like an out-of-control Zombie Troll?

A single unverified random test to PO boxes.  Sure will overrule all personal experience and people I know.  Worst case it doesn't get delivered and your vote doesn't count,  it doesn't transform for the opposite party.  If anything if this was the case it would only help republicans.  97% is enough for me to trust it for my vote. 

Check it out...

Why Do Most Countries Ban Mail-In Ballots?: They Have Seen Massive Vote Fraud Problems

141 Pages Posted: 9 Aug 2020 Last revised: 21 Aug 2020

John R. Lott
US Department of Justice

Date Written: August 3, 2020

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3666259

Excerpt from abstract:

Most developed countries ban absentee ballots unless the citizen is living abroad or require Photo-IDs to obtain those ballots. Even higher percentages of European Union or other European countries ban absentee for in country voters. In addition, some countries that allow voting by mail for citizens living the country don’t allow it for everyone. For example, Japan and Poland have limited mail-in voting to those who have special certificates verifying that they are disabled.

France has made an exception this year to the ban on absentee ballots to those who are sick or at particular risk during the Coronavirus pandemic. Poland and two cities in Russia have adopted mail-in ballots for elections this year only, but most countries haven't changed their regulations.

France banned absentee voting in 1975 because of massive fraud in Corsica, where postal ballots were stolen or bought and voters cast multiple votes. Mail-in ballots were used to cast the votes of dead people. Examples for other countries are provided.

Without delving into personal/family reasons,  I advocate in ways comfortable/applicable to myself. I have attended rallies but draw the line around there.   I am willing to meet you in real life still.  But just because people have levels of things they are willing to do does not take away from their efforts.  I am a little lazy.

if by "attended", you mean come late, stand outside the group of people, and then leave early, then yes, you "attended" one rally
i don't recall seeing you at more than one...

A single unverified random test to PO boxes.  Sure will overrule all personal experience and people I know.  Worst case it doesn't get delivered and your vote doesn't count,  it doesn't transform for the opposite party.  If anything if this was the case it would only help republicans.  97% is enough for me to trust it for my vote.

so first it's 99.5% threshold, then when challenge, it is magically 97%?

methinks you are a bit more than a little lazy...