"Feed accurate data to it"

Are mailed-in ballots and in-person ballots both considered accurate?

Or will you be manipulating to your taste?

What a riot.

It's a Republican primary, run by Republicans, for Republicans. And it's still too much for Republicans to handle.

"We'll just assume that 100% of the ballots that arrive were not the result of ballot harvesting"

What's the minimum amount of ballot harvestees it takes for AT LEAST ONE to come forward? Five? Ten? Ten Thousand???

Now...let's say you believe there are tens of thousands of incidences...what is the minimum amount of folks you'd expect to come forward? A hundred? A thousand???

Now...let's say NO ONE comes forward. Not for a year, or two, or three, or five. NO ONE. ZERO.

What does that tell you, a purportedly intelligent man?

"Apply for an absentee ballot if you quality."

Who TF are you to tell another legal voter whether or not they "qualify"?!?

It's well known you don't want "certain" voters to vote, and you certainly don't want to make it easier for all legal voters to cast their legal votes.

By contrast, I believe all legal voters should be able to choose their most convenient way to cast their legal vote.

"I really would like to know why you think mail-in ballots are not acceptable? "

Because in-person voting is easier to manipulate.

Long lines, fewer precincts, busline disruptions, construction on main thoroughfares, and speed traps suppress more votes than the BillJohnsons of the world dream of.

"After the election, will someone notify the people who didn't show having voted to verify the accuracy of the system? No."

Bulllllschittt. Here's one of your central flaws. At this scale, there would be DOZENS of voters who checked. WHERE ARE THEY??? After five years, NO ONE has come forward.

"The required checks and balances for a manual system just goes on and on coving all the bases and potential areas for errors.'

And one of those bases is the human factor. After a close, emotional election, it's MORE LIKELY folks would come forward. ZERO CAME FORWARD.

"Early voting takes care of any claims people are being suppressed to not vote."

You're pretending the single mother living paycheck to paycheck who can't afford 4 hrs off work plus two bus fares doesn't exist. Sorry, but that clearly happens more than ALL YOUR INSTANCES TIMES TEN. (I'm just kidding; you have zero instances, to it's really more like all your instances times infinity squared. STILL ZERO)

"Why make voting more complicated and less reliable and more risky if you don't have to?"

Less reliable?!? You still don't have the first iota of proof. 30+ years for Oregon. 150+ years for the military.

Meanwhile...0+0 instances of BillJohnson proving his cockamamie theory.

Times infinity.

" are we actually making the argument that mail in voting is MORE secure than in person voting?"

No, I'm making the argument in-person is easier to suppress, at rates MUCH higher than any proven voter fraud.

I named five ways. What's your direct response to each?

"Or, show up to vote..."

Sorry, on Election Day, that bridge was closed. There's another bridge 45 minutes South of here...is that okay?

"are we actually making the argument that mail in voting is MORE secure "

No, just more inclusive.

And since you can't seem to produce any VOTER fraud at scale, you're clearly searching for a problem which doesn't exist.

In fact, any reading of the Heritage Foundation's compendium on vote fraud convictions will show a few obvious facts:

1. States average about one vote fraud conviction per state, per year.
2. Most fraud is committed by "The Three Cs": Canvassers, Cullers, and Counters. NOT Voters
3. When it's voters, it's almost always +1: they moved, or someone passed in the household.
4. Fraud at scale is self-defeating.

Oh, and one extra tidbit: The most common answer when asked why? I thought the other side was doing it. Congratulations, BillJohnson, your lies built that!!!

"It presumes that all voter fraud gets discovered. "

Duuuude, look at the big picture.

First, in 85% of the states, it's moot.

Next, the risk-reward is stupid-bad. 1 year and $10,000 per vote?!? GTFOH

Now, logistics...you're going to, what...get back in line at the same precinct?!? After how long of a costume change? And you're going to say a name out loud someone in the room might know?!? And you're going to do that a dozen times to vote in an election decided by 40,000 votes? GTFOH.

And don't get me started on the idea scores of thousands of mailed ballots being STOLEN! ...yet after five years, ZERO people have come forward. What are the odds?

Seriously....WHAT ARE THE ODDS??? Oh, right...prohibitive. In fact, at this point...insulting.

"...i've never made the argument that it occurs "at scale"."

BillJohnson's theory doesn't work otherwise.

Have you been paying attention??? Tens of thousands of votes were stollen by housemates...yet ZERO people have come forward. What does that tell you?

"I've always used the potential for being "lost", for some reason. "

Except you'd have dozens of cases, from voters who checked on their status and found they did not vote. Instead, you've had ZERO.

"Who exactly are you expecting to come forward?"

Your purported victims. Especially after a close, emotional election.

"Someone involved in ballot harvesting has no incentive to report themselves."

But the victim has EVERY INCENTIVE to come forward. ZERO happenstances means ZERO occurrences...ESPECIALLY after five years, and ZERO examples.

"Voter fraud does happen."

Yeah. At the rate of one conviction per state, per year, on average. Meanwhile, in-person voting is easy to suppress.

" It can only really affect a very tight race though."

So that eliminates 95%+ of the races. Thanks for proving one of my points about alleged voter fraud.

"Millions and millions of dead people voting."

Yet they always have trouble finding ONE.

Years back, AG Kris Kobach of Kansas famously begged the legislature for millions in funding, saying he had "over 100 cases" ready to file against illegal immigrant voters.

After four yearS, and millions of wasted dollars, Kobach found NINE: Two addled seniors, 4 folks who moved from (super red) Western KS to (super red) Eastern CO and voted twice, a pair of garden variety instances, where someone voted for their dead spouse or dead MIL, and ONE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.

When asked who these folks voted for, Kobach's team said they didn't track that. Anybody believe that manure??? No doubt, all 9 voted Republican, or you'd be hearing about it.

"Point being the peole have a vested interest in honest and fair elections and there will always be people from minority's parties who will stick their noses into the process to try and ensure everything is above the board."

Now do Tina Peters.

"Now do Tina Peters."

Then do Donald Trump, calling Raffsenspurger.

" Why make voting more complicated and less reliable and more risky if you don't have to?"

Because it's easier to suppress a vote when it's easiest for you, but not for others.

Every legal voter should be able to cast their legal vote the way they see fit, not the way YOU see fit.

" When I feel like writing more I'll explain how I approached it."

We all know how you approached it: if Republicans won, you concluded that was right. If Democrats won, you concluded that was wrong.

Still: five years, ZERO stolen mail-in votes.