>>> That AP article is rather poorly written, which has lowered my opinion of the AP.

>> Whether or not the Associated Press article is poorly written is not important.

> Not for your line of misinformation, no, but it's very poorly written.

You're just pissed at the article because it showed that you don't know what you're talking about.

>> What IS important is that it proves that you don't know S H I T , yet you project yourself as if you do.

> All appearances indicate that my reading comprehension is quite a bit better than yours.

There's that arrogance surfacing again. I can play the game too. All appearances indicate that MY reading comprehension is quite a bit better than YOURS.

>> You steadfastly insisted that ballot harvesting was/is not legal in California and the article proves otherwise.

> The problem is you throw the ill-defined term "ballot harvesting" around freely in hopes that people will automatically equate it with the nefarious practice of dead people voting, in other words someone marking multiple ballots an returning them, masquerading as a number of different voters.

Wrong. I never said that was ballot harvesting. It's certainly happening, but it would probably be incorrect to call it ballot harvesting.

> California law proscribes this behavior, and the mail-in/absentee voting procedures are designed to prevent it: someone can collect a number of ballots and return them PROVIDED they have not marked the ballots, they identify the fact that they are returning them on behalf of someone else on each return envelope, and if paid to so do, it cannot be on a piecework rate.

What's to prevent the ballot collector from tossing the ballots, sealed envelopes and all, in a trash can? Maybe the dude collecting the ballots is pro-"Candidate A" and he knows that he's collecting ballots in an area that has historically proven to be in favor of the party of "Candidate B". Arizona was pulling this s h i t by having voting machines that were inoperable or were frequently plagued with operational problems in precincts favoring "Candidate A" while machines were working perfectly in precincts favoring "Candidate B".

> Your constant carping about this being "ballot harvesting" displays an extremely negative mindset.

When your party loses, you can moan and b i t c h as much as these Democrats:

[youtu.be]

> Apparently you would readily deny wheelchair-bound residents of a retirement community the right to vote simply because they have very limited means of getting to a post office or drop box to return their ballots.

Under those circumstances, there should be a system where the duly-qualified representative for the Republican party stops by and collets the ballots at 5 pm and the duly-qualified representative for the Democrat party stops by and collets the ballots at an hour later --- or some other similar system.

> This attitude is consistent with GOPlican voter suppression tactics.

And, as I stated earlier, people on your side of the aisle want voting to be as casual as using the urinal at the Palmdale McDonalds.

You seem to think that, when it comes to elections, everything is as clean as a whistle and it's all rainbows, waterfalls and unicorns. If that's the case, why has Judicial Watch been so busy trying to clean up the mess and corruption?

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]