If The Mail Is Such A Safe Voting Method, How Does Pelosi Explain THESE 233,000 SNAFUs?

Written by Wes Walker on August 16, 2020

With COVID at its peak this spring, we had plenty of opportunities to test-drive our system of Mail-in Ballots. Pelosi insists that the Republicans ONLY object because they want to suppress the vote, right? No other reason?

If mass mail-in voting is such a wonderful method of voting, then perhaps she can explain what the hell happened in Clark County, Nevada?

They ran into a bit of a snag in their mail-in system. What was that snag?

More than 223,000 mailed ballots were returned to Clark County as undeliverable mail during the June primary, according to a report by the conservative-leaning Public Interest Legal Foundation and confirmed by the Review-Journal.

Because of COVID-19 concerns, officials opted for the first all-mail election in state history. Unlike other counties, Clark County mailed ballots to all — not just active — voters, in part because of legal pressure from state and national Democrats.

Of the 1,325,934 ballots mailed out in Clark, 223,469 were returned as undeliverable. About 305,000 were returned by voters, verified and counted by the county.

About 58 percent of the undeliverable ballots belonged to inactive voters — those who have failed to confirm their address with the county but remain registered. Inactive voters are removed from the rolls entirely if they miss two consecutive federal elections. —Las Vegas Review-Journal

This news broke last week. And yet, the Democrats have STILL been pushing for maximum mail in ballots for the Federal election.

This issue shines a light on what exactly can go wrong when they’re blindly sent out to everybody. There’s no telling whose mailbox they’re winding up in.

Is it going to the right voter? Do lawful voters miss out on their chance to vote because their details weren’t updated? Are ballots sent out to the new AND the old address? If so, what happens to those extra ballots? Are they falling into the hands of honest people, or unscrupulous ones who would jump at the chance at an extra vote or two if it means the guy they want to beat loses?

There is a word for these things: disenfranchisement.

Pelosi knows about all of this because Republicans filed a lawsuit against Nevada’s use of this same system in November. But Pelosi pretends this is motivated by Trump wanting to suppress legal voters, not make the process more transparent. Then again, that’s a drum she and her media flunkies have been beating for years.

There is another problem that hasn’t been raised yet.

One that becomes especially relevant now that the Postal Service leadership has endorsed a candidate.

It is reported that some ballots have indicated an (R) or a (D) on the outside of the envelope.

If this happens in any of the federal ballots, what would that mean for the sanctity of the secret ballot process?

We have already seen instances of political interference by one or more rogue, motivated and unscrupulous mail carriers.

Would such identifiers on an envelope result in temptation for others to go rogue — especially if one party is running on a promise to spend more money on their department. It’s a simple question of self-interest and self-preservation.

These are the sorts of questions that should be fired back at Pelosi by an honest press.

If we had such a thing.