@raphjd
One thing at a time: (you have a bad habit of starting with one argument, then as we're beginning to get into it, you start with a "what about this" foray into something else! A debate coach would tell you this is a classic "Red Herring fallacy")
Pennsylvania
If there were problems with the vote count, or the interpretation (or even the implementation) of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, they are up to the Legislators (and courts) in Pennsylvania to decide! NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
If there were legislators from Pennsylvania who took offense at how the election was being run, they had multiple opportunities to speak up, say something, file a court case (THEY would have had standing, where the State of Texas did not), or even direct the Secretary of State and/or Supervisors of Elections to do things differently. They did not. The Electoral College votes in Pennsylvania (as they were in all 50 States) were approved by the Legislature (part of the certification process, and duly noted by the Vice President as he read each State's counts on Jan 6).
One of the INGENIOUS (although whether intentional or not is a matter for debate) aspects of our voting system in the US is that it is not centrally managed! If you want to "rig the election" for county commissioner, you just have to foul up the local Supervisor of Elections... not that hard, but I can assure you they're trying to make sure it doesn't happen...
But, if you want to affect the election of, say a US Senator or Governor, you have to foul up dozens of Supervisors of Elections (1 for each county - or whatever your State calls a county)! And, again, they're working really hard to make sure you fail!
Now, if you want to affect the election of the US President... well, you have TENS OF THOUSANDS of jurisdictions you have to affect! ALL of whom are working really hard at discovering any impropriety.
NOT ONLY does each State run its elections by its own laws, but each county runs its elections according to their own laws!
This makes it incredibly hard (certainly not impossible) to have sufficient impact on an election to both alter the results and remain undetected!
If you want to make it easier to commit fraud in a national election, then by all means, nationalize the voting mechanisms!
Ballot Harvesting
Such a great term - what does it mean, though? It means people went to places, like retirement homes & hospitals, and collected ballots from the people there. What people? Voters, who had every right to vote, but had obstacles to being able to complete the task.
Their votes are tied (in many cases, as-if they were absentee ballots) to the voters, so there is traceability: not the actual ballot to the actual person - that would violate the concept of secret ballot, but those ballots are put into envelopes - sealed envelopes - that have the name, date, and signature of the voter on them. In some jurisdictions, they're even NOTARIZED. How is that a fraud?
NOTE: in some states, this is legal, where in others is it not. It's up to the individual States to decide - NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Texas woman 134 counts of voter fraud
OK, so one lady accounted for 134 extra votes... in Texas. I doubt there was a single race in Texas that 134 votes would have changed. Plus, the woman was caught (remember those Supervisors of Elections? they're not stupid!).
unsolicited mail-in ballots
Again, the assumption here is that these ballots are somehow anonymously filled out and accepted as valid votes. That's outright hogwash. I can't speak for every state, but here in Florida (not exactly well known for our voting prowess LOL), every vote is accountable to a voter:
- at the end of the day in the voting center, the number of votes in the box must be less than or equal to the number of people who signed in and received a ballot. When a voter asks for a new ballot, the old one is destroyed: in front of witnesses.
- mail-in ballots, regardless of how they arrive, are checked against voter rolls, and signatures are verified (as well as other means). Mail-in balloting is processed as it arrives,up until 2-days before the election. At that time, the "rosters" for each precinct are prepared so that workers will know if someone tries to vote multiple times.
I could go on, but the manuals about how to properly match each vote to a voter are lengthy and detailed. Suffice it to say: the people who run our elections are professionals They aren't new at this, and I doubt that you or I, if we worked at it for months ahead of time, could find a way to thwart their security protocols without being detected.
Amazon
Again, it is a myth that mail-in-voting is somehow untraceable to specific voters.... a myth that works for you solely if your goal is to reduce turnout! But in a Democracy, that should never be our goal! The goal of virtually every Supervisor of Elections in the US is (or should be) to allow EVERY ELIGIBLE VOTER to cast their vote, and to make it as easy and convenient as possible to do so without sacrificing the integrity of the process.
MANY OF THESE PEOPLE DEVOTE THEIR LIVES TO THIS! These are not "weekend warriors" called in to plan and supervise elections a few weeks out of the year! These are professionals who plan and prepare ALL YEAR, EVERY YEAR for elections!
