Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
On Jun 2, 2026 at 9:59:12 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
This is just the primary. He only has to come in second and knock out West >Coast Mamdani (Raman).
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2026 at 9:59:12 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
This is just the primary. He only has to come in second and knock out West >> Coast Mamdani (Raman).
I wanted to comment on her lead to suggest what might happen in the top
two runoff, but yes, I should have listed other top-performing
candidates.
Right now, AP has
Karen Ruth Bass 172,720 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 151,149 30.4%
a difference of 21,571 votes. Her lead shrank.
Nithya Raman 110,848 22.3%
No one else is even close.
I thought candidates ran with party labels but AP lists everyone as nonpartisan in the race for mayor.
https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/los-angeles-california-general-results-mayor/
Whoa. Hilton is the top votegetter for governor for the moment.
Steve Hilton GOP 1,386,966 27.8%
Xavier Becerra Dem 1,267,070 25.4%
Tom Steyer Dem 979,007 19.6%
Chad Bianco GOP 566,679 11.3%
None of the rest are close.
Hilton had been a Fox News commentator and had been a political advisor
to David Cameron; not sure what his expertise on UK affairs was.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2026 at 9:59:12 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
This is just the primary. He only has to come in second and knock out West >> Coast Mamdani (Raman).
I wanted to comment on her lead to suggest what might happen in the top
two runoff, but yes, I should have listed other top-performing
candidates.
Right now, AP has
Karen Ruth Bass 172,720 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 151,149 30.4%
a difference of 21,571 votes. Her lead shrank.
Nithya Raman 110,848 22.3%
No one else is even close.
I thought candidates ran with party labels but AP lists everyone as nonpartisan in the race for mayor.
https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/los-angeles-california-general-results-mayor/
Whoa. Hilton is the top votegetter for governor for the moment.
Steve Hilton GOP 1,386,966 27.8%
Xavier Becerra Dem 1,267,070 25.4%
Tom Steyer Dem 979,007 19.6%
Chad Bianco GOP 566,679 11.3%
None of the rest are close.
Hilton had been a Fox News commentator and had been a political advisor
to David Cameron; not sure what his expertise on UK affairs was.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2026 at 9:59:12 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
This is just the primary. He only has to come in second and knock out West >> Coast Mamdani (Raman).
I wanted to comment on her lead to suggest what might happen in the top
two runoff, but yes, I should have listed other top-performing
candidates.
Whoa. Hilton is the top votegetter for governor for the moment.
Steve Hilton GOP 1,386,966 27.8%
Xavier Becerra Dem 1,267,070 25.4%
Tom Steyer Dem 979,007 19.6%
Chad Bianco GOP 566,679 11.3%
None of the rest are close.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2026 at 9:59:12 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
This is just the primary. He only has to come in second and knock out West >> Coast Mamdani (Raman).
I wanted to comment on her lead to suggest what might happen in the top
two runoff, but yes, I should have listed other top-performing
candidates.
Right now, AP has
Karen Ruth Bass 172,720 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 151,149 30.4%
a difference of 21,571 votes. Her lead shrank.
Nithya Raman 110,848 22.3%
No one else is even close.
I thought candidates ran with party labels but AP lists everyone as nonpartisan in the race for mayor.
https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/los-angeles-california-general-results-mayor/
Whoa. Hilton is the top votegetter for governor for the moment.
Steve Hilton GOP 1,386,966 27.8%
Xavier Becerra Dem 1,267,070 25.4%
Tom Steyer Dem 979,007 19.6%
Chad Bianco GOP 566,679 11.3%
None of the rest are close.
Hilton had been a Fox News commentator and had been a political advisor
to David Cameron; not sure what his expertise on UK affairs was.
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
On Jun 3, 2026 at 7:12:45 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2026 at 9:59:12 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
This is just the primary. He only has to come in second and knock out West >>> Coast Mamdani (Raman).
I wanted to comment on her lead to suggest what might happen in the top
two runoff, but yes, I should have listed other top-performing
candidates.
Right now, AP has
Karen Ruth Bass 172,720 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 151,149 30.4%
a difference of 21,571 votes. Her lead shrank.
Nithya Raman 110,848 22.3%
No one else is even close.
I thought candidates ran with party labels but AP lists everyone as
nonpartisan in the race for mayor.
https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/los-angeles-california-general-results-mayor/
Whoa. Hilton is the top votegetter for governor for the moment.
Steve Hilton GOP 1,386,966 27.8%
Xavier Becerra Dem 1,267,070 25.4%
Tom Steyer Dem 979,007 19.6%
Chad Bianco GOP 566,679 11.3%
None of the rest are close.
Hilton had been a Fox News commentator and had been a political advisor
to David Cameron; not sure what his expertise on UK affairs was.
If he wins, we'll have a governor with a British accent.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2026 at 9:59:12 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Bass is leading Pratt by 25,000 votes.
This is just the primary. He only has to come in second and knock out West >>Coast Mamdani (Raman).
I wanted to comment on her lead to suggest what might happen in the top
two runoff, but yes, I should have listed other top-performing
candidates.
Right now, AP has
Karen Ruth Bass 172,720 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 151,149 30.4%
a difference of 21,571 votes. Her lead shrank.
Nithya Raman 110,848 22.3%
No one else is even close.
I thought candidates ran with party labels but AP lists everyone as >nonpartisan in the race for mayor.
https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/los-angeles-california-general-results-mayor/
Whoa. Hilton is the top votegetter for governor for the moment.
Steve Hilton GOP 1,386,966 27.8%
Xavier Becerra Dem 1,267,070 25.4%
Tom Steyer Dem 979,007 19.6%
Chad Bianco GOP 566,679 11.3%
None of the rest are close.
Hilton had been a Fox News commentator and had been a political advisor
to David Cameron; not sure what his expertise on UK affairs was.
6/6/2026
Karen Ruth Bass 235,180 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 184,596 27.3%
Nithya Raman 177,102 26.2%
Bass still leads for the first spot but Raman has gained considerably in
the race for the second spot.
Photo op for Bass
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m2WFOfWxiL8
On Jun 6, 2026 at 8:41:32 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Karen Ruth Bass 235,180 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 184,596 27.3%
Nithya Raman 177,102 26.2%
Bass still leads for the first spot but Raman has gained considerably in
the race for the second spot.
They just had a 30,000-vote ballot drop (from where, I have no idea, probably from the back of some Dem operative's car) and Pratt got exactly zero votes out of that entire 30,000. That's statistically impossible.
The fix is in.
On 6/7/26 11:24 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 6, 2026 at 8:41:32 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Karen Ruth Bass 235,180 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 184,596 27.3%
Nithya Raman 177,102 26.2%
Bass still leads for the first spot but Raman has gained considerably in >>> the race for the second spot.
They just had a 30,000-vote ballot drop (from where, I have no idea,
probably
from the back of some Dem operative's car) and Pratt got exactly zero votes >> out of that entire 30,000. That's statistically impossible.
The fix is in.
Look upthread - Who told you this was guaranteed to happen?!
I don't care what anyone says - I have zero faith in California's voting process. I will always believe that they are just manufacturing the
votes they need. It's why I have basically stopped voting here.
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Yes, Spencer Pratt is likely going to be overtaken by far-left communist Nithya Raman today. Raman did this by suddenly winning 1st in every new ballot
drop.
North Korean elections have more self-respect than this. Even they'd find it absurd for 3rd to suddenly jump to 1st place in every ballot drop, days after the polls have closed. It's just ludicrous.
This is really pulling the mask off. The previous narrative was "late ballots always lean toward Democrats, it's just demographics". But now we are seeing that late ballots apparently don't just lean toward Democrats. They lean toward the specific Democrat who needs more votes to shut out the Republican.
That is simply not possible. When statistically impossible things happen, we should not be expected as a society to accept them. Evidence of fraud isn't limited to video surveillance. Statistical impossibilities are hard evidence of fraud.
"A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday."
43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before?
Oh, right, the L.A. Times: "43,699 people experience homelessness on any given
night in Los Angeles." -- March 18, 2026
Eh, it's probably a coincidence. I mean, it's not like the Democrat Socialists
of America (DSA)-- of which Raman is a member-- was recently caught red-handed
sitting out on the sidewalks in Skid Row paying vagrants to register to vote. (Which is a crime, by the way, but no one was charged, despite the evidence being incontrovertible. Hell, so great is their sense of impunity, their stooges were stupid enough to admit it on camera.)
How do the homeless register to vote, you may ask, since they by definition don't live anywhere specific? Turns out that the tens of thousands of homeless
ballots are sent to central addresses provided by the DSA where they can easily be filled out and returned by someone else using the signature loophole
described below. The vagrants never even see the ballots they've registered to
receive.
And wouldn't you know it, a preliminary analysis of the ballots that put Raman
over Pratt show that the vast majority of these late-arriving ballots all came
from Skid Row. With tens of thousands of homeless in Los Angeles, their ballots alone are enough to sway the outcome of most local elections.
Just a few thousand votes
Saturday night, the mayoral race had in 65.8% of expected votes, with 291,000 outstanding.
Sunday, they suddenly only had 64.3% of expected votes in (less than Saturday)
with an estimated 311,000 outstanding (more than Saturday).
Apparently their plan was to just keep increasing the number of remaining votes depending on how many they needed to push Nithya Raman past Spencer Pratt.
Journalist Jennifer Callahan was part of a media group that was given a tour of the Central Ballot Processing Center to (allegedly) prove transparency. This was her report:
-----------------
Wildest takeaways from my time at the Ballot Processing Center today...
--Signatures only need to be 40% accurate (!) This is the setting on which the
machines are set for L.A. County (called the ASV) Does that mean our elections
are only 40% secure?
--The last two drops disproportionately supported Raman. I asked, Are those coming from specific neighborhoods since they're such an anomaly? Or do you count from a variety of neighborhoods on a given day? Answer: "We're not sure."
--If you're unable to sign your ballot, you can make a mark like a dot or slash instead of signing. A witness then signs above your mark, supposedly attesting that it was you that signed and cast the ballot. Here, the person drew a happy face and it was "witnessed" with a scribble. That scribble isn't validated as being a real person. No name, nothing.
https://ibb.co/bgwdZ0pJ
While a happy face might draw scrutiny during the counting, a plain line would
not.
I asked them how they verify these witness signatures. Turns out, they simply don't. This could hypothetically enable mass harvesting where the voter never fills out, signs, or even sees their own ballot.
"Well, you must check the witness signatures, right?" "No, we don't."
So what if I stole a ballot, made a dash by the person's name on the signature
line, and signed some random name on the witness line? "You shouldn't do that,
but in theory the ballot would be counted," they said.
What is the percentage of these "marked" ballots received in an average election? "We don?t know," they said.
There are no requirements that the witness be a registered voter, a family member, a notary, or have any specific relationship to the voter. No identification, address, or further verification of the witness is required on
the envelope itself. The only theoretical verification check in the process is
comparing the overall envelope (voter's mark + witness) to the voter's registration record. That's it. And they admittedly don't even do that.
Meanwhile, you can go to any South Central apartment complex and there are hundreds of mailed ballots littering the ground around the mailboxes for anyone to pick up because California refuses to clean up its voter rolls and mails a ballot to anyone who's ever been registered at a given address. I received three myself-- my own and one each for the previous two tenants who lived in my apartment before me.
-----------------
And then we come to the registration process itself, which can be completed the SAME DAY as the ballot is cast. A person can walk into a polling place and
register, then immediately cast a ballot. But it gets worse. What kind of ID is allowed under California law for registration? Let's see...
--Gym membership card
--Employer ID card
--Credit or debit card
--Prescription drug label
--Insurance card (this is key because California provides free health insurance to illegals, thereby handing them a piece of ID that they can use to
register to vote)
2 CCR ? 20107, 7(b): This section shall be liberally construed to permit voters and new registrants to cast ballots. Any doubt as to the the sufficiency of proof of a document presented shall be resolved in favor of permitting the voter or new registrant to cast a ballot.
The fraud is baked right into the law.
We're apparently turning our election integrity process over to Planet Fitness
now. And the idea that you can just wander into a polling place with an empty pill bottle you found on the ground and become a register voter, then led over
to the ballot machine to vote is simply mad.
It's so insane that I bet if I used this to register, they'd let me:
https://ibb.co/qSQK1bR
Basically, in California, you have to present some kind of "identification" to
register to vote, but it's illegal to require the same person to present any identification to cast a vote. Which means you can lie about who you are to register and it's illegal to ask for confirmation of that lie.
And then there's Gavin Newsom's last-minute executive order on the eve of the election that prohibits any state employee from providing law enforcement access to any election related materials or machines. Nothing says 'election integrity' like the governor issuing an order to obstruct any investigation into this banana republic process.
And the final cherry on this shit sundae? The local news was part of the tour of the processing center and they filmed workers opening ballots and checking them... and one of them was blind. Because we're all about DEI, dontcha know, so they see nothing wrong with a blind person verifying and counting ballots where the only security check on election integrity is a VISUAL COMPARISON OF SIGNATURES. It's bad enough the machines are set at 40%. We have humans doing it who are set at 0%.
But there's no fraud, they say. Trust us, they say.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Yes, Spencer Pratt is likely going to be overtaken by far-left communist >Nithya Raman today. Raman did this by suddenly winning 1st in every new ballot >drop.
And then we come to the registration process itself, which can be completed >the SAME DAY as the ballot is cast. A person can walk into a polling place and >register, then immediately cast a ballot.
But it gets worse. What kind of ID
is allowed under California law for registration? Let's see...
--Gym membership card
--Employer ID card
--Credit or debit card
--Prescription drug label
--Insurance card (this is key because California provides free health >insurance to illegals, thereby handing them a piece of ID that they can use to >register to vote)
2 CCR ? 20107, 7(b): This section shall be liberally construed to permit >voters and new registrants to cast ballots. Any doubt as to the the >sufficiency of proof of a document presented shall be resolved in favor of >permitting the voter or new registrant to cast a ballot.
The fraud is baked right into the law.
. . .
On 2026-06-08 2:14 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>This system is so flagrantly crooked that it boggles my mind. I don't understand how any of this could withstand judicial scrutiny unless the judges are just as dirty as the legislators who come up with this
wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Yes, Spencer Pratt is likely going to be overtaken by far-left communist
Nithya Raman today. Raman did this by suddenly winning 1st in every
new ballot
drop.
North Korean elections have more self-respect than this. Even they'd
find it
absurd for 3rd to suddenly jump to 1st place in every ballot drop,
days after
the polls have closed. It's just ludicrous.
This is really pulling the mask off. The previous narrative was "late
ballots
always lean toward Democrats, it's just demographics". But now we are
seeing
that late ballots apparently don't just lean toward Democrats. They lean
toward the specific Democrat who needs more votes to shut out the
Republican.
That is simply not possible. When statistically impossible things
happen, we
should not be expected as a society to accept them. Evidence of fraud
isn't
limited to video surveillance. Statistical impossibilities are hard
evidence
of fraud.
"A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday."
43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before?
Oh, right, the L.A. Times: "43,699 people experience homelessness on
any given
night in Los Angeles." -- March 18, 2026
Eh, it's probably a coincidence. I mean, it's not like the Democrat
Socialists
of America (DSA)-- of which Raman is a member-- was recently caught
red-handed
sitting out on the sidewalks in Skid Row paying vagrants to register
to vote.
(Which is a crime, by the way, but no one was charged, despite the
evidence
being incontrovertible. Hell, so great is their sense of impunity, their
stooges were stupid enough to admit it on camera.)
How do the homeless register to vote, you may ask, since they by
definition
don't live anywhere specific? Turns out that the tens of thousands of
homeless
ballots are sent to central addresses provided by the DSA where they can
easily be filled out and returned by someone else using the signature
loophole
described below. The vagrants never even see the ballots they've
registered to
receive.
And wouldn't you know it, a preliminary analysis of the ballots that
put Raman
over Pratt show that the vast majority of these late-arriving ballots
all came
from Skid Row. With tens of thousands of homeless in Los Angeles, their
ballots alone are enough to sway the outcome of most local elections.
Just a few thousand votes
Saturday night, the mayoral race had in 65.8% of expected votes, with
291,000
outstanding.
Sunday, they suddenly only had 64.3% of expected votes in (less than
Saturday)
with an estimated 311,000 outstanding (more than Saturday).
Apparently their plan was to just keep increasing the number of remaining
votes depending on how many they needed to push Nithya Raman past Spencer
Pratt.
Journalist Jennifer Callahan was part of a media group that was given
a tour
of the Central Ballot Processing Center to (allegedly) prove
transparency.
This was her report:
-----------------
Wildest takeaways from my time at the Ballot Processing Center today...
--Signatures only need to be 40% accurate (!) This is the setting on
which the
machines are set for L.A. County (called the ASV) Does that mean our
elections
are only 40% secure?
--The last two drops disproportionately supported Raman. I asked, Are
those
coming from specific neighborhoods since they're such an anomaly? Or
do you
count from a variety of neighborhoods on a given day? Answer: "We're not
sure."
--If you're unable to sign your ballot, you can make a mark like a dot or
slash instead of signing. A witness then signs above your mark,
supposedly
attesting that it was you that signed and cast the ballot. Here, the
person
drew a happy face and it was "witnessed" with a scribble. That
scribble isn't
validated as being a real person. No name, nothing.
https://ibb.co/bgwdZ0pJ
While a happy face might draw scrutiny during the counting, a plain
line would
not.
I asked them how they verify these witness signatures. Turns out, they
simply
don't. This could hypothetically enable mass harvesting where the
voter never
fills out, signs, or even sees their own ballot.
"Well, you must check the witness signatures, right?" "No, we don't."
So what if I stole a ballot, made a dash by the person's name on the
signature
line, and signed some random name on the witness line? "You shouldn't
do that,
but in theory the ballot would be counted," they said.
What is the percentage of these "marked" ballots received in an average
election? "We don?t know," they said.
There are no requirements that the witness be a registered voter, a
family
member, a notary, or have any specific relationship to the voter. No
identification, address, or further verification of the witness is
required on
the envelope itself. The only theoretical verification check in the
process is
comparing the overall envelope (voter's mark + witness) to the voter's
registration record. That's it. And they admittedly don't even do that.
Meanwhile, you can go to any South Central apartment complex and there
are
hundreds of mailed ballots littering the ground around the mailboxes for
anyone to pick up because California refuses to clean up its voter
rolls and
mails a ballot to anyone who's ever been registered at a given address. I
received three myself-- my own and one each for the previous two
tenants who
lived in my apartment before me.
-----------------
And then we come to the registration process itself, which can be
completed
the SAME DAY as the ballot is cast. A person can walk into a polling
place and
register, then immediately cast a ballot. But it gets worse. What kind
of ID
is allowed under California law for registration? Let's see...
--Gym membership card
--Employer ID card
--Credit or debit card
--Prescription drug label
--Insurance card (this is key because California provides free health
insurance to illegals, thereby handing them a piece of ID that they
can use to
register to vote)
2 CCR ? 20107, 7(b): This section shall be liberally construed to permit
voters and new registrants to cast ballots. Any doubt as to the the
sufficiency of proof of a document presented shall be resolved in
favor of
permitting the voter or new registrant to cast a ballot.
The fraud is baked right into the law.
We're apparently turning our election integrity process over to Planet
Fitness
now. And the idea that you can just wander into a polling place with
an empty
pill bottle you found on the ground and become a register voter, then
led over
to the ballot machine to vote is simply mad.
It's so insane that I bet if I used this to register, they'd let me:
https://ibb.co/qSQK1bR
Basically, in California, you have to present some kind of
"identification" to
register to vote, but it's illegal to require the same person to
present any
identification to cast a vote. Which means you can lie about who you
are to
register and it's illegal to ask for confirmation of that lie.
And then there's Gavin Newsom's last-minute executive order on the eve
of the
election that prohibits any state employee from providing law enforcement
access to any election related materials or machines. Nothing says
'election
integrity' like the governor issuing an order to obstruct any
investigation
into this banana republic process.
And the final cherry on this shit sundae? The local news was part of
the tour
of the processing center and they filmed workers opening ballots and
checking
them... and one of them was blind. Because we're all about DEI,
dontcha know,
so they see nothing wrong with a blind person verifying and counting
ballots
where the only security check on election integrity is a VISUAL
COMPARISON OF
SIGNATURES. It's bad enough the machines are set at 40%. We have
humans doing
it who are set at 0%.
But there's no fraud, they say. Trust us, they say.
nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, anyone elected under this system has
no more legitimacy than Kim Jung Un.
I don't understand why Californians let this happen.
I don't understand
why the feds let this happen; this would seem like a prime opportunity
for Trump to act. I realize that the state can set its own electoral
system but don't the feds have some kind of leverage to ensure that the state system isn't the kind of atrocity that California has?
. . .
It's very simple - the majority of CA voters are Dems or Dem-leaners. So >they like and fully approve of a system that "rigs" elections for Democrats.
It truly believe that if they ever put a proposition on the ballot to
"ban" the Republican party - indeed to ban *all* center or center-right >political parties in Calif. - it would easily pass. I suspect that would
be true even if the proposition allowed for the jailing of >Republican-registered voters.
It's that bad here.
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
. . .
It's very simple - the majority of CA voters are Dems or Dem-leaners. So
they like and fully approve of a system that "rigs" elections for Democrats.
I blame voters for bad outcomes who knowingly fail to vote the bastards
out. That is a far cry from saying that voters want fraud committed for
a specific outcome, voters who don't want to live in an ideal American democracy.
It truly believe that if they ever put a proposition on the ballot to
"ban" the Republican party - indeed to ban *all* center or center-right
political parties in Calif. - it would easily pass. I suspect that would
be true even if the proposition allowed for the jailing of
Republican-registered voters.
It's that bad here.
Damn. That's over-the-top obnoxious.
I'm a Democrat. I have never accused Republicans of anything comparable
to the unfounded accusations you've made here. I want there to be
competitive elections. I believe in systems that are adversarial but
without vitriol.
On 6/8/26 12:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
. . .
It's very simple - the majority of CA voters are Dems or Dem-leaners. So >>>they like and fully approve of a system that "rigs" elections for Democrats.
I blame voters for bad outcomes who knowingly fail to vote the bastards >>out. That is a far cry from saying that voters want fraud committed for
a specific outcome, voters who don't want to live in an ideal American >>democracy.
It truly believe that if they ever put a proposition on the ballot to >>>"ban" the Republican party - indeed to ban *all* center or center-right >>>political parties in Calif. - it would easily pass. I suspect that would >>>be true even if the proposition allowed for the jailing of >>>Republican-registered voters.
It's that bad here.
Damn. That's over-the-top obnoxious.
I'm a Democrat. I have never accused Republicans of anything comparable
to the unfounded accusations you've made here. I want there to be >>competitive elections. I believe in systems that are adversarial but >>without vitriol.
You're not a California Democrat, especially not a Bay Area Democrat. So
you don't know.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Yes, Spencer Pratt is likely going to be overtaken by far-left communist
Nithya Raman today. Raman did this by suddenly winning 1st in every new
ballot
drop.
There should be a way to prove this statistically.
And then we come to the registration process itself, which can be completed >> the SAME DAY as the ballot is cast. A person can walk into a polling place >> and
register, then immediately cast a ballot.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with regitering at the time the ballot
is cast. My state allows it both in person at the polls or as "grace
period registration" at an early voting site but one must both register
and cast a ballot; it cannot be two separate actions.
Any terminal used for voter registration has access to the same
federally required Motor Voter database, same that's used in the
election authority's back office if a voter registers while voter registration is open.
But it gets worse. What kind of ID
is allowed under California law for registration? Let's see...
--Gym membership card
--Employer ID card
--Credit or debit card
--Prescription drug label
--Insurance card (this is key because California provides free health
insurance to illegals, thereby handing them a piece of ID that they can use >> to
register to vote)
In my state, one must prove name and address. Sometimes if the move is
too close to election day, there are no utility bills yet, so the voter
casts a provisional ballot which is NOT counted till registration is completed by responding to a letter in the mail and providing nissing documents.
Even a homeless person can do this without fraud if he routinely
receives mail at a PO Box or shelter. This is required in federal law, together with a Supreme Court decision I've forgotten.
It just occurred to me that if the Social Security Administration Enumeration-at-birth database were included in the database state
election officials check to verify identity and residence, rather than
just the last four digits of the SSN, it would serve as a rudimentary citizenship check as that program is exclusively for the joint
application for an SSN and birth certificate issued in the United
States. It's a four decade old program now, including nearly everyborn
born in the United States for at least the last three decades.
2 CCR ? 20107, 7(b): This section shall be liberally construed to permit
voters and new registrants to cast ballots. Any doubt as to the the
sufficiency of proof of a document presented shall be resolved in favor of >> permitting the voter or new registrant to cast a ballot.
The fraud is baked right into the law.
That's amazingly stupid. Your state is clearly at the bottom on this
issue.
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
Turns out Nithya Raman lost her *own* district (CD-4) to Spencer Pratt and >Karen Bass, but they expect us to believe she legitimately beat them both by >winning 40% of the vote in the rest of the city by mail-in ballots.
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
Turns out Nithya Raman lost her *own* district (CD-4) to Spencer Pratt and >Karen Bass, but they expect us to believe she legitimately beat them both by >winning 40% of the vote in the rest of the city by mail-in ballots.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
Turns out Nithya Raman lost her *own* district (CD-4) to Spencer Pratt and >>Karen Bass, but they expect us to believe she legitimately beat them both by >>winning 40% of the vote in the rest of the city by mail-in ballots.
AP has called the race.
Calif. Los Angeles Nonpartisan Election
Mayor
92% of votes counted
Karen Ruth Bass and Nithya Raman advance to a runoff election.
Karen Ruth Bass NP 275,992 34.3%
Nithya Raman NP 229,576 28.6%
Spencer Pratt NP 207,757 25.8%
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 20:10:04 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
Turns out Nithya Raman lost her *own* district (CD-4) to Spencer Pratt and >> Karen Bass, but they expect us to believe she legitimately beat them both by >> winning 40% of the vote in the rest of the city by mail-in ballots.
I do not understand the unwillingness to accept mail-in ballot results
given that the state is considered to be mainly Democratic voters as
is the city.
Given that and Pratt having no real background to run on
why would his getting a lack of votes be a surprise.
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 20:39:40 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
Turns out Nithya Raman lost her *own* district (CD-4) to Spencer Pratt and >>> Karen Bass, but they expect us to believe she legitimately beat them both by
winning 40% of the vote in the rest of the city by mail-in ballots.
AP has called the race.
Calif. Los Angeles Nonpartisan Election
Mayor
92% of votes counted
Karen Ruth Bass and Nithya Raman advance to a runoff election.
Karen Ruth Bass NP 275,992 34.3%
Nithya Raman NP 229,576 28.6%
Spencer Pratt NP 207,757 25.8%
So Pratt only lost by about 22000 votes. Seems like a better campaign
and a push to get out the vote might have got him a second place
finish.
On Jun 8, 2026 at 12:11:47 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Yes, Spencer Pratt is likely going to be overtaken by far-left communist >>> Nithya Raman today. Raman did this by suddenly winning 1st in every new
ballot
drop.
There should be a way to prove this statistically.
And then we come to the registration process itself, which can be completed >>> the SAME DAY as the ballot is cast. A person can walk into a polling place >>> and
register, then immediately cast a ballot.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with regitering at the time the ballot
is cast. My state allows it both in person at the polls or as "grace
period registration" at an early voting site but one must both register
and cast a ballot; it cannot be two separate actions.
Any terminal used for voter registration has access to the same
federally required Motor Voter database, same that's used in the
election authority's back office if a voter registers while voter
registration is open.
But it gets worse. What kind of ID
is allowed under California law for registration? Let's see...
--Gym membership card
--Employer ID card
--Credit or debit card
--Prescription drug label
--Insurance card (this is key because California provides free health
insurance to illegals, thereby handing them a piece of ID that they can use >>> to
register to vote)
In my state, one must prove name and address. Sometimes if the move is
too close to election day, there are no utility bills yet, so the voter
casts a provisional ballot which is NOT counted till registration is
completed by responding to a letter in the mail and providing nissing
documents.
Even a homeless person can do this without fraud if he routinely
receives mail at a PO Box or shelter. This is required in federal law,
together with a Supreme Court decision I've forgotten.
It just occurred to me that if the Social Security Administration
Enumeration-at-birth database were included in the database state
election officials check to verify identity and residence, rather than
just the last four digits of the SSN, it would serve as a rudimentary
citizenship check as that program is exclusively for the joint
application for an SSN and birth certificate issued in the United
States. It's a four decade old program now, including nearly everyborn
born in the United States for at least the last three decades.
2 CCR ? 20107, 7(b): This section shall be liberally construed to permit >>> voters and new registrants to cast ballots. Any doubt as to the the
sufficiency of proof of a document presented shall be resolved in favor of >>> permitting the voter or new registrant to cast a ballot.
The fraud is baked right into the law.
That's amazingly stupid. Your state is clearly at the bottom on this
issue.
The fact that California elections routinely can't be resolved for weeks is pretty insane and not common to electoral systems around the world. It never used to even be this way here.
"It's going to take us several weeks to tell you who won a mayoral election where only 870,000 people voted" is failed state shit and should be severely stigmatized.
On Jun 9, 2026 at 1:37:45 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 20:10:04 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
Turns out Nithya Raman lost her *own* district (CD-4) to Spencer Pratt and >>> Karen Bass, but they expect us to believe she legitimately beat them both by
winning 40% of the vote in the rest of the city by mail-in ballots.
I do not understand the unwillingness to accept mail-in ballot results
given that the state is considered to be mainly Democratic voters as
is the city.
Because Raman's group, the Democrat Socialists of America (the same communist >front Mamdani belongs to) has been caught red-handed paying vagrants to >register to vote (a crime) and paying them to forge registrations (also a >crime) and the statistically improbable hurricane of votes for Raman that >rained down right before the cutoff came from Skid Row where tens of thousands >of vagrants are.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2064085854218276864/vid/avc1/1920x1080/ddfYlO3RXNuJeBNq.mp4
Of course they're not prosecuted even when the evidence is caught on camera >because the system is functioning as intended in California. This is what they >power brokers want, so they do it with impunity.
I mean, how much of this shit are we just supposed to shrug and ignore? Even >Richard Daley would be embarrassed about how this looks.
I have no idea if Raman actually won fairly or not but it sure looks >squirrelly, and given the way the system seems set up to facilitate fraud and >the reaction of the politicians toward anyone who suggests making it more >secure and reliable, I have no confidence in the system and neither does any >one else I know. That's a recipe for disaster.
Given that and Pratt having no real background to run on
Neither did Bass when she first ran. Why does that matter with Pratt but not >with Bass?
why would his getting a lack of votes be a surprise.
It's not his vote count that's the surprise.
On Jun 6, 2026 at 11:13:03 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Photo op for Bass
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m2WFOfWxiL8
...and this is how you end up spending $2.4 billion on the homeless and have nothing to show for it except more homeless.
But sure, let's re-elect this grinning goblin so we can have four more years of this kind of corruption.
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 21:09:15 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Jun 9, 2026 at 1:37:45 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 20:10:04 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Jun 7, 2026 at 7:56:38 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Raman has pulled ahead of Pratt for second place.
Just a few thousand votes
Turns out Nithya Raman lost her *own* district (CD-4) to Spencer Pratt and
Karen Bass, but they expect us to believe she legitimately beat them both by
winning 40% of the vote in the rest of the city by mail-in ballots.
I do not understand the unwillingness to accept mail-in ballot results
given that the state is considered to be mainly Democratic voters as
is the city.
Because Raman's group, the Democrat Socialists of America (the same communist
front Mamdani belongs to) has been caught red-handed paying vagrants to
register to vote (a crime) and paying them to forge registrations (also a
crime) and the statistically improbable hurricane of votes for Raman that
rained down right before the cutoff came from Skid Row where tens of
thousands
of vagrants are.
You keep saying that their actions are crimes and that they have been
caught committing those actions. If so why aren't they being arrested?
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2064085854218276864/vid/avc1/1920x1080/ddfYlO3RXNuJeBNq.mp4
Of course they're not prosecuted even when the evidence is caught on camera >> because the system is functioning as intended in California. This is what
they
power brokers want, so they do it with impunity.
If it's functioning as intended then they must not be committing
crimes, right?
I mean, how much of this shit are we just supposed to shrug and ignore? Even >> Richard Daley would be embarrassed about how this looks.
It apparently isn't considered an important issue by the legal system
and by the voters.
I have no idea if Raman actually won fairly or not but it sure looks
squirrelly, and given the way the system seems set up to facilitate fraud and
the reaction of the politicians toward anyone who suggests making it more
secure and reliable, I have no confidence in the system and neither does any >> one else I know. That's a recipe for disaster.
Sounds like the issue isn't with the system but with a lack of
enforcement when people are breaking the law. Assuming that is what is happening.
Given that and Pratt having no real background to run on
Neither did Bass when she first ran. Why does that matter with Pratt but not >> with Bass?
It doesn't. I'm just pointing out that a first timer without any
relevant experience is going to have a harder time attracting voters
than a more experienced candidate. So Bass now has some experience to
point to (whether it's good or bad is up for debate.)
On 2026-06-09 12:03 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 8, 2026 at 12:11:47 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>For many years, Canadian federal elections were decided within 10
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
2 CCR ? 20107, 7(b): This section shall be liberally construed to permit >>>> voters and new registrants to cast ballots. Any doubt as to the the
sufficiency of proof of a document presented shall be resolved in favor of
permitting the voter or new registrant to cast a ballot.
The fraud is baked right into the law.
That's amazingly stupid. Your state is clearly at the bottom on this
issue.
The fact that California elections routinely can't be resolved for weeks is >> pretty insane and not common to electoral systems around the world. It never
used to even be this way here.
"It's going to take us several weeks to tell you who won a mayoral election >> where only 870,000 people voted" is failed state shit and should be severely
stigmatized.
MINUTES of the polls closing in Ontario.
On Jun 6, 2026 at 8:41:32 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >> 6/6/2026
Karen Ruth Bass 235,180 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 184,596 27.3%
Nithya Raman 177,102 26.2%
Bass still leads for the first spot but Raman has gained considerably in
the race for the second spot.
They just had a 30,000-vote ballot drop (from where, I have no idea, probably >from the back of some Dem operative's car) and Pratt got exactly zero votes >out of that entire 30,000. That's statistically impossible.
The fix is in.
Any terminal used for voter registration has access to the same
federally required Motor Voter database, same that's used in the
election authority's back office if a voter registers while voter >registration is open.
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 18:24:44 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Jun 6, 2026 at 8:41:32 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>> 6/6/2026
Karen Ruth Bass 235,180 34.8%
Spencer Pratt 184,596 27.3%
Nithya Raman 177,102 26.2%
Bass still leads for the first spot but Raman has gained considerably in >>> the race for the second spot.
They just had a 30,000-vote ballot drop (from where, I have no idea, probably >>from the back of some Dem operative's car) and Pratt got exactly zero votes >>out of that entire 30,000. That's statistically impossible.
The fix is in.
So what's the second round format? One on one between the top two?
For many years, Canadian federal elections were decided within 10
MINUTES of the polls closing in Ontario. If the Liberals or
Conservatives had enough votes by the time polls closed in Ontario, the >networks would declare the election and essentially stop coverage -
aside from analysis - because the outcome was inevitable. This REALLY
pissed off Western Canada so they finally staggered when the polls
closed and now maintain coverage until the last votes from BC have been >counted. I expect that's roughly 10 minutes after the polls close in BC
but Horny Goat would know much more about this than I do.
We have plenty of advance polls and I think we allow mail-in ballots too
but it's pretty rare to see any riding not decided on election night or
in the wee hours of the next morning; the only time it's happened that I
can remember is when the election is a cliff-hanger. (We actually had at >least one riding decided by a single vote in the last election. When the >margin is that close, there are automatic recounts.)
For many years, Canadian federal elections were decided within 10
MINUTES of the polls closing in Ontario. If the Liberals or
Conservatives had enough votes by the time polls closed in Ontario, the >networks would declare the election and essentially stop coverage -
aside from analysis - because the outcome was inevitable. This REALLY
pissed off Western Canada so they finally staggered when the polls
closed and now maintain coverage until the last votes from BC have been >counted. I expect that's roughly 10 minutes after the polls close in BC
but Horny Goat would know much more about this than I do.
I have no idea if Raman actually won fairly or not but it sure looks >squirrelly, and given the way the system seems set up to facilitate fraud and >the reaction of the politicians toward anyone who suggests making it more >secure and reliable, I have no confidence in the system and neither does any >one else I know. That's a recipe for disaster.
Mon, 8 Jun 2026 19:11:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Any terminal used for voter registration has access to the same
federally required Motor Voter database, same that's used in the
election authority's back office if a voter registers while voter >>registration is open.
In what jurisdictions do driver's licences show citizenship? As far as
I know the ONLY document I own showing my citizenship is my passport.
. . .
And while passports do include place of birth, you can't assume
citizenship from that.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494928:22:03 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 568 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (349K bytes) |
| Messages: | 74,957 |