California's Elections Are a Bad Joke; UPDATE: Suddenly Raman Is Ahead of Pratt in the Odds

By now, everybody is familiar with how absurdly stacked the political system is in California.

The "jungle primary" system was introduced to almost ensure that the top two candidates who make it onto the general election ballot are Democrats, and a while back, when it looked like two Republicans might achieve that this year, Governor Newsom assured Democrats that there was a "Break Glass in Case of Emergency" contingency to ensure that a Democrat would win the election anyway.

He didn't specify exactly what that was, but it was an admission that the system is rigged. "Don't worry folks, we control elections."

As Stalin once said, "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

Of course, the jungle primary is only one mechanism the Democrats use to rig the elections. The bigger one is the utterly insane mail-in voting rules, which ensure that in close elections, or even not-so-close elections, votes will continue to be counted for weeks.

Almost every developed country can tell you who won an election the day of the election, or perhaps the next morning. France can do it. We knew the results in the UK council elections almost immediately. Ecuador announced its results the night of the election, using hand-counted paper ballots and having representatives from each party present to ensure fairness.

It's not complicated. And as any election-integrity official can tell you when monitoring foreign elections, one major red flag for election fraud is when results take an unusually long time to report.

"Mail-in ballots!," we are told. Which is, of course, true, and California's process for counting mail-in ballots creates enormous opportunities for fraud. Ballots don't have to be date-stamped, and can arrive for days after the election, and as all the TV commentators are telling you, you can expect them to be shockingly Blue.

We are told that this is due to strategic voting by savvy political operators, and indicates nothing about shenanigans.

But seriously...why do you believe them? We never would in Venezuela, or any third-world country. The "believe us" argument is absurd, and merely calling accusations of voter fraud "debunked" repeatedly isn't an argument; it's a propaganda tactic to make questioning the methods impossible without sounding nutty.

We have VIDEO of election fraud, and we still are told it never happens. The people DOING the election fraud on camera are often funded by the state through grants, but don't worry, paying homeless people to vote is rare! No illegal aliens vote! People register at postbox addresses because they happen to live in a UPS store!

Zeek Arkham's question is a good one: why is it that EVERY time there is a late vote dump, it is overwhelmingly Democrat? Why do media folks have to report that early surprise totals for Republicans may get wiped away by votes that are banked and uncounted?

Because it is assumed that vote dumps always help Democrats. It is an iron law of nature. Or, should I say, vote rigging.

Despite the fact that almost every Republican rightly suspects that Democrats rig votes where and when they can, the Democrats do absolutely nothing to put in place ballot security measures. In fact, they do the opposite, and fight basic measures such as cleaning dead and moved people from voter rolls, despite this being in federal law. Hundreds of ballots are mailed to single addresses, and that is normal and expected, because those homeless drug addicts are deeply invested in elections and take time off from ingesting that government-provided fentanyl to cast their ballots for Democrats!

Yeah.

https://t.co/d27Hs1XpFr— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) June 3, 2026

Under California law, if a “vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service, but the voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was executed on or before Election Day and the ballot was received by the elections official in accordance with” the law, the ballot can still be counted.
Now, put aside your beliefs on how widespread voter fraud is. Do you think it is a good idea to have one uniform date for all ballots to be due? Or do you think it better to have in-person voting completed on the first Tuesday of the month, and mail-in-ballot collection completed the second Tuesday of the month? Why do states believe it makes sense to have different deadlines for different types of ballots cast in the same election?

The sole argument Democrats have for trusting this system is...insulting anybody who doesn't. Claiming that any charges of voter fraud are debunked. Voting fraud NEVER happens, so we should take no measures to ensure it doesn't, because that is Jim Crow 2.0!

That's third-world crap. The kind of argument that gets Cuba or Venezuela-style elections.

Now even rigged systems can sometimes be beaten by large enough voter turnouts. You can occasionally win beyond the margin of cheating. But that is not an argument against the claim the system is rigged; just that the rigging system is not infallible.

If Democrats really cared about assuring everyone that the system was not rigged, they would make it easier to ensure that the eligible voter rolls were free of illegal voters, that the rules ensured that ballots were legally cast, that the vote-counting procedure was utterly transparent, and that the results were reported expeditiously.&nbspnbsp;

The farther away from that model, the more doubt you cast on the results. And spare me the "election denialist" crap. Democrats challenge every close election and claim fraud when Republicans win. Stacey Abrams made her career on it. Ask Hillary! whether she lost the 2016 election.

Democrats' arguments are hand-waving and shouting to make you shut up. But show California election procedures to officials or voters in any country, and they would think that Hugo Chavez wrote them. If the Carter Center were monitoring an election in Africa with those rules, they would deny certification.

Nate Silver is right. This is absurd, although I doubt he would outright claim that it is proof of fraud.

I think it is prima facie evidence that the system is rigged.

UPDATE:

Yes, the system is rigged. As we should have known, Nithya Raman is suddenly pulling ahead of Spencer Pratt, and we should have expected that the Empire would strike back. If you want to know what the "break glass" scenario is, it's called CHEATING.

JUST IN: Spencer Pratt drops to third in LA mayoral odds, trailing Mayor Bass & Democratic Socialist Nithya Raman.
pic.twitter.com/co2rYiHorH— Polymarket (@Polymarket) June 3, 2026

🚨BREAKING: It’s a dead heat on Kalshi.

Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman are neck-and-neck in the odds to advance from yesterday’s LA mayoral primary to the November runoff.

🤔 With votes still being counted and early returns showing Pratt in a strong position, prediction market…
https://t.co/XJQTpRtpZy— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 3, 2026

And big batches of votes are coming in with ZERO votes for Pratt, which is statistically impossible.

Red flag… 🚩🚩🚩

39.3% vote in…
Karen Bass had 117,579
Spencer Pratt had 86,323

42.4% vote in…
Karen Bass 130,429
Spencer Pratt 86,323

Virtually every candidate received votes except for Spencer Pratt. Impossible.

https://t.co/pUkm64MG37 pic.twitter.com/RwK3cppdCf— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 3, 2026

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.