[caww]

In reality there is zip-zero reason for any ‘outstanding votes’. When written bids are offered and submitted they do so in time or they're not considered. If they aren't submitted ‘accurately’ they're rejected. Voters know the cut off date and it's THEIR responsibility to send their ballot ‘in time’ and follow up to confirm it's been received.

This also includes having backup and maintenance for possible hitches etc.

Then it's the responsibility of the communities to have in place staff, facilities etc. ready for the project to expedite the ballots in a an equally timely manner. They are certainly instructed and briefed how this is to be done etc with plenty of time ahead of an election to be fully prepared for the count.

[noiseman]

Does anyone else find it more than a little suspicious that so many dem-run states are claiming that they counted the Election Day votes first, and only after that are they counting the mail-in ballots? That is uniformly their excuse for why Trump was running away with it, but then suddenly states stopped being called and now they must “count” for days afterward.

If you were going to set up a massive fraud operation, that would be a crucial component. In person votes would be much harder to manufacture in large numbers, so you count those first, which then closes the door on the in-person vote count, but leaves the number of “outstanding” mail-in ballots totally up to the imagination. Then they can claim any number of “votes” to be counted that they want to, limited only by their ability to fill in and submit those “votes.” At that point, the final tally is entirely at the mercy of how many mail-in ballots suddenly happen to just show up, even days after Election Day in a number of crucial states.

Just as with the dems visceral aversion to voter ID, you don’t act this way unless you’re trying to commit fraud.