David Friedberg: California’s Voting System Looks Fraudulent, But It’s Working Exactly as Designed
David Friedberg analyzes statistical anomalies in Los Angeles election results, particularly around mail-in ballot patterns for Nithya Raman and Karen Bass. He argues that California's ballot harvesting laws and universal mail-in ballot system, while technically legal, create conditions where elections can be manipulated by organized collection efforts rather than reflecting genuine individual voter intent.
Summary
David Friedberg opens by pointing to suspicious statistical patterns in post-election mail-in ballots, noting that late mail-in ballots for one candidate (Pratt) declined by one-third, while Nithya Raman's late mail-in ballots increased by 80% and Karen Bass's changed by negative 10%. He questions whether any genuine sociopolitical explanation can account for such a dramatic statistical shift in voting behavior between in-person, pre-election mail-in, and post-election mail-in categories.
Friedberg then geographically pinpoints that Raman's incremental vote concentration came from around the Skid Row area of Los Angeles, adding another layer to his statistical skepticism. He frames the overall pattern as a 'statistical quagmire' that is difficult to explain through normal democratic participation.
The second half of the transcript shifts to explaining the legislative framework that enables these patterns. Friedberg outlines three key California laws: Assembly Bill 1921, which legalized unlimited ballot harvesting allowing any individual to collect and submit ballots on behalf of others regardless of their relationship to the voter; a subsequent law making universal mail-in ballots permanent for all registered California voters; and voter registration laws that removed citizenship verification requirements, allowing registration with minimal identification such as a gym membership card.
Friedberg concludes by arguing that while nothing technically illegal is occurring, the system has been deliberately designed in a way that enables organized actors to collect and submit large numbers of ballots, effectively allowing candidates to be 'appointed' rather than genuinely elected through free democratic processes.
Key Insights
- Friedberg claims that post-election mail-in ballots for Pratt declined by one-third while Nithya Raman's increased by 80%, arguing this statistical shift is nearly impossible to explain through organic voter behavior differences.
- Friedberg identifies that the geographic concentration of Raman's incremental votes came specifically from around the Skid Row area of Los Angeles, which he presents as compounding the statistical irregularity.
- Friedberg argues that California Assembly Bill 1921 legalized unlimited ballot harvesting, meaning any individual can legally collect hundreds or thousands of ballots from unrelated people, fill them out, and submit them with no verification of voter intent.
- Friedberg points out that California's combination of universal mail-in ballots, no citizenship proof for voter registration, and no ID requirement upon ballot receipt creates a system with no mechanism to verify that the person filling out a ballot is the intended voter.
- Friedberg concludes that while nothing illegal is happening, California's election system is 'operating exactly as intended' — structured in a way that allows candidates to be effectively appointed rather than elected through genuine free democratic participation.
Topics
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access