A month ago I wrote that primarying Greg Vitali felt pointless without clear policy distinctions. After watching Friday's debate, I think I had it wrong & the correction matters.
I have a deep respect for Greg Vitalli. He was a coach and mentor for me during my own (failed) campaign against Nick Micarelli in 2016 (when every Delco challenger lost). I will always appreciate that.
His door knocking is legendary.
That said, I don't think the issue will be supporteduch differently. What will be different is the energy.
Greg has had the job for a while. He has done well, and he deserves our respect and deep thanks.
It's definitely time for some new energy.
And by the way, folks should ask her what legislation she got accomplished for her senator. CoS makes things happen, too.
I would submit that both of these folks are good candidates and also that both would generally vote in the legislature along the same lines. Their differences quite honestly appear to be rooted in personal style more than any significant policy distinctions.
If you assume that to be the case, then the question becomes who is more likely to win in November. Because Democrats currently enjoy only a hair-thin majority, the loss of a single seat can be potentially catastrophic. The Republican party no longer behaves like a normal political party. It doesn't seek cooperation, but rather relies on a cache of frankly reactionary, injurious legislation drafted by ALEC and other outside groups, ready to be triggered and unleashed the second it attains majority legislative power. Shapiro is now here to veto such legislation but the reality is he may not be around forever (he likely has national ambitions). And some of that legislation would be directly harmful to my family, personally.
Given that fact, the question for me becomes who has established a track record of beating well-funded GOP opponents in this purple-ish district? Who has the name recognition and general reputation that prompts independent and even Republican voters to keep re-electing him time and time again? In other words, who is most likely to keep the seat Democratic?
I absolutely understand the animus towards perpetual incumbency. But -- as the author points out -- these are not normal times (they haven't been for quite a while). While a Machiavellian attitude such as mine may not sit well with some, the margin for error is so narrow here that the drastic consequences of a loss should, at least in my view, be be the primary consideration, particularly where there ultimately is not likely to be a whole lot of legislative daylight between the candidates.
Hey- coming back to note a needed correction. Trombetta stated that Vitali had not signed on to a letter with other reps about the PECO rate hikes; she'd previously stated that elsewhere and said he hadn't communicated to constituents. But he did do both:
This is a thoughtful recap, but you're consistently evaluating legislative effectiveness using metrics that are visible and intuitive (like energy, advocacy, co-sponsorship, "showing up") while sidestepping the institutional mechanics that actually determine whether legislation passes.
A lot of the analysis assumes that more effort translates into outcomes, and while that's a compelling campaign story, it's not really how legislatures work. Outcomes are driven by committee control, coalition dynamics, leadership priorities, and veto points (including the Republican Senate you mentioned). These rules, structurally baked into the system, can derail bills with no workaround. It is an unfortunate fact of life that effort has no effect on these barriers.
The line that stuck with me most was "you don't need to be a multi-decade expert on an issue to vote the right way." Sure — but voting correctly is the floor of this job, not the ceiling. What Vitali was actually saying is that he votes alongside the Democratic coalition in the interest of Democratic values; his role as committee chair (which I think people consistently underestimate) is primarily about setting the agenda for what environmental legislation gets heard, what gets blocked (that one is especially important!) and what gets moved to the floor. Technical expertise gets applied before legislation ever reaches a vote, and that expertise is doing real work right now. And candidly, the idea that someone can just ‘become an expert’ (her words) on complex regulatory policy on demand is doing a lot of work here. Expertise in this context isn’t just knowledge; it’s relationships, institutional memory, and the ability to catch second- and third-order consequences in legislation that isn’t always obvious on its face.
I emailed Vitali directly to ask for examples of legislation that may not end up being credited to him in a way that’s measurable/visible but that he’s had a hand in shaping: one example he gave me is a solar bill moving to a floor vote specifically because of his behind-the-scenes advocacy. The second is a bill that reads as benign on its face (framed around veterans) but would effectively hand the federal government veto power over wind development in Pennsylvania. That buried distinction takes real technical depth to catch early in the process. In a moment when federal environmental oversight is being weakened and energy permitting is becoming more politicized, depth of expertise in that specific policy area is load-bearing.
I'd also push back on the O'Mara and medical marijuana framing. Both are cited as proof that refusing to accept structural limits works, but medical marijuana took eight years, depended on a different coalition environment, and faced a Republican Senate with different incentives than today's. Paid family leave is still in process. They're presented as completed proof of concept for what persistence can accomplish, but neither actually closes that loop.
The campaign finance section is where the asymmetry is hardest to justify. You credit Vitali for continuing to fight on environmental issues despite the same structural barriers, but treat the campaign finance issue as his “abandonment” rather than strategic prioritization. Those can't both be true without explaining what's structurally different about those two policy areas — and that explanation isn't here.
People are conflating the candidates’ progressive stances. It’s easy to assume that younger + woman = more progressive, and that older + man = less progressive. If anything, some of Trombetta's recently stated positions struck me as pretty centrist. At the Haverford College event, they were both asked if their views differ from the national party – they both said no, but then Trombetta followed up with a statement that she doesn’t believe in “defunding the police” – that we should actually provide more funding and more training to the police, and then she noted that we have some of the best on our force in Haverford township.
And in a conversation on her Facebook page about environmental issues, her framing around RGGI (Pennsylvania's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) is much more moderate/centrist than her campaign presentation would suggest. It’s worth noting that Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia both explicitly included recommitting to RGGI as part of their platforms and won. Meanwhile, Trombetta framed Vitali's vote against the budget over RGGI as "his loss" — which either reflects a gap in how RGGI is understood regionally, or a genuinely more centrist position on climate than she's presenting. Neither is a small thing in a race where the contrast is supposedly about who will fight harder, because Vitali fought really fucking hard to keep the budget vote separate from RGGI but the Senate Republicans had unequivocally said that they weren’t budging. And I'll just say there are some people who are very enthusiastic about her candidacy whose politics are pretty far from progressive (pretty far right, in fact), and I genuinely can't for the life of me figure that one out.
I think a lot of this comes down to two different models of how power works: one describes a system constrained by structure, coalition conflict, and institutional leverage; the other describes a system where effort, advocacy, and relationship-building can overcome those constraints. That's not just a stylistic difference but it's a fundamental disagreement about theory of change. Vitali's realism/pragmatism reads as being disqualifying in your framing, but that conclusion depends the assumption that Trombetta's energy would actually shift those structural dynamics. She keeps asserting it, but in the PA legislature that hasn't really been demonstrated.
None of this means Trombetta is wrong to run or that the race isn't worth having. But if the question is legislative effectiveness, we need a clearer distinction between what's visible and what actually moves policy because otherwise it's very easy to overvalue promises and undervalue power.
Thanks for your comment and def fair challenges. The expertise point is real, but expertise in one area does not explain being absent from the PECO letter or dropping campaign financing all together as a key issue for the past 2 decades. That is a showing up problem.
I disagree that Trombetta is a centrist. She came out for Medicare for All and committed to making campaign finance reform a signature issue. That's super important.
The defeatism critique is where I feel the strongest. Vitali spent the entire debate explaining why things cannot get done. Voting progressively is great, but defeatism in the current moment is disqualifying.
Trombetta not yet having demonstrated she can move structural dynamics in Harrisburg is obviously a fair point.. but a legislator who has already decided the legislature is immovable is not a better answer.
Here's the other thing - every issue that Trombetta has said she's passionate about already has someone from the SEPA coalition of dems on committees tackling them. (I've done some power mapping on this - happy to share that as well.) What we won't have if we replace Vitali is the power and ranking involved with having a committee chair on an important issue (environment, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil we farm, the energy we produce) in a fossil fuel dependent state. Think for a bit on who might replace him on that committee - it'll be a dem, sure, but they won't be from Philly. Take a look at their colleagues from NWPA, or Pbgh. What kinds of things will be on the agenda with an environmental chair from another part of the state? What kind of legislation will be brought, pushed, and passed? What will be blocked?
Hey, so I used to be a transcriptionist and I wear hearing aids - so I took the transcript from YouTube and cleaned it up. Im happy to send it over to you if you want to revisit anything. And thanks for engaging - I appreciate your willingness to have conversations on this.
So on the "showing-up" critique: I think the PECO letter and campaign finance are being asked to carry more weight here than they feasibly can. You're talking about a legislator who just flagged a veterans bill that would (pretend this is in bold text and capitalized!) hand the federal government ***veto power*** over Pennsylvania wind development, (end bolding) and moved a solar bill to the floor without his name on it, is not someone who has stopped showing up! He's showing up in ways that don't generate visible artifacts. Signging onto a letter signifies something, sure - but also, it's really not a determinant of whether something actually moves.
On Trombetta as progressive: Medicare for All is a federal position. Committing to it as a state legislator is essentially costless — there's no PA mechanism to move it and no vote she'll ever take on it. What's important right now is how she'd operate on issues that actually *are* live in Harrisburg - like energy and climate. That's why I think her RGGI framing is the clearest window into where she stands. It's a real position on an active PA policy fight (or was, I guess, until Democrats caved to the Senate republicans on it) and that stance came across as far more "business-friendly" and moderate that her overall campaign framing suggests.
On defeatism: I think you're describing something real, but the critique as stated is a bit of a strawman. Vitali didn't say the legislature is immovable. What he said (rightfully so) is that willpower alone doesn't move it. (All the fresh energy in the world doesn't move it!) That's not defeatism, it's just...accurate in describing how the current makeup of the legislature works. To me, a legislator who has spent decades running up against the same constraints and still works to raise awareness, build coalitions, and push where movement is possible isn't giving up - it's someone who understands the environment they're operating in and allocates their efforts accordingly.
What I keep seeing is a bit of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”: Vitali gets criticized for legislative ineffectiveness, but the evidence offered is mostly about things that aren’t legislating (signing letters to PECO, co-signing every bill that leans democratic). And when actual examples of legislative work come up, the goalposts move. It’s hard to evaluate effectiveness if we’re not being consistent about what counts!
the rggi point is your best one. if her framing on an active pa climate fight reads as more moderate than her campaign suggests, that is more meaningful than a M4A commitment that has no state mechanism behind it. i had not fully processed that distinction.
although when she says M4A, she almost certainly means it as a values statement and a signal about where she stands on healthcare broadly.. not as a legislative agenda item she will advance in pa in two years. saying it still has a potential political cost with corporate donors.
on defeatism — “willpower alone does not move it” is accurate. where I still think the critique holds is the overall tone of the debate. not one answer but the pattern across every answer. That is a harder thing to pin down and you are right that I have not been fully consistent about what counts as the evidence.
the “damned if you do” point is fair too and i’ll be clearer about what the “evidentiary”(??) standard actually is going forward.
i still think the race is genuinely close and worth having. & I keep coming back to this: energy, fight, and willingness to work with your coalition have to weigh more in the present moment than they might in a quieter political environment. that is not a small thing right now. i have also heard from various ppl that Vitali has not been particularly collaborative with the rest of the Delco delegation, which, if true.. cuts against the institutional effectiveness argument more than any letter or cosponsorshi question does.
that being said — you have moved me on a few things here and I would rather say that directly than pretend otherwise.
I will NOT VOTE for anyone who opposes showing ID to vote and who supports mail in ballots.. both of these measures have a direct impact on the despicable voter fraud happening throughout our country… must prove you are a citizen to vote .. no mail in ballots.. no voting machines.. PAPER BALLOTS ONLY.. AND HAND COUNTING OF BALLOTS .. these are a must have if you want people to ever have faith in our elections again.. because right now .. NO ONE HAS FAITH IN THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTIONS .. they are a joke !
But I understand why democrats want NO ID .. and mail in ballots .. because they can only win elections if they CHEAT .. it’s disgraceful
you left out the part where the courts refused to review the evidence.. they didn’t have the balls to confront that hot potato issue.. and people like you love to act like this is proof that there was no voter fraud.. if the courts refused to look at the evidence.. of course they are not going to see any fraud .. the old “ nothing to see here” .. your reasoning is pathetic
And if you think hand counting of ballots is accurate, try counting a couple of thousand pieces of paper 10 times, and see how well the counts agree. Why do you think banks use currency-counting machines instead of hand counting?
How to have people have faith in our elections? Stop spreading misinformation.
Your reply is BS .. take your own advice and stop your misinformation.. you have an agenda and you are ok with voter fraud.. hand counting of ballots was ok with everyone before unscrupulous people decided to introduce voting machines that could be and are, manipulated by bad actors to alter the ballot counts .. people watched with their own eyes as ballot numbers changed on live TV during the 2020 election.. stop with your ridiculous arguments to continue this bs .. I’m not one of your low IQ bobble heads who are incapable of thinking for themselves .. aka democrat voters.. countries all over the world still use hand counting of ballots.. there is a reason they do .. and you know damn well what that reason is.. and you depend on low IQ people to just buy into your nonsense justifications .. you are a bad actor with an agenda.. and YOU are the one spreading your so-called misinformation.. intelligent and honest people are quite capable of hand counting of ballots and coming up with accurate counts every time .. so your ridiculous excuse of banks using currency counters, is mute .. just like every excuse you have for encouraging the continuation of voter fraud in our elections … shame on you ..
I have a deep respect for Greg Vitalli. He was a coach and mentor for me during my own (failed) campaign against Nick Micarelli in 2016 (when every Delco challenger lost). I will always appreciate that.
His door knocking is legendary.
That said, I don't think the issue will be supporteduch differently. What will be different is the energy.
Greg has had the job for a while. He has done well, and he deserves our respect and deep thanks.
It's definitely time for some new energy.
And by the way, folks should ask her what legislation she got accomplished for her senator. CoS makes things happen, too.
I would submit that both of these folks are good candidates and also that both would generally vote in the legislature along the same lines. Their differences quite honestly appear to be rooted in personal style more than any significant policy distinctions.
If you assume that to be the case, then the question becomes who is more likely to win in November. Because Democrats currently enjoy only a hair-thin majority, the loss of a single seat can be potentially catastrophic. The Republican party no longer behaves like a normal political party. It doesn't seek cooperation, but rather relies on a cache of frankly reactionary, injurious legislation drafted by ALEC and other outside groups, ready to be triggered and unleashed the second it attains majority legislative power. Shapiro is now here to veto such legislation but the reality is he may not be around forever (he likely has national ambitions). And some of that legislation would be directly harmful to my family, personally.
Given that fact, the question for me becomes who has established a track record of beating well-funded GOP opponents in this purple-ish district? Who has the name recognition and general reputation that prompts independent and even Republican voters to keep re-electing him time and time again? In other words, who is most likely to keep the seat Democratic?
I absolutely understand the animus towards perpetual incumbency. But -- as the author points out -- these are not normal times (they haven't been for quite a while). While a Machiavellian attitude such as mine may not sit well with some, the margin for error is so narrow here that the drastic consequences of a loss should, at least in my view, be be the primary consideration, particularly where there ultimately is not likely to be a whole lot of legislative daylight between the candidates.
Hey- coming back to note a needed correction. Trombetta stated that Vitali had not signed on to a letter with other reps about the PECO rate hikes; she'd previously stated that elsewhere and said he hadn't communicated to constituents. But he did do both:
Letter: https://www.pahouse.com/files/admin/NewsCenter_Documents/2026-04-09_125102__SEDelPECOIncreaseOpposition2026.pdf
Article on House news site: https://www.pahouse.com/Vitali/InTheNews/NewsRelease/?id=143083
This is a thoughtful recap, but you're consistently evaluating legislative effectiveness using metrics that are visible and intuitive (like energy, advocacy, co-sponsorship, "showing up") while sidestepping the institutional mechanics that actually determine whether legislation passes.
A lot of the analysis assumes that more effort translates into outcomes, and while that's a compelling campaign story, it's not really how legislatures work. Outcomes are driven by committee control, coalition dynamics, leadership priorities, and veto points (including the Republican Senate you mentioned). These rules, structurally baked into the system, can derail bills with no workaround. It is an unfortunate fact of life that effort has no effect on these barriers.
The line that stuck with me most was "you don't need to be a multi-decade expert on an issue to vote the right way." Sure — but voting correctly is the floor of this job, not the ceiling. What Vitali was actually saying is that he votes alongside the Democratic coalition in the interest of Democratic values; his role as committee chair (which I think people consistently underestimate) is primarily about setting the agenda for what environmental legislation gets heard, what gets blocked (that one is especially important!) and what gets moved to the floor. Technical expertise gets applied before legislation ever reaches a vote, and that expertise is doing real work right now. And candidly, the idea that someone can just ‘become an expert’ (her words) on complex regulatory policy on demand is doing a lot of work here. Expertise in this context isn’t just knowledge; it’s relationships, institutional memory, and the ability to catch second- and third-order consequences in legislation that isn’t always obvious on its face.
I emailed Vitali directly to ask for examples of legislation that may not end up being credited to him in a way that’s measurable/visible but that he’s had a hand in shaping: one example he gave me is a solar bill moving to a floor vote specifically because of his behind-the-scenes advocacy. The second is a bill that reads as benign on its face (framed around veterans) but would effectively hand the federal government veto power over wind development in Pennsylvania. That buried distinction takes real technical depth to catch early in the process. In a moment when federal environmental oversight is being weakened and energy permitting is becoming more politicized, depth of expertise in that specific policy area is load-bearing.
I'd also push back on the O'Mara and medical marijuana framing. Both are cited as proof that refusing to accept structural limits works, but medical marijuana took eight years, depended on a different coalition environment, and faced a Republican Senate with different incentives than today's. Paid family leave is still in process. They're presented as completed proof of concept for what persistence can accomplish, but neither actually closes that loop.
The campaign finance section is where the asymmetry is hardest to justify. You credit Vitali for continuing to fight on environmental issues despite the same structural barriers, but treat the campaign finance issue as his “abandonment” rather than strategic prioritization. Those can't both be true without explaining what's structurally different about those two policy areas — and that explanation isn't here.
People are conflating the candidates’ progressive stances. It’s easy to assume that younger + woman = more progressive, and that older + man = less progressive. If anything, some of Trombetta's recently stated positions struck me as pretty centrist. At the Haverford College event, they were both asked if their views differ from the national party – they both said no, but then Trombetta followed up with a statement that she doesn’t believe in “defunding the police” – that we should actually provide more funding and more training to the police, and then she noted that we have some of the best on our force in Haverford township.
And in a conversation on her Facebook page about environmental issues, her framing around RGGI (Pennsylvania's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) is much more moderate/centrist than her campaign presentation would suggest. It’s worth noting that Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia both explicitly included recommitting to RGGI as part of their platforms and won. Meanwhile, Trombetta framed Vitali's vote against the budget over RGGI as "his loss" — which either reflects a gap in how RGGI is understood regionally, or a genuinely more centrist position on climate than she's presenting. Neither is a small thing in a race where the contrast is supposedly about who will fight harder, because Vitali fought really fucking hard to keep the budget vote separate from RGGI but the Senate Republicans had unequivocally said that they weren’t budging. And I'll just say there are some people who are very enthusiastic about her candidacy whose politics are pretty far from progressive (pretty far right, in fact), and I genuinely can't for the life of me figure that one out.
I think a lot of this comes down to two different models of how power works: one describes a system constrained by structure, coalition conflict, and institutional leverage; the other describes a system where effort, advocacy, and relationship-building can overcome those constraints. That's not just a stylistic difference but it's a fundamental disagreement about theory of change. Vitali's realism/pragmatism reads as being disqualifying in your framing, but that conclusion depends the assumption that Trombetta's energy would actually shift those structural dynamics. She keeps asserting it, but in the PA legislature that hasn't really been demonstrated.
None of this means Trombetta is wrong to run or that the race isn't worth having. But if the question is legislative effectiveness, we need a clearer distinction between what's visible and what actually moves policy because otherwise it's very easy to overvalue promises and undervalue power.
Thanks for your comment and def fair challenges. The expertise point is real, but expertise in one area does not explain being absent from the PECO letter or dropping campaign financing all together as a key issue for the past 2 decades. That is a showing up problem.
I disagree that Trombetta is a centrist. She came out for Medicare for All and committed to making campaign finance reform a signature issue. That's super important.
The defeatism critique is where I feel the strongest. Vitali spent the entire debate explaining why things cannot get done. Voting progressively is great, but defeatism in the current moment is disqualifying.
Trombetta not yet having demonstrated she can move structural dynamics in Harrisburg is obviously a fair point.. but a legislator who has already decided the legislature is immovable is not a better answer.
Here's the other thing - every issue that Trombetta has said she's passionate about already has someone from the SEPA coalition of dems on committees tackling them. (I've done some power mapping on this - happy to share that as well.) What we won't have if we replace Vitali is the power and ranking involved with having a committee chair on an important issue (environment, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil we farm, the energy we produce) in a fossil fuel dependent state. Think for a bit on who might replace him on that committee - it'll be a dem, sure, but they won't be from Philly. Take a look at their colleagues from NWPA, or Pbgh. What kinds of things will be on the agenda with an environmental chair from another part of the state? What kind of legislation will be brought, pushed, and passed? What will be blocked?
that’d be awesome if you would share that with me, I will dm you
Hey, so I used to be a transcriptionist and I wear hearing aids - so I took the transcript from YouTube and cleaned it up. Im happy to send it over to you if you want to revisit anything. And thanks for engaging - I appreciate your willingness to have conversations on this.
So on the "showing-up" critique: I think the PECO letter and campaign finance are being asked to carry more weight here than they feasibly can. You're talking about a legislator who just flagged a veterans bill that would (pretend this is in bold text and capitalized!) hand the federal government ***veto power*** over Pennsylvania wind development, (end bolding) and moved a solar bill to the floor without his name on it, is not someone who has stopped showing up! He's showing up in ways that don't generate visible artifacts. Signging onto a letter signifies something, sure - but also, it's really not a determinant of whether something actually moves.
On Trombetta as progressive: Medicare for All is a federal position. Committing to it as a state legislator is essentially costless — there's no PA mechanism to move it and no vote she'll ever take on it. What's important right now is how she'd operate on issues that actually *are* live in Harrisburg - like energy and climate. That's why I think her RGGI framing is the clearest window into where she stands. It's a real position on an active PA policy fight (or was, I guess, until Democrats caved to the Senate republicans on it) and that stance came across as far more "business-friendly" and moderate that her overall campaign framing suggests.
On defeatism: I think you're describing something real, but the critique as stated is a bit of a strawman. Vitali didn't say the legislature is immovable. What he said (rightfully so) is that willpower alone doesn't move it. (All the fresh energy in the world doesn't move it!) That's not defeatism, it's just...accurate in describing how the current makeup of the legislature works. To me, a legislator who has spent decades running up against the same constraints and still works to raise awareness, build coalitions, and push where movement is possible isn't giving up - it's someone who understands the environment they're operating in and allocates their efforts accordingly.
What I keep seeing is a bit of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”: Vitali gets criticized for legislative ineffectiveness, but the evidence offered is mostly about things that aren’t legislating (signing letters to PECO, co-signing every bill that leans democratic). And when actual examples of legislative work come up, the goalposts move. It’s hard to evaluate effectiveness if we’re not being consistent about what counts!
the rggi point is your best one. if her framing on an active pa climate fight reads as more moderate than her campaign suggests, that is more meaningful than a M4A commitment that has no state mechanism behind it. i had not fully processed that distinction.
although when she says M4A, she almost certainly means it as a values statement and a signal about where she stands on healthcare broadly.. not as a legislative agenda item she will advance in pa in two years. saying it still has a potential political cost with corporate donors.
on defeatism — “willpower alone does not move it” is accurate. where I still think the critique holds is the overall tone of the debate. not one answer but the pattern across every answer. That is a harder thing to pin down and you are right that I have not been fully consistent about what counts as the evidence.
the “damned if you do” point is fair too and i’ll be clearer about what the “evidentiary”(??) standard actually is going forward.
i still think the race is genuinely close and worth having. & I keep coming back to this: energy, fight, and willingness to work with your coalition have to weigh more in the present moment than they might in a quieter political environment. that is not a small thing right now. i have also heard from various ppl that Vitali has not been particularly collaborative with the rest of the Delco delegation, which, if true.. cuts against the institutional effectiveness argument more than any letter or cosponsorshi question does.
that being said — you have moved me on a few things here and I would rather say that directly than pretend otherwise.
This was very well-written and informative to me as a new resident of Delaware County. Thank you!
Thank you Albert! Nice to hear from you and welcome to Delco!
I will NOT VOTE for anyone who opposes showing ID to vote and who supports mail in ballots.. both of these measures have a direct impact on the despicable voter fraud happening throughout our country… must prove you are a citizen to vote .. no mail in ballots.. no voting machines.. PAPER BALLOTS ONLY.. AND HAND COUNTING OF BALLOTS .. these are a must have if you want people to ever have faith in our elections again.. because right now .. NO ONE HAS FAITH IN THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR ELECTIONS .. they are a joke !
But I understand why democrats want NO ID .. and mail in ballots .. because they can only win elections if they CHEAT .. it’s disgraceful
60+ court cases, including Trump appointed justices…same result every time.
you left out the part where the courts refused to review the evidence.. they didn’t have the balls to confront that hot potato issue.. and people like you love to act like this is proof that there was no voter fraud.. if the courts refused to look at the evidence.. of course they are not going to see any fraud .. the old “ nothing to see here” .. your reasoning is pathetic
And if you think hand counting of ballots is accurate, try counting a couple of thousand pieces of paper 10 times, and see how well the counts agree. Why do you think banks use currency-counting machines instead of hand counting?
How to have people have faith in our elections? Stop spreading misinformation.
Your reply is BS .. take your own advice and stop your misinformation.. you have an agenda and you are ok with voter fraud.. hand counting of ballots was ok with everyone before unscrupulous people decided to introduce voting machines that could be and are, manipulated by bad actors to alter the ballot counts .. people watched with their own eyes as ballot numbers changed on live TV during the 2020 election.. stop with your ridiculous arguments to continue this bs .. I’m not one of your low IQ bobble heads who are incapable of thinking for themselves .. aka democrat voters.. countries all over the world still use hand counting of ballots.. there is a reason they do .. and you know damn well what that reason is.. and you depend on low IQ people to just buy into your nonsense justifications .. you are a bad actor with an agenda.. and YOU are the one spreading your so-called misinformation.. intelligent and honest people are quite capable of hand counting of ballots and coming up with accurate counts every time .. so your ridiculous excuse of banks using currency counters, is mute .. just like every excuse you have for encouraging the continuation of voter fraud in our elections … shame on you ..
Insults are no substitute for intelligent analysis and discussion. You're done.