David Friedberg: California’s Voting System Looks Fraudulent, But It’s Working Exactly as Designed
Ask about All-In Podcast
Episode Description
Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg
Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod
Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod
Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod
Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg
Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect
Brief Summary
Mail-in ballot trends in LA's mayoral election reveal significant shifts influenced by new voting laws.
Key points
- California's Ballot Harvesting Laws. California legalized unlimited ballot harvesting, allowing anyone to collect and submit ballots.
- Voting Without Proof of Citizenship. New laws allow anyone to register to vote without proving citizenship or ID.
Episode highlights
- California's Ballot Harvesting LawsCalifornia legalized unlimited ballot harvesting, allowing anyone to collect and submit ballots.“What that means is that any individual in the state of California has the right to go and collect ballots.”1:08Jun 14, 2026
- Voting Without Proof of CitizenshipNew laws allow anyone to register to vote without proving citizenship or ID.“You don't need to prove your citizenship.”1:39Jun 14, 2026
Transcript
Pratt's post-election mail-in ballots declined by 1/3. So, statistically, the population of people that send in their ballots late reduced for Pratt by a third, increased for Nithya Raman by 80% and Karen Bass 10% less. If you just look at the mail-in ballots before and after election day as a comparison. I don't know if there's a sociopolitical way that you can assess those statistics and assume that these are individuals casting their individual vote for who they think should be mayor of LA. Basically, the concentration of incremental votes that Nithya Raman got came around the Skid Row area in Los Angeles. But, when you look at the basic statistics of what happened in person,
mail-in before, mail-in after election day, it becomes a real statistical quagmire on how did this sort of a sociopolitical shift happen in such a way that it did. Now, there was a report published and they highlighted the 2018 California midterm elections and the challenges that they saw arise in that midterm elections because of some of the legislative changes that were made. First, California Assembly Bill 1921 legalized the practice of unlimited ballot harvesting in the state. What that means is that any individual in the state of California has the right to go
and collect ballots from any other individuals regardless of relationship, fill them out and send them in. California 2 years later, 18 months later, also passed a law that made it permanent that every person registered in the state of California would get a ballot. So, tens of millions of ballots then get mailed out. Then there was another series of laws that were passed that said anyone can register to vote. You don't need to prove your citizenship. You can use a gym membership card as an example. So, anyone can register to vote. There is no proof of ID when you get a ballot. There's no demonstration that the person who fills out the ballot has anything to
do with the individual who's supposed to be voting that ballot and it is legal for an individual to go out and collect hundreds or thousands of ballots, ship them in, and they will all qualify in these kind of mail-in ballot voting processes. So, there's nothing illegal or fraudulent going on. In fact, the system is operating exactly as intended. It has been set up and structured in a way that with the right construct, you can get an individual appointed, not elected, but appointed to a particular role in government under a {quote} free election in California.





