Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Of all the dumb arguments we've had on this forum over the decades, this one might take the cake. It's always fun when lack of any objective analysis is combined with blind patriotism. 

So, against my better judgement, I'm going to wade into this and settle it, once and for all, so you can all shut the F up. 

Truth is there is no such thing as "the best country in the world". Doesn't exist. Can't exist. The idea is a figment of our imagination. 

Simple reasons why:

• There is no single metric to define "best". GDP? Nope. GDP per capita? Nope. Happiness index? Nope. GINI coefficient? Nope. Civil rights/freedoms? Nope. Educational attainment? Nope. Life expectancy? Nope. Any single metric is too limited to define best.
• There are tons of metrics of things we all pretty much universally consider desirable. No single country can be #1 in all of them. So while OAM points out that the US isn't #1 in a lot of these metrics, which is true, that doesn't necessarily answer anything because nobody would expect us to be #1 in everything.
• Even if you could find a collection of "good" metrics and take each country's average position on the list, and declare that country the "best", it still isn't valid. Because "best" requires weighting all the metrics and every person weights them differently. I weight low taxes higher than I weight universal healthcare, because I make a lot of money and have great insurance through my job. Someone who makes $35K/year in a small business and has to buy expensive HDHP insurance on the exchanges probably would value universal healthcare more than low taxes, because his healthcare cost is a much bigger burden than his tax payments. 

So unless you can determine the measurable metrics to define "best" up front, and to weight them in a way that everyone agrees on, you cannot determine the best country in the world. 

Now, that doesn't mean that you can't evaluate one country vs another. One way is subjective opinion based on your own inherent weighting. For me, I think the US is at the top of my list. But that might be partly based on having it REALLY good here, probably better in many ways than I'd have it in many other countries. I accept that it's purely subjective. 

Another way to evaluate one country vs another would be a more utilitarian approach, the "most happiness to the most people". For example, I think Germany is pretty objectively a better country than North Korea. Obviously there are a few people that are doing better in NK than they'd be doing in Germany (namely Kim Jong-Un and his ruling clique), but for the bulk of the residents, it's a lot better to be in Germany than in North Korea. However, that approach only really makes sense for wide differences. The US vs Canada vs Australia vs France vs Germany vs Sweden vs the UK is a lot harder, because every single one of those countries has positives and negatives and how you weight each personally may FAR overwhelm the differences in "ranking". 

America's a pretty good place to live. America is not #1 in everything--no nation can be. America may be the best place to live for some of us subjectively, but I'll bet there are a number of people in America who might find Australia or Canada or Germany to be better for them, but don't want to emigrate and give up their families and friends. Their experience and preferences shouldn't be discounted just because they have different weights on what satisfies them.

So you guys jump down OAM's throat because he has the temerity to point out that there are things where the United States is objectively FAR below #1 as if he hates this country and should leave, which is just stupid, on top of being incredibly rude. Despite the fact that the United States is OBJECTIVELY not the best country in the world at those metrics. And then state that the US is the best country in the world without offering a single metric of why other than your own gut feeling, while telling OAM to claim which country is better despite him already offering objective metrics where other countries are better. 

How about we all call it off? The US is a good place to live. A lot of the OECD are good places to live. "Best" is subjective and certain aspects of society in those OECD countries, some which will be better on certain metrics and some which will be worse, is dependent more on how individual people weight those metrics. 

OK, I'll shut the F up

to put it in as simple of terms as possible

absentee voting  the voter has to prove their identity

mail in voting    the voter does not have to prove their identity

I proved my identity when I registered to vote, not when I became a permanent vote-by-mail voter. 

If you're already a registered voter, all you need to do is fill out and mail in an application for vote-by-mail either for a single election or permanently:

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vote-by-mail/pdf/vote-by-mail-application.pdf

You'll note that you're asked to sign it and warned that anyone other than the voter him/herself who signs it is committing perjury, but you don't have to provide any information verifying it beyond that. 

I'm not going to shut the F up. I love my Republic.

I proved my identity when I registered to vote, not when I became a permanent vote-by-mail voter.

If you're already a registered voter, all you need to do is fill out and mail in an application for vote-by-mail either for a single election or permanently:

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vote-by-mail/pdf/vote-by-mail-application.pdf

You'll note that you're asked to sign it and warned that anyone other than the voter him/herself who signs it is committing perjury, but you don't have to provide any information verifying it beyond that.

wow that should do it problem solved

One has to be requested by the voter, checked and identified

The other is en masse- with little to no control and the order of magnitude is way beyond what could reasonably be handled.

mars and Venus.

Any way you can be more specific, HB?  Those sound pretty much like generalizations.

I really think to vote by mail you'd need at minimum an acknowledgement of receipt and that it was counted by return mail.  I don't know if that is enough, given the lost mail issue.  Lost mail might not be a huge problem, but ANY event of that ilk will cause the loser to claim FOUL.

And I do think operators in BG states might well try and lose some mail from predominantly R or D districts.  All that said, I never have any idea if my vote in person is really counted.  I recall what Stalin said.

I do think confidence in the voting system is a requirement, otherwise we'd have four years or protests, contentious hearings, impeachment proceedings, and Congress wouldn't get anything done ...

.... oh wait.

Many/most absentee ballots are not counted.  They are only counted if they could affect an election outcome.  If Mr. Green beats Ms. Brown by 1,000 votes, and there are 35 absentee ballots, those ballots will not be counted.
In the 2000 election, there were many thousands (I forget how many) of absentee ballots counted.  Enough so that if every one of them had been for Bush, he would have won the popular vote.  But they certainly weren't all for Bush, and they didn't affect any state or local elections, so they weren't counted.

And the popular vote doesn't matter anyway.