California Election Laws Shift Voting Trends, Fuel Ballot Harvesting

All-In Podcast

Legalized ballot harvesting and loosened registration requirements allow organizations to systematically manipulate vote distributions so that officials are essentially appointed rather than organically elected.

AI-assisted summary of David Friedberg: California’s Voting System Looks Fraudulent, But It’s Working Exactly as Designed — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-06-14

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube on June 14, 2026, by the All-In Podcast, this video features host David Friedberg discussing California's voting system. The page description provides social media links for the podcast and its individual hosts, including Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, and Friedberg, alongside production credits and tags for tech and news.

## TL;DR David Friedberg breaks down the bizarre statistical anomalies in Los Angeles mail-in ballots, noting highly unusual post-election shifts for candidates like Pratt, Nithya Raman, and Karen Bass, with a suspicious concentration of late votes emerging from Skid Row. He traces these patterns back to deliberate legislative changes in California, specifically Assembly Bill 1921, which legalized unlimited ballot harvesting. Combined with automatic permanent mail-in ballots and loosened voter registration requirements that eliminate strict identity verification, Friedberg argues that these statistical quagmires are not random. Ultimately, he concludes that this behavior is entirely legal, demonstrating a system operating exactly as designed to allow organized groups to effectively appoint government officials through highly strategic operations.

## Atmosphere & style The atmosphere of the segment is deeply cynical, analytical, and thick with skepticism as the speaker uses data to challenge the organic nature of local election results. There is an undercurrent of sharp, dark humor—particularly when mocking the extreme laxity of voter registration requirements—which transitions into a cold, clinical breakdown of state legislation. It feels like a calculated, sobering exposé where the initial shock of statistical anomalies gives way to a grim, matter-of-fact realization that the system is functioning precisely as it was engineered to work.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) Analysis of Los Angeles mail-in ballots reveals bizarre statistical shifts when comparing votes cast before and after election day. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) Candidate Pratt experienced a dramatic post-election decline of one-third in mail-in ballot numbers. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) Nithya Raman's late mail-in ballots saw a miraculous 80% increase, which significantly boosted her vote count. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) Karen Bass experienced a 10% decrease in her post-election late mail-in ballot totals. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) The massive surge in incremental votes for Nithya Raman originated from a heavy concentration in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) The highly unusual distribution of early, in-person, and late mail-in votes undermines the idea that these results represent organic, independent voting behavior. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) The highly contrasting voting patterns create a major statistical quagmire that raises skepticism about the integrity of the mayoral race data. - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) The unusual ballot distributions are identified as the direct consequence of deliberate, structural legislative changes in California following the 2018 midterm elections. - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) California Assembly Bill 1921 completely legalized unlimited ballot harvesting, allowing anyone to collect and submit ballots regardless of relationship to the voter. - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) Subsequent voting laws enacted over an 18-to-20-month period established a system where tens of millions of ballots are permanently and automatically mailed to all registered voters. - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) Loosened voter registration laws in California no longer require proof of citizenship, allowing loose alternative documentation like a gym membership card to be used. - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) The lack of identification requirements when a ballot is turned in means there is zero verification connecting the person filling it out to the actual registered voter. - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) The controversial ballot patterns and operational structures are entirely legal and mean the voting system is operating exactly as it was designed to function. - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) The current California system allows organized groups to utilize operational constructs to essentially ensure a candidate is appointed rather than organically elected.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) The Statistical Quagmire of LA's Mail-In Ballots

The speaker kicks off by breaking down the bizarre statistical shifts in Los Angeles mail-in ballots before and after election day, focusing heavily on candidates Pratt, Nithya Raman, and Karen Bass. There is an undercurrent of skepticism as the speaker highlights a massive discrepancy: Pratt's post-election mail-in ballots suddenly declined by a third. Meanwhile, late mail-in ballots for Nithya Raman miraculously increased by 80%, while Karen Bass saw a 10% decrease. The speaker argues that looking at the stark contrast between ballots sent before and after election day creates "a real statistical quagmire," questioning whether there is any valid sociopolitical way to assume these numbers represent individuals independently casting their votes for who they believe should be the mayor of LA.

The conversation takes a more localized turn as the speaker zeroes in on where this sudden surge of votes actually originated. The concentration of incremental votes that gave Nithya Raman her massive boost came specifically from around the Skid Row area in Los Angeles. The sheer oddity of how these in-person, early mail-in, and late mail-in votes distributed themselves leaves the speaker deeply unconvinced that this was a natural, organic sociopolitical shift.

- Pratt's post-election mail-in ballots declined by 1/3. - Nithya Raman's post-election mail-in ballots increased by 80%, with a heavy concentration coming from the Skid Row area. - Karen Bass saw a 10% decline in late mail-in ballots.

[00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) Legislative Changes and the Legalization of Ballot Harvesting

The speaker transitions into analyzing the root cause of these patterns, pointing to a published report that highlighted structural challenges stemming from the 2018 California midterm elections. According to the speaker, these shifts are the direct consequence of deliberate legislative changes in the state. The first major domino to fall was California Assembly Bill 1921, which completely legalized the practice of unlimited ballot harvesting. This allowed any individual in California to go out and collect ballots from anyone else, completely regardless of their relationship, fill them out, and send them in.

The speaker explains how further laws compounded the situation over the next 18 to 20 months, creating a system where tens of millions of ballots are automatically sent out because every single registered voter is permanently mailed one. To make matters more vulnerable, the speaker notes that voter registration laws were loosened to the point where proving citizenship is no longer required—humorously noting that a person could essentially use a "gym membership card" to register. Because there is no required proof of ID when a ballot is turned in, there is zero verification that the person filling it out has any connection to the actual registered voter.

The segment wraps up with a striking, cynical conclusion: none of this behavior is illegal or fraudulent. The speaker emphasizes that the system is actually "operating exactly as intended." It has been carefully structured so that if an organization utilizes the correct operational construct, they can ensure an individual is essentially "appointed, not elected" to a role in government under the guise of a free election in California.

- **California Assembly Bill 1921:** Legalized unlimited ballot harvesting, allowing anyone to collect and turn in thousands of ballots regardless of relationship to the voter. - **Permanent Mail-In Voting:** Passed 18 months later, ensuring tens of millions of ballots are automatically mailed to every registered individual. - **Registration Loopholes:** No proof of citizenship or strict state ID is required to register to vote; alternative identification like a gym membership card can be used.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) a real statistical quagmire — David Friedberg

> [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) operating exactly as intended — David Friedberg

> [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) appointed, not elected — David Friedberg

## Mentioned David Friedberg, Pratt, Nithya Raman, Karen Bass, Los Angeles, Skid Row, California Assembly Bill 1921, All-In Podcast

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg)

中文简报

加州选举法改变投票趋势并助推“选票收割” 合法化的选票收割和放宽的选民登记要求使组织机构能够系统性地操纵选票分布，从而使官员在实质上更像是被指定而非自发选举产生。 David Friedberg 剖析了洛杉矶邮寄选票中极其反常的统计异常现象，指出 Pratt、Nithya Raman 和 Karen Bass 等候选人在选举日后的选票变化极不寻常，且大量后期选票可疑地高度集中在 Skid Row 区域。他将这些现象追溯至加州有意推行的立法变革，特别是将无限制选票收割合法化的第 1921 号议会法案（Assembly Bill 1921）。Friedberg 认为，结合自动永久邮寄选票机制，以及取消了严格身份核验的宽松选民登记要求，这些统计异常绝非偶然。他最终得出结论，这种行为完全合法，表明该制度完全是在按其设计运行，使得有组织的团体能够通过高度策略性的运作实质上任命政府官员。对洛杉矶邮寄选票的分析显示，对比选举日之前和之后投出的选票，存在反常的统计变化。 (0:00) 候选人 Pratt 在选举日后的邮寄选票数量大幅减少了三分之一。 (0:00) Nithya Raman 的后期邮寄选票不可思议地增长了 80%，极大地提升了她的得票数。 (0:00) Karen Bass 在选举日后的后期邮寄选票总数下降了 10%。 (0:00) Nithya Raman 激增的增量选票高度集中来源于洛杉矶的 Skid Row 地区。 (0:00)

Reading summary

David Friedberg contends that striking post-election ballot shifts in Los Angeles do not stem from unlawful fraud, but are the deliberate outcome of California election laws that legalized unlimited ballot harvesting and universal mail-in voting. Post-Election Shifts and Geographic Vote Concentrations (0:00) Friedberg points to pronounced statistical anomalies in Los Angeles mail-in ballots counted before and after election day, highlighting races involving candidates Pratt, Karen Bass, and Nithya Raman. According to the figures presented, Pratt's post-election mail-in votes fell by one-third and Bass saw a 10% decline, while Raman experienced an 80% surge in late mail-in ballots. Friedberg notes that this late increase was heavily concentrated around the Skid Row district of Los Angeles, arguing that the stark variance between early and late counts creates a statistical quagmire that undermines the assumption that these votes represent organic, independent voter choices. Statutory Enablement of Unlimited Ballot Harvesting (0:52) Friedberg attributes these voting patterns to structural changes enacted after the 2018 California midterms, primarily California Assembly Bill 1921. This statute legalized unlimited ballot harvesting, allowing any individual to collect and submit ballots from voters regardless of their relationship. Compounding this, subsequent legislation over the following 18 to 20 months established permanent universal mail-in voting, automatically dispatching tens of millions of ballots to every registered voter in the state. Absence of Verification and Campaign Operations (0:52) Friedberg emphasizes that registration laws were modified so that proof of citizenship and strict state identification are not mandatory, observing that non-traditional identification can be used to register. Furthermore, because no identification is required when a completed ballot is turned in, election officials cannot verify whether the registered voter filled it out. Friedberg argues that this framework allows organizations with the necessary operational machinery to effectively appoint candidates to public office under the structure of a legal election. Friedberg concludes that the system is operating exactly as designed by California lawmakers, meaning that while the resulting statistical patterns appear anomalous, the process remains entirely compliant with current state law.

精炼阅读摘要

发言人在节目中指出，洛杉矶选后邮寄选票出现的异常统计学变动并非法律意义上的舞弊，而是加利福尼亚州一系列选举立法变革——包括选票收集合法化、全面邮寄选票及放宽选民身份核验——完全按照既定设计运作的必然结果。洛杉矶选后邮寄选票的统计异常 (0:00) 发言人指出，洛杉矶在选举日之后的邮寄选票分布模式呈现出极大的统计反差，形成了难以用正常社会政治倾向解释的“统计泥潭”。在选举日之后的计票中，候选人 Pratt 的邮寄选票减少了三分之一，Karen Bass 的晚期邮寄选票下降了10%，而 Nithya Raman 的晚期选票却剧增了80%。此外，发言人特别指出 Raman 增加的选票高度集中在洛杉矶的 Skid Row 区域，现场投票、早期邮寄与晚期邮寄选票之间的剧烈偏差，令其深切质疑这些选票是否源自选民真实的独立投票意愿。法律变革与无限制选票收集机制 (0:52) 发言人分析认为，这种选票分布异动直接根源于加州自2018年中期选举以来的制度性立法调整。其中关键的开端是加州第1921号议会法案（AB 1921），该法案使无限制的“选票收集”（ballot harvesting）彻底合法化，允许任何个人代为收集、填写并递交大量选票，且与选民之间无需具备任何亲属或特定关系。在此法案实施后的18至20个月内，加州又通过法律确立了永久性普遍邮寄选票机制，使州内数千万登记选民都会自动收到寄出的纸质选票。选民登记与身份核验门槛的放宽 (0:52) 发言人进一步阐述，加州的选民登记法规已大幅放宽，登记时无需证明公民身份，发言人调侃称其宽松程度甚至形同使用“健身房会员卡”即可登记。与此同时，在递交选票环节并无强制性的身份证件（ID）核对要求，这意味着系统无法验证填写或提交选票的人是否就是登记选民本人，从而为特定组织在法律框架内进行规模化运作提供了条件。发言人最终总结指出，加州现行的投票机制“完全在按预期运作”，在法律层面既不违规也不算舞弊；该系统已被建构成允许具备相应动员与操作能力的组织，能够在看似自由选举的形式下，实质上将特定人员“任命”进政府职位，而非由公众自发选出。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由知名科技与财经播客《All-In Podcast》于2026年6月14日发布在YouTube平台上。视频简介主要提供了四位常驻主播（Chamath、Jason、David Sacks 和 David Friedberg）的社交媒体链接与播客频道关注指引，附带技术与新闻相关的标签。 ## TL;DR 在节目中，大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）分析了加州地方选举中选举日后邮寄选票的异常激增现象，例如市议员候选人妮西娅·拉曼在后期选票中暴涨80%且高度集中在贫民窟 Skid Row 地区。他指出，这一看似舞弊的“统计泥潭”实际上完全合法，根源在于加州通过 AB 1921 法案将无限制的选票收割合法化，并结合了全员自动寄送选票与极度宽松的身份核验制度。弗里德伯格辛辣地总结道，整个投票体系正是完全按照其设计初衷在运转，导致特定候选人表面上赢得选举，实质上已沦为被既定规则“指定”上位。 ## Atmosphere & style 整个片段呈现出一种冷峻、犀利且略带反讽的理性剖析风格。弗里德伯格没有陷入煽动性的情绪宣泄，而是以沉稳的数据对比层层剥开荒诞现象背后的制度根源；随着他指出“没有任何违法，系统正按设计运转”的核心论点，现场氛围从对异常数据的困惑骤然升华为对制度性漏洞的深刻幻灭感与讽刺感。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 统计数据剧烈反常：加州地方选举中，选举日后寄达的邮寄选票出现戏剧性断层，候选人普拉特支持率骤降三分之一，而拉曼支持率暴增 80% 且选票高度集中于 Skid Row 贫民窟。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 制度化选票收割：加州通过 AB 1921 法案将无限制的第三方“选票收割”合法化，加之向全州所有登记选民强制自动派发邮寄选票，导致千万级选票在缺乏监管下外流。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 核验机制全面缺失：选民登记门槛极低（甚至可用健身卡登记且免除公民证明），全流程均无需出示带照片的身份证件（ID），投票站完全无法核验填票者的真实身份。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 机制运转非舞弊：大卫·弗里德伯格指出该系统并未违法，其现象完全是法律制度设计的精准体现，最终导致特定候选人实际上是“被机制指定”而非“被民意选举”。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 加州地方选举在选举日前与选举日后的邮寄选票统计趋势中，呈现出无法用常规政治学与民意变动解释的剧烈断层。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 候选人普拉特在选举日后寄达的邮寄选票中支持率大跌约 33%，洛杉矶市长凯伦·巴斯的支持率也下滑了 10%。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 市议员候选人妮西娅·拉曼在后期邮寄选票中支持率暴涨 80%，与整体选民趋势形成鲜明反差。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 拉曼新增选票异常高度聚集于洛杉矶贫民窟 Skid Row 地区，令人质疑这些选票是否代表个体的自发独立投票意愿。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 现场投票、前期邮寄投票与后期寄达选票的数据撕裂，形成了一个令人难以信服的“统计泥潭”。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 加州 AB 1921 号法案正式将无限制“选票收割”合法化，允许互无血缘或法律关系的第三方代为收集并递送选票。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 加州出台的永久性法律强制向全州每位登记选民自动邮寄选票，导致数以千万计的空白实体选票散落在外。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 选民登记门槛大幅降低，无需出具公民身份证明，甚至仅凭健身房会员卡等非官方凭据即可完成选民登记。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 整个投票和收回链条完全缺乏身份验证机制（No ID），投票站无法核实寄回选票是否确由登记选民本人亲自填写。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 政治组织合法批量收集成千上万张选票并统一提交，使得特定群体能够通过既定流程有效左右选举走向。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 弗里德伯格强调该流程中没有任何违法或欺诈违规，整套体系完全是在严格按照加州立法的初衷精准运作。 - [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 加州选举制度已演变成特定候选人表面上由自由选举胜出，实质上却是由制度架构直接“指定”而非“当选”。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 选举日后邮寄选票的统计异常与“统计泥潭” 大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）从一组引人瞩目的选票统计数据切入，剖析了加州地方选举中呈现的剧烈反常现象。如果将选举日前与选举日后寄达的邮寄选票进行横向对比，选民倾向出现了极不寻常的逆转：普拉特（Pratt）在选举日后的后期邮寄选票中支持率锐减了整整三分之一；洛杉矶市长凯伦·巴斯（Karen Bass）的支持率也下降了 10%；而市议员席位候选人妮西娅·拉曼（Nithya Raman）获得的后期选票却暴涨了惊人的 80%。面对这一现象，弗里德伯格直言，很难从正常的社会政治学角度去合理解释这些统计数据，更难以令人信服这些选票当真代表着个体选民自发为洛杉矶公职行使的独立投票权。深入观察更会发现，拉曼新增票数的极高聚集区竟然主要集中在洛杉矶臭名昭著的贫民窟“防滑区”（Skid Row）。当把现场投票、选举日前邮寄选票以及选举日后寄回的选票放在一起横向审视时，整体格局就演变成了一个名副其实的“统计泥潭”（statistical quagmire），人们根本无法从常规的选民偏好转变来解释这种戏剧性的断层。 - **普拉特（Pratt）后期选票**：选举日后邮寄选民群体的支持率大幅下挫达三分之一（约 33%）。 - **妮西娅·拉曼（Nithya Raman）后期选票**：选举日后收到的邮寄选票猛增 80%，且增量选票高度集中在洛杉矶 Skid Row 地区。 - **凯伦·巴斯（Karen Bass）后期选票**：在选举日后的邮寄选票中减少了约 10%。 --- ### [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 加州法律重塑投票生态：合法收割与实质上的“指定当选” 针对这一现象背后的推手，弗里德伯格引用了一份深入调研 2018 年加州中期选举的专题报告。该报告揭示，加州近年来一系列立法调整从根本上重塑了投票游戏规则。首先是加州议会通过的第 1921 号法案（Assembly Bill 1921），该法案正式将无限制的“选票收割”（unlimited ballot harvesting）合法化。这意味着在加州，任何个人都有权从互无血缘或法律关系的任何其他个体手中集中收集选票、代为填报并统一递送。约一年半到两年后，加州再度出台永久性法律，强制要求向全州每一位登记在册的选民自动寄送邮寄选票，导致数以千万计的实体选票流散到社会各处。更进一步的是，后续通过的一系列配套法规大幅放宽了登记门槛——任何人都可登记成为选民，不仅无需出具公民身份证明，甚至仅凭一张健身房会员卡这类凭据即可完成登记。在整个闭环中，收到选票时没有身份验证机制（Proof of ID），投票站也无法核验填写选票者是否确属该选民本人。因此，政治组织或个人合法收集成百上千乃至上万张选票并批量提交，完全符合现行规程。弗里德伯格辛辣地总结道，表面看似涉嫌欺诈的现象实则“没有任何违法或舞弊”，因为整套体系正是“完全按照其设计初衷在运转”；在这样的制度架构下，特定候选人表面上赢得了加州的“自由选举”，但实质上已经不是被民意“选举”（elected）出来，而是被既定机制直接“指定”（appointed）上位。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州选举机制与选票收割流程图 accDescr: 展示加州立法如何通过降低登记门槛、普遍邮寄选票和选票收割，将选举转变为实质上的指定任命机制。 subgraph Leg["法规铺垫与选票发放"] L1["放宽选民登记门槛 (无须公民证明 / 健身卡可登记)"] --> L2["全州普遍自动邮寄选票 (向数千万登记选民发放)"] end subgraph Harvest["无监管选票流转 (AB 1921)"] H1["合法无限度选票收割 (任意个人/机构代收)"] --> H2["缺乏有效身份核查 (No ID) (代填与代投无法核验)"] end subgraph Outcome["最终结果输出"] O1["特定区域批量集中投递 (如 Skid Row 激增 80%)"] --> O2["机制运作而非自发民意 ('指定'而非'选举')"] end L2 --> H1 H2 --> O1 ``` - **加州 AB 1921 法案**：将“无限制选票收割”合法化，允许无关第三方随意替他人代收并递交选票。 - **全员邮寄常态化**：法律强制向全州所有登记选民自动派发选票，数千万张空白选票流入全州社区。 - **极度宽松的登记与核验**：登记无需严格证明公民身份（可用健身房会员卡作为证件示例），整个填表与递交环节均免于出具带照片的有效身份证件（ID）。 - **制度本质的评价**：系统运行“没有任何违法违规”，完全依照立法机制精准运转，候选人表面经由选举胜出，本质却是被制度力量“任命而非当选”（appointed, not elected）。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 普拉特（Pratt）在选举日后的后期邮寄选票中支持率锐减了整整三分之一；洛杉矶市长凯伦·巴斯（Karen Bass）的支持率也下降了 10%；而市议员席位候选人妮西娅·拉曼（Nithya Raman）获得的后期选票却暴涨了惊人的 80%。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 很难从正常的社会政治学角度去合理解释这些统计数据，更难以令人信服这些选票当真代表着个体选民自发为洛杉矶公职行使的独立投票权。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 拉曼新增票数的极高聚集区竟然主要集中在洛杉矶臭名昭著的贫民窟“防滑区”（Skid Row）。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=0s) 当把现场投票、选举日前邮寄选票以及选举日后寄回的选票放在一起横向审视时，整体格局就演变成了一个名副其实的“统计泥潭”（statistical quagmire），人们根本无法从常规的选民偏好转变来解释这种戏剧性的断层。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 加州近年来一系列立法调整从根本上重塑了投票游戏规则。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 加州议会通过的第 1921 号法案（Assembly Bill 1921），该法案正式将无限制的“选票收割”（unlimited ballot harvesting）合法化。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 任何个人都有权从互无血缘或法律关系的任何其他个体手中集中收集选票、代为填报并统一递送。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 任何人都可登记成为选民，不仅无需出具公民身份证明，甚至仅凭一张健身房会员卡这类凭据即可完成登记。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 在整个闭环中，收到选票时没有身份验证机制（Proof of ID），投票站也无法核验填写选票者是否确属该选民本人。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 > [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg&t=52s) 表面看似涉嫌欺诈的现象实则“没有任何违法或舞弊”，因为整套体系正是“完全按照其设计初衷在运转”；在这样的制度架构下，特定候选人表面上赢得了加州的“自由选举”，但实质上已经不是被民意“选举”（elected）出来，而是被既定机制直接“指定”（appointed）上位。 — 大卫·弗里德伯格 ## Mentioned 大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）, All-In Podcast, 普拉特（Pratt）, 凯伦·巴斯（Karen Bass）, 妮西娅·拉曼（Nithya Raman）, 加州（California）, 洛杉矶（Los Angeles）, Skid Row（防滑区/贫民区）, 加州第 1921 号法案（Assembly Bill 1921 / AB 1921）, 2018 年加州中期选举 ## Video 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 #allin #tech #news [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZeMwiDJRg)

Source quotes

[0:00] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 普拉特（Pratt）在选举日后的后期邮寄选票中支持率锐减了整整三分之一；洛杉矶市长凯伦·巴斯（Karen Bass）的支持率也下降了 10%；而市议员席位候选人妮西娅·拉曼（Nithya Raman）获得的后期选票却暴涨了惊人的 80%。 [0:00] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 很难从正常的社会政治学角度去合理解释这些统计数据，更难以令人信服这些选票当真代表着个体选民自发为洛杉矶公职行使的独立投票权。 [0:00] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 拉曼新增票数的极高聚集区竟然主要集中在洛杉矶臭名昭著的贫民窟“防滑区”（Skid Row）。 [0:00] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 当把现场投票、选举日前邮寄选票以及选举日后寄回的选票放在一起横向审视时，整体格局就演变成了一个名副其实的“统计泥潭”（statistical quagmire），人们根本无法从常规的选民偏好转变来解释这种戏剧性的断层。 [0:52] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 加州近年来一系列立法调整从根本上重塑了投票游戏规则。 [0:52] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 加州议会通过的第 1921 号法案（Assembly Bill 1921），该法案正式将无限制的“选票收割”（unlimited ballot harvesting）合法化。 [0:52] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 任何个人都有权从互无血缘或法律关系的任何其他个体手中集中收集选票、代为填报并统一递送。 [0:52] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 任何人都可登记成为选民，不仅无需出具公民身份证明，甚至仅凭一张健身房会员卡这类凭据即可完成登记。 [0:52] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 在整个闭环中，收到选票时没有身份验证机制（Proof of ID），投票站也无法核验填写选票者是否确属该选民本人。 [0:52] 大卫·弗里德伯格: 表面看似涉嫌欺诈的现象实则“没有任何违法或舞弊”，因为整套体系正是“完全按照其设计初衷在运转”；在这样的制度架构下，特定候选人表面上赢得了加州的“自由选举”，但实质上已经不是被民意“选举”（elected）出来，而是被既定机制直接“指定”（appointed）上位。

Source quotes

[0:00] David Friedberg: a real statistical quagmire [0:52] David Friedberg: operating exactly as intended [0:52] David Friedberg: appointed, not elected

Original transcript

[0:00] Pratt's post-election mail-in ballots [0:03] declined by 1/3. So, statistically, the [0:05] population of people that send in their [0:07] ballots late reduced for Pratt by a [0:09] third, increased for Nithya Raman by 80% [0:13] and Karen Bass 10% less. If you just [0:15] look at the mail-in ballots before and [0:17] after election day as a comparison. I [0:19] don't know if there's a sociopolitical [0:21] way that you can assess those statistics [0:23] and assume that these are individuals [0:26] casting their individual vote for who [0:28] they think should be mayor of LA. [0:30] Basically, the concentration of [0:31] incremental votes that Nithya Raman got [0:34] came around the Skid Row area in Los [0:36] Angeles. But, when you look at the basic [0:38] statistics of what happened in person, [0:41] mail-in before, mail-in after election [0:43] day, [0:44] it becomes a real statistical quagmire [0:46] on how did this sort of a sociopolitical [0:49] shift happen in such a way that it did. [0:52] Now, there was a report published and [0:54] they highlighted the 2018 California [0:57] midterm elections and the challenges [0:59] that they saw arise in that midterm [1:00] elections because of some of the [1:02] legislative changes that were made. [1:04] First, California Assembly Bill 1921 [1:06] legalized the practice of unlimited [1:08] ballot harvesting in the state. What [1:10] that means is that any individual in the [1:12] state of California has the right to go [1:16] and collect ballots from any other [1:19] individuals regardless of relationship, [1:22] fill them out and send them in. [1:25] California 2 years later, 18 months [1:27] later, also passed a law that made it [1:29] permanent that every person registered [1:32] in the state of California would get a [1:33] ballot. So, tens of millions of ballots [1:35] then get mailed out. Then there was [1:37] another series of laws that were passed [1:39] that said anyone can register to vote. [1:41] You don't need to prove your [1:42] citizenship. You can use a gym [1:44] membership card as an example. So, [1:46] anyone can register to vote. There is no [1:48] proof of ID when you get a ballot. [1:50] There's no demonstration that the person [1:52] who fills out the ballot has anything to [1:53] do with the individual who's supposed to [1:54] be voting that ballot and it is legal [1:56] for an individual to go out and collect [1:58] hundreds or thousands of ballots, ship [1:59] them in, and they will all qualify in [2:02] these kind of mail-in ballot voting [2:04] processes. So, there's nothing illegal [2:07] or fraudulent going on. In fact, the [2:08] system is operating exactly as intended. [2:11] It has been set up and structured in a [2:13] way that with the right construct, you [2:16] can get an individual appointed, not [2:18] elected, but appointed to a particular [2:21] role in government under a {quote} free [2:23] election in California.