>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The delayed vote counts have sparked fresh debate among critics of California’s election system, particularly regarding the continued counting of mail-in ballots long after Election Day has passed.
The Associated Press argued that the late shift was driven largely by Democratic voters who waited until the final days to submit their ballots. According to the AP, “Large numbers of Democrats held onto their mail ballots and returned them in the race’s final days, which helps explain why Bass and Raman have been doing better than Pratt in the votes counted since primary day.”
That explanation has done little to satisfy skeptics who watched Pratt build what appeared to be an insurmountable advantage on election night. At one point, Pratt held a lead of approximately 40,000 votes over Raman. However, as additional mail ballots continued to be processed, that lead steadily evaporated before ultimately flipping in Raman’s favor.
The dramatic turnaround was especially striking given the mood at Raman’s election-night gathering. With Pratt comfortably ahead in the initial returns, Raman reportedly became emotional and delivered what many observers viewed as a concession-style speech to supporters.
As the vote totals continued to shift in the days that followed, criticism mounted from conservatives and election integrity advocates who questioned how such a large election-night lead could disappear.
WATCH:
President Donald Trump weighed in on the race Monday, expressing disbelief at the final outcome. Referencing Pratt’s commanding early advantage, Trump wrote, “Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost.” He followed that statement with a sharp criticism of the election process, adding, “3rd World Nation. Rigged Elections!”
Concerns surrounding the race had already been building before the latest ballot update. Over the weekend, reports highlighted the significant gains Raman had accumulated through what were described as late-arriving mail ballots. During a five-day period, Raman reportedly netted approximately 40,000 votes, dramatically altering the trajectory of the race.
Pratt later drew attention to what he described as an unusual coincidence involving those numbers. He noted that the number of net votes Raman gained over several days closely resembled another widely discussed statistic in Los Angeles.
Specifically, Pratt pointed out that Raman’s vote increase was nearly identical to estimates of the city’s homeless population. The observation quickly gained traction on social media, where critics questioned the remarkable similarity between the two figures.
“Raman received almost exactly as many votes as there are homeless people on the streets. What a coincidence!”
Whether voters view the outcome as a routine result of California’s extended ballot-counting procedures or as another example of a deeply flawed election system, one fact remains undeniable: a race that appeared settled on election night produced a dramatically different result by the time the final ballots were counted.
For many observers, the Los Angeles contest has become yet another flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over mail-in voting, ballot counting deadlines, and public confidence in election integrity.
