Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote

[Foxfyre]

That violates a secret ballot. No go!

There is no such thing as a 'secret ballot' with a mail in ballot that you have to sign either the ballot or envelope that it is mailed in.

If you want to vote via secret ballot, go to the polls and cast your vote personally.

 

[scruffy]

There is no such thing as a 'secret ballot' with a mail in ballot that you have to sign either the ballot or envelope that it is mailed in.

If you want to vote via secret ballot, go to the polls and cast your vote personally.

Is that a requirement? That the votes be secret?

 

[scruffy]

Why not?

Reregistering about 200 million people would be practical? Hilarious!

Necessary, is the word you're looking for

 

[scruffy]

Wrong answer.

No. Right answer. Voting is a RIGHT. In the Constitution. If it weren't so things would be a lot easier.

 

[scruffy]

What if you don't have a computer, or one with the "chip" you mentioned? Do they just not get to vote?

They just have to find some other way.

The front end of the election system has to be permissive. It's required by the Constitution.

So, I propose, we give people multiple ways to vote. They can:

1. Show up in person
2. Mail something in
3. Use their computer or cell phone

Regarding points 2 & 3 - the problem there is not the method. The problem there is the AUTHENTICATION

For example - someone mentioned RealID. Every RealID has a bar code that can be scanned. And, there is NO way to get a Real ID without proving who you are, in multiple ways - you need a birth certificate "and" utility bills "and".... So, the confidence level around a RealID is "very high". The address on a RealID is verified too, at the time of registration - it can change, but if we mail you a magic code and you're not at the stated address OH WELL, it's your fault and you need to find some other way to vote

The key concept is very simple - MULTI factor authentication

Not "just" a DL. Not "just" a signature. Not "just" a computer code. Every additional authentication factor you add multiplies your confidence level 10 times.

Earlier I asked "how much" error/slop is acceptable. No one answered. Which is unfortunate, because that's a key requirement. I can design/build a system for you with ANY desired level of confidence. But you need to be able to articulate the requirement, clearly, in simple terms.

Example: many elections today, are decided by 1% of the vote or less. Therefore, a 99% confidence level is NOT SUFFICIENT Right?

We could look at Six Sigma, which is about one in a million That means in Michigan where there are 5 million + registered voters, there will be at most FIVE missed votes. Which is WAY less than 1%.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is no such thing as a 'secret ballot' with a mail in ballot that you have to sign either the ballot or envelope that it is mailed in.

If you want to vote via secret ballot, go to the polls and cast your vote personally.

Ballots are never signed. That is where your error lies.

I voted absentee a few times when I was was deployed in the military. No one sees your ballot nor can identify it until it is received by your county clerk.

 

[scruffy]

Ballots are never signed. That is where your error lies.

I voted absentee a few times when I was was deployed in the military. No one sees your ballot nor can identify it until it is received by your county clerk.

Yes. We are interested "that" you voted, not "how" you voted.

This separation works real well in person or mail in. Not so well with vote by computer.

Some people care that their vote should remain secret, others don't.

And, you can educate me - does the secrecy go per state? Are some states secret and others aren't?

IS there actually a legal or Constitutional requirement for secrecy?

 

[JoeB131]

Decades ago there was cheating and hanky panky in elections, but never did we have an electorate as suspicious and convinced of malfeasance or as fearful that elections can be stolen as we have now. Without faith that elections are fair and honest, it is unlikely that our constitutional republic will survive.

So I propose what I believe is a system/policy that, if implemented, will ensure roughly 99.9% honest and fair elections. Do you agree? If not please state your reason why it would be bad policy.

You guys have been screaming about voter fraud for 20 years, and yet you have yet to prove any actually exists.

Seems to me you are finding solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. And one has to wonder why.

Decades ago, they had poll taxes and literacy tests to keep "certain" people from voting. Not because they didn't have a right to vote, but because they didn't want them voting at all.

This just sounds like more of the same, given a lack of proof of any voter fraud.

If anything, we should be making it EASIER for people to vote, not harder. 66% participation in an election is embarrassing.

 

[Lisa558]

It's not your call. ChristoMAGA states will restrict voting as much as possible. Lefty states will open it as much as possible. Both are trying to limit the impact of YOUR vote.

ChristoMAGA states? Is that a new disdainful word being bandied about in leftist circles?

I’m not Christian, but as a Jew I share more in common with them - and have good friends among them - than the people like you who have contempt for religion, and religious people, and are happy to let them know about it.

 

[Couchpotato]

surada

Gore

Kerry

Clinton


all lost all said the election was compromised in some way or stolen. What’s funny is most of the things the right is being castigated for, saying the election was stolen, voting to not certify electoral votes, questioning the electronic voting machines etc were all done by the left in 2000, 2004, and 2016.

 

[surada]

surada

Gore

Kerry

Clinton


all lost all said the election was compromised in some way or stolen. What’s funny is most of the things the right is being castigated for, saying the election was stolen, voting to not certify electoral votes, questioning the electronic voting machines etc were all done by the left in 2000, 2004, and 2016.

They all conceded. Remember, in 2016 Trump claimed that 3 -5 million illegals voted.

 

[Couchpotato]

They all conceded. Remember, in 2016 Trump claimed that 3 -5 million illegals voted.

Conceded and then proceeded to say the election was compromised for years and years after. Saying they actually won, the courts stole the election, calling the person who won illegitimate, etc. Take your blinders off. We‘ve been building toward this past 2 decades, and the DNC has been a major part of the construction project.


im sure you have selective memory but Trimp conceded as well.

 

[Lisa558]

Conceded and then proceeded to say the election was compromised for years and years after. Saying they actually won, the courts stole the election, calling the person who won illegitimate, etc. Take your blinders off. We‘ve been building toward this past 2 decades, and the DNC has been a major part of the construction project.

Exactly! Hillary, for example, “conceded“ she lost and then went on to say Trump was an illegitimate president. That’s no concession.

 

[surada]

Conceded and then proceeded to say the election was compromised for years and years after. Saying they actually won, the courts stole the election, calling the person who won illegitimate, etc. Take your blinders off. We‘ve been building toward this past 2 decades, and the DNC has been a major part of the construction project.

I follow politics pretty closely and never noticed a problem that warranted 60 court cases and an attack on the Capitol... or threats of civil war.

Never knew a president who stole classified documents either.

 

[Couchpotato]

I follow politics pretty closely and never noticed a problem that warranted 60 court cases and an attack on the Capitol... or threats of civil war.

Never knew a president who stole classified documents either.

2000? Did you just start "paying close attention" 5 minutes ago? The entire election controversy was centered around the courts. It went all the way to the Supreme Court for crying out loud.

 

[Couchpotato]

They all conceded. Remember, in 2016 Trump claimed that 3 -5 million illegals voted.

The only person I can think of who hasn’t conceded in a major election of late is Abrams down in Georgia.

 

[scruffy]

The only person I can think of who hasn’t conceded in a major election of late is Abrams down in Georgia.

Don't let surada derail this thread. She likes to do stuff like that

Let's talk about registration.

I will state a requirement for voting:

VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO VOTES, *** AT THE TIME OF VOTING ***

In other words, it's only HALF useful to verify their identity at the time of registration. Anyone can masquerade as someone else. We need to verify eligibility at the time of registration, and re-authenticate at the time of voting.

Therefore, we MAY NOT pass computer feeds from the driver's license system to the election system. Why? Not because of mistakes (that too), but because THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS BROKEN. Over a million people have direct access to the DMV computers in California.

 

[scruffy]

How would you do that, other than the aforementioned picture ID? Are you contemplating something different? This is not a criticism but a question.

We'll, if you're in person, a picture ID works fine. If you're mail in, not so much.

The problem with mail in is there's only single factor authentication, which is notoriously unreliable. Election workers who are "barely" trained in handwriting analysis is NOT a good way to authenticate.

So here's what we do for mail in. You must REQUEST a mail ballot. (Never send them out automatically, that's pretty dumb from a security standpoint).

When you request it, you are authenticated against your registration. Then, you get a postcard back, with a magic code on it. And there are a number of ways to proceed from there, but the point is it's an "additional" authentication factor.

Right now, the only requirement for mail in is a signature and a date. And, the signature is "verified" in haste, sometimes not verified at all. And then it is promptly discarded (because it's in the envelope, not the ballot).

You can't simply staple the ballot to the envelope, because they need to be separated to be counted (because they use machines, in many places). So I propose we do away with signatures on envelopes entirely. We need something more robust.

So like, with a bank card, you get a PIN. We can easily issue a voting PIN at registration time. And, the banks ask you for example, for the last four digits of your SSN (which is almost like a 4 digit PIN). We can NOT use the driver's license number, because those records are public and everyone can access them. It has to be something that "only you" can possess or know.

 

[scruffy]

How would you do that, other than the aforementioned picture ID? Are you contemplating something different? This is not a criticism but a question.

Another way this could be done:

Biometrics are quite reliable at this point

Fingerprints work, and if you have a PC or a cell phone you can take a picture of your eyeball and submit it for a retina scan.

I prefer computer voting to mail in voting. Mail should only be used as a last resort, preferably not at all. Everyone has an Obama phone, just about everyone has internet access. Yeah, we'll let you use the mail but we'll verify you extra good if you choose that method

 

[scruffy]

Since we're critiquing, I guess I would add some positive suggestions.
Having said this I find scruff's use of a PIN for mail in balloting to be intriguing. I'd still use my method below, but an additional PIN could be added as well. Good thought there.

Registration:
The primary difference is that its done with the creation of a state ID.

Texas state ID for example:

How to Apply for a Texas Identification Card | Department of Public Safety

www.dps.texas.gov

To ensure shenanigan issues are not in play, IDs don’t have to be done at a DPS:

*Can be done at any DPS, or certified grocery service center or participating retail akin to a Western Union. ID’s can be done up to the time physically voting.

*Need signature and thumbprint. Both go to central registration database.

*You are issued an official state identification card with picture, signature, address, and magnetic for thumb (same as Texas ID now). This will be used for identification or voting purposes. (if you have driving licenses, these will be noted).


Voting:

In person: Can be done at any polling place in the state.

*Early and regular voting will have a fixed number of machines per people in the County / voting district.

*Early voting lasts two weeks: normal business hours for every day.

*Regular Voting. Day of election is a state holiday. Polls stay open midnight to midnight.

By law no election results until all polls close, and no local forecasts until polls close.

*All voters are verified per their card. They sign electronically which records the signature and that signature is compared on site to the card. If a dispute can vote but form filled out and notation made and signatures compared centrally. Once signed in that data automatically goes to the database so that may not vote again.

*Votes require a paper receipt.



Mail in: Mail in voting can be requested. Must be registered to vote prior to requesting a ballot.

*The ballot is enclosed in a sealable envelop that must be signed and the Voter ID # noted. That sealed envelope is then sealed in the shipping envelope.

*No postage needed. However ballots must be mailed back.

*Only envelopes with USP date prior to election will be selected.

*Only ballots sealed and signed in the internal ballot will be read.

"State issued ID".

Very good. The idea is for the state to initiate the exchange.

Same as if you were trying to get a certificate for a web site, there has to be a "certificate authority".

The state can issue "credentials", which you can then return to the state. A PIN, a magic code...

This actually works for mail-in too, the code can even be scanned by the same machines that scan the ballots