Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote

[Foxfyre]

Paranoia is a serious problem threatening our democracy.

Baloney. All peoples have had paranoids among them for all of human history. Those who would corrupt a constitutional honest process by using 'paranoia' as an excuse to silence or control any who oppose them ARE a threat to our democracy.

 

[task0778]

Biden himself said "It’s no longer about who gets to vote; it’s about making it harder to vote. It’s about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all." Well in all swing states with Democrats in power, it was Democrats counting the vote and largely making it impossible for anybody else to observe the counting. I don't know how many or if none or all did that honestly but it certainly didn't give anybody but partisan Democrats confidence in the process. If the situation has been reversed and it had been Republicans ejecting Democrat poll watchers and then resuming the counting, you know the Democrats would still be objecting and calling it an illegitimate/fraudulent/stolen election.

Again when I feed my ballot into the counting machine I have absolutely no way (and frankly these days little confidence) that my vote was counted as I voted.

Without accusing anybody of wrong doing, I want a system in place where Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Green Party, EVERYBODY is confident the vote was fair, honest, and competent.

"Biden himself said "It’s no longer about who gets to vote; it’s about making it harder to vote." No, it's about making it harder to voter illegally. Biden lied. Big surprise.



"Without accusing anybody of wrong doing, I want a system in place where Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Green Party, EVERYBODY is confident the vote was fair, honest, and competent."

It's doable, but it doesn't happen overnight and it ain't cheap either. You gotta automate as much as possible and put into place sufficient security protocols and procedures to prevent as much fraud as possible and prevent wrong-doing or at least identify it. You need security people to check the input people and security monitoring equipment to record every second of what goes down. And what's good about that is that there's no arguing against what's on the tape.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The requirement to flash an i.d., fake or otherwise, at a poll nanny is only one encumbrance. Denying Americans the right to vote early, to vote by mail - the security of which has been well-established by red states like Utah - to vote at conveniently-located drop-off boxes, etc. are all bureaucratic contrivances to limit an American exercising his right to vote.

Laws should be passed to prevent fraud only after fraud has been proven to be an actual problem, not one fantasized by paranoidal hyper-partisans as an excuse to limit voting.

Nearly two years after the American electorate opted to dump the Trump at their first opportunity, by a margin of over seven million votes, where are all the indictments for voter fraud? Who are the accused? Who are all the suspects and what legal recourses have been taken against them all? What states have decertified their electoral votes based upon fraud?

I disagree. In many of the fraud cases that have come to light -it is months or years after the incident. At that point, it is already done and then who knows how many other incidents similar have gone undetected?

As passionate as I am about identifying and closing vulnerabilities in the voting system that threaten the authenticity of the legal American Vote, I am mindful and passionate about people who are truly oppressed and prevented from voting; that is, people who follow the guidelines and timelines for voting.

 

[fncceo]

Where in the constitution does it claim that you can loose your right to vote if you don't participate?

No one is suggesting you 'lose your right to vote', but voter registration is already the law and the responsibility to keep your registration records up to date is clearly on the voter.

If you haven't voted in your registered district for some time, it should be confirmed that you're still a resident of that district.

Making voters responsible for keeping their details current isn't voter suppression as it affects all voters equally.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Biden himself said "It’s no longer about who gets to vote; it’s about making it harder to vote." No, it's about making it harder to voter illegally. Biden lied. Big surprise.



"Without accusing anybody of wrong doing, I want a system in place where Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Green Party, EVERYBODY is confident the vote was fair, honest, and competent."

It's doable, but it doesn't happen overnight and it ain't cheap either. You gotta automate as much as possible and put into place sufficient security protocols and procedures to prevent as much fraud as possible and prevent wrong-doing or at least identify it. You need security people to check the input people and security monitoring equipment to record every second of what goes down. And what's good about that is that there's no arguing against what's on the tape.

Except tapes can be altered, damaged, destroyed. I think video surveillance is an excellent idea, but I still want paper ballots hand counted by people under supervision of official representatives of all interested parties. Those representatives will received certified copies of the final count to use as evidence if the numbers reported are different.

If casinos can monitor the tables to make it almost impossible to cheat those systems, surely it's worth doing that with elections and restore confidence in the system and process.

 

[Flopper]

Why would it reduce voter turnout? The only thing it would eliminate would be fraudulent voters.

The short answer is most people think their vote will make no difference. They vote because they are expected to vote. Since they don't like wasting their time voting, they certainly are not going dig up proof of citizenship, show up in person at the registration offices weeks before an election, have papers notarize for absentee voting, etc.. Multiple surveys show more people vote when the process is easier and less when it's harder.

In my opinion, if the proposed restrictions on voting was implemented, voter turnout would be at record low level throughout the country. The loss of millions of legal votes would not be worth a reduction in fraudulent votes which are already extremely rare.

 

[task0778]

Except tapes can be altered, damaged, destroyed. I think video surveillance is an excellent idea, but I still want paper ballots hand counted by people under supervision of official representatives of all interested parties. Those representatives will received certified copies of the final count to use as evidence if the numbers reported are different.

If casinos can monitor the tables to make it almost impossible to cheat those systems, surely it's worth doing that with elections and restore confidence in the system and process.

I don't think that state of the art computer systems use tapes, and in a system that requires both data and operations security, I would think everything would be stored on disk drives that are routinely and periodically copied elsewhere to another location, perhaps more than one. From delivery trucks to people opening the ballots to people feeding them into the scanners to people storing the ballots after that, it can all be monitored by security people who are not employed by the companies that supplied any of the equipment. No one would know who's watching, or who reviews the proceedings or who checks the monitors for any interference. And other people could be receiving data real time over any anomalies, such as 5,000 votes that went all for one person at one time and from the same place. If it's done right, it would be all but impossible to manipulate any relevant process from start to finish.

 

[Flopper]

Except tapes can be altered, damaged, destroyed. I think video surveillance is an excellent idea, but I still want paper ballots hand counted by people under supervision of official representatives of all interested parties. Those representatives will received certified copies of the final count to use as evidence if the numbers reported are different.

If casinos can monitor the tables to make it almost impossible to cheat those systems, surely it's worth doing that with elections and restore confidence in the system and process.

Hand counting paper ballots is a terrible idea and just plain crazy. The hand vote counting process in the 19th century was complex, unstandardized, and vulnerable to corruption. Counting practices varied from precinct to precinct. Every time a large batch of ballots was counted, you would get a slightly different number. Machine counting is far more accurate and consistent. Also the time required to hand count 150 million ballots with dozens of items to be counted on each ballot would take months if not years because every time a batch is counted it has to be recounted until the counts agree. In a highly contested election with numerous recounts, it would impossible.

 

[schmidlap]

Baloney. All peoples have had paranoids among them for all of human history. Those who would corrupt a constitutional honest process by using 'paranoia' as an excuse to silence or control any who oppose them ARE a threat to our democracy.

Please return to reality and name all those indicted for conspiring to pervert an election.

No imaginary people. please.

 

[schmidlap]

.... In many of the fraud cases that have come to light ...

Please list all elections whose results have been proven to have been perverted by a clandestine conspiracy of individuals to all cast bogus ballots, and the identity of the conspirators

I am aware of none.

 

[BluesLegend]

Cheating election thieving Dems will never agree to these terms.

 

[BluesLegend]

Data science and analytics prove there was Dem election fraud.

 

[Flopper]

I don't think that state of the art computer systems use tapes, and in a system that requires both data and operations security, I would think everything would be stored on disk drives that are routinely and periodically copied elsewhere to another location, perhaps more than one. From delivery trucks to people opening the ballots to people feeding them into the scanners to people storing the ballots after that, it can all be monitored by security people who are not employed by the companies that supplied any of the equipment. No one would know who's watching, or who reviews the proceedings or who checks the monitors for any interference. And other people could be receiving data real time over any anomalies, such as 5,000 votes that went all for one person at one time and from the same place. If it's done right, it would be all but impossible to manipulate any relevant process from start to finish.

Video monitoring of vote counting is used in many vote counting centers and has been for years. A lot of centers have gone to web monitoring and recording which allows all interested parties to observe all parts of the counting process from handling ballots at arrival to storage after counting. In some centers they have made web monitoring available to the public.

The scanners that count the votes are very accurate something like one error in ten million. Anytime an error is detected in a batch of ballots, the whole batch is rerun.

All the Votes from each precinct are fed into a computer and compared against registration counts and historic data at the center. Items such as voting rates, and numerous other data scans are done looking for usually data patterns.

Batch counting and monitoring is used in all counting centers but it is not standardized. In most centers the ballots are separated into batches and counted when received. In each process the ballots go through they are counted to make sure they match the original batch count when received at the center.

In some places the vote count is extracted from each voting machine in the precinct and put on a disk and sent with the ballots to the vote counting center. So the vote totals from scanning in the center can be compared to the vote count from the scanning at the precinct to make sure they are the same.

In general, it is very hard to steal votes at vote counting centers because this where voting fraud can really make a difference in election outcomes. So this is where there are the most checks and balances, auditing, monitoring, and machine checks.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think that state of the art computer systems use tapes, and in a system that requires both data and operations security, I would think everything would be stored on disk drives that are routinely and periodically copied elsewhere to another location, perhaps more than one. From delivery trucks to people opening the ballots to people feeding them into the scanners to people storing the ballots after that, it can all be monitored by security people who are not employed by the companies that supplied any of the equipment. No one would know who's watching, or who reviews the proceedings or who checks the monitors for any interference. And other people could be receiving data real time over any anomalies, such as 5,000 votes that went all for one person at one time and from the same place. If it's done right, it would be all but impossible to manipulate any relevant process from start to finish.

I will consider this. But I know too many computer programmers who have confided in me that a computer can be programmed to do just about anything you want it to do, and it would take other experts in the field to detect any hanky panky. Even to the point that you simply produce the data you want, switch out the hard drive containing the same data but without the reprogamming footprint, and nobody would ever be the wiser. I just think taking electronics out of the equation and going to a more primitive filling out a paper ballot and hand counting the ballots is the only way the electorate will be confident of an honest and legitimate vote.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hand counting paper ballots is a terrible idea and just plain crazy. The hand vote counting process in the 19th century was complex, unstandardized, and vulnerable to corruption. Counting practices varied from precinct to precinct. Every time a large batch of ballots was counted, you would get a slightly different number. Machine counting is far more accurate and consistent. Also the time required to hand count 150 million ballots with dozens of items to be counted on each ballot would take months if not years because every time a batch is counted it has to be recounted until the counts agree. In a highly contested election with numerous recounts, it would impossible.

Almost all European countries and Canada hand count paper ballots. They rarely do not complete the count within a few hours after their polls close and they have far less problems and far less suspicions re their elections than we do in the USA.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please return to reality and name all those indicted for conspiring to pervert an election.

No imaginary people. please.

Off topic and irrelevant to the topic. Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[Flopper]

1. Mailing voting should be available to everyone pending ID validation.
2. Everyone should be required to vote
3. Election Day should be a national holiday - and maybe the day after as well.
4. There should be a 'None of the Above' option on the ballot for all races.

I agree with all except 2 and 4. The right to vote is a constitutional right and this implies a right not to vote. None of the above is implied when you do not vote for any candidate or for any issue.

I think election day should be a holiday but not a new one. Movie veterans day to election day.

 

[Foxfyre]

Video monitoring of vote counting is used in many vote counting centers and has been for years. A lot of centers have gone to web monitoring and recording which allows all interested parties to observe all parts of the counting process from handling ballots at arrival to storage after counting. In some centers they have made web monitoring available to the public.

The scanners that count the votes are very accurate something like one error in ten million. Anytime an error is detected in a batch of ballots, the whole batch is rerun.

All the Votes from each precinct are fed into a computer and compared against registration counts and historic data at the center. Items such as voting rates, and numerous other data scans are done looking for usually data patterns.

Batch counting and monitoring is used in all counting centers but it is not standardized. In most centers the ballots are separated into batches and counted when received. In each process the ballots go through they are counted to make sure they match the original batch count when received at the center.

In some places the vote count is extracted from each voting machine in the precinct and put on a disk and sent with the ballots to the vote counting center. So the vote totals from scanning in the center can be compared to the vote count from the scanning at the precinct to make sure they are the same.

In general, it is very hard to steal votes at vote counting centers because this where voting fraud can really make a difference in election outcomes. So this is where there are the most checks and balances, auditing, monitoring, and machine checks.

Again I appreciate your confidence in an electronic system. But the fact is millions of voters now do not trust the machines. I am not particularly paranoid about them, but I have no way of knowing whether that machine recorded my ballot as I voted and I always wonder. I just think paper ballots and hand counting is the way to go.

 

[AsherN]

Almost all European countries and Canada hand count paper ballots. They rarely do not complete the count within a few hours after their polls close and they have far less problems and far less suspicions re their elections than we do in the USA.

We vote for a single position. Those are easy to count. We also have a LOT of polling station. Last Provincial election, my polling station was in my building. At the end of the night, they probably didn't have more than 300 ballots to count.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with all except 2 and 4. The right to vote is a constitutional right and this implies a right not to vote. None of the above is implied when you do not vote for any candidate or for any issue.

I think election day should be a holiday but not a new one. Movie veterans day to election day.

But that would take a federal holiday away from those who are needed to work the polls. We have survived as a nation for more than 200 years and a record number of people went to the polls in the last two elections without making election day a national holiday. People who want to vote will find a way to vote. I think making election day a national holiday is way down on the list of changes that need to be made.