Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote

[scruffy]

For those who believe the lie that if they lose there was cheating, New rules will change nothing.

Another very ignorant statement. ^^^

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not familiar with election machines but...

Shouldn't there be a law (if there isn't one already) that requires all voting machines to run off of embedded operating systems and programs? All PROMS should be serialized and tested after programming. A test routine that dumps all programming for inspection should be included. They should have specialized limited function microprocessors - not the general-purpose microprocessor found in PCs & MACs.

I'm not sure if that's how it works now, but I think most people assume that computerized voting machines are like their home PCs - they have their programs loaded on a hard drive which can easily be overwritten or modified and microprocessors that can be hacked.

Any ideas?

Please define what you mean by "voting machines"?

If you mean touch screen machines (I'll call these Type A) where the voting takes place, they have to be programmable because the number of candidates, offices, and votes for initiatives change from event to event. These can't be PROMs as they are variables. Now, from what I understand these types of machines are becoming rarer and rarer as most jurisdictions have gone to paper ballots that are scanned.

The other type of "voting machine" is a machine used for paper ballots and functions as a tabulator (I'll call these Type B). The ballot is scanned, the darkened circles are read optically and the results tabulated. This has become, by far the most common type of "voting machine". However here again the functionality can't be hardcoded into a PROM because the who/what changes from voting event to voting event.

Now with both types of machines, prior to elections they have to go through an update process (to code the candidates and apply and software upgrades), then they go through an extensive testing cycle where test votes are made based on the voting method (Type A or Type B). I'm not talking push one button here either, I'm talking hundreds and hundreds of Type A votes and stacks of various ballots for scanning for Type B machines. A machine has to pass these tests to be certified to use during the upcoming election cycle.

Just FYI...

WW

 

[scruffy]

I'm not familiar with election machines but...

Shouldn't there be a law (if there isn't one already) that requires all voting machines to run off of embedded operating systems and programs? All PROMS should be serialized and tested after programming. A test routine that dumps all programming for inspection should be included. They should have specialized limited function microprocessors - not the general-purpose microprocessor found in PCs & MACs.

I'm not sure if that's how it works now, but I think most people assume that computerized voting machines are like their home PCs - they have their programs loaded on a hard drive which can easily be overwritten or modified and microprocessors that can be hacked.

Any ideas?

Yeah. That's ultra secure, the mil does a lot of stuff that way

The computer has to have a USB port "or something", how else are they going to load the ballot information? And unload the results?

Yes, it's a problem. The States aren't smart enough to write proprietary code.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah. That's ultra secure, the mil does a lot of stuff that way

The computer has to have a USB port "or something", how else are they going to load the ballot information? And unload the results?

Yes, it's a problem. The States aren't smart enough to write proprietary code.

Talking about tabulators, their security, and need for programming from cycle to cycle.

Question: Was there any hand recount of the 2020 Election results in a state or local jurisdiction where the follow-up hand recount was not statiscally accurate to the tabulation machine count?

I don't think there was, meaning that the security measures and certification process of the tabulators works.

(I seem to remember something about a data entry error when plugging aggregate date in the range of 6000 vote occurring in one precinct. However the QA measures, a standard practice, for cross checking quickly found it and it was corrected.)

WW

 

[Richard-H]

Please define what you mean by "voting machines"?

If you mean touch screen machines (I'll call these Type A) where the voting takes place, they have to be programmable because the number of candidates, offices, and votes for initiatives change from event to event. These can't be PROMs as they are variables. No, from what I understand these types of machines are becoming rarer and rarer as most jurisdictions have gone to paper ballots that are scanned.

The other type of "voting machine" is a machine used for paper ballots and functions as a tabulator (I'll call these Type B). The ballot is scanned, the darkened circles are read optically and the results tabulated. This has become, by far the most common type of "voting machine". However here again the functionality can't be hardcoded into a PROM because the who/what changes from voting event to voting event.

No with both types of machines, prior to elections they have to go through an update process (to code the candidates and apply and software upgrades), then they go through an extensive testing cycle where test votes are made based on the voting method (Type A or Type B). I'm not talking push one button here either, I'm talking hundreds and hundreds of Type A votes and stacks of various ballots for scanning for Type B machines. A machine has to pass these tests to be certified to use during the upcoming election cycle.

Just FYI...

WW

Interesting...Thanks!

But it strikes me that these machines have to have an external port to update & reprogram them. That makes it possible to hack. Even with extensive testing, they could be hacked after testing or even during the election.

Installing a new PROM for every election would be possible. It would be very difficult to pull the PROM out and replace it with a fraudulent PROM. If the PROMs were serialized and encrypted, fraudulent a PROM could be easily discovered.

I don't believe that the 2020 elections were 'stolen', but anything that increases security would be good.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please define what you mean by "voting machines"?

If you mean touch screen machines (I'll call these Type A) where the voting takes place, they have to be programmable because the number of candidates, offices, and votes for initiatives change from event to event. These can't be PROMs as they are variables. Now, from what I understand these types of machines are becoming rarer and rarer as most jurisdictions have gone to paper ballots that are scanned.

The other type of "voting machine" is a machine used for paper ballots and functions as a tabulator (I'll call these Type B). The ballot is scanned, the darkened circles are read optically and the results tabulated. This has become, by far the most common type of "voting machine". However here again the functionality can't be hardcoded into a PROM because the who/what changes from voting event to voting event.

Now with both types of machines, prior to elections they have to go through an update process (to code the candidates and apply and software upgrades), then they go through an extensive testing cycle where test votes are made based on the voting method (Type A or Type B). I'm not talking push one button here either, I'm talking hundreds and hundreds of Type A votes and stacks of various ballots for scanning for Type B machines. A machine has to pass these tests to be certified to use during the upcoming election cycle.

Just FYI...

WW

Fixed a couple of typos where "now" came out as "no" which read kind of funny.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Interesting...Thanks!

But it strikes me that these machines have to have an external port to update & reprogram them. That makes it possible to hack. Even with extensive testing, they could be hacked after testing or even during the election.

Installing a new PROM for every election would be possible. It would be very difficult to pull the PROM out and replace it with a fraudulent PROM. If the PROMs were serialized and encrypted, fraudulent a PROM could be easily discovered.

I don't believe that the 2020 elections were 'stolen', but anything that increases security would be good.

Any computer system is "hackable" depending on the definition of "hack" that you are applying.

If a machine is constructed so that to OS and functionality is programmed into the system via an PROM, then that system can be "hacked" by someone with access swapping out the old PROM with a new one with the "hack".

As scruffy has pointed out, cybersecurity is about identifying weak points in the system and mitigating those factors based on a risk assessment where functionality and security are in balance.

There are approximately 175,000 voting precincts in the United States with dozens and dozens of voting machines. There are two factors which inhibit the type of wide scale "hacking":

1. The shear number of devices in use,
2. The certification and QA processes used pre-election to validate and certify the machines,
3. Post election QA checks that statistically analyze the results coming out of the machines comparing them to a random sample of ballots cast (for Type B machines which are be a huge margin the most common), and
4. The comparison of tabulation machine counts to hand recounts that have shown statistically insignificant marines of error. (Margins of error even smaller than comparing the results of multiple recounts of the same ballot stacks.)

OK, that was 4 not two. Shoot me. LOLz

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah. That's ultra secure, the mil does a lot of stuff that way

The computer has to have a USB port "or something", how else are they going to load the ballot information? And unload the results?

Yes, it's a problem. The States aren't smart enough to write proprietary code.

My daughter, in the military, has to have what they call a CAC card (Common Access Control?) to be able to use computer systems.

Not only does it allow for controlled access to the computer, such control cards limit the ability of what an individual "can do" with the computer. This type of thing can be a chipped credit card style or a "fob" plugged into a port.

The advantage is that it not only can control what can be done with the device, each card/fob is unique allowing for the tracking of who, did what, when. Control access to the devices AND control access to the cards/fobs greatly enhances security.

Security footage shows Georgia county Republican chair, election official present during breach of voting equipment

Security video from a rural county in Georgia shows local election and Republican Party officials were present when voting equipment was accessed in what the secretary of state's office calls an unauthorized breach.

www.pbs.org

By tracking who, what, where, when - along with video surveillance - it even makes it more difficult for election officials to "hack" the machines.

WW

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Shouldn't there be a law (if there isn't one already) that requires all voting machines to run off of embedded operating systems and programs?

voting machines are 100% safe. State legislators, Sec of States, and governors who won’t certify the next election in their state if a Democrat wins are not safe. That’s the election threat to our Democratic Republic. If anything needs fixing -fix that by voting Trump election deniers out of office no matter where or what for they run.

 

[Richard-H]

Any computer system is "hackable" depending on the definition of "hack" that you are applying.

If a machine is constructed so that to OS and functionality is programmed into the system via an PROM, then that system can be "hacked" by someone with access swapping out the old PROM with a new one with the "hack".

As scruffy has pointed out, cybersecurity is about identifying weak points in the system and mitigating those factors based on a risk assessment where functionality and security are in balance.

There are approximately 175,000 voting precincts in the United States with dozens and dozens of voting machines. There are two factors which inhibit the type of wide scale "hacking":

1. The shear number of devices in use,
2. The certification and QA processes used pre-election to validate and certify the machines,
3. Post election QA checks that statistically analyze the results coming out of the machines comparing them to a random sample of ballots cast (for Type B machines which are be a huge margin the most common), and
4. The comparison of tabulation machine counts to hand recounts that have shown statistically insignificant marines of error. (Margins of error even smaller than comparing the results of multiple recounts of the same ballot stacks.)

OK, that was 4 not two. Shoot me. LOLz

WW

While there is no perfectly secure system, PROMs with encrypted serial numbers would make it easy to identify a fraudulent PROM. It would also be very physically difficult to replace a PROM. I've replaced many - it's not easy if they're soldered to the PCBs. Photos of the soldered pins would make ID as unique as a fingerprint.

What your argument leaves out is that any election system has been successfully hacked if a large amount of people believe that it's been hacked or could be hacked. It's about the confidence of the American people in the election system. Even if a large amount of people just say that the system has been hacked without really believing it. That's the problem that we're facing, not whether the systems were actually hacked.

Somehow people don't tend to believe, or want to believe, proof based on statistical analysis. I do, but I'm better educated on the subject. People do understand physical impediments to hacking.

 

[Richard-H]

My daughter, in the military, has to have what they call a CAC card (Common Access Control?) to be able to use computer systems.

Not only does it allow for controlled access to the computer, such control cards limit the ability of what an individual "can do" with the computer. This type of thing can be a chipped credit card style or a "fob" plugged into a port.

The advantage is that it not only can control what can be done with the device, each card/fob is unique allowing for the tracking of who, did what, when. Control access to the devices AND control access to the cards/fobs greatly enhances security.

Security footage shows Georgia county Republican chair, election official present during breach of voting equipment

Security video from a rural county in Georgia shows local election and Republican Party officials were present when voting equipment was accessed in what the secretary of state's office calls an unauthorized breach.

www.pbs.org

By tracking who, what, where, when - along with video surveillance - it even makes it more difficult for election officials to "hack" the machines.

WW

I've worked with that type of system. I suppose that they're very secure, but a basic principle in engineering is "Keep It Simple Stupid", otherwise known as the KISS principle. The more complex a system is, the less reliable. There are so many layers to the CAC systems that any one layer could be compromised.

I know that we live in a world dominated by software companies that will convolute anything to make a buck, but I'm an old timer that believes in simpler dedicated systems. I miss my soldering gun and o'scope!!!!

 

[Flopper]

I love it! To me, the keys are:

1) no last-minute registration
2) very limited mail-in ballots
3) voter ID required
4) no interruptions once the count commences
5) no ballots accepted after polls close
6) hand counting
7) observers from both sides

I would add one restriction to your list and “ease up” on another:

1) Limited amount of time for early voting. It is ridiculous for people to cast their votes in September, before even a single debate is held. I’d go for “Election Week.”

2) Let’s be lenient in the “physically able to go to the polls.” Many people in their 80s still drive and can get there, but the wait in line could be impossible. I’d say anyone 75 and up qualifies for a mail ballot.

Good job, Fox! The scary thing as we head into the midterms is that we haven’t corrected - via new procedures - the opportunities for shenanigans we had last time.

A solution looking for a problem

 

[Foxfyre]

While there is no perfectly secure system, PROMs with encrypted serial numbers would make it easy to identify a fraudulent PROM. It would also be very physically difficult to replace a PROM. I've replaced many - it's not easy if they're soldered to the PCBs. Photos of the soldered pins would make ID as unique as a fingerprint.

What your argument leaves out is that any election system has been successfully hacked if a large amount of people believe that it's been hacked or could be hacked. It's about the confidence of the American people in the election system. Even if a large amount of people just say that the system has been hacked without really believing it. That's the problem that we're facing, not whether the systems were actually hacked.

Somehow people don't tend to believe, or want to believe, proof based on statistical analysis. I do, but I'm better educated on the subject. People do understand physical impediments to hacking.

Thank you. Thank you. I know we are poles apart in our political beliefs, but thank you for getting the point of the OP, i.e. to ensure accuracy of the vote as legitimate and also to restore confidence of the people in the vote.

When enough irregularities are witnessed and reported, with it difficult to know whether a voting machine is hacked or malfunctioned, with the trend going away from cursive writing which will make signature verification much more difficult on mail in ballots unless those signatures are notarized, with computerized sign in at polling places that further distort actual signatures, nine states plus DC and the Virgin Islands do not compare signatures with the registered signature on mail in ballots, media widely reporting Russian interference, etc. etc. etc., there will be millions who no longer trust the system.

Despite all the efforts of those attacking me, the childish ones who disagree with every post regardless of what it says, who want this to be about Trump or rabid Republicans or dishonest Democrats or whatever, who apparently honestly believe the system is secure and/or who WANT voter fraud to be easier, If there was no other reason to put a system in place that produces little doubt in the mind of the electorate, that doubt alone is worth the effort.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's about the confidence of the American people in the election system. Even if a large amount of people just say that the system has been hacked without really believing it. That's the problem that we're facing, not whether the systems were actually hacked.

It really has nothing to do with the confidence of Americans who actually believe in our freedoms, self-government and by necessity, to keep it working, - who understand what is called giving their consent to be governed by majority rule along with inalienable constitutional protections for the individual and groups who are in the minority.

What happened in 2020 was the candidate for president who was also the sitting president, had a plot conceived prior to the election to win with or without consent from the majority of voters. If the majority chose him everything is golden, If the majority chose his opponent he declares victory accusing some chosen states he lost of election fraud.

Fortunately his own VP, and election officials in seven states that Biden won, did not support the plot and the courts were presented with zero evidence of fraud or foul play that would overturn election results in any of those seven states

This thread is a scam - the OP @Foxfire trying to preserve Trump’s big lie by lying to us that 60 percent of Americans are concerned about election fraud. That many are not. There are 33%, all Trump voters, like scruffy who do not believe in our freedoms and self-government by the will of the majority.

They want it by the will of their ideology through a strongman like Trump.

This thread is not about good Americans trying to fix a broken system / They are trying to divert attention from themselves and the strongman and authoritarian rule that they still support and applaud if a strongman can make it happen.

 

[Paleman]

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.

PHOTO ID:
Any person who is unable to secure a certified Driver's License w/photo or other valid photo ID may provide proof of citizenship and residence and apply for a free photo ID in the city or county where the person resides.

REGISTRATION:
All U.S. citizens who are not felons and who are sufficiently mentally competent to register to vote via their own intentional effort should go to the city or county clerk's office where they reside and:
1. Provide certified photo ID, proof of citizenship, proof of home residency, proof of age.
2. Anyone who moves out of his/her precinct must re-register in order to be allowed to vote.
3. Voter registration must be done 2 to 6 weeks prior to the election so that the person can be added to the official voter rolls.
4. Any person not voting in either the primary or general election in any given election year will be dropped from the voter rolls and must re-register to vote.
5. Some provision will be made for those who otherwise qualify but cannot physically go to the city or county clerk's office to register but the registration must be taken by a person with the city or county clerk's office.
5. Anyone falsifying his/her voter registration or knowingly accepting or creating fake registrations is subject to prosecution for a felony offense and, if convicted, will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment.

ELECTIONS:
1. All persons physically able must go to the polls in their assigned precinct personally and present positive certified photo ID and certify under oath that they live at the address shown on their voter registration. Early voting if allowed in any state may not exceed ten days prior to election day and must include all safeguards in place on election day.
2. Those who must or need to vote absentee will apply for an absentee ballot with a signed and notarized application.
3. The completed absentee ballot must be delivered to the precinct polling location no later than the close of the polls on election day. No ballots will be accepted from any source after the polls close. Every absentee ballot should be able to be matched with a notarized application for the ballot. No person having been issued an absentee ballot may vote by any means other than that absentee ballot.
4. Anyone voting in somebody else's name or hindering the timely delivery of absentee ballots to the polling place or discouraging or hindering people's ability to get to the polls will be subject to prosecution for a felony with penalties fines and/or imprisonment.
5. Only properly registered persons living within the United States and/or its territories are eligible to vote.

COUNTING THE VOTE:
1. All interested parties must be allowed to have representatives present and able to observe the counting process. Those representatives must be allowed to remain until the counting is completed and will be given a certified document verifying what the final count is.
2. All ballots will be via paper ballots and hand counted. Counting will continue without interruption, even if people have to be replaced, until all ballots are counted and the results provided to the city or county officials as well as to the poll watchers.

Recognizing that for every rule, there can be necessary exceptions for truly valid reasons such as natural disasters or whatever, the above should insure that never again will any person have to wonder whether an election was stolen.

Makes perfect sense to me, but we all know that the left and minorities will scream bloody murder because it is unfair and racist. In the past, we didn't have a cheating issue at the polls because when you have to show up and prove who you are, there is little chance of fraud. Early voting and absentee voting are gateways to cheaters and both need to be eliminated or seriously restricted.

 

[Flopper]

If you think that's what I said, I will just wish you a good night and good day tomorrow.

Sorry. That was not meant for you

 

[Foxfyre]

Makes perfect sense to me, but we all know that the left and minorities will scream bloody murder because it is unfair and racist. In the past, we didn't have a cheating issue at the polls because when you have to show up and prove who you are, there is little chance of fraud. Early voting and absentee voting are gateways to cheaters and both need to be eliminated or seriously restricted.

Thank you. I don't really have a serious problem with early voting--I think a week would be plenty sufficient and is a real blessing for those who have difficulty standing and waiting for long periods--but there must be iron clad rules for registration that easily confirm a person is an eligible CITIZEN, paper ballots with a foolproof chain of custody, and photo ID must be required to vote. Maybe the votes each day should be counted as they come in and the final count given to poll watchers representing all interested parties. I don't know.

There have been many honest and thoughtful suggestions for other ways to do it. I am still sold on getting ballot harvesting, unsupervised registrations, drop boxes, the machines and internet that only create suspicion out of the process and using paper ballots and tightening the system against fraud as much as possible.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Despite all the efforts of those attacking me,

I Attacked your statement:

I am saying that more than 60% of the electorate is convinced there was sufficient cheating/fraud/unanswered questions re the 2020 election to be of concern.

It’s 30% not 60% which means it’s Trump voters. So the entire constituency of Americans who are concerned about election fraud have no evidence that backs up having any concern at all. We certainly don’t need a bunch of the worst of the worst sore losers and liars in the world telling the rest of us how to fix what ain’t broke.

You wanted criticism. Get your facts straight because as of now they ain’t. That is my original critique.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. I am still sold on getting the machines that only create suspicion out of the process

Voting machines did not create suspicion in 2020. A propaganda machine led by the losing presidential candidate created unwarranted suspicion which also led to violence on Jan6.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hope you all understand and I wish you well, but I am not wasting time by reading or responding to posts by those trolling this thread and/or trying to make it about something other than the thread topic. Disagreement is good and, when sincere, I appreciate it.

But to recap just some of the evidence that there is widespread distrust of the system and why that distrust exists whether or not there is proof justifying the distrust:

This requires only a minute or two to listen to for the meat of the discussion:


Again in defense of Rasmussen polls, they consistently give Biden some of his highest poll ratings indicating the polls are NOT weighted in favor of Republicans or conservatives:

Election Integrity: Most Voters Still Suspect Cheating

Protecting the integrity of elections remains a high priority for American voters, most of whom still suspect there was cheating in the 2020 presidential election.

www.rasmussenreports.com

Election Integrity: 50% Think Cheating Likely in Midterms

Many voters still believe cheating affected the 2020 presidential election, and a majority fear the upcoming midterm elections could be tainted by cheating.

www.rasmussenreports.com

Election Integrity: 61% Say Issue Is Very Important

Preventing cheating in elections is a priority for voters, who expect the issue to be important in next month’s midterm elections.

www.rasmussenreports.com

This study strongly states its purpose is NOT to contest the outcome of the 2020 election, but affirms that there was widespread fraud:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/28/new_peer-reviewed_research_finds_evidence_of_2020_voter_fraud_147378.html#!