Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote

[NotfooledbyW]

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

JOHN LOTT affirms nothing. As usual if you can’t name the criminal if you cannot name the crime.

​

John Lott's Paper on Election Fraud

there was an excess 70,000-79,000 "Fraudelent votes" across GA, according to NAS award winner economist john lott, which was published in the Social science research network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988 The paper is by John R. Lott, the economist, and Trump...

www.metabunk.org

But let's look at the study.​

This study provides measures of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It first compares Fulton county’s precincts that are adjacent to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no allegations of fraud to isolate the impact of Fulton county’s vote-counting process (including potential fraud). In measuring the difference in President Trump’s vote share of the absentee ballots for these adjacent precincts, we account for the difference in his vote share of the in-person voting and the difference in registered voters’ demographics
Content from External Source

A study like that is not proof of anything. All it can do is point to a change that has happened, but it can't explain the change. A major change that happened in Georgia is that Stacey Adams and many other activists got a lot of voters registered who had been falsely struck off the voter rolls; that would change the outcome of the vote.​

You need to prove that the explanation for this must be fraud; and if you can prove the fraud, you don't need the study. It's legally worthless, even if its findings were reasonable. By itself, the study does nothing more than to say "things were different this year"; and that's not evidence of a crime.​

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You completely FAIL to understand the security picture.

EVERY counting method is vulnerable to exploitation.

You have to put a system in place so no single actor can cause a problem. Whether that be a programmer, an election worker, or anyone else

Democrats will just pay two people to do it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here's how you end the kind of voter fraud you are whining about.

Get rid of the electoral college. Then the party in PA fudging a few votes really won't make a difference one way or the other.

So, you want the results of the November election to be available by Christmas?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Was Trump the candidate that lost the 2020 election mentioned by the OP, who for almost two years now is still complaining publicly and with nearly insane in denial of the reality consistency that he won the 2020 due to election fraud. There is zero evidence that Biden won and Trump lost.

That means there is nothing broken that needs to be fixed except passing a law that directly states if a one term president does not concede his loss officially by mid December following certifications of electors in all fifty states and do everything in his or her power to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power to the incoming president / he will be stripped of all the benefits of being a former president including secret service protection, plus do prison time for a minimum of one year and up to 20 years max.

That is all we need to do to fix the election process.

END2210140734

You are an idiot of the highest caliber! Congratulations, dumbass!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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. That has little or nothing to do with Trump.

The Rasmussen Question: 3* How likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?

NFBW: Why did you use the phrase “convinced there was sufficient cheating/fraud/unanswered questions re the 2020 election” based on Rasmussen’s poll numbers question answered with mushy opinion on how “likely is it that cheating affected the outcome” ?

Convinced people would think evidence has been provided. That still tell me it’s only Trump voters who are convinced based on lies fraud and propaganda.

I am not a troll. You asked for criticism regarding your proposals that would remove concern about election fraud from the electorate What your Rasmussen poll says 55% thanks it was likely that election fraud affected the outcome of the 2020 election.

My criticism is this. If you do not base changes to the system on actual evidence of actual fraud of such magnitude that come to find out Trump was right he actually really did win, I am criticizing you for not wearing the most critical factor in what you were attempting to do.

If you have a great explanation for why we should reward propaganda lies, paranoia, conspiracy theory, disinformation and fear of the opposing party based on nothing, let me repeatbased on nothing” having to do with evidence if there being any actual fraud Why do you think I have no obligation to explain it to me I just brush off my criticism? END2210141516

 

[Foxfyre]

You are an idiot of the highest caliber! Congratulations, dumbass!

Won't call anybody names but he sure is trying to derail the thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Was thinking about this. But given how many service personnel there are and how many are likely to need to use the computer systems for something, unless a problem is reported I wonder if anybody ever checks who uses the machines or if a computer is compromised? Fairly often we are notified by somebody that a computer system has been hacked or some such and credit card numbers or personal information of users may be compromised. The reason we all have firewalls and other security on our computers and why Microsoft does so many security updates is because people somewhere are constantly trying to break into computer systems. And many of these are searching for some vulnerability that allows them to bypass security.

I read that in 2014 hackers linked to Russia broke into the U.S. State Department's email system and so infected it they had to remove it from the internet until it could be cleaned up and resecured. If determined hackers can do that, there is reason to believe they would be looking for ways to mess with our elections as well.

Issuing voter registration cards in case of malfunction or compromise of computerized election rolls and also requiring Photo ID to obtain a paper ballot, along with the other proposed safeguards, would be very reassuring to millions that their vote would most likely be counted exactly as they voted.

There are roughly 1.3 million active duty military personnel and even if every one was married and had their wives with them on base, given that they come from all 50 states, if every vote was compromised or somehow tampered with, it would be unlikely to make a huge difference in most elections. And I don't think anybody believes all those votes are fraudulent.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Was thinking about this. But given how many service personnel there are and how many are likely to need to use the computer systems for something, unless a problem is reported I wonder if anybody ever checks who uses the machines or if a computer is compromised? Fairly often we are notified by somebody that a computer system has been hacked or some such and credit card numbers or personal information of users may be compromised. The reason we all have firewalls and other security on our computers and why Microsoft does so many security updates is because people somewhere are constantly trying to break into computer systems. And many of these are searching for some vulnerability that allows them to bypass security.

I read that in 2014 hackers linked to Russia broke into the U.S. State Department's email system and so infected it they had to remove it from the internet until it could be cleaned up and resecured. If determined hackers can do that, there is reason to believe they would be looking for ways to mess with our elections as well.

Issuing voter registration cards in case of malfunction or compromise of computerized election rolls and also requiring Photo ID to obtain a paper ballot, along with the other proposed safeguards, would be very reassuring to millions that their vote would most likely be counted exactly as they voted.

There are roughly 1.3 million active duty military personnel and even if every one was married and had their wives with them on base, given that they come from all 50 states, if every vote was compromised or somehow tampered with, it would be unlikely to make a huge difference in most elections. And I don't think anybody believes all those votes are fraudulent.

Foxfyre

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the purpose of this post.

The post you responded to was talking about access to voting machines not computers in general. I simply mentioned the use of CAC/Fob's as a means of locking down computers and computer like machines (vote scanners/tabulators). Wasn't talking about credit cards or 1.3 active duty families and their spouses.

The discussion was about voting machines, tabulators, and computer system that are air gapped to the internet and even then have multiple redundancies for quality assurance. The card control/fob can be used to restrict what any level of user can do from system maintenance to functional use.


WW

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the purpose of this post.

The post you responded to was talking about access to voting machines not computers in general. I simply mentioned the use of CAC/Fob's as a means of locking down computers and computer like machines (vote scanners/tabulators). Wasn't talking about credit cards or 1.3 active duty families and their spouses.

The discussion was about voting machines, tabulators, and computer system that are air gapped to the internet and even then have multiple redundancies for quality assurance. The card control/fob can be used to restrict what any level of user can do from system maintenance to functional use.


WW

I know. I understand that. I was just figuring out how much that could practically factor into election security. Or whether it would be important enough to do that.

It's just I have studied and provided counsel to improve security for various businesses--it was one of our services in our business. But I always allowed for the possibility--and made sure our clients and their customers were aware--that there was somebody smarter than me out there who could figure out a way around the security that was in place. Alertness and attention to the systems was always advised. And outside contractors who programmed their computer and security systems should be licensed, bonded people that could be completely trusted.

With more than 170,000 voting precincts in the USA and its territories, a simple and inexpensive method of a secure vote is essential. Probably only a few, and those few would likely be in swing states, are most likely to be targeted in presidential elections but political operatives are pouring millions into elections for senators and representatives and governors as well as D.A.s and others with unusual power too. We can be reasonably certain at least some of those operatives are also looking for ways they can scam the system.

So whether or not there has been actual massive fraud, there is sufficient reason for millions to suspect there is. And we do have means to reassure the suspicious that elections are as fair and honest as we can make them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Won't call anybody names but he sure is trying to derail the thread.

NFBW: Criticizing a thread titled

Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote​

Is derailment.

Foxfyre wrote: “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.”

NFBW: Your proposal will do nothing to ensure roughly 99.9% honest and fair elections to people who believe The 2020 election was not honest and fair to Donald J Trump.

the above should insure that never again will any person have to wonder whether an election was stolen.

NFBW: No person has to wonder whether an election was stolen without your reforms. Most wonder because one party has a boatload of voters who believe their candidate cannot lose because if they do it has to be fraud. The leader of that sore loser party has legitimatized crying election fraud with no evidence that election fraud ever took place.

We need to figure that out but not by coddling sore losers or pretending their cult like presence in our elections does not exist or are not the main reason for the problem you are trying to fix?

END2210141749

I have twice observed when people signing in at the poll reported that somebody recently deceased was signed in ahead of them.

Did you verify if election fraud occurred or if the people looking over shoulders reported something accurate or were mistaken?

 

[Flopper]

You completely FAIL to understand the security picture.

EVERY counting method is vulnerable to exploitation.

You have to put a system in place so no single actor can cause a problem. Whether that be a programmer, an election worker, or anyone else

Nothing is perfect but vote counting scanners come pretty close. The scanner error rate is about 1 to 3 errors per 10 million documents in the typical counting center. When a document read error occurs, the scanner flags the document for research. Once the document is scanned and the votes tallied it can not be rescanned without using a special procedure. This prevents documents from being counted twice. The most common errors in counting centers are documents that are marked too lightly or out of designated area. Usually this occurs with absentee ballots that are marked by hand Most of these errors can be resolve by close examination. After ballots for a precinct have been counted, all ballot data including counts are subject to an electronic audit that looks at exceptional situations such as high or low voting rate, mismatches with registrations data, etc.. After passing audit the counts become offical.

 

[Foxfyre]

Off topic:

Are there really people too dumb to know what the thread topic is? Or why their posts don't address it and instead try to change it or derail it?

On topic:

The problem with partisan courts being involved in elections:
"Again state legislatures have approved new rules to prevent election fraud. Again federal courts have struck the laws down. Much of America’s political and legal establishment is resolutely opposed to election integrity. It makes you wonder what they believe democracy is all about. . ."

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

The problem with partisan operatives setting up the infrastructure for voting and who will count the votes. (My proposed policy maybe should include a nonpartisan commission deciding voting districts as well as have strong policy in place to discourage cheating?):

". . .In many states, the secretary of state who administers an election is in an elected position. A secretary of state running for reelection is the referee for a game in which he is playing. In other states, the position is a partisan appointment by the governor. Partisan administration of elections is a recipe for conflicts of interest.

While in most other democracies electoral districts are drawn up by independent, non-partisan commissions, U.S. congressional districts are designed by partisan gerrymandering. A Republican legislature draws district boundaries to favor Republicans; a Democratic legislature does the same for its side. The same legislatures also draw up voting rules, including eligibility criteria, measures that have a sad history of denial of voting rights. . ."

Why Does the US Electoral Process Breed Suspicion?

COMMENTARY: Americans’ weakened trust in elections is attributed in part to the electoral institution itself and to high-profile cases of alleged stolen elections.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Flopper]

If you went to paper ballots and hand-counting, how would you know whether somebody counted a ballot for one person when it really was another candidate? 150 million ballots is a lot of counting, and anytime people are involved then you have the opportunity for cheating. How many people would that take, and for how long? How many mistakes might be made, honest or otherwise? There are 58 races on my mid-term ballot, and it will take some time to count all of the races correctly and double check them on just one ballot. Suppose a different person is the one doing the double-check; he or she comes up with a different total for a given batch of ballots, what then? I'm not seeing this method as feasible, it's too time-consuming and labor-intensive IMHO. And I think too accessible for fraud.

Now a word about programmer hacking. Some computer systems are closed to external inputs, if the hacker has no avenue to get into the computer then he or she can't do shit. They can be hard-wired and hard-coded with machine code with encryption keys and once installed are not hackable. I'm not talking about the current technology of any of our election systems, they may or may not be all that secure, but they damn well can be. What I am saying is that hackers may be able to acquire somebody's password but it won't do them any good if they can't access the target computer. And that is what our election systems computers need to be. They can be designed, programmed, tested, and fielded with no chance of hacking if it's done right. The key I think is to have different companies and people cross-checking for who did what, to reduce the chances for collusion.

So far as I know, not one of our election computers got hacked, or the data compromised. The problem lies with data entry, people were apparently allowed to input ballots that were not legitimate according to the existing laws, and in some cases observers were shielded from seeing what actually went on. That cannot be allowed to happen again. Even if there are very few cases of voter fraud convictions, when you have nearly half the country with doubts concerning the integrity of our elections, that is truly dangerous to democracy more than anything else.

In vote processing centers, the votes are actually counted by the scanners which contain special purpose computers built to manufactures specification. The programs are typically burned into computer memory so they aren't easily change. These scanners are not online during elections. Anytime anything is changed in anyway they have be recertified before the election.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So whether or not there has been actual massive fraud, there is sufficient reason for millions to suspect there is.

NFBW: I disagree on the basis that there is no evidence of fraud that could have overturned any recent election.

Is there an explanation by you as to why providing truth to millions who suspect there is fraud while having absolutely no basis for being suspicious in the first place is not part of your proposal to ensure there will be no more suspicion of voter fraud with implementation of your ideas.

I don’t think your ideas will change a single mind for as long as they live.

 

[Flopper]

Here's how you end the kind of voter fraud you are whining about.

Get rid of the electoral college. Then the party in PA fudging a few votes really won't make a difference one way or the other.

If there exist enough voter fraud to swing an election it's not going to be national. It's going to be a local election where voter turn out is 15% t0 27% averaging only 19% of eligible voter. In an election with only 500 votes, a few votes can make a big difference. Using the closest popular vote in history In a presidential election with a turnout of over 150 million, it would have over 300,000 cases voter fraud all voting the way to swing the election.

 

[Lisa558]

If there exist enough voter fraud to swing an election it's not going to be national. It's going to be a local election where voter turn out is 15% t0 27% averaging only 19% of eligible voter. In an election with only 500 votes, a few votes can make a big difference. Using the closest popular vote in history In a presidential election with a turnout of over 150 million, it would have over 300,000 cases voter fraud all voting the way to swing the election.

Not really. It can all come down to one swing state, and a few hundred harvested ballots can make the difference.

 

[Flopper]

NFBW: I disagree on the basis that there is no evidence of fraud that could have overturned any recent election.

Is there an explanation by you as to why providing truth to millions who suspect there is fraud while having absolutely no basis for being suspicious in the first place is not part of your proposal to ensure there will be no more suspicion of voter fraud with implementation of your ideas.

I don’t think your ideas will change a single mind for as long as they live.

The problem with swinging a presidential election by stealing with the electoral college is that you must decide on which states to steal and how much to steal.

• First you decide on which states to steal votes by looking at which of 10 or 15 states pundits have picked to be swing states.
• Then you need to decide of which counties your going to steal votes
• Last, is the really hard part. How many votes will you need to steal in each county of each state to win the electoral votes for that state. If the number you steal is too many, you will get caught during the voting counting.

What makes it all the so difficult is that the decisions all have to be made well in advance and since you would be stealing votes in many places, a lot of people would be involved. I would think to have any real chance of success, you have to steal several hundred thousand votes in at least 8 to 10 and different states. Even then chance of failure and getting caught would be high.

 

[Foxfyre]

If there exist enough voter fraud to swing an election it's not going to be national. It's going to be a local election where voter turn out is 15% t0 27% averaging only 19% of eligible voter. In an election with only 500 votes, a few votes can make a big difference. Using the closest popular vote in history In a presidential election with a turnout of over 150 million, it would have over 300,000 cases voter fraud all voting the way to swing the election.

The point is not so much whether there was enough fraud to swing an election. The links I've provided in this thread are evidence enough that in many elections, there have been questions in people's minds.

The point is that many millions, more than half the electorate, have serious questions about the ethics and accuracy of our elections. It should not be that way. No honorable American should want it to be that way. So even if you or anybody else think elections are just fine the way they have been conducted, there should still be the will and incentive to clean things up to remove the high degree of suspicion that exists.

 

[Flopper]

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?

For most part that is exactly what happens. Voting equipment is highly specialized using computer equipment manufactured to the voting machine company's specifications. Equipment is tested and sealed by the manufacture. Any change to equipment software or hardware requires recertification before the election. Some states require that no change be made within 60 days of an election. Scanners which do the counting generally do not have an internet connection.

Voters walk into a polling place, maybe a school or VFW hall and see some voting machines and a coupled of little old ladies check voter registration lists and maybe driver licenses and they conclude there's no real security However, what voters often don't understand is elections are not going to be stolen by voter fraud at the polls but rather by people working in counting centers. This is where an election can get stolen. "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." This is why states spend the big bucks on vote counting centers to make sure there are backups of all ballots, machines and ballots are secure and their personnel are trust worthy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The point is that many millions, more than half the electorate, have serious questions about the ethics and accuracy of our elections.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with voting machines, the election process, or the integrity of poll workers and election officials. It has everything to do with the success of loser driven disinformation getting absorbed into the brains of the most partisan irrational minds among us.