Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote

[Flopper]

Yes, and the right to vote was given only to men who own property. I imagine the founders felt that as a male group, property owners would police themselves as you say with the tool of impeachment if something as corrupt and authoritarian as ‘the donald’ were to become president and remain president outside the constitutional process. How could they see the Trumpism crisis ignited by a predudent who would be not as a wise educated man of wealth and property, and loyal to the nation , but as a fearmongering, divisive and uninhibited leader of a culture war against the popular gains of sexual, religious and racial rights nation that we have become.

END2210170044

No doubt the founders could not conceive of a Donald Trump leading the nation. However, they didn't have to worry about that because the people had little voice in choosing a president.

Looking back at how elections were held in the early years of the republic is really shocking. The typically polling place was a large tavern or home of a wealthy farmer, or possibly a candidate. The atmosphere was often more like a big party with plenty of free liquor and food being served. Election day was a day of celebration and partying. Men would travel from near and far to participate in a voice vote affirming candidates for town and city governments, legislatures and governors, and their representative in the US House but not the president. When voting was held early in the day, voters would often go to another precinct to cast another vote and take advantage of free food and drink served.

Qualifications varied by state but in general any white male over 25 who owned property and was a resident of the county or the state (laws vary on this point) was qualified. Since voter registration did not exist, rarely was anyone challenged. If you were admitted by the offical in charge of the polling place, you got to vote.

In early days of the republic, the presidential election was a meeting of the electoral college in each state to determine how the state would vote for president. In most states the electors were chosen by the legislature and people had little to no voice in who became president. Slowly each state gave the people a chance to vote for electors. By 1864, all states chose electors based on popular vote. Electors were originally all free electors, who were free to choose whoever they wanted for president. Later the idea of pledged electors became common and states started passing legislation requiring electors to be pledge to a candidate.

If you are getting the idea that most of the founders really hated the idea of giving people much control of who governors them, you're right. The people had little or no voice in electing presidents and senators, but only House members. However as the country grew so did the demand for a more democratic republic. Today, the people chose who will represent them in the House, Senate, and Presidency, an idea that would be abhorrent to the founders.

 

[Flopper]

Nowhere do you mention boxes, baskets and suitcases full of mail-in unverifiable ballots that appear out of nowhere after everyone is gone.

I didn't mention them because I was discussing real election fraud, not fantasies from the deranged mind of our last president

 

[scruffy]

My wife and I were both paid and volunteer poll workers for a number of years in several states. These are some typical Voting Irregulars we reported.

Before working the polls, we had to attend a class on procedures, laws and regulation that no one remembers. We had a sheet where we record irregularities and what was done. Also the monitors did the same thing. These sheets were sent in when the polls closed. The polling places we worked had lots voting, maybe 2,000 to 3,000 in a general election. I would say on average there were 5 to 10 exceptions turned in by poll workers at the end of the day. Here is the kind stuff that poll workers reported. The decision of what was illegal was made by people higher up the food chain.

1. Voter presents husband's ID, saying he was too sick to vote and she is voting for him. Voter not allowed to vote and given a verbal and written explanation of the regulations.
2. Foreign national presents their green card as id and says he should be allowed to vote Voter not allowed to vote and given a verbal and written explanation of the regulations.
3. Young woman claims she has not voted but registrar listing shows she has Allowed to vote with ballot marked for review
4. Voter name and signature do not match registrar records Allowed to vote with ballot marked for review
5. Voter campaigning for a candidate in the voter line. Voter Warned
6. Voter ask poll worker for help voting, monitor claims she illegally coached him Allowed to vote with ballot marked for review
7. Poll monitor reports a person voting without any identification or signing register Allowed to vote with ballot marked for review

The most common voter fraud is a person voting or trying to vote for a family member or friend who is not able to vote.

If anyone is interested in real cases of voter fraud here are the court cases from Heritage Database.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search

Mail in ballots open up a whole new world of possibilities.

Look - this is the SECURITY picture.

We have here, what you call a "heterogeneous system". It has both humans and machines, and the humans and machines are in different locations and may or may not obey exactly the same rules.

In any such system, there is error. Both machine and human. And, there are actors, both internal and external, and some of them are malicious.

Error is not fraud - but it has the same consequences. A miscount or mistally of some sort.

We take it as a given that there are black hats. We don't care "who" exactly they are, but we do care how they operate. There are many, MANY cases where I had to go in and show the execs they had a problem they didn't even know about, some vulnerability that someone was exploiting that was flying under the radar screen.

In every heterogeneous system, there is physical security, and there is operational security which if the machines are computers includes cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is kinda worthless if you don't have physical security. We had a client once who spent millions on the cyber side, only to have us physically remove the disk drive and walk out with it.

These systems, have to be carefully designed. They're not necessarily complex, but they have to be carefully designed.

 

[scruffy]

Nowhere do you mention boxes, baskets and suitcases full of mail-in unverifiable ballots that appear out of nowhere after everyone is gone.

Do you know what a red team is?

It's security people like me, hired by a company to deliberately penetrate their systems. Test their defenses, as it were.

I have about a 99% success rate with penetrations. I can penetrate any damn thing. Because, I can think like a black hat. Do exactly what a black hat would do. Why spend hours hacking a computer when you can just walk in and schmooze the receptionist? Y'know?

So here's what I propose -

A system of checks and balances.

Two, ADVERSARIAL, red teams, one from each party.

They work against the system, and they work against (or let's say compete with) each other. Towards the same goal - they want to prove the other side is full of shit and the system can be easily hacked.

When both teams agree that the system can no longer be hacked, the job is done.

What do you think?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Good set of ideas. There is a lot of merit in many of them.

It is possible to have FedGov define and enforce "standards" without actually interfering in the state by state voting

No. There is no such thing as a federal election. All elections are at the state level or below. That is why there are no laws regarding the conduct of elections.

 

[Flopper]

So what would be wrong with these four basic rules to gain the confidence of voters:

1. ID to prove you are who you say you are (as is required to rent a car, stay at a hotel, sign contracts, etc.?)

2. Limit early voting to a week so candidates get a chance to debate and make their case before voters choose

3. Mail-in ballots, which lend themselves to harvesters who manipulate ignorant and gullible voters with lies, are limited to military out of state, elderly, and disabled

4. Republican and Democrat observers have the same access to observe the counting, and without halts and delays

1 Every state is different and for mostly good reasons. 6 states conduct all elections by mail and 10 do mail voting depending on size or type of election, and others such as Florida have no excuse voting which means they do both mail and in person voting. In all states that use mail voting, ids are are not used for identification. Other methods are used.

Fore states not using mail voting, they use various methods for identification, most commonly signature matching state ids or signature matching voter records. The less ids checking a state does the more they use provisional ballots.

2. Early voting should be based on voter needs not a one size meets all. For example states that have serve weather may feel they need longer early voting period. Other states are more concerned with increasing turnout.

3. My state has all mail voting and has had for 21 years. I believe we have the most secure voting system in the country. The reason our elections are very secure is we spend most of the money that would have been spent on in person voting verifying that the person that cast the vote is the person that registered to vote. Unlike most other states we actually audit our elections, provide voter feed back using registrar records, and use facilities within the postal system to make sure the right people get ballots. We do extensive signature checking and when signatures don't match ballots they are pulled and not process until the voter resolves the issue. In addition to a secure elections, we are consistently in the top quarter for turnout and get high marks from voter for offering the most convenient voting.

4. No need for poll observes in vote by mail systems, no one breaking in line, no one campaigning at the polls, no voting machines to get hack, no polling personnel doing the wrong thing, no transporting ballots, and no need for voters to leave their home.

After spending some years working in polls, I find observer at polling places as useless as tits on a boar hog. From what I have heard about those in counting centers they are just as bad. They are there to find something wrong that would benefit their party or candidate and when they don't find it, they make up stuff, such as worker failing to lock ballot storage rooms not knowing the doors automatically lock. They try to talk to workers which is not allowed and they report stuff they never said. They complain about the lack of cameras where none are needed All counting rooms have rules for observers such as not coming within so many feet of the equipment and never torching ballots. They break the rules and get thrown out and then claim they are denied access. They are told the earliest time ballots start arriving which is well ahead of when they actually arrive and so observers show up late and say they were not given access. I remember a guy working in a counting center in Florida who was approached by an observer and told they saw him adding fake ballots in a scanner hopper and wanted to know who told him to do that. Turns out he was another observer for the opposing party. An argument leads to pushing and shoving match and security threw both of them out. I would have liked to have seen the report they filed.

 

[Flopper]

No. There is no such thing as a federal election. All elections are at the state level or below. That is why there are no laws regarding the conduct of elections.

Federal election means an election in even-numbered years in which a voter may vote for individuals for the office of president of the United States or for the United States congress but I understand your point. States laws and regulation are often different for different types of elections, federal, state, and local.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

END2210170056

WTF is this

Is everybody a little nuts here?

BEGINING2310180042

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Is everybody a little nuts here?

NFBW: It’s sort of like a Dewey’s Decimal System Ror keeping track and quick reference to specific kinds of thoughts including irrational, insane and dishonest thoughts. That’s all folks. Nothing to see except a poster who apparently has no thoughts. END2210180852

 

[Flopper]

Mail in ballots open up a whole new world of possibilities.

Look - this is the SECURITY picture.

We have here, what you call a "heterogeneous system". It has both humans and machines, and the humans and machines are in different locations and may or may not obey exactly the same rules.

In any such system, there is error. Both machine and human. And, there are actors, both internal and external, and some of them are malicious.

Error is not fraud - but it has the same consequences. A miscount or mistally of some sort.

We take it as a given that there are black hats. We don't care "who" exactly they are, but we do care how they operate. There are many, MANY cases where I had to go in and show the execs they had a problem they didn't even know about, some vulnerability that someone was exploiting that was flying under the radar screen.

In every heterogeneous system, there is physical security, and there is operational security which if the machines are computers includes cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is kinda worthless if you don't have physical security. We had a client once who spent millions on the cyber side, only to have us physically remove the disk drive and walk out with it.

These systems, have to be carefully designed. They're not necessarily complex, but they have to be carefully designed.

Mail Voting has many security features built into the system that in person voting lacks.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Even a few million Democrats believe it.

NFBW: A Democrat who votes in Texas or Florida could believe that Abbott or DeSantis cheat to win. But without the existence of court room evidence of fraud they would be irrational morons. So there you have it, ten percent of Democrats are irrational morons and seventy percent of Republicans are irrational morons, so why would any rational human being vote for a party made up almost wholly of irrational morons., 2210182357

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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: No. I do not agree because you have not explained what “99.9% honest and fair elections” actually is. You are not telling us how you established moving from the current era baseline based upon the Trump/Biden contest to a “99.9% honest and fair election” the next time.

What is the current baseline? Are we above “50% honest and fair elections” using all the current systems?

When you provide the number, will you provide the backup necessary to explain how you determined what it is?

END2210190658

 

[candycorn]

Mail Voting has many security features built into the system that in person voting lacks.

It also has a pedigree of multiple election cycles where nobody questioned the outcomes of the elections.

 

[Flopper]

It also has a pedigree of multiple election cycles where nobody questioned the outcomes of the elections.

States that do all elections by mail have virtually no problems with election fraud and people accept the results.

 

[candycorn]

States that do all elections by mail have virtually no problems with election fraud and people accept the results.

Truth.

If you want an acid test for whether or not the GOP really thinks there was cheating in the 2020 election...look at Utah--the reddest state in the union. They didn't change their election laws one iota TTBOMK and they do 100% mail in balloting.

 

[Flopper]

Truth.

If you want an acid test for whether or not the GOP really thinks there was cheating in the 2020 election...look at Utah--the reddest state in the union. They didn't change their election laws one iota TTBOMK and they do 100% mail in balloting.

The real cheating occurs when public officials move polling places and vote collection boxes away from those they don't want voting, state legislatures who redraw districts to help their party, candidates who violate election laws, and those under the guise of making voting more secure discourage voters. These are the acts that change election outcomes, not Aunt Betty voting for sick husband.

 

[Flopper]

The real cheating occurs when public officials move polling places and vote collection boxes away from those they don't won't voting, state legislatures who redraw districts to help their party, candidates who violate election laws, and those under the guise of making voting more secure discourage voters. These are the acts that change election outcomes, not Aunt Betty voting for her sick husband.

 

[Lisa558]

The real cheating occurs when public officials move polling places and vote collection boxes away from those they don't want voting, state legislatures who redraw districts to help their party, candidates who violate election laws, and those under the guise of making voting more secure discourage voters. These are the acts that change election outcomes, not Aunt Betty voting for sick husband.

The real cheating is when Democrat officials collude with news programs and social media to suppress negative news that would be detrimental to the Democrat while simultaneously suppressing positive news that would be helpful to the Republican.

That is why Biden is president Instead of Trump, who WOULD have won if the media didn’t manipulate the voters to go for the Democrat.

 

[Flopper]

The real cheating is when Democrat officials collude with news programs and social media to suppress negative news that would be detrimental to the Democrat while simultaneously suppressing positive news that would be helpful to the Republican.

That is why Biden is president Instead of Trump, who WOULD have won if the media didn’t manipulate the voters to go for the Democrat.

And you think republicans are not doing the same shit

Right Wing TV
Fox News
Blaze TV
OAN
Newsmax
RSBN
Daily Wire
Life Zette
Tucker Carlson

Right Wing Web Sites
Breitbart News
Liberty Hangout
TrueNews
The Daily Caller
The Drudge Report
The Federalist
The Gateway Pundit
Info Wars
Newsmax
One America News Network
RedState
Tennessee Star
Washington Examiner
World News Daily

Right Wing Radio
Mark Levin,
Glenn Beck,
Ben Shapiro,
Sean Hannity
Charlie Kirk,
Michael Savage
Larry Elder,
Dennis Prager,
Jim Quinn,
Lars Larson,
Joe Pags,
Bill O'Reilly,
Laura Ingraham,
Michael Medved,
Oliver North,
Dan Bongino,
Ken Matthews,
Jerry Doyle

And there is conservative newspapers and magazines

• The American (magazine)
• American Affairs
• The American Catholic Quarterly Review
• The American Conservative
• The American Enterprise
• The American Interest
• The American Mercury
• American Outlook
• The American Review (literary journal)
• The American Spectator
• American Thinker

• Brainstorm NW
• The Brown Spectator

• California Patriot
• Carolina Review
• Catholic Digest
• Catholic World News
• The Catholic World Report
• The Centurion (magazine)
• The Century Magazine
• Chronicles (magazine)
• City Journal
• Claremont Review of Books
• Commentary (magazine)
• Contempo Magazine
• The Cornell Review
• Counterattack (newsletter)
• Culture11

• The Dartmouth Review
• The Dispatch

• Eternity (magazine)

• The Federalist (website)
• First Things
• The Forerunner
• FrontPage Magazine

• Global Politician
• The Good Citizen

• Human Events

• The Imaginative Conservative
• Imprimis
• Insight on the News

• Jewish World Review
• Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

• The Kenyon Observer

• Modern Age (periodical)

• National Affairs
• The National Interest
• National Review
• The New American
• The New Atlantis (journal)
• The New Criterion
• News World Communications

• Plain Talk
• Policy Review
• The Princeton Tory
• Prntly
• The Public Interest

• Reader's Digest

• The Saturday Evening Post
• Southern Partisan
• The Stanford Review

• Tea Party Review
• Touchstone (magazine)
• Triumph (magazine)

• The Weekly Standard
• World (magazine)

 

[scruffy]

And you think republicans are not doing the same shit

Right Wing TV
Fox News
Blaze TV
OAN
Newsmax
RSBN
Daily Wire
Life Zette
Tucker Carlson

Right Wing Web Sites
Breitbart News
Liberty Hangout
TrueNews
The Daily Caller
The Drudge Report
The Federalist
The Gateway Pundit
Info Wars
Newsmax
One America News Network
RedState
Tennessee Star
Washington Examiner
World News Daily

Right Wing Radio
Mark Levin,
Glenn Beck,
Ben Shapiro,
Sean Hannity
Charlie Kirk,
Michael Savage
Larry Elder,
Dennis Prager,
Jim Quinn,
Lars Larson,
Joe Pags,
Bill O'Reilly,
Laura Ingraham,
Michael Medved,
Oliver North,
Dan Bongino,
Ken Matthews,
Jerry Doyle

And there is conservative newspapers and magazines

• The American (magazine)
• American Affairs
• The American Catholic Quarterly Review
• The American Conservative
• The American Enterprise
• The American Interest
• The American Mercury
• American Outlook
• The American Review (literary journal)
• The American Spectator
• American Thinker

• Brainstorm NW
• The Brown Spectator

• California Patriot
• Carolina Review
• Catholic Digest
• Catholic World News
• The Catholic World Report
• The Centurion (magazine)
• The Century Magazine
• Chronicles (magazine)
• City Journal
• Claremont Review of Books
• Commentary (magazine)
• Contempo Magazine
• The Cornell Review
• Counterattack (newsletter)
• Culture11

• The Dartmouth Review
• The Dispatch

• Eternity (magazine)

• The Federalist (website)
• First Things
• The Forerunner
• FrontPage Magazine

• Global Politician
• The Good Citizen

• Human Events

• The Imaginative Conservative
• Imprimis
• Insight on the News

• Jewish World Review
• Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

• The Kenyon Observer

• Modern Age (periodical)

• National Affairs
• The National Interest
• National Review
• The New American
• The New Atlantis (journal)
• The New Criterion
• News World Communications

• Plain Talk
• Policy Review
• The Princeton Tory
• Prntly
• The Public Interest

• Reader's Digest

• The Saturday Evening Post
• Southern Partisan
• The Stanford Review

• Tea Party Review
• Touchstone (magazine)
• Triumph (magazine)

• The Weekly Standard
• World (magazine)

Thank you, I'll have to start looking at some of those.