Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote

[my2¢]

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

I'd exclude primaries. Not every voter is either a (D) or (R). And none should be forced to be. For those that are, they shouldn't face any hurdle independents aren't required to face.

 

[Crick]

When millions of ballots were separated from their original signed envelopes or whatever, there was zero way to know whether they were valid or not. That and the huge variations between voter turn out in the 2020 election compared to all previous elections has destroyed the people's confidence in the system and process. I am suggesting a way to restore that and ensure honest elections.

IMO the only ones who would object to that are those who want their side to be able to cheat.

If you are talking about ballots in Pennsylvania that were mailed in by voters without their secrecy envelopes, you can be comforted. After the primaries, where they were counted, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled in response to lawsuits from Trump and the RNC that mailed in ballots that lacked their secrecy envelopes would not be counted in the general election and they were not. That disenfranchised roughly 100,000 Pennsylvania mail-in voters and as we all know, that decision hurt Democrats more than Republicans which was the actual reason Trump and the RNC brought those suits. No one ever presented any evidence of widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania, real or attempted, before or after the election. The purpose of secrecy envelopes are to provide a physical separation between a voter's identifying information and the actual votes cast when votes were counted in public polling locations. You may recall that voting is supposed to be secret. No one is supposed to know how any specific person voted. Ballots using secrecy envelopes have to be separated from identifying information but that is done AFTER the voter's identities are validated. In modern systems, ballots are counted electronically or optically in centralized secure locations and the ballots remain anonymous due simply to the isolation and speed with which they are processed.

The loss of confidence of some citizens in the integrity of our voting system is almost ENTIRELY due to the lies and falsehoods put out by Donald Trump and his proxies before and after the election. There was no widespread voter fraud anywhere in the nation and Trump undertook his Big Lie campaign to enable his attempted overthrow of the vote in case it should turn out as he was repeatedly informed it would, with the election of Joe Biden.

 

[scruffy]

We can achieve much the same result regarding confidence if we choose candidates who are Man Enough to admit when they've lost.

BULLSHIT

That's a totally ignorant statement, and it makes you the biggest part of the problem.

 

[scruffy]

Thank you. I value your opinion.

I proposed a limit of 7 days prior to the election for early voting if a state allows it at all. I didn't put any restrictions on who is eligible for an absentee ballot other than they must show proof of who they are when they apply for one and return one. The more stringent policy was to register to vote. We need much stronger regulation on that than what is the current situation.

Ah, here we go (had to find the thread again).

Sorry I didn't have time to amplify earlier, but here goes -

I am a "credentialed security expert", I look at this issue the same way as if I'd been called into a corporation to deal with a hack or a data breach.

First thing I do is assess, and determine what kind of security you already have in place. (there are formal levels and protocols for compliance and etc)

Then I figure out how the hack happened, what vulnerability exactly was being exploited, and how it was exploited and for what reason. Detective work.

Then I start earning my money, by creating a plan that will actually work, to meet both the stated need and the actual need as I understand it

And finally, with the approval of the board we implement the new plan, and then we TEST it, exhaustively, with red teams and a dozen other ways.

So for instance - one of the key and most successful concepts in corporate security is "two factor authentication". If you're a bank or a hospital or a government agency, maybe you need to identify someone and be "absolutely certain" they are who they say they are. The banks, use the debit card - and the two factors there are that you a) have to be in physical possession of the card, and b) have to know the PIN.

That, is not perfect. It's "better than nothing", but it's not perfect. For example a criminal could steal someone's wallet and then force them to reveal the PIN. To get any better security-wise, the unnameable agencies use things like biometrics - fingerprints, retina scans, things that "only you" can possess. And, that's not perfect either (the process can be compromised during enrollment), but it's a LOT better. Maybe we move from 90% confidence to 99% confidence, with biometrics.

In the case of voting, the system has to be enabling and permissive, just like bank cards, but it also has to be secure - "at least as" secure as a bank card. Right?

Our primary interests are:

1. Ensuring that we know who's voting
2. Ensuring they're eligible to vote
3. Making sure they don't vote twice

It SOUNDS pretty simple, right?

So, the idea of two factor authentication CAN be implemented in a reliable way with mail in ballots. Switzerland has been doing it for years. You get a PIN when you register, and then they send you a postcard when it's time to vote, with a magic code on it. When you vote, you have to enter both the PIN and the code, in addition to answering some personal questions and some you selected at the time of enrollment. This system has worked well for 30 years. (Switzerland has other problems, they got hacked on the back end at one point, but the back end of all this is a whole separate discussion - that would be the counting piece and the Dominion piece and how we handle all that).

We definitely don't want to allow every Tom Dick and Harry to drop absentee ballots into a box, that's just stupid.

Anyway, if you'd like to continue the discussion at this level we could talk about the counting part for a while too.

 

[scruffy]

Now - to briefly continue with the thinking around the front end - the question is HOW MUCH uncertainty is acceptable?

Is 90% good enough? Like the banks?

Or if not, maybe 99% is what we need and then we have to look at biometrics or something

Or MAYBE, we want 100.0%, in which case we're in the domain of "mission critical" like NASA or the DoD or something.

What do you think? How much error is acceptable?

 

[scruffy]

Why should we do all that when there is no real risk of a compromised election?

lol

I say we pay the networks to produce an educational show that will explain all the safeguards already in place and explain all the ways we know there was no significant electoral fraud in the 2020 election.

They're doing that already. Not for free I'm sure, but they're doing it.

I call it propaganda. YMMV.

We advertise that on all channels for ten days prior and then show it three times, morning, noon and night. Anyone who still thinks that elections aren't valid can just skip voting and live with the consequences.

lol

Stalinist, are you?

He who counts the votes matters, and everyone else should just shut up and accept it?

Um.... I don't think so.

No, I really don't think that works for me

Part of the social contract in a democracy is that without incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, we all assume that election results are valid and abide by them regardless of the results.
PS:

Really? Can you point me to that part of the contract please? Thanks.

Elections are run by the states and only eleven states permanently rescind voting rights for felons and even that is only for certain crimes.

I like felons, I think they should be able to vote. However I defer to the wisdom of the Founders until such time as I understand differently.

A real felony is a big deal, and I'm not the expert there so I won't say anything more. What I know is, there aren't very many felons, there aren't enough to become a "voting bloc".

 

[WTH_Progs?]

I can't support anything that allows dumb and/or psychotic people to vote, because they all swing Democrat and the country can't take much more.

 

[scruffy]

The loss of confidence of some citizens in the integrity of our voting system is almost ENTIRELY due to the lies and falsehoods put out by Donald Trump and his proxies before and after the election.

BULLSHIT

Complete and total horseshit.

You are obviously a partisan with an agenda

Therefore YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SOLUTION.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

This is a SECURITY issue, and you can stick your partisan bullshit right up your ass and rotate hard.

Pardon my French. I don't like to mince words.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thumbs up for thinking and proposing solutions. We need a lot more people like you.

This can be done securely through the mail by mailing in copies of documents.

I'm not so sure about that one. It works fine for me personally, but some people cast their opinion by not voting. Maybe calendar time would be better. At least a year.

Mail is fine, as long as copies of identity documents are included.

It may not be practical for lots of people - military, etc.

Duplicate 5 (should be 6). I think this is already universally the case.

No. Citizens only. No foreign national legal residents!

No changes to voting rules at all, without being passed by the duly-elected legislature!

Other ideas:

Mail-in voting by request only. Valid for only one election. Must provide a good reason.

A nationwide system to track voting by social security number, to ensure no one votes twice (knowingly or not). Can you believe we don't have this cross-checking? You can vote in California and Texas, and no one will know!

No ballot harvesting.

Can only vote if you pay federal income taxes. (Just kidding)

Regards,
Jim

The reason I think registrations should not be done by mail as there is no way to see the person and compare to his/her photo ID. But thank you for your thoughtful post.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't support anything that allows dumb and/or psychotic people to vote, because they all swing Democrat and the country can't take much more.

The reason the Founders put no such restrictions in the Constitution is that the very people in power who are ARE dumb and psychotic would be the ones deciding who was dumb and psychotic.

 

[cnm]

If you think dead people voting is not fraudulent, then oh well. Have a lovely evening.

What evidence was there to prove fraudulent voting by dead people?

Someone saying so?

 

[scruffy]

I just finished mailing my absentee ballot in and the issue is my signature. That will always be the weak point. What may eliminate that weakness would be a method to verify the signature. There are some ideas but I'd like to share later.
But as a forum member tell me which is the true signature of the attached.
View attachment 708730

Yes. Signatures are the current method of authentication.

And, as you show, they are difficult to verify and they can be easily compromised.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would add that ALL vote counting shall be monitored and VIDEO RECOREDED for future review.

A reasonable suggestion but video can be altered or 'damaged' or 'lost'. I prefer to have interested poll watchers monitoring the count and receiving a certified copy of the final count before anyone leaves the premises. These will be people who can be witnesses and have evidence in hand if the count is misrepresented and the court must decide.

 

[Foxfyre]

What evidence was there to prove fraudulent voting by dead people?

The widows of the deceased who pointed out those fraudulent signatures were evidence enough for me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. Signatures are the current method of authentication.

And, as you show, they are difficult to verify and they can be easily compromised.

Not if they are certified by city or county personnel. And my policy suggests that signatures on requests for absentee ballots or on absentee ballots or the official envelopes be notarized as the notary would check the person's photo ID. A certified photo ID is not fool proof but goes a long way to ensure that the person voting is who they say they are and are properly registered and therefore authorized to vote. And if the envelope is signed and not the actual ballot, the envelope should be stapled to the ballot and stay with the ballot.

 

[scruffy]

The reason I think registrations should not be done by mail as there is no way to see the person and compare to his/her photo ID. But thank you for your thoughtful post.

Yes. If the person shows up physically, we have a wide choice of a NUMBER of very reliable authentication methods. In person voting is definitely preferred.

But let's talk about "other ways". We know people will demand them. Mail-in, and computer. And combinations thereof.

I don't know if you're aware, but Microsoft (Windows) is requiring every machine to have a TPM as of next year. TPM is 'trusted platform module', it's basically a chip with a number in it, which you activate when you first install your Windows (and I'm sure Apple is doing the same thing for Mac's). With the TPM your machine can be uniquely identified, to the exclusion of all others.

So then, the reason mail is unreliable is because the signature is the only method of authentication. If we ADD to that a computer code, the method becomes much more reliable. (That:s what they do in Switzerland, mail plus computer). The computer code becomes our "second factor" for authentication. Which would at least put us up into the high 90's for confidence.

We should also consider registration (enrollment), which is problematic in many states because they take direct feeds from the drivers' license systems. Just because a person gets a driver's license doesn't mean they're eligible to vote. But for instance in California, voter registration is automatic at the time you get your drivers' license. So that business has to stop, that's a serious vulnerability and that interface has to be carefully scrutinized and controlled.

 

[cnm]

The widows of the deceased who pointed out those fraudulent signatures were evidence enough for me.

That's still 'someone said so'. What evidence did they have that the names on the roll were their deceased husbands?
Were the names matched on the roll with an address or some other identifying information? Why were they still on the roll?

 

[Kondor3]

BULLSHIT

That's a totally ignorant statement, and it makes you the biggest part of the problem.

No... it's entirely accurate and truthful... and, by way of counterpoint, your continued defense of your Orange Albatross is the biggest part of the problem.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We can achieve much the same result regarding confidence if we choose candidates who are Man Enough to admit when they've lost.

Like Al Gore?

 

[Kondor3]

Like Al Gore?

Indeed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

But the difference between Gore and Rump is that Gore did not summon and incite rioters to storm the US Capitol Building during Certification.

And Gore did not make a Second Career out of playing the Whiney Bitch about his loss... Gore quietly manned-up eventually.

And Gore had the good taste and style and "class" to at least show-up at his opponent's Presidential Inauguration, to demonstrate to America and the world that Americans believed in a peaceful transfer of power, honoring a centuries-old and near-sacred American tradition...

Care to post a photo of your Orange Albatross doing the same?

Oh... wait a minute... that's right... I'm sorry... your Orange Whiner decided to slink out of town in a hissy-fit of teenage angst and selfish ego-indulgence.

My apologies... I'd forgotten just how embarrassing that point would be to defend, for any sane American loyal to the Constitution and not a personality.