I like this idea. It’s not as invasive as a biometric chip mentioned above (scary idea.)
I’m actually more worried about diebold vote counting fraud than actual people voting multiple times fraud. There is a funny video over at “The Onion” right now about Diebold accidentally releasing the election results early. Really good.
I’ve also heard about Karl Rove’s mailers with regards to vote manipulation. (You send out mailers to voter addresses requesting that they be responded to and returned. If they are not returned it is assumed that the voter does not live at the address and the vote is challenged and tosses out. You won’t even be aware that your vote didn’t count.) Can’t say for sure if it’s true but I bet there’s dirty tricks all around. It’s probably something he learned from the dems.
I hate to be paranoid but sometimes you just can’t help yourself.
Fraudulent electronic ballot stuffing can be detected far, far more easily than fraudulent registering and people voting in multiple areas.
You can use sign-in records to make sure there are the correct number of votes cast in a precinct, and the newer diebold voting machines print a paper record that the voter can see and verify when they vote.
In most cases, you should be able to detect that there was a problem, and go back to the paper trail to discover what happened. It does however require good post election canvasing, which should be observed by independent people as well as someone from both parties to make sure that it is done right.
The biggest problems are still low tech, and they exist because the politicians that are in power won't allow for meaningful reform.
BS. Those of us who deal with the election fraud issue know that it comes from the Democrats. Go peddle your Rove paranoia over at DU.