Posted on 11/09/2018 10:41:00 AM PST by Evil Slayer
“...you can’t....you can’t.......you can’t.......”
Yes you can and they do.....if there is a will there will be a way.....
If the fox is in the henhouse, you’re going to have problems no matter how you do the voting. I think the State just needs to take this over.
I still have my “Sore Loserman” T-shirt
You have it completely backwards. Paper is secure, as long as provenance is maintained. If it is not, then the ballots should not be counted. Paper ballots can be burned out back in the firepit, but paper doesn't burn very well in dense stacks.
In contrast the electronic records are completely at the mercy of the admins. And the admins are cheating, lying Dems.
Then the voter fills in the ballot and inserts it into the counting machine. At the end of the day the counting machine has to match the counts on the voter check-off computer. The ballots are computer scanned, and can be rescanned for recounts. The ballots are stored securely in the box that counts and scans them.
While I am not an expert, I do not see too many ways this can be subverted. Luckily Virginia does not allow early voting except with a valid reason. Also you must have an ID to get a ballot.
Like I said previously if you want to commit fraud that is not going to stop you. Ballots can be manufactured or destroyed. The problem with Broward is that they want to commit fraud, not that their system is defective.
The State of Florida needs to pass a resolution voting Broward and Palm Beach counties out of the state and making them the 6th borough of New York.
There’s nothing secure about paper at all. No modern company runs on paper.
Look at these mail-in ballots where signatures have to be verified. Signatures can be faked. And GOP ballots can be thrown out at will because the counter didn’t “believe” the signatures matched.
A machine can be made entirely secure. It all depends how good the design is. It can even do a retinal scan for each vote to make sure the same person doesn’t vote twice. It’s just a matter of how many safeguards you want to put into it.
It can even do a retinal scan for each vote to make sure the same person doesn’t vote twice.
That would require a federal database of retinal scans. Otherwise the same person could vote again in a nearby state. Suffice to say that privacy of the vote and safekeeping of personal information are nontrivial and sometimes conflicting.
I wouldn’t expect the verification to work across state lines. I wouldn’t necessarily even expect it to work beyond that single machine. Having people registered in multiple locations is a tougher issue like you say, but it’s not the main suspect of widespread fraud. This would be trying to address fraud at the precinct level by corrupt local officials. If every vote has to be recorded by the machine and the machine would reject the same person trying to cast a second vote, then it makes it much tougher on them to create a large amount of fake votes than would just filling in a stack of blank ballots. The most they could create would be their number of machines multiplied by their number of people involved in their scheme.
Yes, I had not thought too much about the fake vote creation back when I wrote my papers. I naively assumed elections officials were honest and followed the law. I agree that a properly designed machine could do what you say. But there are still lots of other requirements for that same machine that complicate the design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.