US Special Forces Attacked CIA Server Farm In Germany In Server Seizure Operation, 5 Soldiers Killed

[MacFromOK]

I'm probably not the sharpest pencil in the box, but there's only one way I can think of to control voter fraud, and that's to eliminate anonymous voting. And while it may not be 100% fool-proof, fraud would be much more difficult.

Use SIGNED paper ballots, and attach a photocopy of the voter's SIGNED photo ID. Signatures could be checked at the polls, and again at recounts if necessary.

Just a thought (FWIW).

 

[THAT Gurl]

I'm probably not the sharpest pencil in the box, but there's only one way I can think of to control voter fraud, and that's to eliminate anonymous voting. And while it may not be 100% fool-proof, fraud would be much more difficult.

Use SIGNED paper ballots, and attach a photocopy of the voter's SIGNED photo ID. Signatures could be checked at the polls, and again at recounts if necessary.

Just a thought (FWIW).

I'm okay with this. Of course, I'm not really interested in voting more than once either.

 

[O4L]

I'm probably not the sharpest pencil in the box, but there's only one way I can think of to control voter fraud, and that's to eliminate anonymous voting. And while it may not be 100% fool-proof, fraud would be much more difficult.

Use SIGNED paper ballots, and attach a photocopy of the voter's SIGNED photo ID. Signatures could be checked at the polls, and again at recounts if necessary.

Just a thought (FWIW).

...

 

[donner]

You are missing the big picture. ANY election involving fraud is enough to "sway" any election. Such an election has no validity. I'm not saying the party that didn't commit any fraud should automatically win, however. Either a new fool-proof election must be conducted under strict scrutiny(paper ballots, many observers) or the legislature of the state should assign electors.

Woody

that is a fine sentiment, but not entirely true. One dead person voting is wrong, but also would not have changed this (or almost any) election. That is both a practical fact and one the courts have continued to hold. The level of fraud must be demonstrably big enough to challenge the results. It's the same reason why the Trump campaign have stopped some legal challenges in places like AZ, where they sought to review certain ballots. Once it was determined that the number they wanted to review/disqualify wouldn't change the outcome of the race, they dropped the case.

Working to improve the system is a great idea, but how you come up with a 'fool-proof' system i do not know. Especially if any instance of issue results in invalidating an election.

 

[donner]

Well, looks like Sidney just got sent packing in Georgia. Perhaps she will appeal.

The judge also removed the TRO for clearing the machines in Cobb, Gwinnett and Cherokee Counties.

Shockingly, the judge wondered why some of these claims weren't brought up months ago... indeed.

 

[Aries]

I'm probably not the sharpest pencil in the box, but there's only one way I can think of to control voter fraud, and that's to eliminate anonymous voting. And while it may not be 100% fool-proof, fraud would be much more difficult.

Use SIGNED paper ballots, and attach a photocopy of the voter's SIGNED photo ID. Signatures could be checked at the polls, and again at recounts if necessary.

Just a thought (FWIW).

So what happens when you vote for the loser, and the winner wants to exact some reprisals on those who did not vote for him/her? I think this is one of the reasons that our founding fathers wanted to protect the sanctity of the secret ballot. BTW, WHO voted is tracked, but HOW each individual voted is considered your right to keep secret, unless/until you want to disclose it.

That absolutely should not change, due to the potential for abusing information. But there probably is room for improvement as to WHO voted.

 

[Dale00]

So what happens when you vote for the loser, and the winner wants to exact some reprisals on those who did not vote for him/her? I think this is one of the reasons that our founding fathers wanted to protect the sanctity of the secret ballot. BTW, WHO voted is tracked, but HOW each individual voted is considered your right to keep secret, unless/until you want to disclose it.

That absolutely should not change, due to the potential for abusing information. But there probably is room for improvement as to WHO voted.

This is a reasonable idea....but it involves sunlight...the swamp critters like things on the dark side.
There would likely be bogus arguments about privacy concerns. Personally I'd be proud to have my name published as having voted.

 

[MacFromOK]

So what happens when you vote for the loser, and the winner wants to exact some reprisals on those who did not vote for him/her? I think this is one of the reasons that our founding fathers wanted to protect the sanctity of the secret ballot.

I understand the premise, and don't entirely disagree with it.

But when no specific ID is attached to a specific vote, voter fraud will ALWAYS be an issue. And will often be unprovable.

 

[Aries]

This is a reasonable idea....but it involves sunlight...the swamp critters like things on the dark side.
There would likely be bogus arguments about privacy concerns. Personally I'd be proud to have my name published as having voted.

That isn't the question. There IS a record of if you voted or not... the proposal would give the government the ability to see WHO you voted for. "bogus" concerns? That is information the founding fathers considered to be dangerous. They probably had some personal experience with the concept...

 

[MacFromOK]

FWIW, most folks register as Dems or Republicans anyway. It's not really a stretch to guess how they vote.