Here we go again... election integrity

Ben_Natuf · 2021-10-08T18:03:04.850Z

yes, if he abuses his power to do that (and it would be an abuse if the only purpose was the effect on election laws), he would be acting within the letter of the law. supposing of course the law which empowers him to declare emergencies does not preclude “political” emergencies

WorldWatcher · 2021-10-08T18:05:54.223Z

Ben_Natuf:

yes, if he abuses his power to do that (and it would be an abuse if the only purpose was the effect on election laws), he would be acting within the letter of the law. supposing of course the law which empowers him to declare emergencies does not preclude “political” emergencies

Such a declaration would be in reference to COVID which has killed over 710,000 people in the US alone.

(Again, I don’t support such an action. But it would be legal and as such maintain election integrity because the legal process will have been followed.)

WW

Ben_Natuf · 2021-10-08T18:08:32.808Z

please, it would not be about covid at all, that would just be the excuse providing plausible deniability. we both know that, don’t insult yourself by claiming otherwise

WorldWatcher · 2021-10-08T18:11:39.612Z

Ben_Natuf:

please, it would not be about covid at all, that would just be the excuse providing plausible deniability. we both know that, don’t insult yourself by claiming otherwise

I agree, just like voter suppression laws being passed by Trump** supporting legislatures are about “election integrity” when we know the real reason is to try to have a negative impact on the number of DEM voters because when larger numbers vote the Trump** supporters lose elections.

Don’t insult yourself by trying to claim otherwise.

WW

Oryx · 2021-10-08T18:15:37.380Z

Considering anyone can act as a witness, there’s no need to remove the requirement because of the pandemic. Everyone knows someone who could be a witness. I’m not ready to jump on the “obvious fraud” bandwagon, but this is a dumb idea in this political climate.

WorldWatcher · 2021-10-08T18:20:46.524Z

Oryx:

Considering anyone can act as a witness, there’s no need to remove the requirement because of the pandemic. Everyone knows someone who could be a witness. I’m not ready to jump on the “obvious fraud” bandwagon, but this is a dumb idea in this political climate.

Yep, not need to sweat about it.

Anyone can sign including the neighbors kids across the street. Just trade him a cookie (under parental supervision) for a signature and hey - “election integrity” is maintained.

(Personally I’d like to see some real improvements, I’ve been trying to figure out a “two factor” authentication method that could be used for mail in voting. We’ll see what I can come up with.)

WW

JayJay · 2021-10-08T19:50:39.182Z

This is completely whacked out and in left field but it works kinda like how Mobile Passport does.

Have everyone re-up their voter registration. Upon re-upping, one leaves behind a photo of oneself. You would have needed passport, Real ID, etc to register.
You get your ballot sent to you electronically, but it cannot be activated unless you submit yourself to a photo scan which would then be matched via AI/ML facial recognition technology (which is almost foolproof). There could be public facilities provided to allow this to be done for those who might not have a computer or cell phone.

This is a bare bones sketch…I am sure there are a million problems with it. Similarly you could do it with a paper ballot mailed to your address, and you do the same thing to make the bar code on your ballot active.

Would cost a mint but you could do this for in person voting as well.

Publius · 2021-10-08T20:45:59.938Z

Sure, I don’t see any downside to providing the government with universal facial scans that can be used to ID and track you everywhere you go. What could possibly go wrong?

DougBH · 2021-10-08T21:03:17.999Z

WorldWatcher:

DougBH:

All sorts of legal documents require a witness to verify. This is not something new.
If you don’t approve, then make your argument for the next meeting of the legislature. No, it isn’t just a technicality to follow the law.

Under the law the Governor can waive the requirement during a communicable disease emergency. As part of the waiver all he has to do is declare its an emergency and limit the scope.

WW

And if there has not been a change that makes this a real emergency, that would be fraudulent.

JayJay · 2021-10-08T22:19:02.164Z

They already have that.

But if you want true two factor authentication…you’re going to have to give up privacy.

SixFoot · 2021-10-08T22:55:11.916Z

Publius:

Sure, I don’t see any downside to providing the government with universal facial scans that can be used to ID and track you everywhere you go. What could possibly go wrong?

Those databases on you are for the greater good or something.

JayJay · 2021-10-08T23:23:14.297Z

SixFoot:

Publius:

Sure, I don’t see any downside to providing the government with universal facial scans that can be used to ID and track you everywhere you go. What could possibly go wrong?

Those databases on you are for the greater good or something.

If you want this “true election security” that today’s conservatives are clamoring for…privacy has for to give.

Samm · 2021-10-08T23:24:13.575Z

Smyrna:

westaussie:

One only has to look at the boundaries of districts to see that calls for election integrity are mere lip service. The ninjas audit has nought to do with election integrity and everything to do with voter suppression.

Does this post make sense, when you’re looking at it upside down?

Turn off auto rotate on your device and see.

WorldWatcher · 2021-10-08T23:28:41.860Z

JayJay:

They already have that.

But if you want true two factor authentication…you’re going to have to give up privacy.

Not necessarily.

There is a difference between two factor authentication and biometric authentication.

Two factor authentication simply means a secondary means of authentication. For example when I login to my work VPN on my laptop, an authentication process is activated on my cell phone. Click a button on my cell and my laptop instantly completes the login process. No biometrics involved.

WW

Eagle-Keeper · 2021-10-09T00:20:07.966Z

Eagle-Keeper:

Tguns:

SixFoot:

If they ain’t cheatin’, they ain’t tryin’.

[/quote]

May as well just go ahead and waive the requirement of actually filling out and returning a ballot at this point.
[/quote]

So all those states where witness signatures aren’t required, are they finding fraud there? Are their elections fraudulent?

Exactly how would anyone know. Plenty of fraud can simply go undetected.

Yeah, requiring a witness signature will fix that possibility.

I completely agree with you that in person voting with a picture ID and signature verification is the best way to go.

westaussie · 2021-10-09T01:21:19.302Z

In which part of that process would one be required to provide one’s fingerprints and DNA?

westaussie · 2021-10-09T01:27:11.316Z

It is very difficult to reconcile why postal voting is considered to be so problematic in the USA and not so in other jurisdictions.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-10-09T03:29:05.571Z

westaussie:

It is very difficult to reconcile why postal voting is considered to be so problematic in the USA and not so in other jurisdictions.

It also depends on the jurisdiction in the USA. My state does mail voting, we went to Trump, and there is nary a peep.

westaussie · 2021-10-09T03:32:35.255Z

That sounds as though the legitimacy of postal voting is dependent on who wins.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2021-10-09T03:35:34.001Z

westaussie:

That sounds as though the legitimacy of postal voting is dependent on who wins.

Oh yes, without a doubt.