Here we go again... election integrity

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.

Samm · 2021-10-09T04:25:49.230Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

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.

So does ours, but application for a ballot requires voter registration no., identification such as driver’s license or passport, and the signature of a witness. And you know what? That doesn’t make me feel as though they are trying to suppress my vote.

Samm · 2021-10-09T04:28:12.478Z

westaussie:

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

Not at all. It depends on the assurance that the person casting the ballot is the person who claims to be casting the ballot.

westaussie · 2021-10-09T04:35:00.507Z

That doesn’t address the different approach to postal voting when a Rep candidate wins compared to the complaints when a Dem candidate wins.

GrandWazoo · 2021-10-09T04:49:37.566Z

Samm:

Not at all. It depends on the assurance that the person casting the ballot is the person who claims to be casting the ballot.

And each state certified their election which means that there was assurance that the ballots were correct as per state election laws agreed to by both Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

Ben_Natuf · 2021-10-09T05:20:55.157Z

then you’ll have no problem at all stating which measures suppress democrat votes and how they suppress them.

Samm · 2021-10-09T05:46:46.642Z

westaussie:

That doesn’t address the different approach to postal voting when a Rep candidate wins compared to the complaints when a Dem candidate wins.

There is no difference based on which party dominates the election. That’s purely a lib red herring.

Samm · 2021-10-09T05:49:26.174Z

GrandWazoo:

Samm:

Not at all. It depends on the assurance that the person casting the ballot is the person who claims to be casting the ballot.

And each state certified their election which means that there was assurance that the ballots were correct as per state election laws agreed to by both Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

Not really. Certification is based the rules in effect. If the rules do not require proof that the vote is cast by a legitimate voter, then there are no grounds to not certify the election, regardless of that doubt.