It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Thought on How to Alleviate Voter Fraud.

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I have been getting some emails about past voter fraud in certain areas of the country, which basically aren't true but some of us fear voter fraud. I think we all know that the striking down of Voter ID acts which require a picture id is basically just a way of allowing voter fraud. This is camouflaged by stating it suppresses the minority vote. I don't think so. There is always the absentee ballot for those who don't have a photo id. True, this also allows fraud but there is a simple solution to ensure punishment of those who violate the one person one vote.

First, the absentee voter would have to sign a submission form by name, remove a covering over a chemical square that would develop a fingerprint and submit that along with a SEALED ballot that could only be opened later by a team of bipartisan pollsters. The names of the voters would be entered into a computer as they were received and the ballots held in a separate place. If the name on the submission form did not match that of the registered voter, the ballot would be cast aside. If the submission was valid, the name COULD later be compared to the voter registration forms at the polling place (usually computer printouts so they already have them in computer.) This leaves a possibility of an absentee voter submitting an absentee ballot and later casting a personal ballot at the polling place. (Remember the old woman who bragged she cast an absentee ballot and a personal ballot to make sure her vote for Obama counted?) It was on TV and in the news. She was mostly applauded for breaking the law.

Second, at the polling place, a voter, upon arriving, the voter would place his/her hand under a black light to see if they had any prior voting chemical solution on their finger. If not, they would then dip a finger into a solution showing they were at a polling place and place it on a treated surface next to their registered name, which could later be developed or identified if voter fraud was suspected. This is about the same technique as in Iraq in 2014 where a voter was required to dip a finger in India ink but our solution would not be visible without a black light. Until then, there would be no development of the fingerprint. This technique is already available. A person arriving at a voting place would not be allowed to vote if it was found they already had the solution under the black light.

After the election, the absentee ballot submission forms would be compared to the polling place appearances. If there were no duplicates, the forms of both options could be destroyed. If there were no duplicate absentee ballot submission forms, they could also be destroyed. (No real faith in the government doing this but we can always pretend.) This would not end voter fraud but it allows for fingerprint identification of suspected fraudulent voters who could then be prosecuted affirmatively.

If there were identical fingerprints for both the absentee ballots and polling place ballots, prosecution is also easier since the identification by fingerprint would be a positive ID.

Yes, there are many flaws in my ideas and ways to circumvent and I am also sure that members here can come up with even better plans or solutions and I would be interested in hearing those.

The major problem I see is that in Chicago, they would actually have to open the graves of registered voters to get their fingerprints on the ballot.
edit on 10-8-2016 by atrollstalker because: English is my 12th language.




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
All very good ideas, none of them will be implemented. And we all know why.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I always thought people against ID are racist but just don't know it. I think anyone can get an idea. They must think that people are too stupid or lazy to get an idea and therefore need government protection



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: atrollstalker

Never going to happen.

The MSM line on voting fraud is that its statistically insignificant. Their line, (as directed by their Lib Democrat handlers) is that the ONLY voting fraud is committed by white supremicist reactionaries in the South against protected classes, (POC) seeking to vote for the Democrat party. The voting "systems" and administration of the polling places, the voting machines and the counting of the ballots in every major US city is in the hands of Democrat administrators.

They run the system............they OWN the system. And the system works for them. There will BE NO CHANGES!



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
"A Thought on How to Alleviate Voter Fraud"
------------------------------------------------------
Nominate anybody whose last name is not Clinton...
------------------------------------------------------
Is that right???
Do I win a $600K lakefront mansion in Vermont for my 3rd home???

-Christosterone



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Didn't work in 2008 or 2012.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I have my voter's registration card. It's all I should need. I arrive at my polling station (the only place in the entire state with my name on the rolls) show said card, I sign next to my name on the rolls, they mark me off the rolls, I vote.

Simple process. Any alleged voter fraud is NOT happening at the polls, and photo ID doesn't prevent anything. In order for voter fraud to work, all of the volunteers at the polling stations have to be in on said fraud. You're name is only listed at the place you are required to vote, and is marked out (you can watch them do it) at that time.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

You have got to be kidding me that you don't believe a photo ID should be required… Honestly, have you driven the car in the last 75 years?
You are required to have a photo ID that with your name on it but also with a picture…

If you don't have a picture ID you will be assessed a ticket because pictures are the only true way for humans to correctly identify A person…


I'm going to go on a limb and say that you're a liberal because you don't believe the picture should be required for voting…
Let's think about this for a second....if a person doesn't possess the will to stand in line for 15 minutes and get a photo ID then do I really want their input and governance?

It is a very reasonable request to expect a person in America 2016 to have a photo ID…
It's nonsense to argue any other means of discerning a voters identity...

-Christosterone



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
We already have Federal, State, local, GOP & DNC top level, state level and local level, literally hundreds lawyers form all campaigns, partisan monitoring, non partisan monitoring groups and at times international monitors for elections. And voter fraud is almost non existent. The only place it exists is in the minds of whomever s candidate lost.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
What about the states that don't require the voter's registration card? Not all do.
Voter fraud does exist. In 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected, if one voter in each precinct had changed their ballot, Nixon would have won the election. It doesn't take much.

To deny voter fraud is a liberal line item argument however most say that it doesn't matter that much. Basically, the Dems count on a certain amount of voter fraud. The problem is, yes in some polling stations, the entire work force is in on it. Usually, they can't count and the ballots don't match the number of voters. We can't do much about that...yet. If Hillary gets in, I suspect in 2020 she will get 110% of all ballots cast.

edit on 10-8-2016 by atrollstalker because: I wanted to insult more people.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
And voter fraud is almost non existent. The only place it exists is in the minds of whomever s candidate lost.


Facts would indicate you're wrong...
400 Proven recent cases
It's more commonplace than those invested in maintaining the illusion of our system's integrity would have us believe.
edit on 10-8-2016 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Here's my plan:

Database of all registered voters statewide, separated by voting precinct.

If a voter fails to vote in his or her local precinct for one election the registration is deleted from the database, the voter has to re-register in his or her home precinct. Absentee ballots must be postmarked from outside the voting precinct. No early voting. All voting to be done on election day. No voting machines allowed, even to count paper ballots.

Government I.D. and mailed voter registration receipt from the precinct to prove residence. All voters without the I.D. matching the residence on file and proof of residence (non matching documents) will be able to cast provisional ballots. Voter's responsibility to follow up and provide documentation to make their vote count.

Ballots will "fill in the circle" ballots, hand counted twice at the precinct level - once each by Republican and Democrat counters. Poll worker disputes will go to a single tiebreaker, agreed upon by both parties.

Enough of the "it's too hard" excuses. How do you cash your check at the liquor store? With an ID. Most states provide a State ID free of charge with a birth certificate. It's your right to vote, but you're also responsible to provide proof of who you are.

A police presence to prevent voter intimidation, and no party lawyers allowed within 1000 feet of a polling place.

Just my 2c. I'm sure there are gaping holes in it, but I'm sure you all will help me out with the details.

If you can't put this very minor amount of documentation together, you're too damned dumb to vote.




edit on 10-8-2016 by bbarkow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

See this and get back to me...
Thanks in advance:
www.cbsnews.com...

-Christosterone



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: atrollstalker

Unless you digitize the process you're creating too much paperwork to quickly verify. Additionally, it's not the greatest of ideas to sign an absentee ballot with the name of the person casting the ballot because that removes the concept of an anonymous vote from the system.

Here's a system I came up with a couple years back. It would be trivial to implement and removes both election fraud and voter fraud

www.abovetopsecret.com...


originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Facts would indicate you're wrong...
400 Proven recent cases
It's more commonplace than those invested in maintaining the illusion of our system's integrity would have us believe.


Did you even read your source? The first three links aren't even voter fraud, they are election fraud (which the paper is also titled, despite the URL) and they involve incidents of ballot box stuffing before/after the election, not people actually casting fraudulent ballots during the election. They accomplished this through using absentee ballots, which you're not ID'ing in the first place.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




Unless you digitize the process you're creating too much paperwork to quickly verify.


Digitizing is where the shenanigans happen. I don't care if it's a day or two to count the votes. I want them to be right.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbarkow
Digitizing is where the shenanigans happen. I don't care if it's a day or two to count the votes. I want them to be right.


No, it's not. That's where security happens. Nothing stops a person from shoving an extra 10, 100, or 1000 ballots in the box. Or a poll worker "finding" another batch of ballots to count.

Having difficult to falsify computer records of when each vote was cast and what machine it came from is a good way to ensure voting integrity. Electronic machines are quite secure, especially when you open them up to public scrutiny and outside experts in order to come up with methods to secure them. The only issue with voting machines is when companies like Diebold leave in significant security holes because they claim the software is a trade secret, and then people find/exploit those security holes.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




The only issue with voting machines is when companies like Diebold leave in significant security holes because they claim the software is a trade secret, and then people find/exploit those security holes.


That is precisely what I was referring to.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bbarkow

Then fix that issue, don't run away from it in favor of an even less secure system.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I have a better idea, the penalty for voter fraud is the immediate revocation of your american citizen ship and immediate deportation to the country of your choice, if you return to the U.S. we kill your family.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

No, I didn't plan on immediate recognition of the fraud (except by the finger dip.) What I am promoting is prosecution of those who commit the crime. Yes, it would be after the fact but I think less people would commit the fraud if they knew there was a good possibility of going to jail and yes, jail would be mandatory. Thanks for the response.

I think we should all go back to paper ballots. We have them here. Irregularities are easily re-tabulated. And you are right about the voting machines. They are a very weak link in the chain.


edit on 10-8-2016 by atrollstalker because: Just to anger more people.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join