Slashdot Mirror
Senators Introduce Bill That Would Require State and Local Governments To Use Paper Ballots in an Effort To Secure Elections (cnet.com)
From a report: On Tuesday, nine Senators introduced a bill that would require state and local governments to use paper ballots in an effort to secure elections from hackers. The bill would also require rigorous audits for all federal elections to ensure that results match the votes. "Leaving the fate of America's democracy up to hackable election machines is like leaving your front door open, unlocked and putting up a sign that says 'out of town,'" Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said in a release. "Any failure to secure our elections amounts to disenfranchising American voters." The Protecting American Votes and Elections Act of 2018 was drafted amid intense scrutiny of voting systems ahead of the mid-term elections in November. Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has elevated concern over the security of the country's voting systems. The senators said rigorous audits will ensure votes are legitimate. Currently, 22 states don't require post-election audits, according to the release.
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
Agreed this is a good start. Disagree about electoral college (which does need to be fixed), the next more important step is ensuring the paper trail is audited, as part of the election process, not some vague "recount" territory.
Why is it that gambling machines have more audits and checks than voting machines? It's not like the process isn't clear. We just have to hold people and systems accountable.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
"In addition to Wyden, the bill was sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Sen. Ed Markey (Massachusetts), Sen. Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Sen. Patty Murray (Washington), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut). All are Democrats."
somehow, I knew it would not be the R's that wanted an audit trail.
funny, that...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"Any failure to secure our elections amounts to disenfranchising American voters."
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote? Because requiring voters to identify themselves and verify eligibility to vote is part of securing an election. If you oppose that, then you obviously want to disenfranchise voters.
I suspect that many of the people who are going to stand there and beat the drum on this one will also oppose requirements for voter ID. This despite the fact that every US state offers non-driver license state issued ID cards for a nominal fee or free in the case of financial hardship. At least, I am not aware of a state where that isn't the case.
Oh well. If not for double standards we would have no standards at all, it seems.
In 2008, when I touched the 'Obama' button on the touch screen, McCain's name was selected instead, until I tapped Obama a couple more times.
'Blue' state anyway, but the machines are just not reliable.
...of public obsession with all things digital, that software will cure all ills Zuckerberg style, and that schoolchildren need tablets to learn.
As a nerd, I say good riddance. Leave the nerd stuff to us.
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
First of all, wrong. Tbe federal government was, among other things, a convocation of independent and sovereign states. The state governments wanted a finger in the control of the feds or they ain't buying into it. What's the past tense of ain't? They t'warn't buying into it.
And good luck convincing the myriad small flyover states that what's wrong with the country is the concrete canyons of the coast don't have enough power and control to do the things they hate.
Your idea there is something inherently great in your position is ahistoric and made up out of whole cloth. You have control over your state, who has control over their chunk of the federal government.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
the next more important step is ensuring the paper trail is audited, as part of the election process, not some vague "recount" territory.
That's already in the bill. From the article: "The bill would also require rigorous audits for all federal elections to ensure that results match the votes."
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
We still use paper ballots in our elections here in Canada and I'm fine with that. For the most part they work very well, except when they don't have enough ballots. We encountered that in our city elections last year in Calgary, which caused an uproar. Hopefully that doesn't make them decided to go electronic.
Thankfully the Calgary Flames/Gary Bettman/NHL annointed candidate of choice lost, seemed like he was ready to cut them a nice big juicy new arena cheque had he won.
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
Actually it was more a fear of idiocracy, but unfortunately the result achieved was exactly the opposite of intentions. Another big thing that needs to be eliminated, the blatant gerrymanders and the gerrymander machine. And another one, unlimited campaign contributions including corporate contributions. Behold the fruit of labor of evil republican hands.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Being an established computer consultant, I got to provide input when the US Virgin Islands' election system was upgraded, a good friend on the Board of Elections brought over a bunch of brochures for me to review one evening in the early 1980s. There were chad systems ("Punch cards? You must be joking!") and push-button machines ("Where's the paper trail? Do you know what a 'hacker' is?" "It's available but 'costs extra'. Are these people for real??"). And there were optical zoned page scanners.
My friend and I agreed -- his vote on the Board of Elections -- was to keep the paper ballot. People are used to it. If anything, beef up the security and oversight surrounding transport of ballots cast; use bleeding-edge technology cautiously and wisely: do the counting of paper ballots with optical readers. Because just like the money counter machines, you can do it again quickly to see if you get the same result. And if the machines break and the power goes out -- the election process is 'safe', breezes along as smoothly as ever -- only the results are delayed.
Just WHEN was it decided that election results needed to be tallied in hours or minutes? From where did the pressure arise such that hand counting of paper ballots (or in the least, optical scan of same) is too slow? That we instead impose few-vendor centralized no-paper systems that are inherently hackable?
Here's the test I impose. A paper ballot system may also have its problems -- BUT -- any given layman you bring in off the street to observe the tally process will have a clear view of a ballot box's chain of custody. Any layman observing the subsequent counting of those ballots (by hand or optical reader, with verification of random batches to test the reader) has a clear grasp of the process, and can tell whether the system is honest. No one can say if a wholly computerized system is honest. And even if you find someone who claims they are sure, no one can tell whether they are being honest.
If it's Democracy you want, use as simple a voting/tally system as possible; for the tally process use as many human beings as possible, local volunteers as participants and observers. If it's Oligarchy you want, go ahead and totally castrate the process of transparency by implementing insecurity through obscurity, touch screen BS with no hope of verification or recount.
The idea of all-electronic voting really should have been laughed out of the room, once upon a time. This is coming from a techie who favors modernization in other areas of society. xkcd agrees.
My friend on the Board was voted down: they decided to purchase push-button machines from Shouptronics... but at least each station had its own built-in battery backup and built in receipt-type printer that ran a paper tape. Unlike most today.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
We use paper ballots in Australia and usually the result is known within four hours of votes closing. I wasn't aware of some of the other protections that go into the process until I was early to vote one year. I was invited into the polling centre and asked to inspect the empty ballot boxes before they were sealed and signed to confirm that the serial numbers of the seals matched. This has to be done by a member of the public - it can't be done by an electoral official. I believe another member of the public must verify the seals again when the boxes are opened. I was also told that each polling centre has to account for all the ballot papers issued to them. Remaining blank ballot papers plus spoiled ballot papers (people made a mistake and exchanged for a fresh paper) plus votes cast must be very close to ballot papers issued or there is cause to dispute the result. At one election 1400 ballot papers went missing for the senate. The whole senate election was rerun. That's the sort of protection you want.
The other thing I really like is optional preferential voting. As a voter you can vote for as many candidates as you want in order - or not. All the first preference votes are counted and the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their ballot papers are distributed to the next preference on the ballot paper. This is repeated until only one candidate remains. You can vote for an independent or minor party but if they don't get elected your vote still counts toward which of the major parties gets elected.
Well, okay, depending upon which idiots we're talking about. In reading Madison's Notes it's important to keep in mind that the "minority" whom the founders spoke of protecting was their own class, the moneyed elite. Which made everyone else the idiots.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
Having been a "real time software" developer way back when that was what we were called, and called an "embedded developer" today, and having been a poll worker, I have a few observations:
* Voting is much like a real time data acquisition application: There is exactly one chance to record the transition from private vote to public count. It's deceptively easy to say and deceptively hard to get right.
* Voters MUST have the ability to see that the legal record of their votes is recorded as they intended, without "translation" or "electronic" conversion out of their sight or control.
* In close elections, it MUST be possible for recounts to be performed in full view of unaugmented interested observers.
* It is entirely reasonable for the paper ballot to be scanned to provide early but informal estimates of the aggregated vote through election evenings.
* It is entirely reasonable to use technological means, including touchscreen voting machines to help voters make their choices, to produce legible printed ballots that constitute the legal record of the voters' choices.
So: Machines are fine, as long as the true legal record is visible, recountable and auditable.
It takes more people in more places to conspire to fix an election recorded on individually recorded media, in contrast with voting systems where single programs/computers/subsystems that may be hacked are replicated throughout many precincts. The naturally distributed nature of paper ballots makes them surprisingly more robust against tampering.
200 years is barely a grain of sand in the hourglass of human time
But other forms of democracy have failed in less time. Our founders where genius with this idea. Our very form of government is based on the division of powers and keeping those powers in balance. Thus we get three branches of government, We get Two house of Congress, one based on population and one based on the states, and the electoral college. It is the division of power that makes this model work so well and we owe our founders much for their wisdom and efforts to design such a unique system based on sound principles and much thought.
Also 240 years is historically a LONG time for a government to exist without major revisions or revolution. Plus the USA's form of government has been taken and adapted may times since it was introduced into the world. I don't see how any of those adaptations have improved on the original, have you?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How about UNLIMITED campaign contributions. I think we should have ZERO limits on contributions to campaigns by US citizens, give as much as you want anytime you want, but it's not tax deductible. Corporations which are based in the USA are also able to give unlimited amounts to campaigns, but they are not allowed to deduct them as expenses and they must be 100% sourced from USA portions of the business. Foreign nationals and companies are NOT allowed to participate, directly or indirectly.
BUT, every campaign or political organization is now required to disclose the source of EVERY penny they receive BEFORE they can spend it. This includes donations, loans or even barter items. The reporting must include the full name and contact information for every donation, no matter how small and must be made available for public and IRS inspection. ALSO every campaign must disclose where every penny of what they receive was spent within 1 week of the expense. So if they spent $200 on bunting for a rally, or $4,000 on catering at the phone bank, it needs to be reported within a week.
If we do this, At the end of the day and when the election is over, we can know who paid for the politician and make educated guesses as to how they would vote on things.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
and has been ruled as such multiple times. The scam isn't even that complex. Women tend to lean a bit left so it's beneficial to make it harder for them to vote (when they marry and their names change they need new Ids). It's easy to close the DMVs and other places where a voter could get Id. Finally fees can be attached to getting an id creating a defacto poll tax that seems small unless you're poor.
Multiple emails have leaked where Republican leaders didn't just talk about how these factors made voter Id a suppression technique but where they did the research to prove that it was before they put the effort into passing it. Those leaked emails have been what's caused voter Id to be thrown out where ever it's been tried. The Republicans have noticed this and are working to stack the courts with judges who will ignore the rule of law. So far they're succeeding.
If you're involved enough in politics to know about voter Id laws you are probably aware of all this. If not then I trust you no longer favor voter Id. If you are somehow still in favor of voter Id knowing all this then it's clear you oppose democracy. If that's the case then just come right out and say it. I'm tired of listening to dog whistles.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because:
a. It's been shown to be unnecessary. Voter fraud is not the problem. The problem is the election officials cheating. Go google the actual research on voter fraud and you'll find this out.
b. It's also been clearly shown to be a suppression tactic. Republican official have been caught several times doing research to prove that it targets their opposition (minorities and women mostly), that the fees associated with the Ids are defacto poll taxes and that the laws exist only to prevent legitimate voters. This is why the laws have been struct down over and over again.
Anyone who suggests voter Id is a solution to fraud is lying to you and opposes democracy. You should be highly suspicious of them and their motives. Again, spend a few hours on google and you can corroborate all this yourself. If you want voter Id to stop the "wrong" persons from voting then I can't really argue with that. But if you actually believe in democracy then you should oppose it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Way to totally ignore the facts which are clear even in the NYTimes article. There was nothing the commission COULD do because the responsibility falls to the states on this and the states didn't want to provide information to the commission. Having nothing to do, no information to act on, Trump didn't want to waste their time and sent them home.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
My sense is, in those days people cared a lot more about how history would judge them, thus the primary motivation was to establish a stable democratic system.
That mattered to them, but the primary motivation was to salvage the nation. There was widespread discontent at the time, in no small part due to the Continental (currency) having become worthless. In essence, the founders had financed the revolution with money they printed willy-nilly, and with IOU's. The wealthy merchant class (who had financed the war), particularly, was hard hit by this -- if your wealth was in agricultural land and slaves you were in pretty okay shape, but those who held their wealth in currency got brutally hosed. That's a dangerous thing to do to folks who have already shown their willingness to devote their own resources to armed rebellion.
Madison himself cared a lot about his image, and edited his notes after the fact to paint himself in a more favorable light. Reading his Notes with this in mind alters the view pretty considerably. If it's something you're really interested in, the Anti-Federalist Papers point out many perceived flaws in the Constitution and the concerns raised in public debate at the time, e.g. the establishment of a permanent aristocracy, which one might argue has been in evidence since the mid-nineteenth century.
Never mind how damned much reading that is. :-)
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
> The right to vote is a constitutional right.
> Nowhere in the constitution does it say that presenting a government issued ID
You've got that precisely backwards. Please go spend a few minutes reading the Constitution. It isn't very long. Here's the relevant portion:
--
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors
--
The only people who have a vote under the Constitution are those APPOINTED by the state, not just issued an ID.
States have used different methods for choosing electors. Currently, there are two different systems in use for the "first choice" method, with other methods in place in case the first method doesn't work out.
In 11 states plus DC, the first-choice method is to choose electors who promise to vote for the candidate who received the highest number of votes NATIONWIDE. That method is to be used if and when a few more states pass the same law.
Two states, Nebraska and Maine, choose electors proportionately to the results of an election by the citizens.
In the other 37 states, at the moment the first-choice method is to hold an election in which citizens can vote for electors who intend to vote for a certain candidate, and the state sends electors who are expected to probably support which ever candidate received the most citizen votes in the state. That's a STATE LAW saying they'll have an election, and specifying how that election will be conducted. The US Constitution makes no mention of average people voting.
Individual rights that ARE specified in the Constitution include:
Freedom of the press
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Right of petition
Right to bear arms
Right to remain silent
Right to a fair trial
That list isn't exhaustive. The states and the people also have a Constitutional right to be free of any interference by the federal government outside of the items that the feds are authorized to do in Article 1, section 8. Article 1 says, and the tenth amendment repeats, the the federal government may not do any other things. All other rights and powers are reserved to the states ans the people.
It's about time that we got serious about security our voting systems. Too many elections have been decided by "discovered" boxes of ballots, or where 200% of the registered voters in a precinct all voted the same way. Or precincts where the election monitors were kicked out by gang members, and 100% of the votes were for the gang's preferred candidate.
We need paper ballots, ink on fingers, and 100% voter ID.
Electors elect the President. They may vote as they wish. The people have no legal weight in electing the President as far as the federal government is concerned.
Not entirely accurate.
There are states who proclaim that electors must vote for the person that won the election--it's a law. So if the majority of people in the state voted for some ass-hat, the elector must cast his or her vote for said ass-hat, even though they know he or she is an ass-hat.
The second part is correct, though if nobody gets the required electoral votes, it goes to the House of Representatives, though each state coalition only gets one vote.
But you're right--the "popular vote" is of no interest to the federal government.
Ain't it great that there's a mechanism in place to prevent California and New York from having more electoral votes than the less populous states?
Oh, uh... never mind.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
>To change this shit you must first get an Amendment passed or call a Constitutional Convention. There's no other legal avenue.
Or a few more states pass the popular vote compact
It's largely because of FPTP. Only 2 UK parties can actually win and have won every single election for a century.
And the smaller parties need about 100x more votes to win a seat than the two incumbents.
Neither the US not the UK system have anything more than a passing resemblance to democracy.
What do you think the 3/5ths compromise existed for?
So that states with a lot of slaves could have congressional representation based upon their population and 3/5ths their population of slaves?
Now, where do you think the amount of electors a state has in the electoral college comes from?
Let's just ask the guy who invented it.
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention
That can't happen.
The election is observed at each polling station by representatives of each party involved. The ballots are counted on site, in triplicate, under the supervision of representatives of each candidate contesting the election. These results are then phoned into the central reporting system, and the scrutineers can verify that the correct numbers were transmitted.
Recounts rarely result in more than a change by one or two votes.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Most of those "adaptations" failed quickly (often violently, "President" turns into dictator fast - see Turkey, and Russia). In fact the presidential system has been called "America's most dangerous export". It's a terrible system, and it's sheer crazy luck that it survived in the United States.
The U.S. system is actually just a really dumb adaptation of the Westminster System. The biggest problem in 1776 was poor allocation of seats in Parliament. Various areas had little or no representation, while other areas were overrepresented (rotten boroughs). Fixing that is of course very difficult, as reform threatens the entrenched powers. The UK passed the Great Reform Act in 1832.
Ironically, the UK ended up with a better system. There's too many reasons to list here, but it's enough to say this was recognized even by the U.S. When we went to write the Japanese constitution, we modeled it on the British system. Parliamentary systems have proven far more resilient and democratic than presidential systems. Even if someone as nutty as Trump had somehow managed to get enough votes in Parliament to become PM in the first place, his government would have lost a confidence vote and been replaced long ago.
(Oh, and separation of powers isn't really the greatest invention either, the British system is based on fusion of powers and it works fine)
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
in POF, here in COlorado, we caught so many voter fraud, that the head of the group that was investigating it was caught submitting as hit wife. He got the ballot through with a signature that passed as hers. It was shear luck that they busted him.
"So many" being a small handful. Two or three that I recall hearing of. The putz you're referring to was a former chairman of the Colorado GOP, claimed that he didn't know it was illegal, doesn't remember doing it, and also that it was done during some kind of diabetic episode which rendered him incompetent.
If there are more than a few, please cite references. As a fellow Coloradan I'd like to know of them.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown.
You can claim that as a theoretical use of the elector system, for sure. You however cannot claim that is what it was designed for. It's well documented what it was designed for. It neatly implements the 3/5ths compromise in presidential elections, as well as handles the issue that suffrage in the south was limited to land owners, making their popular vote tally quite small.
To quote Mr. Madison, the pragmatist who was the force behind having it implemented:
The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention
We accept your apology for spreading falsehoods.
Assuming faithful Electors, however, their vote is worth about as much as anyone else's.
Sigh. Another lie.
Someone from Wyoming for example: Their vote is worth the vote of 3.18 Americans *not* from Wyoming. Far worse if from say, California.
You're really letting me down, sexy.
Unless their State is stupid enough to tell Electors to vote in a winner-take-all scheme.
Which is literally every state in the Union, minus two. Friendly tip, when you're arguing that reality is a certain way, don't suffix it with "Unless this condition that is actually the status quo is true"
to smooth out the rounding error.
You seem to be confused about what a rounding error is.
Aside from all that, your mention of slavery is entirely misplaced.
No, it's not, as the was clearly discussed during the Constitutional Convention that led to the fucking rules.
You're likely referring to how the population of each State is counted when determining the number of Representatives to apportion to a State.
If only the number of representatives apportioned to a state had something to do with a state's electoral power in a Presidential election... oh wait.
Come on, dude. Come the fuck on.
The bicameral legislature and the Electoral College are entirely separate things from this issue.
Except for the fact that both were apportioned according to that "issue", and that the founders preferred a popular vote for the Presidency, ideologically speaking, were it not for fears of the very limited suffrage in the south. As such, the electoral system was in fact the 3/5ths compromise, applied to the election of the executive, and was never dressed up as anything else until assholes such as yourself in the modern era tried to rewrite history to gaslight the truth behind the odd quirks of our electoral system, birthed in slavery, that favor today's "conservative" (see: antebellum) voters.
Despicable, dude.
You just need to have distributed counting like many other countries do. The one I was born to, slice the voting places by about a few thousand electors. Then during election days they ask for volunteer. Usually they get around 20 from many political affiliation. I was one for many election. Then each is separated in a small group, then we get each a part of the ballot to count, then we note the number, then the ballots get shifted to another table then it get recounted, and finally the results which only officials can see until recount are finished, are compared (to avoid bias and people simply telling the same number). At that point maybe 1 hour has passed after the election, number are put on a board then summed, and result toldf loudly. Then the results are sent/cascaded/tabulated by region so everybody in the voting county can check the number they found is correct. Within 1 or 2 hours the results are in for 95% of all places, with recount already going on if there are problems. Then the paper ballot are kept under key for some times, with the name of the county. And yes the number of potential elector while not being 200 million , is around 1/5 of that so it ain't a micro island where that happens. You get the results without expansive optical readers, AND you get transparency to the voters.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And good luck convincing the myriad small flyover states that what's wrong with the country is the concrete canyons of the coast don't have enough power and control to do the things they hate.
I sometimes forget: people on the coasts are worth less than wholesome middle Americans because (a) they live on the coast and (b) live closer together. So, their votes should count for less too.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Franken unexpectedly picked up 37 votes due to a combined machine malfunction and human error on Election Day that left 171 Maplewood ballots safe, secure but uncounted until Tuesday’s final day of recounting in Ramsey County. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office immediately asked county officials to explain what had happened, and U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman’s campaign said it sent its own experts to Ramsey County to review the situation and said it was “skeptical about [the ballots’] sudden appearance.”
----------
Stealing elections is an old game politicians play. Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th president, got to the U.S. Senate in 1948 by “winning” the closest race in Texas history by a margin of 87 votes out of more than a million cast. An election judge in tiny Alice, Texas, said he counted more than 200 names on the voting roll for Box 13 that were written in alphabetic succession in the same hand, same color of ink. When a federal court subpoenaed Box 13, it was discovered to be “lost.” LBJ took his seat in the Senate. Voting machines were supposed to put an end to such election-night chicanery, but Earl Long, the colorful governor of Louisiana, where fraud is the national sport, boasted that “I can make a voting machine play ‘Home on the Range’ all night long.”
------------
Logan announced on December 13 that 561 absentee ballots in the county had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error.[14] The next day, workers retrieving voting machines from precinct storage found an additional 12 ballots, bringing the total to 572 newly discovered ballots. Logan admitted the lost ballots were an oversight on the part of his department, and insisted that the found ballots be counted. On December 15, the King County Canvassing Board voted 2-1 in favor of counting the discovered ballots.
Upon examination of the discovered ballots, it was further discovered that, with the exception of two ballots, none of the ballots had been cast by voters whose surnames began with the letters A, B, or C.[15] There was a further search for more ballots, and on December 17, county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots.[15] All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount.
After all other counties submitted their recount votes, it was revealed on December 20 that at least five other counties besides King County had included ballots that had been discovered after the initial count. For example, Snohomish County included 224 missed ballots that had been discovered underneath mail trays. The outcome of the State Supreme Court hearing regarding King County's votes could have potentially affected those counties' counts as well.
------------------
When election officials brought two master personal electronic ballots – or PEBs, small devices inserted into voting machines – back to the Franklin County Board of Elections from a Worthington polling location, one was uploaded into the final, unofficial total of a super-tight congressional race.
The other was not.
The next day, as bipartisan members of the board of elections were reviewing the race, they realized the PEB's results were missing.
That PEB and its 588 votes were found. The breakdown was 198 votes for Republican Troy Balderson, 388 votes for Democrat Danny O'Connor and two for Green Party candidate Joe Manchik.
The mistake is embarrassing for Franklin County election officials, but they caught it quickly and the PEB was always in a secure location. Those 588 votes will be included – along with additional absentee and provisional ballots across the district – in the final tally, which must be tabulated by Aug. 24.
clearly shows me who is the real enemy of the United States of America.
What evidence do you have of vote fraud being quite common ? Perhaps you should share it with the federal government as they seemed unable to find it.
Nullius in verba
As for tapes, we have your guys on tape talking about decades of voter fraud.
Citation needed.
Every effort to find evidence of voter fraud has come up with bupkis. Even the recent one appointed by Trump, and helmed by Mr. Voter-Suppression himself, Kris Kobach. All they ever find is a handful of isolated cases, mostly mistakes or misunderstandings (eg: voting in the wrong precinct).
If these "tapes" you refer to actually exist, I think we'd have all heard them by now. Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, here's a video of Paul Weyrich, one of the "godfathers" of modern conservatism, clearly expressing his preference for reducing the number of people who are eligible to vote.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
see here. 538 is a well respected political blog. They've got plenty of research to back up how voter Ids laws disproportionately impact minorities and in turn disproportionately benefit Republicans.
If you're OK with voter suppression then by all means, support voter Id. Just understand that you're opposing democracy. You may have your reasons. You may earnestly believe those people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But you should at least be aware of what your support for Voter Id laws is actually doing and not delude yourself into thinking you're protecting democracy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The link you posted clearly shows that (a) this does not happen often and (b) many of the frauds are not perpetrated by ineligible voters. Your own reference data show you to be spouting BS.
Nullius in verba