A Highly Fraud-Resistant Voting System

 

How do we have reliable elections?

 

 

Philosophy

Here is a quote from well-known attorney Sidney Powell, a determined proponent of reliable elections:

 

"We will not have reliable elections in America until there are no computers used to vote."

 

I think her argument is accepted by many, but I believe it has serious problems. I fear that this focus on paper ballots is more of a kind of nostalgia for what used to work, rather than what would really be best to use in the future.  I don't think purely looking backwards is going to give us the answer we need.

            Lots of people are willing to quote Stalin who said something to the effect that the most important part of voting is the question of who gets to count the votes.  Obviously, as we have seen in 2020, whoever counts the votes can engage in massive fraud by adding or deleting millions of votes to get the result they want.  It would not do us much good to work very hard to get a paper-only election system, only to have it completely stolen by fraudsters again as they did in 2020.

            It seems to me that the real issue is "Who is counting the votes?"  In 2020, the real vote counter was the Dominion voting system people, aided by Facebook and others.  They made it possible for international interference to change and juggle votes according to their plan.

            We also had the situation in several states where the Facebook contribution of at least $400 million was used to basically take over the voting process to make sure that those who were counting the votes were good faithful leftists who would reliably cheat as much as necessary.

            The lesson I take from this is not that paper ballots are necessarily any better than electronic ballots, but that one of the major tricks of the political left in 2020, in many cases, was to move the control of the voting away from regular state voting to be mostly controlled by outsiders. In doing so, they may have inadvertently shown us the best way to solve the problem in the long term.

            Another major issue here is that it seems absurd that a government should be the body that counts the votes that determine who will run the government.  If that is not a massive conflict of interest, I don't know what is.  We often talk about the benefits of incumbency helping those who are in office to stay in office, and it's hard to see what greater benefit of incumbency there might be than being able to count the votes that determine whether they stay in office or not.

            In other words, it appears to me that the main strategic line of thinking ought to be to get the voting separated from the corrupt and self-interested government units and into the hands of a trusted outside party.  (Is it really time for UN observers, we might wonder?) Anyone could have predicted that the corrupt machine politics in big cities like Philadelphia or Chicago would have total control of the voting outcome, even adding votes in their jurisdiction as needed to overwhelm votes in other counties in the same state. In other words, one strategy would be to directly replace Dominion with a competing line of computers and systems that use identification and verification techniques that make it extremely difficult to change any votes, or to delete any votes, or to add any unauthorized votes.

            It might be useful to devise a study as to whether it is better to have paper votes and let the government "count" them, or to simply get the whole voting process out of the grip of the fanatically self-interested government bureaucrats.  I'm going to guess that the only way to actually ever get a clean election is to have it done outside of government control where pure processing and auditing competency is in control, rather than inside where naked politics are in control of everything. (We might think of a process like voluntary arbitration proceedings where the advocates for each side choose a third party [a judge] to make sure that the arbitration process is fair.)

            As I discuss below, although computers can be used for cheating on a grand scale as was done in 2020, computers can also be used to make cheating almost impossible.  A brief description of my solution for the "cheating is almost impossible" option is described below.

            I can imagine why non-computer-savvy lawyers would like to get rid of computers and go back to the "good old days" of totally paper ballots, but I fear that is an unnecessarily limited approach.  I earned two law degrees, and then spent most of my working life as a computer consultant, so I can claim to know something about both sides of this solution discussion.  I'm inclined to believe that the use of computers to prevent cheating can be used so powerfully that it should greatly surpass the "paper-only" option which has become the nostalgic favorite solution, it seems.  It may be that only a serious test case will make it easy for this argument to be settled to everyone's satisfaction.  In my opinion, the sooner we can run a test or simulation and make a decision, the better.  I have an intuitive feeling that this "paper-only" option is simply never going to be acceptable in the computer age, and if we do manage a "paper-only" option, the determined fraudsters will still find a way to cheat just as much as they have in the past.

            As a final argument in favor of trying to use computers to enhance security (rather than to obliterate security, as was done in the 2020 election), perhaps if we propose a serious replacement computer option which makes cheating almost impossible, the lunatic left will actually agree to a paper-only system as a fallback position or compromise, since they would see that as the best way to continue to maximize fraud opportunities, rather than be constrained by a rigidly accurate computerized system.

 

Technology

Use computers as a strong, thick shield to counter computers used as a dangerous weapon.

 

Using GPS and QR Codes to Run a Precise Election and Audit

while thoroughly auditing every step in the process,

continuously and periodically,

with a final audit result within hours of the end of the voting cycle

The November 3, 2020 election was stolen using local computers, international computers, the Internet, national and international cheating money, and hiring partisan vote processors who would gladly break all the rules to win for their party. Summing up all the ways to cheat in voting processes, as especially seen in all of the swing states, but also in all 50 states, we have now clearly documented that there are probably at least 200 ways to cheat the typical voting system as it now exists. By countering all of these computer, personnel, and processing cheats by installing a complete new voting system using relatively new but already thoroughly tested computing techniques, every one of those 200 ways to cheat can be thwarted, and an actual verifiably fair election can be conducted.
            Using GPS techniques, all potential voters can be located unequivocally on the map, with all anomalies easily and quickly noted and investigated, and then their location and all other pertinent identifying data can be included in a single QR code, a precise identification replacement for the old signature method, where that minimal signature method can be made almost meaningless today by simply ignoring it. The combination of these two techniques, along with some verification work by volunteer investigators and canvassers, should allow a 99% accuracy rate for voting outcomes. Blockchain secure data storage techniques might even have a place in the final solution, since the fraudsters commonly delete masses of data to hide and protect their cheating activities.
            Obviously, the political left wants to maximize the cheating opportunities, and they would really hate this "big brother" computer system thwarting them. But the left also loves their own numerous "big brother" surveillance systems, so they would find it hard to complain about using another "big brother" system to increase voting accuracy. "Turnabout is fair play" so that if we have "big brother versus big brother," and a "battle of the computers," we might come out with neutral and accurate results.
            Mark Zuckerberg has invented the anti-privacy surveillance system called Facebook.  He has invented the outsourced voting process, as in Minnesota and several other states.  The Chinese government and their allies in the United States, including the CIA, have invented the international vote-stealing system. Perhaps a US entrepreneur can develop and promote a reliable voting system that can be tested in mostly-honest red states and then gradually be moved into totally dishonest blue states, one county at a time, through shaming and popular demand.

 

Politics

The 2020 election demonstrated that many legislatures, perhaps most, do not have adequate control of subunits within their own state government, such as the rebellious Maricopa County in Arizona. Those units disregard state law with impunity. Perhaps that means that it will never be possible for legislatures to get proper control of their internal voting processes. Perhaps legislatures could take a completely different approach, as hinted at by the situation in Arizona. I believe it was about $700 million that was threatened to be withheld from Maricopa County for their misbehavior, if they did not comply with audit requests. Perhaps a better solution would be simply to outsource the entire voting process to an outside unit, introducing competition and greater efficiency and accuracy. The legislative could change the budget so that the counties did not receive the money to run voting operations, but instead the necessary money might be redirected to outside organizations that are specialized in secure voting operations. Those organizations might sell "voting insurance" or guarantees that the voting processes they conduct will be demonstrably accurate. Obviously, in order to fulfill that insured promise of accuracy, they will have to conduct or closely monitor all necessary basic processes and auditing processes.

            As suggested above, it is absurd that any government organization in America gets to determine completely by itself which of its officers will be elected or reelected. American governments were never intended to have hereditary or entitled leaders. That critical voting process needs to be done completely outside of government. In the 2020 election, huge amounts of government voting processes were indeed outsourced to Dominion, and to Facebook, and other entities, so that the results could be modified to meet leftist plans. By the same logic, those voting operations could also be outsourced in the future, but actually go to a trusted professional organization. As many have noted, we don't really have these kinds of organizations, but it is time to create them. We need a new voting industry, held to the high performance standards of our private military contractors. We can't let jet fighters crash or voting processes fail.

 

More details are available, if requested.

 

Kent Huff

kent.huff@gmail.com, Cell: 801-615-9032
139 West 1720 North, Orem, Utah  84057
Computer consultant, author, attorney

Sample graphics to instantly show status of potential voters and any problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Essays On

How To Have A Clean Election

 

 

 

Table of contents

Preface

1. Introduction

2. Handout for WeCanAct Liberty Conference "How do we have reliable elections?"

            Western Conservative Action Network Liberty Conference, October 22-23, 2021

3. Wargaming our way to a clean election

4. New Computer Technology For An Instant Election Audit -- A collection of ideas for the next-generation voting system, with both continuous and instant audits

5. The voting privacy issue in today's electronic world

 

 

Preface

My goal is to present a consolidated book-length work which presents a complete concept for using computers to conduct a clean and secure election. However, going that far with this project will take an enormous amount of work and will probably take weeks or months of time. In the meantime, I want to begin to collect my thoughts into a collection of essays and book fragments so that others can read them and contribute their experience and wisdom to the final product. Hopefully that final product will be sufficient to spark a major effort to actually construct the system which I describe.

 

 

Introduction

The purpose of this book is to present a range of voting options that are as broad as possible.  The idea is that if we are considering making such a basic and important change to our nation and to our voting methods, we ought to consider all the possibilities that might be available at this time, and then, after proper discussion and research, and perhaps some testing, decide which ones are best and which ones are feasible.  At this point I fear that people are thinking of only one option which seems to be that we should go back 50 or 100 years to a paper-only ballot system, with all-manual counting processes.  That is understandable, since we saw how badly our balloting system was abused in the 2020 election through the use of intentionally hackable computers, whether it was in-person voting or mail-in voting, but both methods were abused immensely.  The use of computers in our nation and internationally to affect our election was scandalous, and something radical needs to be done.  The question is whether simply going back to paper ballots and local counting is really the solution to our problems. I fear that an attempt to prohibit all computers in the voting arena will actually make things worse rather than better, something like the nation's experiment with alcohol prohibition in the early 1900s.

 

Here are some of the general categories of options I want to try to explore here:

1.  Incrementally improve our current system, perhaps through legislation.

2.  Replace the entire system in various ways.

Option 1: Replace our current system with an educational and voting system that takes advantage of all available accuracy and security technologies. This typically would mean using much MORE computer technology that in 2020, to actively neutralize attempts to use computers to cheat.

 

 

 

Our challenge

During the Nov. 3, 2020 election, the bad guys were able to do anything they wanted with computers, and the good guys did nothing at all. They did record much of what happened, and that is very helpful, but they were passive. What would happen if the good guys were at least as aggressive as the bad guys in controlling the voting information battlefield? That is the big question. There are many ways to make computer systems completely airtight and prevent all hacking and disruption. All it takes these days is to have the determination to do so. It seems highly likely that a well-constructed computer system would be far more resistant to fraud than any paper system ever could be. Everything could be made transparent and therefore every attempt at cheating could be almost instantly noticed. It is technically possible to make it so that not a single illegitimate ballot could even be entered into the system. The optimum level of tightness or impermeability could be adjusted as necessary with experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do we have reliable elections?

 

Philosophy

Here is a quote from well-known attorney Sidney Powell, a determined proponent of reliable elections:

 

"We will not have reliable elections in America until there are no computers used to vote."

 

I think her argument is accepted by many, but I believe it has serious problems. I fear that this focus on paper ballots is more of a kind of nostalgia for what used to work, rather than what would really be best to use in the future.  I don't think purely looking backwards is going to give us the answer we need.

            Lots of people are willing to quote Stalin who said something to the effect that the most important part of voting is the question of who gets to count the votes.  Obviously, as we have seen in 2020, whoever counts the votes can engage in massive fraud by adding or deleting millions of votes to get the result they want.  It would not do us much good to work very hard to get a paper-only election system, only to have it completely stolen by fraudsters again as they did in 2020.

            It seems to me that the real issue is "Who is counting the votes?"  In 2020, the real vote counter was the Dominion voting system people, aided by Facebook and others.  They made it possible for international interference to change and juggle votes according to their plan.

            We also had the situation in several states where the Facebook contribution of at least $400 million was used to basically take over the voting process to make sure that those who were counting the votes were good faithful leftists who would reliably cheat as much as necessary.

            The lesson I take from this is not that paper ballots are necessarily any better than electronic ballots, but that one of the major tricks of the political left in 2020, in many cases, was to move the control of the voting away from regular state voting to be mostly controlled by outsiders. In doing so, they may have inadvertently shown us the best way to solve the problem in the long term.

            Another major issue here is that it seems absurd that a government should be the body that counts the votes that determine who will run the government.  If that is not a massive conflict of interest, I don't know what is.  We often talk about the benefits of incumbency helping those who are in office to stay in office, and it's hard to see what greater benefit of incumbency there might be than being able to count the votes that determine whether they stay in office or not.

            In other words, it appears to me that the main strategic line of thinking ought to be to get the voting separated from the corrupt and self-interested government units and into the hands of a trusted outside party.  (Is it really time for UN observers, we might wonder?) Anyone could have predicted that the corrupt machine politics in big cities like Philadelphia or Chicago would have total control of the voting outcome, even adding votes in their jurisdiction as needed to overwhelm votes in other counties in the same state. In other words, one strategy would be to directly replace Dominion with a competing line of computers and systems that use identification and verification techniques that make it extremely difficult to change any votes, or to delete any votes, or to add any unauthorized votes.

            It might be useful to devise a study as to whether it is better to have paper votes and let the government "count" them, or to simply get the whole voting process out of the grip of the fanatically self-interested government bureaucrats.  I'm going to guess that the only way to actually ever get a clean election is to have it done outside of government control where pure processing and auditing competency is in control, rather than inside where naked politics are in control of everything. (We might think of a process like voluntary arbitration proceedings where the advocates for each side choose a third party [a judge] to make sure that the arbitration process is fair.)

            As I discuss below, although computers can be used for cheating on a grand scale as was done in 2020, computers can also be used to make cheating almost impossible.  A brief description of my solution for the "cheating is almost impossible" option is described below.

            I can imagine why non-computer-savvy lawyers would like to get rid of computers and go back to the "good old days" of totally paper ballots, but I fear that is an unnecessarily limited approach.  I earned two law degrees, and then spent most of my working life as a computer consultant, so I can claim to know something about both sides of this solution discussion.  I'm inclined to believe that the use of computers to prevent cheating can be used so powerfully that it should greatly surpass the "paper-only" option which has become the nostalgic favorite solution, it seems.  It may be that only a serious test case will make it easy for this argument to be settled to everyone's satisfaction.  In my opinion, the sooner we can run a test or simulation and make a decision, the better.  I have an intuitive feeling that this "paper-only" option is simply never going to be acceptable in the computer age, and if we do manage a "paper-only" option, the determined fraudsters will still find a way to cheat just as much as they have in the past.

            As a final argument in favor of trying to use computers to enhance security (rather than to obliterate security, as was done in the 2020 election), perhaps if we propose a serious replacement computer option which makes cheating almost impossible, the lunatic left will actually agree to a paper-only system as a fallback position or compromise, since they would see that as the best way to continue to maximize fraud opportunities, rather than be constrained by a rigidly accurate computerized system.

 

Technology

Use computers as a strong, thick shield to counter computers used as a dangerous weapon.

Using GPS and QR Codes to Run a Precise Election and Audit

while thoroughly auditing every step in the process,

continuously and periodically,

with a final audit result within hours of the end of the voting cycle

The November 3, 2020 election was stolen using local computers, international computers, the Internet, national and international cheating money, and hiring partisan vote processors who would gladly break all the rules to win for their party. Summing up all the ways to cheat in voting processes, as especially seen in all of the swing states, but also in all 50 states, we have now clearly documented that there are probably at least 200 ways to cheat the typical voting system as it now exists. By countering all of these computer, personnel, and processing cheats by installing a complete new voting system using relatively new but already thoroughly tested computing techniques, every one of those 200 ways to cheat can be thwarted, and an actual verifiably fair election can be conducted.
            Using GPS techniques, all potential voters can be located unequivocally on the map, with all anomalies easily and quickly noted and investigated, and then their location and all other pertinent identifying data can be included in a single QR code, a precise identification replacement for the old signature method, where that minimal signature method can be made almost meaningless today by simply ignoring it. The combination of these two techniques, along with some verification work by volunteer investigators and canvassers, should allow a 99% accuracy rate for voting outcomes. Blockchain secure data storage techniques might even have a place in the final solution, since the fraudsters commonly delete masses of data to hide and protect their cheating activities.
            Obviously, the political left wants to maximize the cheating opportunities, and they would really hate this "big brother" computer system thwarting them. But the left also loves their own numerous "big brother" surveillance systems, so they would find it hard to complain about using another "big brother" system to increase voting accuracy. "Turnabout is fair play" so that if we have "big brother versus big brother," and a "battle of the computers," we might come out with neutral and accurate results.
            Mark Zuckerberg has invented the anti-privacy surveillance system called Facebook.  He has invented the outsourced voting process, as in Minnesota and several other states.  The Chinese government and their allies in the United States, including the CIA, have invented the international vote-stealing system. Perhaps a US entrepreneur can develop and promote a reliable voting system that can be tested in mostly-honest red states and then gradually be moved into totally dishonest blue states, one county at a time, through shaming and popular demand.

 

Politics

The 2020 election demonstrated that many legislatures, perhaps most, do not have adequate control of subunits within their own state government, such as the rebellious Maricopa County in Arizona. Those units disregard state law with impunity. Perhaps that means that it will never be possible for legislatures to get proper control of their internal voting processes. Perhaps legislatures could take a completely different approach, as hinted at by the situation in Arizona. I believe it was about $700 million that was threatened to be withheld from Maricopa County for their misbehavior, if they did not comply with audit requests. Perhaps a better solution would be simply to outsource the entire voting process to an outside unit, introducing competition and greater efficiency and accuracy. The legislative could change the budget so that the counties did not receive the money to run voting operations, but instead the necessary money might be redirected to outside organizations that are specialized in secure voting operations. Those organizations might sell "voting insurance" or guarantees that the voting processes they conduct will be demonstrably accurate. Obviously, in order to fulfill that insured promise of accuracy, they will have to conduct or closely monitor all necessary basic processes and auditing processes.

            As suggested above, it is absurd that any government organization in America gets to determine completely by itself which of its officers will be elected or reelected. American governments were never intended to have hereditary or entitled leaders. That critical voting process needs to be done completely outside of government. In the 2020 election, huge amounts of government voting processes were indeed outsourced to Dominion, and to Facebook, and other entities, so that the results could be modified to meet leftist plans. By the same logic, those voting operations could also be outsourced in the future, but actually go to a trusted professional organization. As many have noted, we don't really have these kinds of organizations, but it is time to create them. We need a new voting industry, held to the high performance standards of our private military contractors. We can't let jet fighters crash or voting processes fail.

 

More details are available, if requested.

 

Kent Huff

kent.huff@gmail.com, Cell: 801-615-9032
139 West 1720 North, Orem, Utah  84057
Computer consultant, author, attorney

Sample graphics to instantly show status of potential voters and any problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Describing the diagram

This diagram follows the normal path of preparing a voter list, collecting the votes of the voters, and tabulating them. So in that sense, it should not seem too radical. The real difference comes in the actual procedures used. It is obvious that in this last voting round in November 2020 the basic voter list processing was handled extremely badly. Dead people were used, those who had moved out of their precincts were used, carpetbagger voters from California moved into Georgia, for example, and their votes were used. There were absentee ballots from people who never requested an absentee ballot, and so on, and so on. In general, people who were too young, too old, or ineligible to vote were used. And then there were millions of phantom voters which were invented out of thin air to add millions to the count for Biden. Obviously, if the voting system has no reliable control over the voter list, then anything goes; there is really no constraint on the amount of fraud that can be perpetrated.

 

One way to make that list 99% reliable is to "crowd-source" the vetting of that list, so that anyone who wishes to get involved can check the validity of that voting list. And there should be some incentives for people to get involved, perhaps even more than simply wanting to see a fair election occur. If done with enthusiasm, this crowd-sourced vetting process should completely end all of these deviations from accuracy.

 

The only way that I can see that you can get complete control of the voter list, from the list stage through the voting stage, to the vote counting stage, is to make sure that every voter has a truly unique ID and that every ballot itself has a truly unique ID, preferably a serial number which is supplied by someone besides the government that controls the voting operation. Matching a reliable voter identification with a reliable ballot identification should truly give us a reliable "one man, one vote" outcome. There may be some value in having a unique random number generated for each voter ballot, rather than letting the central government facility voting facility have any control over that number. Although I can't think of exactly how it would be done, I fear that letting the government assigned the ballot number would allow it to commit some fraud concerning that number. For example, the government might print up a number of ballots with serial numbers which it can then match with phantom voters of various types.

 

Even though the fraudsters will try to inflate the number of voters and inflate the number of ballots, the goal of the secure election is to make sure that there is only one ID for each voter and one ballot for each voter and that there is no way to break that link or substitute something else. One of the other checks is that after the balloting is over, the voters can check to see that the ballot which was registered in their name actually contains the data which they intended it to contain. All of these checks executed before, during, and after the election will be necessary to stop any fraudulent digital "ballot box stuffing."

 

As far as I can tell, if everyone insists on using only paper lists and paper processes, something which was the only choice before there were computers, that will make it impossible to use our best computer security technology to make sure that the whole process and the whole result is based on "one man, one vote."

 

Using "augmented reality" to improve election auditing

This new system proposes using extensive "crowd-sourcing" to check the accuracy of voting lists and the accuracy of the final voted results. To make that as easy as possible, the idea would be to make it easy for the "auditors" to tour their city while having displayed, right before them, the data which is contained in the voting system. If a drive into a neighborhood at the early voter list stage, they should see by every house an indicator of the number and identity of the voters in that house. If the number or identity of the voters did not seem plausible, then they could initiate some process to verify what the truth is. After the voting is done, the same process can be used to again verify that there were the right number of voters in all the right neighborhoods, and that there was no serious ballot box stuffing going on. They could find out if the voters agree that the vote which is recorded on their behalf was the one they intended. If not, then someone gets to blow the whistle.

 

Notes on technology

The assumption here is that these roving crowd-source "auditors" will be using smart phone technology, possibly with the addition of "augmented reality" glasses to make it even easier for them. With that equipment, a single driver could drive around the neighborhoods and check for any possible problems. It might also work for the auditors to simply use a smart phone to do this, without the special glasses, although this might make the driving more unsafe and the accuracy checking less thorough. If it were necessary to use laptop computers instead of smart phones (probably because of the big tech resistance to using their technology against them politically, as they would see it), then that might mean that it would take two people to make these scans of the neighborhoods, one person being the driver, while another person navigates the voting database using the laptop.

 

Do any laptops have GPS hardware? Or can GPS hardware be added as an attachment?

 

See "How to Connect a Garmin GPS to a Laptop : GPS Information"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLF31_d18M

 

"DELL laptops now available with built-in GPS and 3.5G HSPDA wireless broadband connectivity"

http://www.nitroware.net/index.php/news/1-site-news/113-dell-laptops-now-available-with-built-in-gps-and-35g-hspda-wireless.html

 

Since all of the organizations that control most of this public technology are on the political far left, it is possible that we could not use their maps and their phones in the way that I have described. It might then be necessary to use something like the new "Clear" smart phones which cannot be tampered with by the big tech rabid socialists. For example, if it were necessary to create an app for an iPhone or for a Google phone in order to perform all the functions involved, including access to the GPS data, then those apps would have to be sold on the regular app market place, and these big tech monopolists might not allow that to happen. That would mean designing and operating a system of our own which was independent of the big tech people. We still need to use the cell phone towers, but presumably they would not be trying to use their facilities to hack our system and potentially put it off-line.

 

Presumably, the original development work of whatever software or app was needed could be done using tools that are already available, but when it came time to actually launch the software or app, that is when these big tech companies might be able to exercise a veto. Probably that means that this needs to be developed as a separate independent system right from the beginning.

 

The websites associated with this new voting system should also contain other information. They should have instructions and news about the voting system itself, about the election that it is serving at the moment, and about national news that somehow relates. It should also link to such educational material as the hundreds of Prager University videos on Youtube.com that instruct young people on the American history and civics that they should have received while in school, but typically did not. We might even consider giving a related civics test to those who are asked to be part of the crowd-sourcing operations.

 

Defusing the "inner-city minority" cheating issues

Chaotic inner-city minority locations are great places to cheat, so making sure that the inner-city residents are not clearly identified is very valuable to the cheaters, explaining why they will fight to the death against establishing a positive identification for those people. But one way to stop any complaints about "suppressing the vote," and to stop any cheating using phantom voters, dead voters, moved voters, etc., is to go through every inner-city location and create an identification for every person. In the process, that person might elect to not be considered registered or to declare that they will not be voting. That would surely raise the eyebrows of some leftists who manipulate black votes, but it would in fact be fair and reasonable, or could easily be made so by making appropriate adjustments as we learn more about that situation.

 

Quick canvass

After all the voting and tabulations have been completed, the final check would be to have all the voters verify that the vote which is in the central system is actually the vote which they intended. This should be both an accuracy factor and a deterrence factor. If the cheaters and ballot box stuffers realize that just a few days after the voting ends, there will be another "vote" in the sense that all the voters will have to reconfirm what they sent in the first time, that might give the cheaters some pause, since there is a very high likelihood that all of their cheating will be made known soon after the fact. Or, the cheaters might find a really ambitious and devious plan to somehow trick this "canvass" process to reconfirm everything. Of course, if someone has dumped in 1 million phantom votes in order to get the right results in the regular election, it's going to be a little bit difficult to reconfirm all those phantom votes while keeping their cheating just as secret as they managed the first time around. And, of course, the whole idea of this quick canvass is to make it at least 100 times harder for the cheaters to cheat.

 

There are dozens of ways this could be done, and I suspect that we will have to study it carefully and do some testing in order to come up with a plan that works well. In its general outline, it looks like simply another voting round, but this time it is simply confirming what was done earlier. I will mention a number of ideas here about how it could be done, but I can't seem to think through the process well enough to come up with a single specific proposal. Most likely, three or four methods will have to be used to cover all the possibilities.

 

We might start out with the idea of a totally paper/mailing system. This system prints out the recorded vote and sends it to the voter with an envelope for returning his confirmation that the vote is correct or incorrect. This is somewhat like the original mail-in balloting process. It might be useful to use the "scratch off" mechanism which would require the recipient of the letter to scratch off the covering to see what the words were underneath where that person could see what was recorded for his vote. Perhaps a further feature would be to have the person scratch another part of the letter which would indicate a PO Box where he should send his response. He might have to put that PO Box on the letter to be sent back. If there were 1000 possible post office boxes he could send it to, he would have to choose the right one and that would be a kind of "pin number" to verify that some actual person had read the letter and provided the response.

 

If we assume that one of the major identifiers is a cell phone number, then it may be that people could use their cell phone to confirm that, after they look at their vote online, they can confirm that it is correct. We might remember the difference here between the Clear phones that were used as a secure means to check the voter list accuracy, and the regular smart phones which would not be so secure. Whatever method we used would have to be able to work adequately with a regular cell phone and not require a secure Clear phone.

 

Or a person might be able to use a regular computer to log on to their voting account and confirm that the vote recorded is the correct one,

 

Another method would be to use the same crowd-source auditors to investigate the last 5% or 10% of responses which were not properly received and returned. It could easily occur that if there was massive cheating, there would be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of phantom voters who would not be able to confirm their vote, and thus would reveal the cheating that had gone on. We might have some interesting situations such as where 10,000 people voted from a PO Box or voted from a single home or even an open field. If 10,000 canvass letters arrived at that address on a certain day, that might alert somebody in the neighborhood or certainly in the post office that something had gone wrong. In many areas, the post office people are in on the scam, so that might be time to have some special post office workers involved. For example, any time a collection of more than three or four canvass letters is going to a single address, someone might get involved. Obviously, if there are 10,000 letters going to a single address, no matter what that address is, someone would want to catch those at the post office itself and not wait for an attempt to deliver it.

 

This whole "quick canvass" idea is a new one in the world of voting procedures, so there would have to be some instructions to the populace as well as some possibly clever ways to conduct this part of the voting. But this could be done within a few days of the end of the voting so that there would be no need to wait months or years to do a "traditional" forensic audit of the voting process. (Since we haven't even completed one "traditional" forensic audit, as in Arizona, this kind of audit has not become "traditional" yet, but it should be.)

 

 

Wargaming Our Way To A Clean Election

 

 

 

To find an appropriate solution to our voting fraud problem, I believe we must start by realizing that we lost the 2020 election because of a massive international cyber-attack by China and other hostile nations, in conjunction with the active enemies, Chinese spies, American bribe-takers, resident anti-Americans, turncoats, and traitors within our own boundaries.  Since we should really be on a war footing after such an attack, we should react with an overwhelming counter-attack that absolutely obliterates the enemy on the cyber battlefield, at least on the topic of voting, and make it completely impossible for them to ever attack us again in that way.*

 

If we want transparent elections, we should go far enough to make them overwhelmingly transparent as only today's computers can do, with their ability to clearly display any reality or any constructed reality, any data or images that we may wish, and on displays from small personal smart phones to those electronic displays with enormous dimensions. The giant electronic billboards along the highways or at the shopping centers could become a standard part of the voting and election equipment. Such a thoroughgoing transparency, and many eyes observing, will be one good defense against any further enemy hacking attacks.

 

To begin with, we should create and perfect these necessary computer systems in those jurisdictions which are inhabited by conservative American patriots who agree that we have been attacked and that we need to counter-attack vigorously and thoroughly.  Once we have these systems working reliably in multiple jurisdictions, and have a great deal of information and credibility as to their accuracy and reliability, then we can press very hard to bring the most outrageously fraudulent jurisdictions into the world of secure and accurate elections.

 

With this new voting system operating, with its ability to display visual data, such as locations of each voter and the locations of suspected fake voters, that might help some of the noncomputer conservative political leadership people to go along with this seemingly radical new program.  Perhaps what is happening is the idea that a person can actually see the paper ballots as they are used, and that is probably comforting to them, since one usually cannot "see" the digital flow of data during the actual voting or during the hidden fraudulent operations.  However, if everything was perfectly visible, like a giant display that might show the progress of a battle with all components displayed -- we might think of a World War II Central Command facility -- it might seem more real to them, and they would come to realize how much actual security they were providing to the process. 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

* Of course, there are masses of leftists and RINOs who pretend to see nothing wrong with the last election, even though they are bombarded with enormous amounts of information which point in the other direction, including the fact that many Democrats claim that there was voter fraud in the 2016 election, in the 2018 election, and in many elections before that, going back at least 20 years, if not forever. (Another presidency was stolen in 1876 in much the same way.)  The leftists, with their moral relativism, naturally see no inconsistency in claiming massive voter fraud when they lose, but then pretending everything was perfect when they win.  That is just normal Democrat lying for political advantage.

 

There seem to be many reasons why these people wish to take these positions which are completely at odds with the truth.  Regular leftists and RINOs don't want to admit that we were attacked by China and other leftist forces, partly because they are committed Marxists and they believe in having all the leftists and globalists stick together.  They don't want to reveal the tyrannical ambitions of their fellows.

 

For those leftists and RINO leaders, they don't want to admit that there was massive international fraud in the last election because they think that they now have complete control of the fraud system, so they want to keep it quiet as long as possible, perhaps forever, so that they can continue to win forever using that same mechanism.  But, also, if they were to admit that we were under a massive cyber-attack, and they did nothing, then of course they are guilty of not keeping everyone safe.  And, of course, their goal is to make everyone think that they are perfectly safe, that there is no threat from anywhere, lulling them to sleep, so there is no reason to change any policies or any leadership.

 

Perhaps the image of the old-style World War II miniaturized physical model of the battle, or perhaps the representation of the same data on a very large screen (perhaps a touch screen), with the ability to query for greater detail on any particular situation of special interest, would give responsible conservative political leaders the level of comfort and sense of control over the process they would probably like to have. These people often have military experience and are very patriotic. With this new voting environment in place, they would feel like they could see what was going on and they were actually in control of its accuracy and security. 

 

This new "user interface" would be very important to those who were overseeing the voting operation and to the auditors who are checking all the underlying data.  Making all of this digital information visual would be very powerful and would remove most of the trickery which went on in the dark of night in the 2020 election.

 

(When more is known, we might discover that the Chinese had created exactly this kind of war-room environment to allow them to quickly coordinate and execute the massive vote manipulations necessary to make the US voting process seem legitimate, even while it was being stolen. (I expect that the Chinese have spent more time thinking about war than we ever have, or ever will.*) I suspect that one of the reasons that the American leftists and RINOs are so resistant to this voting fraud theory is because of a failure of imagination. They cannot conceive of anyone carrying out such a bold and gigantic plan right under their noses, so they prefer to believe that nothing happened. This sounds like the many organizations such as banks who tolerate large-scale hacking and loss of information and money without publicly complaining, simply because they don't want the world to know that it is possible to hack their "safe" systems.)

 

During the 2020 election, the Trump administration wisely and cleverly made a recording of all the international computer trickery that was going on, recording the Internet "packet captures" that showed all of the skullduggery that was going on.  So now we know exactly what must not be allowed to happen the next time.  If all of those computer operations were done out in the open where everyone could see them, giving full transparency to anyone who cared to watch it, and pointing out any anomalies that might be caused by some international computer intervention, the trust level in this new system might go up a great deal. 

 

We have radar and computer systems which are intended to defend our country such as those which track airplanes and missiles or launch astronauts into space and are therefore intended to be extremely accurate and reliable. One of those systems is North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).   A small part of that kind of technology could be transferred and modified for use in a voting system, especially the "situational awareness" display technology. 

 

An Ender's game for voting -- Start with the most extreme option, and work backwards

As a way to get the maximum human neurons firing, I propose that the quickest, cheapest, and easiest way to set up a new voting system would be simply to ask Facebook/Amazon/Apple/Netflix/Google (FAANG) to do it all for us.  They would probably do it all for free, since it would be easy for them.  They have all the information and all the technical infrastructure they would need to do this quickly. They would just need to spend a few weeks developing an app, and we would be ready to go.  In spite of their very strong leftist leanings, they would probably do a better, more accurate job of the voting than we saw in the last election, where about 10 million votes were invented out of thin air to make sure that Biden won.

 

--------------------------------------------

*"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

 

Sun Tzu was a great general who had the foresight to log his thoughts on military strategy in the seminal classic The Art of War. Sun Tzu lived roughly 550 to 500 years before Christ.

 

"Sun Tzu was a renowned philosopher and the author of ‘THE ART OF WAR.’ [His thinking affected] both East Asia and Western philosophy as well as impacted military thinking."

 

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1771.Sun_Tzu

Since almost everyone in our society now has a personal cell phone, everyone is already thoroughly identified.  The cell phone makes it clear where we live because of the location data which the phone constantly collects. As an example of the cell phones error-checking possibilities, if people had moved out of the county or out of the state, but still tried to vote in their old location, simply because they were fanatical cheating leftists, their cell phone location data over just a few days would indicate that they were not living where they claimed to live. Or their cell phone location data could indicate that they just moved temporarily to a particular state to vote illegally as was done on a large scale in Georgia.

 

As far as a photo ID is concerned, we put thousands of photos into our cell phones so that facial recognition could be used to clearly identify us and all our associates.  Facebook has many photos with us tagged on our own photos or on someone else's photos so that we are very clearly identified.  This makes it seem foolish for the leftists to argue that showing a photo ID is an insurmountable burden on people.

 

Our political leanings are known very well through the use of entries on Facebook, our searches and readings and responses on Google, and the things we buy on Amazon.  All of this can clearly indicate our politics.  They may not know exactly how we voted on every person and issue in the last election, but they could present a pretty close guess. So they have even done away with our voting privacy. In other words, they have enough data that they could run a fairly accurate "voting operation," a kind of simulation, without even collecting any ballots.

 

In the few cases where a person does not have a cell phone, but is eligible to vote, Google could assign them a free random Google phone number that could serve as a unique identifier. Assigning these random telephone numbers is obviously an invitation to fraud. But we might wonder whether Google would be willing to make up one million phone numbers for one month just to create phantom voters in Philadelphia.  They might or they might not. But a sudden flood of new telephone numbers in a single county might be something which could be tracked electronically. It is an open question whether Google would be willing to cheat that openly, especially if they are under contract to some government unit to do an accurate voting operation.

 

The question then becomes why would we want to spend the time and money to create an alternate voting system, since these four big tech companies would gladly do it for us for free? Is it possible that we would not trust them to present an unbiased result?

 

In studying this problem it would be interesting to know if there are any people, especially minorities (since those are the people that the leftists care about so much), who do not have phones or who have never used Google, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple.  That is probably a vanishingly small group of people, and it may be such a small group that it's not even worth bothering with for voting purposes, but it would be worth knowing the answer.  It could be useful to know the answer, if only to respond to the harping of the left which is never satisfied with anything unless they have all power.

 

These big tech companies have all of this information about us because we already "vote" thousands of times a year as we purchase things, request information, etc.  We certainly at least give big tech enough information to figure out exactly how we WOULD vote in any political voting situation.

 

I mentioned this extreme voting idea simply because our voting system is already extremely compromised. The idea here is to try to use some digital jujitsu by using the technology of these big companies against them.

 

The shock effect

Once again, I want to present this particular option largely for its shock effect, but also partly as a serious proposal.  These companies certainly have all the information and all the means to carry out such a project, and if we don't fully realize that they have that information and that ability, we might lose some of the enthusiasm we ought to have for creating a parallel system which is rigidly controlled.  They would probably do this project for free or for only a tiny cost, and it would accomplish the goal of getting this voting out of the hands of the fanatically self-interested local and state government operatives.  Getting it out of government control might almost be worth the risk of the cheating which the big tech companies would anxiously want to engage in.

 

Big tech would have huge incentives to take on the project.  They are all leftists at the leadership level and they would love to be on as good terms with the Democrat party and the current leftist government as they possibly can.  On the other hand, they do have an international reputation to maintain.  If they did take on something as important as a voting system and then cheated like crazy, which they have all the power in the world to do, and then they got caught, it would be a very big black eye for them, proving all of the bad press they get about suppressing conservatism and promoting Marxism.

 

Policing, auditing, and privacy in an electronic voting system