New Computer Technology For An Instant Election
Audit
A collection of ideas for the next-generation
voting system
with both continuous and instant audits
Historical
background
When
we have people in the world who are willing to spend $100 billion on an
important election to steal that election, there is no longer any excuse for
not having the highest possible technology available for protecting the voting
process, auditing the vote after the fact, and perhaps correcting it where
necessary.
For
anyone who is willing to pay attention to a fairly obvious truth, we had a
catastrophic stealing of a presidential election on November 3, 2020. One might
guess that, altogether, perhaps $100 billion was spent in cash and
contributions-in-kind to make that stealing of the election happen, presumably
the bulk of it coming directly or indirectly from China, which country has by
far the greatest incentive to quietly destroy its main international competitor,
America. One year of tariffs saved from being paid by China under a Trump trade
regime would easily pay for stealing such an election. All 50 states were
involved in the steal, and numerous foreign countries made immense efforts to
provide the plans and the algorithms and the massive online computer support to
make all of this happen at the right time. Years of preparation were devoted to
making all of these plans and changing the laws at the state level to make
cheating all that much easier to carry out.
Introduction
to a new idea
The
audits in Arizona have revealed numerous very serious deviations from what
should be normal voting practice, and partial audits in other states have shown
many more ways to cheat the existing system. In response, someone created a
"potential cheat diagram" which identifies some of the major points
in the process where some of many thousands of ways can be used to hack or
cheat today's voting systems. It was presented at the Cyber Symposium in
August, sponsored by Mike Lindell.
One
of the great weaknesses of today's system is the current idea and practice that
once a vote has been cast, it can never again be identified and related back to
the person who entered that vote into the system. This historical processing
practice may have been sensible in the past, but today it actually provides an
all-too-convenient barrier for the cheaters to hide behind in almost every
case, and for almost any method of cheating. Whatever practical wisdom might
have recommended or dictated those methods as good practices in the past, this
enormous weakness must be recognized, counteracted, and neutralized today.
As
a practical matter, this current methodology means that after all the votes have
been cast, there are no practical constraints on what can be done to destroy
the ballots, change the ballots, replace them with other ballots, etc.
Concerning paper ballots, as long as there are approximately the right number
of paper ballots to be found somewhere, there's not much that can be done after
the fact. This was illustrated in the Arizona audit, where the number of
ballots remaining to be counted at the end of the process was approximately
correct, even though hundreds of thousands of those ballots were illegal or had
been changed in some way.
One
fairly vigorous solution to the general problem would be to provide for a
"battle of the computers," making possible a quick second opinion on
the election's outcome, something that goes far beyond a feeble "risk
limiting audit." The 1960s American Apollo moonshot program may provide
one interesting example of computers auditing computers. I recall reading that
the control systems for the rocket launch involved three different computers
which made parallel computations. As I recall the explanation, at critical
points in the launch sequence results were checked among the three computers.
They should all be the same, ideally, but perhaps if two out of the three
agreed, that result would be used. Obviously, if all three had different
results, then some action would have to be taken outside of the computation
system, perhaps putting a slow human in the loop.
The
bad actors in the world have obviously decided that this voting process is
going to be a war to the death in the United States, as it has been in other
countries with valuable economic resources to be stolen or crippled, or
disputed social practices overcome. Ideally, we would find a way to kill the
beast right now, once and for all, rather than let this theft and corruption
continue.
I
recently called the Utah County clerk's office and was told that some ballot
had been received and recorded as having been submitted by me in the most
recent election. However, without more information, I can't be sure that they actually
received a ballot that came from me, that it had the votes recorded on it that
I selected, that they still had it in their system, that it had been counted properly
in the final results, etc., etc. In other words, having them tell me that they
received something in my name is almost meaningless. Certainly it does not
offer any serious auditing information or verification.
Someone
will instantly complain that we must keep our voting secret (since that helps
the left so much in their cheating processes), but I wish to challenge that
claim. The only reason to keep your voting secret is if you fear retribution if
you vote for the wrong person. Actually, if you fear retribution for voting for
the wrong person, then you have probably already lost almost everything that
matters. I for one would be perfectly happy to have my voting record known to
anyone who cared to look, if that meant that I could have confidence that the
voting process was fair and honest.
This
issue came to mind when I noticed at the Utah County commission meeting on the
election audit issue that all the votes by the County commissioners are carefully
recorded as to who voted for what. In the House of Representatives and in the
Senate, at least at the federal level, all the votes of every representative
are recorded on every issue and are kept forever for historical purposes. I
don't know why my vote history shouldn't be kept forever. The current 22-month
limit on the holding of ballots is a relic of century-old practices using
pre-computer storage methods. I assume that rule is about to be used to destroy
the evidence of recent fraud, if it hasn't been used already for that purpose.
That
careful recording of legislative votes allows us to know what a person's voting
record might be. I personally would have no objection to having the world know
what my voting record is if that would keep all the voting honest. In some
cases, the only way to make sure the vote is accurate is to have people gather
in groups according to their voting preference so that they can easily be
counted and identified. I believe versions of that "group voting" are
already used in legislative settings.
In
today's hostile and contentious voting situation, keeping voting actions secret
makes the cheaters job very easy, and makes keeping the voting process honest
very difficult. That seems like reason enough to get away from the secret
voting option. It should not be difficult to make it an extra option allowing
people to choose whether they wish to allow their vote to be made public or not,
realizing that the more people who make their vote public, the more likely the
voting results will be transparent, accurate, and verifiable.
Concerning
the general mythology of the "secret vote," I believe it is greatly
overrated. Certainly, the leftist politicians believe that they know exactly
how their political base will vote, because that is the way they have voted
historically, and it is probably checked regularly using exit polling
techniques (which could easily overcome voting privacy). This situation amounts
to having almost no secrets at all about what any particular person's vote
might be. (It seems likely that Facebook and Google and other data collections
about individuals contain significant amounts of data on their voting
patterns.) A handful of black voters who wished to vote for conservative
candidates might wish to keep their votes secret, to avoid social or political repercussions,
but it probably doesn't matter at all for anyone else in that community that
votes the standard plantation way.
A
new process?
The
proposed new basic process would be to put a unique identifying number on each
ballot submitted so that each one could be tracked from beginning to end.
Ideally this would be a number which was generated by a separate system and the
voter could then take that number, or a barcode of that number, and put it on
the ballot when it is submitted. This random number would become part of the
ballot in its electronic form. This would mean that every ballot which ended up
in the balloting database would be identifiable and verifiable.
Perhaps
a voter could register their name in a separate database, perhaps also
providing a voting password which only they would know. This database would consist
of the already-existing public voter database, with extra efforts made to keep
it as clean and accurate as possible. That would allow individual voters to
check the contents of the official voting database perhaps one week after the
voting was completed. They could find out quickly whether their vote was
counted exactly as they had intended or not. If their vote had been changed or was
missing or if it had been duplicated so that there were multiple versions, they
would quickly know these things.
At
the end of the voting process we would end up with two important databases. One
would contain the actual votes by all the voters, with each ballot having a
unique identifier attached which would allow it to be linked back to the voter
database so that the voters could each quickly verify that their vote got
through the system as they had intended. The two databases could quickly be
compared with each other and any significant differences noted. A few minutes,
or, at worst, a few hours, is all that would be required.
Obviously,
if the Marxist revolutionaries can delay an accurate audit for several months,
by using any means necessary, then they will have achieved their purpose of
taking over the entire political system. In this last 2020 instance, they
skillfully used ambiguous and outdated historical and constitutional
checkpoints to make sure that no effective audit would be completed before
Inauguration Day. After that, any actual findings of fraud could be ignored. In
this day of almost incomprehensible computing power being available, there is
no excuse for this kind of chicanery and fraud to be allowed to continue for
lack of a reliable means of checking the results.
Obviously,
the crooks will go ballistic the first time anyone suggests this kind of
reliable countermeasure to their unlimited cyber fraud, and getting this kind
of system installed in a county or state for the first time will be a Herculean
task. Almost certainly, the political left and its mainstream media organs will
wail endlessly about losing some individual secrecy in the voting process or
about suppressing the vote because someone has to add an identifying number to
a ballot, supposedly an overwhelmingly challenging task for any adult, some
would say. Nonetheless, I think attempting anything less will simply play into
the hands of the deeply embedded political manipulators and allow them to steal
another major election.
We
may actually be experiencing some luck at this point because the illegitimate new
president and his regime that were put in place because of this fraudulent
voting are so hostile to the continued success of our country and have angered
so many people, that they might lose the next election even though they are
still able to maintain very high level of cheating. But rather than take that
chance and possibly allow this illegitimate regime to continue and further
consolidate its control over our country, we need to make sure that no more
fraudulent elections of that sort are ever allowed to happen again.
It
would be possible to go a step further and use the so-called "public key/private
key" encryption process to assign a public key and a private key to each
individual. Their ballot could go into the voting system using the public key,
and then only the owner of that ballot could look at that ballot using his
private key. This could allow for an entirely encrypted voting database, if
that seemed useful. My impulse is to stay away from encryption if possible so
that there are fewer ways that the crooks can manipulate the system without
being detected. It is the very lack of transparency that we see today that has
allowed them to steal at least one major election.
Choosing
the right number
it
might be tempting to use preassigned numbers such as Social Security numbers,
but they have many inaccuracy and fraud problems themselves. Because a Social
Security number is valuable, it is also subject to massive counterfeiting. The
same is probably true for drivers' license numbers as well. Technically, it
would be better to have a unique number used just for voting purposes. It would
relate to, and perhaps be part of, the voter lists which states and counties
must maintain.
It
would certainly be convenient to use a preassigned number, and it would
probably allow us to get 80-90% accuracy in voting, which would be a great
improvement in some instances, such as where there is massive fraud in urban
voting. I assume that every person on the government dole also needs a Social
Security number as part of the money collection path. That makes it a critical
item to have for left-supporting voters, but also makes it rife with potential
fraud. However, if we ever hope to get into the 99% range for accuracy, a
better, more special-purpose number will need to be used. One of the problems
of using an existing general-purpose individual ID is that it raises many
legitimate privacy questions and security questions completely outside the
voting process. That should be avoided if possible.
PROVE
no Internet connection
As
part of the "Prove It" movement to overcome the massive and
irrational resistance of the left to examining suspect voting processes,
perhaps we should also insist that they PROVE that they did not access the
Internet at any point. One way to do that might be by requiring them to
demonstrate that there WERE no Internet data packets flowing in their state
that related to the voting operations.
A
solution for the future?
The
Maricopa County Arizona election audit was a magnificent accomplishment and
offered many important lessons, but I have yet to hear someone suggest a way to
end, once and for all, the need for such strenuous, expensive, and time-consuming
audits. Obviously, if all future audits take 10 months to complete, then they
can never have any effect on political outcomes. That is why I offer this
possible solution.
What
I'm suggesting is a very simple task for a few programmers to complete. Almost
the entire effort required to make it successful would consist of political
activism to get the system accepted and set up, and then to use volunteers to
make sure that the critical voting registration lists are kept as clean and
current as possible. This set of requirements seems to match very well with the
resources that are available to solve this problem.
I
hope this little write-up will get the main idea across. It would take quite a
bit more effort to write up a complete "handbook" level of detail on
how to create and operate such a system, and it would also probably take a
little bit of experimenting to find the exact best way to do it.
But
if we can employ a few million dollars to successfully defend against another
$100 billion voting fraud attack, that will be a very efficient use of
resources. In our country today, I have to wonder whether we will have to bribe
people to do the right things, just as they were bribed with billions of
dollars to do the wrong things in our last election. Since what they did were
all criminal acts, hopefully not everyone involved will be so shameless and
corrupt as to require a bribe to do the right thing. I hope our level of
national lawlessness is not so high everywhere that election workers can easily
choose to ignore the threat of going to jail or paying a fine for their crimes.
We can hope that decency and patriotism are not that dead yet.
Using
legislative power to the fullest
It
would be important to get this idea of an "instant election audit"
into the deliberations early in the political process. Obviously, in order to
make this "instant election audit" system work, changes will have to
be made to computer systems and to personnel systems, possibly designating an
outside organization to actually conduct the audit process. The Arizona audit
required creating a whole new audit organization and procedure out of nothing,
and it seems likely that in the future there will need to be a whole class of
organizations that handle these audits on a regular basis so that they can
develop the expertise and technology to do it quickly and accurately. Of
course, the political left will scream and fight like tigers to avoid embedding
this new software and new expertise into the voting system, but that only makes
it more important to consider all these issues at the very beginning of
proposing long-term solutions through legislative power.
There
is likely to be an enormous resistant to such a suggested change simply because
of our 200-year history of doing things a certain way in a different society
that actually could assume that most voting was done honestly. In this new era
where there is no reason whatsoever to trust anyone to act honestly without
bribery or bias, then all of this old inertia must be overcome and the process
kept from slipping back to the old and easily manipulated ways of the past.
Someone
mentioned that Georgia will be adding identifying numbers to all absentee
ballots for future elections. If that is correct, then someone has already
broken the barrier to getting actual and complete auditability for at least
part of the voting system. We simply need to take that basic idea and make sure
that every aspect of the voting system, in every timeframe, can be audited
quickly and accurately. Presumably, it was incomprehensible a few decades ago
that ballots would be imaged and kept on a computer hard drive to be examined
and counted there. Instead of allowing the crooks to use that ballot storage
ability against the honest people, we either need to completely get rid of
computers 100% and use nothing but local paper ballots and local manual paper
counting, or we need to add computer systems which can counteract the use of
international Internet connections to potentially manipulate every vote in our
country as was done this last time.
If
it seems impossible to ever go to 100% paper systems, one additional thought
would be to embed "packet sniffers" in every state system so that, since
accessing the Internet is so easy to do these days, if any access is
accomplished, every fragment of data that relates to that access is recorded.
As I understand it, there was a giant "packet sniffer" instigated
under President Trump which recorded all the intrusions of the hacking
computers in China, Germany, Italy, Iran, and elsewhere. In all future
situations, all of that Internet traffic must be captured and recorded, and any
deviations sensed and recorded. If giant communications companies like AT&T
are going to potentially provide service for Internet traffic used to
manipulate voting processes, then those communications companies need to
cooperate in providing all the necessary "packet sniffer" services.
Otherwise, they become part of a criminal enterprise. Presumably, they already
provide almost complete surveillance of all communications to NSA and other
organizations. It would be unconscionable for them to NOT allow surveillance of
the most critical items of data, which would be voting-related Internet
traffic.
One
of the possible details of an "instant election audit" system would
be to have a list containing the "Internet ID" of every potential
piece of hardware which might be used in a computerized system. The
"sniffer system" could then know exactly what traffic it was
recording and could flag any unregistered activity.
Obviously,
at this point, such a system as I propose could only be set up in a red state,
and only then after much moaning and complaining and resistance from the
cheating class. Once that system is set up and operating, then various means
can be used to pressure the other states to get rid of their embedded computers
now used exclusively for cheating, and causing them to switch over to the new
system (or to paper-only systems.)
(It
seems quite possible that a computerized voting system will be necessary simply
because they can be made more secure and more verifiable than any paper
systems. I don't know whether that is true, but some wise person needs to be
asked that question.)
We
should probably remember that as part of this last voting cycle, truckloads of
paper ballots were brought in from other states, existing paper ballots were
shredded and hauled away, the accounting for batches and their chain of custody
was extremely sloppy and unpredictable, etc. This seems to indicate that a
reliable and complete computer tracking system is necessary no matter what else
happens.
A
few lessons from the Arizona audit
Below
are some of the findings from the Arizona audit, and then some related comments.
Perhaps the greatest single lesson to be learned is that the process of
cleaning up the voter rolls, which would be greatly aided by the legislated
need to have a unique ID tied to a specific voter for every ballot submitted,
would clear up a very large number of the problems found. Adding to that the
"after-the-fact" "instant audit" checking of all votes cast
against the voter database of votes possible, should get us into the 99%
accuracy range.
|
6.2 Finding Summary
Table |
||||
|
# |
Finding Name |
Phase |
Ballots Impacted |
Severity |
|
6.3.1 |
Mail-in Ballots Voted
from Prior Address |
Voter History |
23,344 |
Critical |
|
6.3.2 |
Potential Voters that
voted in multiple counties |
Voter History |
10,342 |
Critical |
|
6.4.1 |
More Ballots Returned
by Voter Than Received |
Certified Results |
9,041 |
High |
|
6.5.1 |
Official Results Does
Not Match Who Voted |
Certified Results |
3,432 |
Medium |
|
6.5.2 |
More Duplicates Than
Original Ballots |
Ballot |
2,592 |
Medium |
|
6.5.3 |
In-Person Voters Who
Had Moved out of Maricopa County |
Certified Results |
2,382 |
Medium |
|
6.5.4 |
Voters Moved Out-of-State
During 29-Day Period Proceeding Election |
Voter History |
2,081 |
Medium |
|
6.6.1 |
Votes Counted in
Excess of Voters Who Voted |
Certified Results |
836 |
Low |
|
6.6.2 |
Voters not part of the
official precinct register |
Voter History |
618 |
Low |
|
6.6.3 |
Ballots Returned Not
in the Final Voted File |
Certified Results |
527 |
Low |
|
6.6.4 |
Duplicated ballots
incorrect & missing serial numbers |
Ballot |
500 |
Low |
|
6.6.5 |
Mail-In Ballot
Received without Record of Being Sent |
Certified Results |
397 |
Low |
|
6.6.6 |
Voters With Incomplete
Names |
Voter History |
393 |
Low |
|
6.6.7 |
Deceased Voters |
Voter History |
282 |
Low |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
have a few comments on some of those findings:
|
# |
Finding Name |
Solution in New System |
|
6.3.1 |
Mail-in
Ballots Voted from Prior Address |
1.
The new requirement that a unique voter ID/ballot ID number be assigned to
every ballot, where that voter ID/ballot ID follows the ballot throughout the
entire process and remains for the entire life of the system and for that
voting cycle database, also requires another step in the process to assign
that new number. That should preclude any of the current sloppiness in the
system. Naturally, it will take a little more volunteer support to take care
of this extra number-assignment step upfront, but it should be more than
worth it. It should make unnecessary most of the hundreds of thousands of
volunteer hours that might otherwise be required to do a full audit each
time. This upfront number assignment is necessary to make it possible to do
the "instant audit" that checks all the main parameters of the
voting cycle. If Facebook can pay money to a county and take over the voting
process completely, as I believe happened in Wisconsin and elsewhere, surely
there is a way to get the right personnel involved in this upfront process. |
|
6.3.2 |
Potential
Voters that voted in multiple counties |
2.
One of the benefits of the "instant audit" system is that it will quickly
identify any duplicate ballots for a single voter. This should completely
stop the situation where one batch of ballots with favorable characteristics
can be reproduced 20 times to rebalance the voting results. Of course, there
must be a procedure in place to make sure that one person does not get
multiple ballot numbers assigned to him. His name must not appear on multiple
local voting books. Computer matching programs, using all voting books from
the state, should minimize this problem. |
|
6.4.1 |
More
Ballots Returned by Voter Than Received |
See
1 & 2 above |
|
6.5.1 |
Official
Results Does Not Match Who Voted |
See
1 & 2 above |
|
6.5.2 |
More
Duplicates Than Original Ballots |
See
1 & 2 above |
|
6.5.3 |
In-Person
Voters Who Had Moved out of Maricopa County |
See
1 & 2 above |
|
6.5.4 |
Voters
Moved Out-of-State During 29-Day Period Proceeding Election |
See
1 & 2 above |
|
6.6.1 |
Votes
Counted in Excess of Voters Who Voted |
3.
By comparing the two databases -- the final voting results database and the
original voter ID/ballot ID number assignment database -- this mismatch should
be avoided, or at least made instantly visible. |
|
6.6.2 |
Voters
not part of the official precinct register |
4.
Obviously, there needs to be a practical way to get rid of the "anything
goes" methodology of the big, corrupt, urban political machines. Also,
obviously, no would could comprehend the level of corruption in these urban
centers. |
|
6.6.3 |
Ballots
Returned Not in the Final Voted File |
See
4 above |
|
6.6.4 |
Duplicated
ballots incorrect & missing serial numbers |
See
4 above |
|
6.6.5 |
Mail-In
Ballot Received without Record of Being Sent |
See
4 above |
|
6.6.6 |
Voters
With Incomplete Names |
The
ancient idea of comparing signatures as a check on fraud has been shown to be
completely useless and easily defeated. If there is an upfront unique number
assignment, that should help a great deal with this problem which is seen in
many states. |
|
6.6.7 |
Deceased
Voters |
See
4 above |
Obviously,
without a lot more study, I can only make a few suggestions here, and people
with deep experience in all the ways to cheat the system will need to decide
what level of practical controls are needed and how many can be enforced.
One
of the standard system design and programming processes is to make up an
exhaustive set of test data so that all aspects of the system can be tested to make
sure that it is finding and flagging all the errors or potential errors. It is
a separate art of its own to make up these test data decks or databases.
Counterfeit
protection considerations
I see that Mark Finchum, a member of the
House of Representatives in Arizona, has been working with a company called Authentix
to devise a ballot which cannot be easily counterfeited. I certainly applaud
this effort, as part of a "belt and suspenders" kind of multifactor
security system, but I would also like to point out that the most
"difficult to duplicate" ballot still leaves many very serious holes
in the search for an accurate and reliable voting process.
Having a ballot which cannot be easily duplicated still leaves open the possibility of simply ignoring, discarding, and/or destroying hundreds of thousands of ballots which might be received from parts of a state which are known to contain a majority of Republican voters. The most secure ballot in the world cannot survive simply being burned or buried.
I recall reading that the voting operations group that was funded by Mark Zuckerburg of Facebook in Wisconsin included storing at least 40 boxes of blank ballots in a hotel storage area. I don't know how they were packaged, but that could easily mean that the boxes contained 5000 ballots each for a total of 200,000 ballots. That certainly seems like a good start on helping to steal an election, and presumably that was the actual intention.
I believe that one of the major business undertakings in the outlaw countries of the world is duplicating American $100 bills. All they would need is a little warning to be able to counterfeit a large number of these new ballots. Obviously, they could also add sequential serial numbers to these ballots, if that were helpful. However, the intention of the system I envision is that the identifying number on each of the ballots is not really part of a serial number system but is essentially an unpredictable random number produced for each voter's ballot. That makes it extremely difficult to anticipate the need for a set of ballots with pre-existing numbers, and a set of ballots without those appropriate numbers can be immediately rejected as fake.
Also, I'm going to guess that there will be great difficulty in getting large numbers of states quickly switched over to these new "hundred dollar bill" ballots, where a switch to a simple ballot with an independently applied serial number should be a great deal cheaper and easier to implement.
The value of the independently numbered ballots is that their presence, absence, duplication, and even changing, can all be quickly checked by computer, demonstrating which votes were not counted, which were counted multiple times, which were changed, etc. One of the important steps is being able to allow the original voter to verify that the vote which made it into the system is the exact same vote which he intended. That ultimate the level of verification is simply impossible in today's systems, and I cannot imagine that an accurate and reliable system can be devised for general use in today's world which does not include that feature.
It should be useful to take a quick
overview of the world's counterfeiting operations. As of December 31, 2020,
there was $2,040.7 billion in US bills in circulation (about $2 trillion),
totaling 50.3 billion notes in volume. About one in 4000 is counterfeit meaning
that there are about 12,575,000 counterfeit bills in circulation. If a batch of
100,000 counterfeit ballots might swing an election, which would amount to
about 20 boxes of paper, that doesn't sound like too much of a challenge for
the world's professional counterfeiters who already have about 12,575,000 bills
in circulation or about (125x20=) 2500 boxes out there in the world. If the
prize is control of a $25 trillion economy such as the United States, someone
will quickly find a way to solve that problem.
The ballots might easily be worth more than $100 each to the right criminal parties. For example, if China can get rid of $100 billion in tariffs each year by getting political control of the United States, paying $500 million ($0.5 billion) for 5 million high quality duplicate ballots to steal an election would be a great bargain. I assume that most counterfeit bills are sold at a big discount at the first step. Apparently that first step discount can be as high as 96%, meaning you pay 4%-8% of the face value of the counterfeit money, depending on the volume purchased in one transaction. In other words, a $100 counterfeit bill might cost $4. This is the kind of world we could end up in when dealing with duplicate ballot possibilities. Regular purveyors of counterfeit bills might pay only $4 per $100 bill, while vote stealers might be happy to pay $100 for each ballot. That seems to indicate that every counterfeiter in the world will want to get in on counterfeiting American ballots. For pricing examples, see https://joshnanlabs.com/legit-high-quality-counterfeit-money/.
The element of surprise of introducing a new ballot format might work well in one state for one year, but using them for multiple years in multiple states would simply present a nice and very lucrative challenge to the world's criminal elements. If up to $100 billion was spent to steal the 2020 election, a few billion dollars devoted to producing the necessary special ballots would not be much of a challenge to the cheaters.
I recall reading that one set of about 300,000 fake ballots were prepared for use in Pennsylvania, at an apparent cost of about $.30 per ballot. If the new Authentix ballots can be made for about $.25, then, for only a small premium, a usable counterfeit can probably be produced for a similar amount, but be much more valuable.
"Our democracy"
The
loony and lawless political left loves to talk about the glories of the "democracy"
they want to hand us (as they quietly try to destroy our Republic). Really, it
is mob rule they are proposing. They are always pressing for the largest number
of voters who are the least vetted and least identified. Perhaps what really
needs to happen is that we take them at their word and declare that the entire
United States, taken one state at a time, does indeed make up a segmented
legislature. Part of what that would mean is that every legislator, which would
now mean every citizen, must be as clearly identified as are our
representatives to state legislators and federal legislatures. It would
certainly be considered an outrageous deviation from the norm to have massive
duplication or manipulation of voting in one of these state or federal
legislatures.
For
example, what if we had 10 people in the Senate, and among the Senate staffers,
who identified as Charles Schumer, who all felt authorized to vote in that name
any way they wished and at any time. Or we might consider the same situation in
the House of Representatives with perhaps 30 different people all having the
power to vote under the name of Nancy Pelosi. We might guess that anyone who
tried to set up such a system would be quickly challenged and corrected. The
idea that we would bring in homeless people off the street to vote to make our
"democracy" run in the House and the Senate, whether at the state or
federal level, perhaps allowing them to randomly choose which of the
legislators they wished to identify as, and vote as, would seem to most people
to be outrageous. Nonetheless, that is the way the left would like us to view
our "democracy," where anyone in the world can declare themselves a
citizen and be allowed to vote in any election.
Perhaps
this theme could be pounded home to show the absurdity and the hypocrisy of the
arguments which the Democrats constantly make about the wonders of their
"democracy." Perhaps we could even find someone who was clever and
courageous enough to hack the electronic voting system of the House of
Representatives and vote multiple times in the name of Nancy Pelosi and other
leftists, naturally voting the opposite way in most cases. With only a slim
margin of perhaps three votes on the left in the House, someone hacking the
voting system and voting 50 times extra on the Republican side could create a
national story. Or maybe the ideal plot would be to have someone vote 50 times
extra on each side, giving us vote totals around 535 in the House of
Representatives on multiple occasions. It would be nice to throw in some
"phantom voters" while deleting others, just to add to the confusion.
Even if it didn't change the vote balance outcome, or didn't change the winner,
this would be a wake-up call to some people, and would make a great national
story. If those people involved were threatened with prosecution, then we would
have a precedent for threatening the cheaters in other legislative situations.
Ideally,
we would drive legislators back to the original paper or roll call ballots
because their electronic voting system was completely unreliable and
unpredictable. At least we could cause them a rather notable expense to have to
upgrade the whole system to make it reliable again.
Maybe
we could even pay some Romanian hackers to flagrantly and notoriously hack
every level of voting in the United States, at the federal, state, county, and
city levels, and perhaps even some school boards, if those are separate. We
would want to especially do this in the obstreperous swing states which so blatantly
cheated at every opportunity in the November 3, 2020 election. Another nice
target would be the judicial information systems in the states. If those courts
were paralyzed for a few months, and they had to go back to paper systems for
submitting all legal documents, perhaps that would even cause the almost
universally left-leaning lawyers to get with the program of serious computer
security.
If
the threats were carefully calibrated so that every government voting system in
the United States appeared to be under constant credible threat, then perhaps all
the idiotic objections to tightening up regular voting systems would simply
disappear. Obviously, it would be unfortunate to cause unnecessary costs to any
layer of government, but if large swaths of the federal government system had
to make major computer system upgrades and procedural upgrades, then the extra
added cost of revising the entire voting system for the United States would be
hard to deny, since all of these voting systems are hierarchical and
interrelated.
Maybe
this would be a good task for the Project Veritas people or some group of
"white hat" hackers such as were featured in the movie "Kill
Chain: The Cyber War on America's Elections" which premiered on March 26, 2020.
We should notice that movie was produced by people on the political left about
the dangers of voting systems being hacked, supposedly during the 2016 election,
to the supposed detriment of Hillary Clinton. Presumably they are not going to
publicly promote that movie at this time since it shows their blatant hypocrisy
now that the voting shoe is on the other foot, most recently to their advantage.
A Few Civil Disobedience Options
To
"Raise Awareness" and Convince Everyone
That
Change Is Needed
Disrupt
Suggestion: Disrupt all
voting systems in the United States, demonstrating the need for reform. Do this
as soon as possible to disrupt the public narrative about the impossibility of
any kind of voter fraud, or carefully choose a time for maximum impact. If
almost every governing organization that uses voting processes has been forced
to scramble to protect their systems, it will not seem very unusual to go the
next step to modify the standard public voting systems.
The mainstream media seems
to have decided that our First Amendment rights to not cover vaccinations or
voter fraud, among other major social issues. That gives us the interesting
possible situation of being able to engage in massive voter "fraud"
ourselves (manipulations of various kinds done in the dark), without being
subject to exposure or (political) criminal prosecution, at least up to a
point. Since voter fraud officially does not exist anywhere in the world,
therefore the mere possibility of bringing up the potential for voter fraud
would go against multiple years of the mainstream media carefully hiding this
issue from the oblivious public. And also, bringing up the general issue of
voter fraud, if offering real transparency, would necessarily mean bringing up
the exact details of their own voter fraud, at least in the then-current
election. That could also bring into public view all past voter fraud which has
been carefully documented. This seems to offer an interesting
counter-propaganda/counter-disinformation opportunity for those on the right --
the white-hat hackers against the black-hat hackers. In the November 3, 2020
election, the white-hat hackers were simply observers; the next go-round they
should be active participants.
We should notice that
in the past, many organizations, especially banks, have been very reluctant to
let the world know that they have been hacked, and valuable information or
actual money has been stolen. Their logic is that if people know that they have
been hacked, then people will have less faith in those institutions. They are
willing to suffer many millions of dollars in losses rather than support the
proper law enforcement activities. Naturally, this ignoring of the problem
greatly encourages future hackers to continue their attacks without fear of any
consequences. However, at some level of severity, such as shutting down an
interstate natural gas pipeline which causes billions of dollars in losses, while
inconveniencing a great many people, might eventually stimulate the proper
involvement of law enforcement activities. Of course, under Biden, with the
administration's general attack on fossil fuels, even that hacking outcome is
not worthy of federal law enforcement involvement. It would be interesting to
know what level of disruption would be necessary to activate serious law
enforcement efforts.
"Our
democracy"
The
loony and lawless political left loves to talk about the glories of the
"democracy" they want to hand us (as they quietly try to destroy our
Republic). Really, it is mob rule they are proposing. They are always pressing
for the largest number of voters who are the least vetted and least identified.
Perhaps what really needs to happen is that we take them at their word and
declare that the entire United States, taken one state at a time, does indeed
make up a segmented legislature. Part of what that would mean is that every
legislator, which would now mean every citizen, must be as clearly identified
as are our representatives to state legislators and federal legislatures. It
would certainly be considered an outrageous deviation from the norm to have
massive duplication or manipulation of voting in one of these state or federal
legislatures.
For
example, what if we had 10 people in the Senate, and among the Senate staffers,
who identified as Charles Schumer, who all felt authorized to vote in that name
any way they wished and at any time. Or we might consider the same situation in
the House of Representatives with perhaps 30 different people all having the
power to vote under the name of Nancy Pelosi. We might guess that anyone who
tried to set up such a system would be quickly challenged and corrected. The
idea that we would bring in homeless people off the street to vote to make our "democracy"
run in the House and the Senate, whether at the state or federal level, perhaps
allowing them to randomly choose which of the legislators they wished to
identify as, and vote as, would seem to most people to be outrageous.
Nonetheless, that is the way the left would like us to view our
"democracy," where anyone in the world can declare themselves a
citizen and be allowed to vote in any election.
Perhaps
this theme of computer system instabilities could be pounded home to show the
absurdity and the hypocrisy of the arguments which the Democrats constantly
make about the wonders of their "democracy." Perhaps we could even
find someone who was clever and courageous enough to hack the electronic voting
system of the House of Representatives and vote multiple times in the name of
Nancy Pelosi and other leftists, naturally voting the opposite way in most
cases. With only a slim margin of perhaps three votes on the left in the House,
someone hacking the voting system and voting 50 times extra on the Republican
side could create a national story. Or maybe the ideal plot would be to have
someone vote 50 times extra on each side, giving us vote totals around 535 in
the House of Representatives on multiple occasions. It would be nice to throw
in some "phantom voters" while deleting others, just to add to the
confusion. Even if it didn't change the vote balance outcome, or didn't change
the winner, this would be a wake-up call to some people, and would make a great
national story. If those people involved were threatened with prosecution, then
we would have a precedent for threatening the cheaters in other legislative
situations.
One
low-key way to disrupt the voting process would be to quickly cause the system
to vote "present" in advance for perhaps 10-12 carefully chosen
people. That could flip the outcome on the bill while not being so obvious as
causing those same individuals to vote the opposite way. These people might
legitimately be undecided on the few bills, and this could sew confusion.
Ideally,
we would drive legislators back to the inconvenience of original paper or roll
call ballots because their electronic voting system was completely unreliable
and unpredictable. At least we could cause them a rather notable expense to
have to upgrade the whole system to make it reliable again.
Maybe
we could even pay some Romanian hackers to flagrantly and notoriously hack
every level of voting in the United States, at the federal, state, county, and
city levels, and perhaps even some school boards, if those are separate. We
would want to especially do this in the obstreperous swing states which so
blatantly cheated at every opportunity in the November 3, 2020 election.
Another nice target would be the judicial information systems in the states. If
those courts were paralyzed for a few months, and they had to go back to paper
systems for submitting all legal documents, perhaps that would even cause the
almost universally left-leaning lawyers to get with the program of serious
computer security.
If
the threats were carefully calibrated so that every government voting system in
the United States appeared to be under constant credible threat, then perhaps
all the idiotic objections to tightening up regular voting systems would simply
disappear. Obviously, it would be unfortunate to cause unnecessary costs to any
layer of government, but if large swaths of the federal government system had
to make major computer system upgrades and procedural upgrades, then the extra
added cost of revising the entire voting system for the United States would be
hard to deny, since all of these voting systems are hierarchical and
interrelated.
Maybe
this would be a good task for the Project Veritas people or some group of
"white hat" hackers such as were featured in the movie "Kill
Chain: The Cyber War on America's Elections" which premiered on March 26,
2020. We should notice that movie was produced by people on the political left
about the dangers of voting systems being hacked, supposedly during the 2016
election, to the supposed detriment of Hillary Clinton. Presumably they are not
going to publicly promote that movie at this time since it shows their blatant
hypocrisy now that the voting shoe is on the other foot, most recently to their
advantage.
Counterattack
possibilities
Suggestion: Counterattack
the inevitable voter fraud of the left, possibly even overcompensating in the
right direction as a penalty for cheating in the first place. The left seems to
have come to the conclusion that they cannot ever win in our country today on
the issues fairly presented, so their only options are to hide their message or
to cheat on votes. That overwhelming impulse to cheat makes them very
dangerous, but also possibly very foolish and extreme in their desperation,
probably offering many opportunities to intervene for the calm, patient,
determined observer.
Since we have the
complete script from the November 3, 2020 election steal, including the
Internet packet capture traffic showing exactly how and when the changes were
made, and assuming we can reassert the same level of technical expertise again,
we would simply need to monitor Internet traffic and make appropriate
adjustments. For example, when we see a packet which adds votes for Biden or
switches votes from Trump to Biden, we simply send another packet which adds
twice as many votes for Biden or switches twice as many votes from Biden to
Trump, if that is possible (the rigged voting systems can probably register
partial votes, but probably not negative votes, although causing negative votes
would be a lovely technical flair, if that could be done).
This
"2-for-1" pattern would quickly demonstrate that the computer battle
escalation could easily move the numbers into some completely implausible
ranges. For example, where Biden claims to have received 81 million votes on
his behalf in the last election, in the next election we might have Trump
receiving 91 million votes to completely overwhelm the Biden vote. It might
make sense to keep the game-play at a lower level, so that Trump just barely
wins in each of the important places, as was done for the Biden-cheat
operation, but there might be a value in playing the "2-for-1" game
where the adjustments to actual balloting get completely out of bounds so that
there would be many counties in the United States where there were three times
as many ballots as there were voters available to cast them.
It's hard to calculate
exactly which way this ploy would go, as far as public reaction is concerned,
but it would at least demonstrate to tens of millions of people that the result
was completely impossible, demonstrating it in a way which even the dimmest
bulb can comprehend. For example, if we have a state with 3 million people in
which 9 million votes were cast, that might trigger the correct sense of
revulsion about the outcome. Of course, part of the problem would be to make
sure that the revulsion is against the criminal left, not against the right,
who are simply trying to correctly reflect the voting preferences of the
nation's citizens. Perhaps a great deal more wargaming of possible options
would be justified before picking an exact strategy for each county and state.
One
possible outcome is to have an election where the outcome is so completely
impossible and outrageous that the nation would agree to a complete rerun of
the election using verifiable voting technology. That might require some
"constitutional amendment" level changes to change some dates and
procedures, but that seems possible. It would be interesting to see if we could
cause such a public stir over outrageous outcomes that even the political left
would demand an audit of voting processes.
Other considerations
A
recent news item brings up other considerations.
Election Workers Fired In Swing State –
Accused Of “Shredding Voter Applications,” Investigation Demanded In Georgia
https://pjnewsletter.com/election-workers-fired-swing-state/?utm_source=bv_er&utm_medium=email
This
demonstrates another class of cheating to be guarded against. The left loves to
talk about voter suppression on the right, but it is hard to be more involved
in voter suppression than destroying voter registration applications, which
obviously only happens on the lawless left.
This
this new bit of news actually indicates that a completely separate system needs
to be operated where individuals have the ability to verify that their
applications for voting registration and their final status on the County voter
list is accurate. This goes along with being able to check the results after
the voting cycle. The concept of "battling computers" seems to keep
growing in significance as we study the voter accuracy problem. "Battling
computers," matched with the necessary associated transparency, ought to
solve a very large number of voter fraud problems.
The
evidence so far indicates that a separate computer system really is needed, and
that separate system might be operated as part of a "permanent audit"
system, perhaps run by the Republican party. If the Democrats want to have
their own "permanent audit" system (since they never cheat but Republicans
always do), that would be fine, but the two systems would need to match, and
all discrepancies resolved before each voting cycle. At least there would be
significant transparency in doing all of this.
In
the past, the idea that all political parties could share one voting system
amicably was simply assumed. Today, where there are no limits on the chicanery
of one party trying to cheat on the other, it no longer makes any sense to
assume that we can agree on a common voting system. This reminds me of the case
in Utah where the two big newspapers have their own news and editorial staffs,
but share a printing operation. That allows them to operate completely
separately editorially, but save some money on printing and distribution. Some
version of that might be what is needed in the "voting industry." The
Republicans can hold their votes and the Democrats can hold their votes, and
then the results must be carefully compared before any winners can be declared.
If
things get bad enough, the only solution is to separate completely into blue
states and red states, where the separate states can vote any way they want.
Short of that extreme solution, there might be another way to share the voting
processes. At least changes would need to be made so that if they are going to
share the voting process, then neither party could have complete control of the
process. [Turn on sarcasm.] Maybe what we need is a company from Venezuela or
Cuba to "independently" run the voting process for us. [Turn sarcasm off.]
More sensibly, maybe a company from a historically "neutral" country
like Switzerland would like to take on this task. We need to decide right now
if the "shared voting" process can be kept as shared, or whether it
needs to be split right now and a whole new procedure be invented. Certainly,
right now it is hard to imagine that the left and the right could agree on
proper voting systems that are completely accurate.
"Voting
with your feet"
Perhaps
we could move immediately to a different form of voting where every party that
wishes to be represented has its own voting system, with its own voter rolls,
voting processes, etc. At the end of the periodic voting cycle, representatives
of all the political parties would meet to determine who should win, for example,
as the "governor of all the people" or "president of all the
people," assuming that the states haven't completely split along blue/red
lines.
This
would be a virtual version of having everyone go to the town square, choose
their side of that square based on the issue and physically join with those
they agree with. Multiple people would count noses, and the counting continues
until everyone agrees it has been resolved accurately. Otherwise, we simply
have a riot, since everyone is so conveniently there? Hopefully not.
Another
way to segment voting
As
a less radical alternative to blue states and red states going their own way, and
each controlling their own voting, we might try the idea of designating
specific counties for the voting of particular voting groups. All the major
cities in our nation have been totally taken over by urban Democrat machine
politics, making it completely useless to have any conservatives attempt to
vote in those far-left cities. Their votes will be prevented, deleted, changed,
etc., and there is no current defense. Another
possibility would be to designate counties within a single state that are
outside the machine-controlled urban cities. For example, if there is some red county
in upstate New York that would be willing to do the work, all of the
conservatives, Republicans, and third-party candidates living in New York City could
register themselves within that separate county to do their voting, by whatever
means was chosen. Doing this on an official basis would make it so that the
big-city machine politics would at least have to subtract out these
"runaway voters" from their city demographics, so that they are at
least limited to that extent in their outrageous voting parameters.
Theoretically, they cannot record more votes for any particular candidate then
they have actual voters in the cities.
Factions, monopolies, antitrust laws,
and competition
I have heard that the founding fathers
of our country worried about political factions, but as far as the Constitution
is concerned, they don't seem to have made any serious allowances for the
operation of factions or of political parties. Perhaps that is why we have
reached the situation where in the largest cities of our country, where
one-party political machines have been in control for 100 years or more, and
have established abusive political monopolies there, there seems to be no
constitutional procedure available to mitigate the evils of those political
monopolies. Today we do have concepts of antitrust law, but they only relate to
private economic units, not government units. As far as I know, we don't have
any "antigovernment monopoly" legal tradition, although perhaps we
ought to. Perhaps it is time to invent one. Since the answer to abusive
monopoly is always first to allow for competition, perhaps the time has come to
invent an appropriate method of political competition, particularly as it
relates to operating voting mechanisms.
Perhaps what we need to do is to find a way to have completely separate voting mechanisms available – a kind of competition in voting systems. It might be done by allowing the Republicans to have their own voting system, the Democrats to have their own voting system, and any third parties also have their own voting systems. It might all be privately funded, which is probably the better idea, or there might be a way to have the local governments allocate funding for the multiple systems based on an estimate of the number of people they will serve, perhaps based on historical participation. This would actually make it possible for these separate political parties to contract with specialized firms to carry out the various voting operations. (Shades of Facebook in Minnesota.)
One of the important features would be that, regardless of how many voting processes might be carried on, there would need to be a mechanism for making sure that the total number of votes for the two or three voting systems could not exceed the number of people who are registered in those local cities. This should provide the basis for some very serious negotiation and competition and verification of each voter in this citywide voting district. If all of the voting operations are competing for the votes of all of the residents of that city, possibly providing differing levels of service, then the tug-of-war to get each person to participate in your voting system should offer some real competition and some real incentives to keep the other guys honest. We might assume that even though Republicans, Democrats, and third parties all had their own voting systems, anyone in the city could choose to register their vote with any of the available systems.
As suggested above, this would be one way to have a separation between the blue and red segments of our population which could be carried out at a lower level of conflict mitigation than having to split groups of states into different subgroups. It could even be that the competition of ideas, reinforced by and based on the competition for voters, could have some good influences on the voting wisdom and behavior of the populace which would go beyond simply having accurate and verifiable voting totals. Perhaps we could go a step further on the competition aspect so that those who process votes get a certain fixed amount for every vote they process. That would give them incentives to do the best job and to attract the most people and to make sure that the others are not trying to get credit for the same people.
It's hard to get very detailed with this concept right now, but it seems like something that should be explored. Certainly, what we were doing right now suffers from a disgusting level of abuse while also openly inviting massive attacks from outside the country, posing an actual security risk. Perhaps one of the benefits of such a new system would be to have multiple groups spying on each other so that gross corruption, as might be caused by bribery from foreign countries, would be found and rooted out. (At least the outsiders would have to bribe or coerce a lot more people to get control of all of the separate systems.)
The recent Texas idea of allowing
citizens to claim a bounty if they catch misbehavior in the area of abortion,
is a concept which can be used in the voting area as well as other areas. This
alternate means of administering the law is hinted at in a recent article:
"People
could be encouraged to start reporting immigrants living in the country
illegally, violations of restrictive voting laws or the teaching of
critical race theory in K-12 schools, among other possibilities, Michaels
said."
Citizen
Enforcement of Texas Abortion Ban Could Spread to Other Laws
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/09/23/citizen-enforcement-of-texas-abortion-ban-could-spread-to-other-laws
At the present, citizens who see voting crimes occur only have the option of filing an affidavit with some government prosecutor or private attorney who might be willing to bring a lawsuit to somehow correct those errors. As it is, with the maximum prosecutorial discretion in these large urban areas, where prosecutors are selected by George Soros funding processes where the goal is to prosecute crimes as little as possible and to take every step possible to break down civilization, there is currently no reliable method for prosecuting these crimes. These county organizations can be completely lawless and also be completely undisciplined.
With the new non-centralized enforcement mechanism, everyone who sees a crime against the voting system could find an appropriate court and bring suit themselves. If there are thousands of active lawsuits operating instead of just ineffective affidavits, something very important might happen. As with the abortion situation, it could be part of the process of breaking up the absolute monopoly of state and federal judges who so-far have simply refused to hear any evidence of any kind, with the exception of one small case in Michigan, I believe. Getting around these obstreperous courts is what the new Texas law is all about. The liberal courts refuse to recognize the legitimate interests of the state of Texas in these matters, and instead use the 14th amendment to enforce "constitutional rights" that are at least two steps removed from any language or concept of the Constitution.
This suggested new process would decentralize the enforcement of voting rules and empower citizens to aggressively accost and punish wrongdoers. (Rather than being stymied by this particular centralization of power into the hands of all the cheaters as we see today.) For example, if we had 500 lawsuits against members of a county's voting organization (perhaps all brought in the local small claims court?), perhaps with civil fines and even criminal punishment including jail time, this might provide the freedom of action and the "competition" to break up these massive voting monopolies that have recently operated with such complete impunity. The idea of "election observers," which was so massively abused in the November 1, 2020 election, might become a thing of the past, since there would already be multiple competing voting operations in process. People might indeed observe each other's vote counting processes, but misbehavior in one area would likely be quickly counteracted by some kind of action in another area. (You exclude us, we exclude you.)
Basically, we simply cede the big city machines the votes of all their historical vassal citizens, but steal away the votes of those who protest. We keep those protest votes from being swallowed up and destroyed by the big city machines. We could restore hope that votes could count again. That may not change the balance, but it makes it POSSIBLE to change the balance. It is surely impossible for a Republican to ever win statewide office in California, as things stand, but possibly with a revised voting system, we might get a different result. At least we would make it much more difficult for the leftist voting machine to create all the "phantom voters" it needs to make sure of winning in every election. Perhaps, for example, we could directly attack the "short term phantom voters," that are created out of thin air and then deleted before the election cycle ends. OR, perhaps we could create a mass of "phantom voters" ourselves to offset their fraud. Perhaps if they get burned a few times, they will drop that ploy. Cleverly "fighting fire with fire" sounds like an idea to be explored.
We scoop up to real people for our system, and challenge the 10,000 people who all live at one address, and we do all of this before the actual voting takes place.
We should assume that we can't make most of the clerks in the state of Utah behave legally and rationally under the current arrangements, since they are paid by the single set of corrupt overlords. We have to set up competing systems that leave the clerks out of it, much to their chagrin. They had their chance to do it right, and they failed us, so now they are going to be replaced. "You're fired."
People can pay five bucks [as insurance
and a processing fee] and be confident that their vote will be counted or they
can throw it for free into the county burn pile and have their votes be
meaningless, overridden by voter fraud.
=================================================
Politics,
geography, and computers
As politics are structured today, they are tied very closely to specific locations and pieces of land. We have state boundaries, we have county boundaries, we have city boundaries, we have voting precincts, etc. The electoral college is tied to the states which are all carefully defined as to their boundaries.
This very specific set of boundaries was intended to exactly define the people who own the land and therefore who should be voting for any representative or any legal changes to how that particular piece of land is to be governed. But in these days where we have masses of urban dwellers in the nation's largest cities, and they are overwhelmingly leftist, naturally the leftist politicians are always trying to find a way to use their overwhelming political advantage in the cities to also overwhelm the voters in the more rural and thinly populated areas. They keep arguing that the popular vote should control, which obviously would give them a huge advantage since they control far more than half the population. Naturally then, they want to break down all barriers and use their "mob rule" techniques which seem to work so well in the urban areas. One of the jobs of the conservatives who like freedom are to stop these continual efforts to advance leftist views and administration by using their overwhelming groups of zombie voters to bury the people in the "flyover country" just like they bury any conservatives that might foolishly end up living in their big cities.
So far this set of geography rules has been kept intact. The census processes every 10 years try to measure the number of citizens and other people in any particular area, the idea being that these congressional voting areas can each choose who their federal representative should be.
In this age of massive computing power, we have the interesting possibility of taking this geographic set of boundaries down to the individual family's front porch or even the front door of their apartment if they live in an apartment complex. Today we have GPS systems which can precisely designate a spot on the land that is a small as 1/4 inch square, or perhaps even smaller. It also can use satellites, so it has the ability to provide the exact altitude above sea level. This means that it would be easy to mark a spot on the front porch of someone's home, but also could use the same system to mark a spot at the front door of an apartment in any large complex of apartments. This new technology gives us a complete 3-D matrix of people and places.
In other words, as part of the new voting process, we could measure the number of votes made by people who live at a specific door at every spot in our huge country. If we went the next step, we could use computers to use that voting spot to control what votes were accepted into the voting system. For example, if voter registration had determined that there were two people of voting age at a particular address, we could then verify through the use of those computers whether more than two people had tried to vote from that particular address. Since voting registration is optional, we would want to know how many people at that particular front door were registered. It might be zero, it might be one, it might be too, or it might be thousands as in the case of some of the voting fraud practices in this last election. Obviously, if there were more votes submitted than the two possible people who actually live there, the computer would want to point out this anomaly and perhaps be able to set aside all the votes except possibly two.
As another interesting bit of information technology, we have the QR code:
------------------------------
"A QR
code (an acronym for Quick Response code) is a type of matrix barcode (or
two-dimensional barcode) invented in 1994 by the Japanese automotive
company..."
QR Code Data
Size: How Much Data Can a QR Code Hold?
A QR code
data size limit is 7,089 numeric characters, but for a data matrix, it is only
3,116 characters. When talking about alphanumeric characters, the data ...
https://www.qrcode-tiger.com
› qr-code-data-size
--------------------------------
This QR code technology offers the distinct possibility of offering a way to identify a voter quite thoroughly and exactly. It could include their name, address, phone number, e-mail address, birth date, registration status, exact GPS residence location (and therefore all of their political allegiances and responsibilities), etc. For purposes of the "instant audit," done a few days after the actual election, their GPS location could be used as a very precise indicator of who had voting rights, who had exercised them, etc.
This QR code might be used as the "voter ID." Instead of having such a weak security methodology as simply showing a driver's license, something which the political left thinks is still far too restrictive of a requirement, a QR code containing all information, especially including their GPS location, could serve to validate a ballot if it were mailed in. Obviously, if mail-in ballots contain multiple identical QR codes, something would need to be done. It might be that a person voted by mail and then voted in person, but in each case they would have had to produce the QR code, and the computer could immediately verify that there was a potential duplication. It might be that both ballots were actually identical, so that one could be safely removed as truly a redundant duplicate. If there were any differences in content for the ballot, then there would have to be a resolution process.
In the famous Perito systems analysis observation it was found that 80% of transactions are typically straightforward and easy, and it is in the remaining 20% of the situations or transactions where all the strange problems happen (often requiring very complex programming to adapt for irregularities in a particular system). In the case of voting, the bulk of the voting would all be done and easily processed, and it might even indicate that there was no need to untangle the remaining 20% of the votes. If some untangling were necessary to resolve close voting, then that process could proceed.
In the cases where applications were destroyed before being processed, as I believe happened in Georgia, we would have known in advance who were potential registered voters and who had not registered. We might have an "outreach" group who checked with all of the people who could have been registered but were not. That might point out the corrupt destruction of registration applications by voting operatives.
In another case where thousands of people are registered as living at a particular address or at a particular PO Box, a cluster map displayed on a screen could show where these anomalies were occurring and, again, the "outreach" group could intervene and "weed" these extra potential ballots.
After
the election, it would be interesting to send out by mail or by e-mail the
results of the election. It would be somewhat more secure to send it by e-mail,
since supposedly only the recipient would be able to read the e-mail which
presented the final outcome for the voting by that person. It might mean
sending out letters by mail, which might offer an interesting check. If
thousands of letters were all addressed to a single PO Box or a single plot of
land where there was no home at all, that collection of obviously redundant
letters based on fraudulent registrations, would be visible to many people.
Obviously, the post office worker would be aware of the strange confluence of
thousands of letters to a nonfunctional address. Whether that person would blow
the whistle on this behavior or not, is a separate question, but it could be
made easily evident that something had gone awry. A particular apartment
building in the complex which received 10,000 audit check envelopes would
probably raise a stir, assuming they were not destroyed by the corrupt and
complicit post office before arriving there.
======================================================
=======================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment