It depends on the state. Some do have serial numbers on the ballots.
The history of voting is interesting. Here is a quick synopsis of it in the U.S. Keep in mind that the writer does have a leftist slant. While he points out the short comings of previous methods of voting, his lack of criticisms of the current method of optical scan ballots is glaring. With those caveats, this is useful overview of the history. It explains old idioms such as, "straight party ticket", and "pulling the level for <candidate's name>".
Prior to the printing of ballots, a voter could vote for anyone for an office. I don't mean a write in candidate. The voter could verbally state the name of the person for their vote. Later they could write any name on a piece of paper. When the government took over printing ballots the government also seized the power to limit who the voters could vote for. It does not take much thought to see how this power can be abused. There were several prominent attempts this election cycle to remove candidates from the ballot.
I would be fine with a return back to voice voting under oath. We have the technology to easily record every vote. It would leave an easy audit trail. Such recordings would be easy to match up with the voter during a fraud investigation. It would eliminate the government's control over ballots. Such voice voting would be easier to do than filling in a bubble on a piece of paper. Even illiterate people could vote by voice so Democrats have nothing to worry about.
what part of secret ballot is missing from your mind
you want all votes traced ? why ?
you do understand we did do that and why it was not a good idea ?
so the rumps rampaging cops can purge the non-MAGA VOTES AND VOTERS ALSO?
There is no right to a secret ballot. The Australian Ballot was implemented in the U.S. by 1891. There are four rules to the Australian Ballot:
an official ballot being printed at public expense,
on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
being distributed only at the polling place and
being marked in secret.
Democrats broke the 3rd rule with vote by mail. Democrats arguably broke the 4th rule with ballot harvesting where harvesters "help" people fill in their ballots when picking the ballots up. Democrats violate the 2nd rule as they try to kick their political opponents off the ballot.
If you can't play by the rules and keep trying to cheat, then it is time to change the game.
There is no right to a secret ballot. The Australian Ballot was implemented in the U.S. by 1891. There are four rules to the Australian Ballot:
an official ballot being printed at public expense,
on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
being distributed only at the polling place and
being marked in secret.
Democrats broke the 3rd rule with vote by mail. Democrats arguably broke the 4th rule with ballot harvesting where harvesters "help" people fill in their ballots when picking the ballots up. Democrats violate the 2nd rule as they try to kick their political opponents off the ballot.
If you can't play by the rules and keep trying to cheat, then it is time to change the game.
...The Australian Ballot was implemented in the U.S. by 1891....
...Democrats arguably broke the 4th rule with ballot harvesting where harvesters "help" people fill in their ballots when picking the ballots up. Democrats violate the 2nd rule as they try to kick their political opponents off the ballot.
Both of these premises for your argument are flawed. The Australian Ballot has never been implemented federally by the US. The states have all implemented a patchwork of versions of the Australian Ballot, but mail in ballots preceded their adoption, and all four of those pillars were never worked in to some of the states. It's something I appreciate, because a large part of the reason they weren't worked in absolutely was military absentee voting.
*"preceded"
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-11-2024).]
Mail in ballots generally do have unique identifiers, btw. They are generally attached to the envelop the ballot is required to be shipped in, and not the ballot itself. They use the identifiers to track the ballots prior to counting to prevent fraud.
If you are asking why there isn't a federal law more closely regulating how the states conduct their elections that's a different conversation.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Mail in voting is something I appreciate, because a large part of the reason they weren't worked in absolutely was military absentee voting.
Mail in voting has it's uses. The military being the best example. I once missed a vote when I was in the hospital in another voting precinct. My fault because I did not request a mail in ballot in time.
Mail in voting is being abused by many.
Ballot harvesting is another voting ploy which can be fraught for abuse.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Mail in ballots generally do have unique identifiers, btw. They are generally attached to the envelop the ballot is required to be shipped in, and not the ballot itself. They use the identifiers to track the ballots prior to counting to prevent fraud.
A picture government ID is a very good way to track legal votes.
Originally posted by cliffw: Mail in voting has it's uses. The military being the best example. I once missed a vote when I was in the hospital in another voting precinct. My fault because I did not request a mail in ballot in time.
Mail in voting is being abused by many.
Ballot harvesting is another voting ploy which can be fraught for abuse.
I'm not convinced that there's any real evidence either of these have led to systemic abuse and fraud, though I agree with the prudence of tracking ballots by serial number, as long as we have a mechanism to anonymize things.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: A picture government ID is a very good way to track legal votes.
I don't think the evidence supports that, though it also doesn't appear to support the contention that voter IDs suppress the votes of minorities/oppressed peoples. Kinda of surprised at the nuance in both MIT's findings on that as well as the NBER's.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-11-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm not convinced that there's any real evidence either of these have led to systemic abuse and fraud, though I agree with the prudence of tracking ballots by serial number, as long as we have a mechanism to anonymize things.
Why are you not convinced that there's any real evidence either of these have led to systemic abuse and fraud ?
Another thought. Real evidence ?
How did we secure the vote in Iraq ? One voting day, purple dye on fingers upon voting. Hence, voter ID. Everybody has an ID. Needed for government cheese, car rental, opening a bank account, motel room acquisition, yada yada.
Why are you not convinced that there's any real evidence either of these have led to systemic abuse and fraud ?
Another thought. Real evidence ?
I haven't seen anything that looked like convincing evidence that mail in voting has led to large-scale fraud. I'm not saying I'm certain it doesn't exist, just that if it does I have not seen it (or knew it if I did see it). Discussions I've been a part of on it tend to revolve around it's potential for fraud.
You're right on my use of "real." I mean something from an authoritative source that documents its attempts at objectivity. Maybe a journal article, or even some kind of investigative piece that attempts to look at the big picture.
quote
How did we secure the vote in Iraq ? One voting day, purple dye on fingers upon voting. Hence, voter ID. Everybody has an ID. Needed for government cheese, car rental, opening a bank account, motel room acquisition, yada yada.
That was a mechanism to ensure a single vote per person, not prevent the fraudulent voting by non-voters. I don't think it's quite the same thing, and I honestly don't know what the criteria was for voting in those elections was other than "showed up" and "didn't try to shoot anyone else at the polling place." I don't take issue with attempts to secure elections that don't also unnecessarily reduce franchise. Full disclosure, the information about requiring voter ID not having a measurable impact on the turnout of disadvantaged folks is currently evolving how I feel about that as a requirement. It would be easier to digest if the findings weren't also that those laws have little impact on vote fraud as well: I'm down to secure the elections if we aren't preventing legitimate voters from voting, but are we "securing" anything if it doesn't make any difference?
Why are you not convinced that there's any real evidence either of these have led to systemic abuse and fraud ?
Another thought. Real evidence ?
How did we secure the vote in Iraq ? One voting day, purple dye on fingers upon voting. Hence, voter ID. Everybody has an ID. Needed for government cheese, car rental, opening a bank account, motel room acquisition, yada yada.
all that I have see heard of or read about as far actual charges brought to court not BS but real people HAVE BEEN ALL Gop PEOPLE WHO GOT CONVICTED N C case or the fake guy runing in fla all Gop who got con-victed
Originally posted by cliffw: Just one fraudulent vote negates my legal vote.
Assuming that's true, the conclusion of the MIT article is still our resources (which are finite) would have a better impact at preventing fraud if used elsewhere. Given the seemingly repeated findings that the impact was nominal, I think that's probably worth considering, at least to the extent where ID laws are a smaller part of a holistic approach (signature matching, database auditing, polling place monitoring, chain of custody documentation, etc).
You're touching on a point that I think is even more salient, though; how should we be regulating elections? Do you leave this to the states, knowing some want to conduct entire elections by mail in? Do you pass federal mandates and add regulations to the States to control their elections? We'll never get major party support for more representative election systems, so how do we enact those?
Originally posted by NewDustin: You're touching on a point that I think is even more salient, though; how should we be regulating elections? Do you leave this to the states, knowing some want to conduct entire elections by mail in? Do you pass federal mandates and add regulations to the States to control their elections? We'll never get major party support for more representative election systems, so how do we enact those?
The DOJ is not an elected body. The Democrat's law for Violating Federal Law’s Prohibition on Systematic Efforts to Remove Voters Within 90 Days of an Election is wrong. You asked my opinion about how should we be regulating elections. Leave it to the States. We are a union of States, not a monolith. It took a lot to come to consensus to even issue the Declaration of Independence and band together to fight for independence. Amongst a very large loyalist segment of the 'New World' loyal to the King.
Now we have new kings, un-elected ABC bureaucracies.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: We'll never get major party support for more representative election systems, so how do we enact those?
I have an idea. You do Nevada, I will do Texas.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:... the conclusion of the MIT article is still our resources (which are finite) would have a better impact at preventing fraud if used elsewhere. Given the seemingly repeated findings that the impact was nominal, I think that's probably worth considering, at least to the extent where ID laws are a smaller part of a holistic approach (signature matching, database auditing, polling place monitoring, chain of custody documentation, etc).
I read that link three times. A better impact of using our resources where, elsewhere ?
You / we had five layers of ID at the Democrat National Convention.
The DOJ is not an elected body. The Democrat's law for Violating Federal Law’s Prohibition on Systematic Efforts to Remove Voters Within 90 Days of an Election is wrong. You asked my opinion about how should we be regulating elections. Leave it to the States. We are a union of States, not a monolith. It took a lot to come to consensus to even issue the Declaration of Independence and band together to fight for independence. Amongst a very large loyalist segment of the 'New World' loyal to the King.
Now we have new kings, un-elected ABC bureaucracies.
Would you be against any lawsuits the Trump campaign files against states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, etc aimed at leveraging the federal government to regulate away perceived election fraud (as happened in 2020)? That's quite a far cry from "leave it to the states."
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: I have an idea. You do Nevada, I will do Texas.
Why would that work any differently now than it has for the last few hundred years? If it wouldn't, is this an argument for keeping things the way they are?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: I read that link three times. A better impact of using our resources where, elsewhere ?
You / we had five layers of ID at the Democrat National Convention.
I'm not a Democrat. I listed several alternatives, and again, am NOT saying I'm against voter ID. I am saying that it is more complicated than either the Democrats or Republicans are making it out to be. Before advocating a specific alternative as the 'right' one I'd say we need to consider the options I listed (and more) and see if we can measure their efficacy.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Would you be against any lawsuits the Trump campaign files against states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, etc aimed at leveraging the federal government to regulate away perceived election fraud (as happened in 2020)? That's quite a far cry from "leave it to the states."
No. The Trump Train is a private entity. The un-elected ABC bureaucracy, DOJ, is using another form of lawfare to affect the election in the ruling regime's favor.
Lawsuits in the 2020 election started in State Courts. The Federal involvement was for Constitutional purposes. IE, State laws being ignored or changed without legislature approval. There was no time to fully litigate a case. The rules should not change as the game is played.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Why would that work any differently now than it has for the last few hundred years? If it wouldn't, is this an argument for keeping things the way they are?
No it would not work differently than it has in just over two hundred years. Though, State laws enacted by legal citizens have evolved to the difference of how voting laws represent the State over the years.
I should have posted that I have voted without ID or a voter registration card. It was counted as a provisional vote till my identity could be ascertained.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Before advocating a specific alternative as the 'right' one I'd say we need to consider the options I listed (and more) and see if we can measure their efficacy.
If a voter ID requirement was enacted would it be any different than showing a voter's registration card ? Should we be able to go to the Driver's License office and tell them we are Joe Six Pack and get a license ?
There is no "right one". There are ones better than others. The metric should be to measure the efficacy of wrong ideas.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-15-2024).]
Originally posted by cliffw: No. The Trump Train is a private entity. The un-elected ABC bureaucracy, DOJ, is using another form of lawfare to affect the election in the ruling regime's favor.
Lawsuits in the 2020 election started in State Courts. The Federal involvement was for Constitutional purposes. IE, State laws being ignored or changed without legislature approval. There was no time to fully litigate a case. The rules should not change as the game is played.
Ok, these limitations are in pretty stark contrast to the states rights we were just talking about. So the federal government should be providing oversight on state elections, at least in the role of referee if a private party feels a higher authority is needed to determine if the states are following their own rules? Also, if there isn't time to fully litigate in state courts, then the federal government should also step in? Are there any other circumstances in which you think the federal government should be dictating state election particulars? If not, why these and not others?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: No it would not work differently than it has in just over two hundred years. Though, State laws enacted by legal citizens have evolved to the difference of how voting laws represent the State over the years.
I was more concerned with electoral reform and evolution...I think since the states reflect federal elections it's impossible to effect change from the states. You'd be asking those in power (the Parties) to give it up willingly and equitably.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: If a voter ID requirement was enacted would it be any different than showing a voter's registration card ? Should we be able to go to the Driver's License office and tell them we are Joe Six Pack and get a license ?
There is no "right one". There are ones better than others. The metric should be to measure the efficacy of wrong ideas.
I'm not sure I'm getting the point here. It's not one or the other, and this isn't the same as driving a car. I do agree that we need to be gauging the "goodness" or the "rightness" of these ideas with some measure, though.
Originally posted by NewDustin: So the federal government should be providing oversight on state elections, at least in the role of referee if a private party feels a higher authority is needed to determine if the states are following their own rules?
Not the whole government, just the Federal Courts.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: ... if there isn't time to fully litigate in state courts, then the federal government should also step in?
Again, not the Federal government, just the Federal Courts. No, they should not "step in". If it is appealed to them, okay. 2020 was something else. It was crystal clear that States were violating their own legally enacted voting laws.
I'm not sure I'm getting the point here. It's not one or the other, and this isn't the same as driving a car. I do agree that we need to be gauging the "goodness" or the "rightness" of these ideas with some measure, though.[/QUOTE]
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I was more concerned with electoral reform and evolution...I think since the states reflect federal elections it's impossible to effect change from the states. You'd be asking those in power (the Parties) to give it up willingly and equitably.
I do not understand what you mean.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm not sure I'm getting the point here. It's not one or the other, and this isn't the same as driving a car.
One must provide a voter's registration card to vote. It has our names on it. As does a driver's license. My voter's registration card resides in my wallet right behind my drivers license.
Democrats sued Georgia’s State Election Board on Monday over a new rule that requires counties to hand-count the number of ballots cast at polling places on Election Day, arguing it will allow “for bad-faith actors to claim that fraud has affected election results.”
Georgia is the State which canceled a major league all star game over voter ID saying it would hurt minority voting. It did not as it turned out. Voting was at higher numbers. They lost a lot of money cancelling that game.
Georgia is the State which canceled a major league all star game over voter ID saying it would hurt minority voting. It did not as it turned out. Voting was at higher numbers. They lost a lot of money cancelling that game.
the rump should be in jail for trying to fix the result in Ga in 2020
but a game and money matters more then the truth
every Gop idea is to dis-allow votes none to allow more votes or eazyer voting with less hoop jumping it is fact that the Gop wants it to be harder to vote not eazyer while claiming unseen maybe frauds with out proof
it is like their god bothered BS so sure with no proof ever gods or illegal votes both unproven but believed to be without evidence WHEN CURRENTLY ABOUT 1/2 OF THE CITIZENS VOTE
When the 2020 elections claims went to courts, cases were denied because the petitioner had no standing. Why didn't the DOJ sue to stop election rule changes not made by State legislatures ?
Around a dozen ballots in Mesa County were stolen from registered voters in the mail and submitted fraudulently.
So far.
quote
Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein launched a criminal investigation into the stolen ballots. The news comes almost a month after former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to nine years of incarceration for her role in breaching county voting equipment.
quote
The secretary of state’s office said the ballots were intercepted before being received by the voters they were intended for and then later submitted fraudulently.
quote
Three ballots got through the system and have been counted as legitimate votes, but the others were stopped, according to the secretary of state’s office. The three victims of ballot theft will get another opportunity to cast a vote.
quote
With the three ballots that were ultimately accepted and counted, the automated signature verification program initially flagged them. However, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, the same election judge reviewed and approved each of them. That person has since been reassigned.
Reassigned, ? To where ? Why not fired ?
quote
Mesa County looked at all the other ballots that have been rejected so far in this election because of an inconsistent signature and discovered that it appeared that at least some of them were signed by the same person.
There's a nice testimonial for signature matching in this story. 12 ballots is a relatively insignificant fraud, and that it was caught and so effectively limited is nice to see. Has anyone found any information on who the fraudulent ballots were submitted for?
.
? To where ? Why not fired ?
?
