Finally! Forensic Election Audit in Maricopa County (AZ) Begins Next Week

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I hope they are real careful on how they word that bill or you know the county will just say it wasnt in place so doesnt apply to the previous election.

Excellent point. If I understand their intent correctly, it would be a declaratory bill (I believe that is the proper legal term) which declares that the State Legislators already have this power and authority in accordance with Constitutional law. So it would not be establishing a new power and authority, but declaring and confirming they already have this power and authority.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: 111DPKING111

But oh my lordy -- the author of the op-ed was sure spitting mad about it!!!

What is the source of the anger, why dont they want to rub it our faces, "HERES THE BALLOTS - COUNT EM ?"

Is it a bold move? Why should it be hard to get an audit done?
Every state needs to make it easy to do audits, especially if someone else is willing to foot the bill.

Reeks of fraud / dishonesty.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

What is the source of the anger, why dont they want to rub it our faces, "HERES THE BALLOTS - COUNT EM ?"

Exactly. There is no way I would take office under such a cloud. I would demand a recount to legitimize my election for the whole world to see, and discredit anything and everything the opposition said from that moment forward. I would find reasons to bring it up every chance I could.

Is it a bold move? Why should it be hard to get an audit done?

It shouldn't be hard to get an audit done, and it shouldn't be a bold move, but when Republicans and anyone questioning the elections are being tarred as domestic terrorists, it's probably one of the boldest moves to make.

Every state needs to make it easy to do audits, especially if someone else is willing to foot the bill.

I'd like to see a system so transparent and straightforward that there would be no need for an audit, because it could and would be monitored in real time.

a reply to: Boadicea

Unfortunately the only way for that to work is Congress has to count every single vote from the entire population (that voted this election) and invite all of America to watch while they do the counting. It's literally the American nation saying "we don't f*****g trust a single person in the Capitol building to do their job right unless we are physically present and breathing down their neck"

And the only way to allow every single person who wants to monitor do it would be through a login/computer system which is how we basically got to this position in the first place. And the only way to not have to do it digitally is to elect people you trust, which won't happen if you don't trust the system. So basically we are all #ed.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't think it would be that difficult. With the technology we have today, it would be very simple to create several layers of safeguarding, independent of but corroborating each other. But we need teeth in the laws established such safeguards, including enforcement and prosecution protocols.

One of the biggest problems with this election was the many votes that were counted without Republican observers able to actually observe -- from being forced to stay too far away to see, to votes counted without any observers present at all. And that includes "cured" or "adjudicated" votes, in which an election worker effectively did the voting for the voter. And, actually, I should say non-Democrat observers, because other party observers were likewise prevented from doing their job.

We could do it. We could build it right into the election process. But there has to be a will to be a way.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thumb scan verification & selfie, can't fake a fingerprint or facial profile

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Boadicea

Thumb scan verification & selfie, can't fake a fingerprint or facial profile

This involves voting in person, what about mail in? That needs to be an option.

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
And the only way to allow every single person who wants to monitor do it would be through a login/computer system which is how we basically got to this position in the first place. And the only way to not have to do it digitally is to elect people you trust, which won't happen if you don't trust the system. So basically we are all #ed.

I disagree. It could also be easily televised -- that's as good a purpose for our national public television stations as any public good. It could also be videotaped for later viewing at anyone's leisure. Visual counters could accompany the human counters, providing real time (and later) verification that votes tallied matched the ballot.

It could be done if folks want it to be done.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Thumb scan verification & selfie, can't fake a fingerprint or facial profile

That would help. I wouldn't have a problem with it, I can't think of anyone who would... except for someone who didn't want their prints checked for other reasons...

I wouldn't have a problem with purple fingers either to ensure folks only vote once.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
And the only way to allow every single person who wants to monitor do it would be through a login/computer system which is how we basically got to this position in the first place. And the only way to not have to do it digitally is to elect people you trust, which won't happen if you don't trust the system. So basically we are all #ed.

I disagree. It could also be easily televised -- that's as good a purpose for our national public television stations as any public good. It could also be videotaped for later viewing at anyone's leisure. Visual counters could accompany the human counters, providing real time (and later) verification that votes tallied matched the ballot.

It could be done if folks want it to be done.

Yes, that could work, but instant verification isn't possible in that way I wouldn't think.

We just have to trust those doing the receiving and the counting. Can that happen?

originally posted by: Skooter_NB

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Skooter_NB
And the only way to allow every single person who wants to monitor do it would be through a login/computer system which is how we basically got to this position in the first place. And the only way to not have to do it digitally is to elect people you trust, which won't happen if you don't trust the system. So basically we are all #ed.

I disagree. It could also be easily televised -- that's as good a purpose for our national public television stations as any public good. It could also be videotaped for later viewing at anyone's leisure. Visual counters could accompany the human counters, providing real time (and later) verification that votes tallied matched the ballot.

It could be done if folks want it to be done.

Yes, that could work, but instant verification isn't possible in that way I wouldn't think.

We just have to trust those doing the receiving and the counting. Can that happen?

Imagine letting multiple bipartisan (verified) election workers within sight of the actual ballots so they could verify signatures, markings etc.

Imagine if there were a way to verify someone is who they say they are and tehy haven't voted already in any state.

Imagine if there were an authority that was designated to handle complaints as they happen instead of just shrugging and saying "not our jurisdiction -- we're just law enforcement".

Imagine letting independent authorities test and audit all election equipment before and after the election using industry penetration and audit techniques rather than "we put 100 ballots in 1 machine and it counted to 100".

None of this is far-fetched or too difficult to implement unless there is resistance (to the level of absurdity) to election transparency.

a reply to: Skooter_NB

Yes, that could work, but instant verification isn't possible in that way I wouldn't think.

I'm not sure what you mean by "instant verification." I can't think of anything more "instant" than real time... and I can't think of better "verification" than seeing it with your own eyes.

We just have to trust those doing the receiving and the counting. Can that happen?

No, that can't happen, because it's impossible to trust that which we cannot know... the best we could do is have "faith" in those counting. Either of which is foolish to the extreme.

Which is exactly why the Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic and an adversarial relationship between the people and the government, restricting government actions, and demanding that the government must explain and justify every action to the people. We are not intended to "trust" government. The burden of proof is always on government.

Exactly what I'm thinking, we can't have trust in the system if we don't trust those running it, and we can't elect those we trust without trusting the system.

I just think physically for every person to want to be able to see every vote tallied it would be impossible; what I mean by instant verification on the scale that I imagine people will want to monitor. Not to mention privacy issues. Additionally, what about absentee ballots? Just saying I agree with you both that it could be possible... but I think is a harder prospect than having people checking signatures.

originally posted by: Halfswede

Imagine if there were an authority that was designated to handle complaints as they happen instead of just shrugging and saying "not our jurisdiction -- we're just law enforcement".

Imagine letting independent authorities test and audit all election equipment before and after the election using industry penetration and audit techniques rather than "we put 100 ballots in 1 machine and it counted to 100".

These are the best options for large scale checking for sure.

Let me help you all out of your hole.

Why not have a government website that you log on to vote instead????? It would have a password and user name. Plus a hardware key etc.

Why have political hacks, liars, cheaters and stealers count or process the votes? Why not full transparency?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Let me help you all out of your hole.

Why not have a government website that you log on to vote instead????? It would have a password and user name. Plus a hardware key etc.

Why have political hacks, liars, cheaters and stealers count or process the votes? Why not full transparency?

Agreed, but lots of people don't trust the computer systems. This would be my first option though, I don't want to go anywhere or have to go out of my way to vote.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Let me help you all out of your hole.

Hmmmmm.....

Why not have a government website that you log on to vote instead????? It would have a password and user name. Plus a hardware key etc.

Um hum... and it would have a software provider and administrator... why I'll bet Dominion and Smartmatic would be happy as could be to do the job... right?

Why have political hacks, liars, cheaters and stealers count or process the votes? Why not full transparency?

I don't see how that would deter political hacks, liars, cheaters and stealers from compromising the software in the same exact ways that Dominion is accused of doing. I don't see how that would provide any transparency. If anything, it would provide no transparency because all we could know is that we went on a government website and voted, with absolutely no assurance of anything at all.

What am I missing?

Heard about this AZ website on a Podcast.

Every state should have one - wethepeopleazalliance.com...

a reply to: Boadicea

What am I missing?

Quite a lot. The software would be open source. So all the whiz kid coders could look at the code to make sure it's fraud free. their wouldn't be any need for complicated voter scam machines. We wouldn't even have to pay to hire anyone to count the votes. No more teams of political fraud hacks to worry about.

You could check back and see how you voted from years ago. Once you're dead your account will be deactivate.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: Boadicea

What am I missing?

Quite a lot. The software would be open source. So all the whiz kid coders could look at the code to make sure it's fraud free.

Okay. But that means nothing to me. How does open source prevent tampering or hacking? How does that ensure our votes are secure?