scan can be verified by voter on private screen
Can say one thing but do another
voter verifies that the count increases
Same
ballot is placed in locked box where any number of people can add locks/tamper proof mech
They don’t care to maintain these
at some specific time the polling is closed
Important, no new ballots should be allowed to enter the room after a certain time. However this isn’t even really needed under my suggestion as the person providing the ballot has to be doing so in person, at the time it’s counted / scanned.
all scans are released online
If not done real time then it doesn’t matter. Even then if you’re trusting one single party to do this, which my suggestion explicitly forbids, then it doesn’t matter even if it’s real time.
official counting could not begin until scans are released
Doesn’t matter they’d have it precounted / corrected before officially starting.
if a scan is not online it does not count
In my suggestion at least one of the redundancy counter tables has to scan directly to the net real time.
counts can't be real-time or even time-stamped because of secret ballot.
the software on the scanner would have to be verified. there would be many ways to do this. no networking, and no drive in the scanner (or scanners if you get your way) until all parties are present.
if you wanted to partially get rid of secret ballot you could provide the voter with the hash so that they could view their ballot whenever they wanted.
The whole point of this conversation is that 2 idiots on a white power site can have this discussion and come to a working white paper in a day. People who do this as an occupation could for sure do it in 4 years, but instead we have unauditable, corrupt, crap.
the software on the scanner would have to be verified
Yes but what I’m saying is there needs to be redundancy in counting. All of what you are suggesting is implying one authority maintains making sure all these rules are followed.
My suggestion doesn’t even need most of these actually because you don’t HAVE to make sure each individual counting authority is not rigging their count. If their count doesn’t match the others, the counts are nulled. That inherently forces them all to report the real count.
The whole point of this conversation is that 2 idiots on a white power site can have this discussion and come to a working white paper in a day.
I’m not seeing ANYONE advocating vote counting redundancy. And until I do I will assume they are supporting rigged elections.
i would say that released images is the redundancy. I am not against multiple scanners, but the more friction you add to the process the more issues you have.
i just haven't seen a valid conversation about elections. they throw around buzz terms like blockchain, but they obviously havne't thought too hard about things (or have low understanding.
(post is archived)