Another thing that we ought to do is have voters sign in when they vote.
When I go to vote, they ask for my name and address (and for the past few years my ID). Then they check it off on a master list of voters.
Why would they not also have a voter SIGN IN to verify that he/she voted? That would be a simple step which would help track fraud.
Probably tiny in comparison to the weighting scheme you describe, but every bit helps.
Signing in could be done but there is the issue of cross-checking signatures and verifying the voter has not signed in at another polling place.
Electronic alert systems can be placed at a voter sign-in table to indicate if the voter has signed in at another poll place. So yes, the idea of signing in could be helpful.
Keep in mind that any electronic device or system such as a voter alert system would need to be tested upon activation and continuing in real-time to ensure the system was hacked or being hacked.
But measures for signing in are different than altering totals by weighting. Weighting occurs ‘later’.
Lots of things can be done to strengthen election integrity. I am hoping the Trump Administration will do a top-down bottom-up review of the entire system and come up with proposals to make the American election system the strongest in history.
I scoff at the "weighting" scheme. The votes are whole numbers (I know those can be weighted, bear with me), and the sender and receiver both see each other's use of the whole number, ergo, risk of UNCAUGHT transmission error is or can be low.
The receiver doesn't know the number transmitted is accurate or not, it's just a number. The sender/precinct doesn't control addition by the receiver, but checking addition is a simple process, and one the campaigns undertake.
If the person doing the vote tally is applying weights to the precinct counts, the totals will be off and all hell would break loose.
When I go to vote, they ask for my name and address (and for the past few years my ID). Then they check it off on a master list of voters.
Where I vote, I'm checked off against two different lists and have to sign the second one before receiving my ballot.
We still have to sign.
When I go to vote, they ask for my name and address (and for the past few years my ID). Then they check it off on a master list of voters.
The reason I could never understand all this fraud stuff is because what you said above, Here in Arizona, we have done exactly what you say above and long before we started using the electronic readers. We still have a paper ballot (I assume) Since we have been on permanent early voting rolls since we voted against Obama the first time. I know the ones we get are paper and exactly what we used to have.
I saw some of the transmission output of one of the voting machines and was questioning on an FR thread about why it was necessary for it to have NINE places to the RIGHT of the decimal point. There is no reason for such precision in a discrete count as counting and reporting votes. One person, one vote, not fractional votes, ever, yet these Diebold voting machines were reporting votes to NINE decimal places. The ONLY reason I could come up with was the same as was simply demonstrated with the two decimal place example, vote count fraud via rounding errors.
A proper voting machine should have ZERO decimal places and only report integer numbers. One person, one vote for each issue and each race.
This is deliberate.