Posted on 10/28/2026 1:22:42 PM PDT by fwdude
I've been preaching this since the 2000 election where Democrats were scrounging around for "ballots" over several weeks in Florida. George Will, in his saner days, posited that when released final results were not double blind, the losing side knows just how many votes had to be "found" in order to squeak ahead. This has been the bane of our national existence every since.
Such a proposal would require a hard STOP to elections, presumably early in the morning after Election Day or some short time after. All ballot counts in a jurisdiction are sequestered in secret, with a soft certification, until all votes are in an accounted for. Then all voting results, including the consolidated total, would be release, with a winner immediately apparent. No late coming "found" ballots allowed, so the system would have to be rigorous.
The current system of blow-by-blow counts throughout the night while precincts are still reporting is a sure recipe for Democrat fraud.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
All the Dems need to do in a “double blind” is switch the candidates associated with the results.
That would be hard to do with published results. But I know they would if they could.
How about a hard stop, half counted by one location and half voted at another then they swap and compare presumably getting the same results in both locations unless there is an “error”.
The only way to commit fraud in such a system would be for poll workers to generate unique phantom voter registrations for people who don't exist, prior to the election, with a permanent record of such registrations waiting for investigators to find and expose. You could even add registrar IDs so investigators would know exactly whose ID was used to add the fraudulent "voters."
We could have piloted such a system 10 years ago, but I guess people just don't care that much.
Such a system could be overridden, and would be.
Deal with the steal this way and take away the lefts antics.
The Suitcases of found ballots in the trunk of a car in a precinct that always is late reporting or more blatantly the cases of ballots prestashed away under the table only to be dragged out after running off the watchers.
A democrat problem make them suffer their miscreantings.
The way to end the problem of Rats “finding” more ballots after the polls close is to require the total number of lawful ballots cast to be announced publicly before the votes are counted, and not the deduced after the ballots are counted. This is known as limiting the “universe” of voters before counting the ballots. Nothing is fool proof because fools are so ingenious, but with this system the cheating moves to Rats trying to exclude ballots from conservative areas being counted in the first place rather than adding more ballots after the fact.
1. Many people have exaggerated notions of what miners can do with a block chain. The *only* bad thing a miner can do is fail to record a valid transaction (or vote in this case). That's it. They are absolutely incapable of manufacturing invalid votes or altering the contents of a vote. Note that the vast majority of blockchains today don't use miners anyway.
2. So all a dishonest miner can do is prevent valid votes from being recorded. But this would be immediately obvious to the person casting a vote. The voting process, as a no-brainer, should end with a "successful vote submission" page linking to the blockchain TX showing it recorded. So a person should have no excuse for not realizing their vote didn't "take." Blocking hundreds or thousands of votes in a major election would be unfathomable.
3. But what if corrupt voting officials launched a Sybil attack and gaslit people into thinking they had voted with a sham network link in the voting process? So long as official election results are being published _anywhere_ (and if they aren't, we're back to the black boxes we have today which are an untrustworthy joke that no one, and no election law, should accept), anyone would be able to check the votes on them. This would make the use of a duplicitous Sybil attack vector fully apparent; the officials involved would be arrested. You wouldn't even need a re-vote. Just hold onto the valid votes cast and notify the public of an extended voting window.
4. We could use the more common proof-of-stake systems instead of miners for a voting blockchain, but really it's not even necessary to have a publicly-mined or owned blockchain. It could be set up on a couple computers run by voting officials. Again, since the only bad thing they can do is block valid votes, and since doing so would be obvious to anyone so blocked, a corrupt election official can't get away with very much. A blocked voter could run to the media and/or file a legal complaint. Even a single such blocked vote should be a huge red flag giving the media something to hype and talk about, and resulting in immediately legal/criminal investigation (using immutable voting records with full traceability and ownership) if not corrected.
5. But what if blockchain voting registrations are likewise corrupt or blocked? A blocked registration can (and should) result in media/legal complaints similar to a blocked vote above. And corrupt additions to the registrations could be investigated the same as today, with the advantage that poll workers can't cover up their tracks because the records cannot be erased from a blockchain.
I strongly suspect some of the anti-blockchain propaganda I'm seeing is from Leftists trying to block election reform (one literally brought up a completely bogus "Russian hackers will hijack our elections" claim. Not possible with any sanely designed blockchain vote, as outlined above.).
Nope. Read my post above and explain how you or anyone else could do so. This is equivalent to the people who vaguely wave their hands and claim they can easily hack bitcoin. If true the value of bitcoin would not be 5 cents, much less $80,000.
Why? Because any time you allow for "private" voting you open up the possibility of a 3rd party using subterfuge or intimidation, to force you to fill out the ballot according to their wishes (or they just fill it out and make you submit it). Thus we cannot have assurance that ballots completed and submitted in private places are uncorrupted. The act of filling out and submitting a ballot should be done in public polling stations where poll-watchers can verify as far as possible that each individual is casting an honest, personal ballot.
Double- blind, cross-over gold standar. What if they open them and they all say “Dan Sullivan?”
Give each person a unique "voter ID" in the form of a credit card and PIN. They use the card to activate the voting machine and enter their votes. When done, the machine sends the votes to a central transaction processing center just like with purchases. The votes are published when the voting ends.
These companies process billions of transactions each day. They can handle 150 million votes.
-PJ
Yes, “a hard STOP to election” day would solve a lot of problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.