[Fido969]

All the Dems need to do in a “double blind” is switch the candidates associated with the results.

[fwdude]

That would be hard to do with published results. But I know they would if they could.

[Svartalfiar]

All the Dems need to do in a “double blind” is switch the candidates associated with the results.

A double-blind count only stops them from adding just enough extra votes at the end. It doesn't stop them from any fraud before the count, or just adding an uncertain number of fake votes after.

A better, simpler solution for that particular issue, is for each voting location to report their numbers immediately on poll close. Then there can't be any ballots randomly found, everyone already knows the total.

[GOPJ]

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.

Good moves - also keeping a strong focus on precincts that turn their boxes in late - hours late - or traditionally late should happen.