"Someone ought to be posted with a video camera at every suspect precinct, from the moment the polls open until they close. That way, there would be video evidence of people going from precinct to precinct, and there would be evidence of how many voters actually went in to vote vs. how many votes were reported out by crooked poll workers."
I like it. The problem is, we will have to video the people reviewing the video. I believe this voting fraud is an organized democratic plan to win this election.
Ask for ID and randomly audit the IDs. Phone call with the person standing in line and that person is arrested if proven with a false id.
Just the fact that they are being videotaped, will have a considerable "Chilling Effect" on anyone contemplating voting fraud.
I have been pressuring the Republicans to demand 24-hour monitoring of ballots here in Oregon, where we vote entirely by mail. The election could be stolen here at nearly any point in the process of handling ballots.
However, if the ballots are everywhere and at at all times under surveillance, again it would put a considerable damper upon the enthusiasm of anyone attempting to Demonrat them.
The same could be said for the polling places. The points at which ballots are picked up and collected should be under constant surveillance, as should the ballots and the counting machines.
Ideally, the surveillance should consist of both human and video observation. The presence of an actual observer is probably a more effective deterrent, but video is probably more reliable as evidence in a legal proceeding, since the claims of an observer can be contested. Additionally, cameras do not require food or sleep.
There are privacy issues with video monitoring but they have to be kept in perspective. The question to ask, whenever the privacy issue comes up, is, "Could there by coincidence have been a plainclothes cop watching at the same time and place?" If so, anyone complaining of video monitoring has just lost half of their argument. Unless they are additionally arguing that plainclothes policemen should not be allowed to observe in lieu of a camera being emplaced, the only difference is that the camera is present constantly and that the video can be preserved for future use, where the cop can only be there to the extent that cops are available, and his/her/its visual observations can only be transmitted by testimony.
I don't particularly like being on camera either, but in general it's no different than being watched by a cop, and it's hardly an invasion of privacy when it occurs in a public place where *anyone* can see what you're doing. Additionally, anyone arguing that emplacing cameras is going to "Intimidate" voters will have to explain precisely what it is of which the presumably intimidated voters are afraid.