Should the US have a 10 day Auditing Process on Voting Fraud.

[SirGalahad]

 

[durhamplumber]

Yep, worlds biggest loser - EVER.

Apart from a few billion bigger losers.

 

[Brigadier]

Should the US have a 10 day Auditing Process on Voting Fraud.




If they need it, should they really be trusted with voting in the first place?

Put it another way: they only have a vote once every four years.
In which case, having the vote checked on every occasion renders the vote itself impotent (and unimportant).


The checks and balances should already be in place for the voting process itself.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Put it another way: they only have a vote once every four years.
In which case, having the vote checked on every occasion renders the vote itself impotent (and unimportant).

I certainly wasn't advocating auditing every election, As you say, that would be ludicrous and superfluous.
I was, at first, only seeing from the perspective of: if the democrats have nothing to fear, why oppose the audit.
But maybe they have intentionally avoided objecting to it, and merely ridiculed the request.

The checks and balances should already be in place for the voting process itself.

True, but an audit is required occasionally to verify that the process is valid.
I fully agree that it does not need to involve or relate to any election occurrence.

I have agreed with most of the comments throughout the thread.

 

[SirGalahad]

Put it another way: they only have a vote once every four years.
In which case, having the vote checked on every occasion renders the vote itself impotent (and unimportant).


The checks and balances should already be in place for the voting process itself.

 

[Tigercubrider]

as I understand it.
Postal votes are delivered ...by post.
The envelope is signed on the outside.
The signature is checked against the enclosed signed ballot paper.
The envelope is thrown away, but counted.
The signed portion of the ballot is torn off
the ballot is counted

all numbers are cross checked and tallied.

Voting in person
People arrive, not sure how id is checked. (not mandatory - as in the uk)
The voter uses a machine to cast a vote, it prints a paper vote
The voter then feeds the paper into another machine, where it is scanned and recorded/tabulated.
So they have a record of votes cast, and two records of partisan votes. All three must match.
All the machines do is count or print.
They are not web enabled.
The memory is a secure unit.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

People arrive, not sure how id is checked. (not mandatory - as in the uk)

Isn't the ID check a recent introduction in UK.
Last time I voted (in person), the mere ownership of the election slip/letter was sufficient.

 

[Tigercubrider]

I don't remember ever being asked.
On occasion I have arrived straight from work, without my card. They just drew a line through my name when I said my address, and gave me a ballot

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Voting in person
People arrive, not sure how id is checked. (not mandatory - as in the uk)

I don't remember ever being asked.
On occasion I have arrived straight from work, without my card. They just drew a line through my name when I said my address, and gave me a ballot

Sorry, I misunderstood your punctuation. I thought you meant that the ID was not mandatory, unlike in the UK.
I realise now you meant ID was not mandatory, the same as in UK.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are people forgetting that, as well as the presidency, several other offices are also voted for on the ballot paper, so if Trump thinks his votes have been fiddled then so would those of the other offices?