Voter identification of that sort is being fought tooth and nail by certain sectors of the current political regimes.
Michael Oke, II 661-349-6221 Contents of this and all messages are intended for their designated recipient. On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:15 AM, lelandj <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/11/2012 12:25 PM, Pete Theisen wrote: >> On 11/11/2012 01:10 PM, lelandj wrote: >> >>>> http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2012/11/10/massive-voter-fraud-in-st-lucie-county-florida-141-turnout/ >>>> >> >>>> "official St Lucie County, FL 2012 election results. Only one precinct >>>> had less than 113% turnout. The unofficial vote count is 175,554 >>>> registered voters 247,713 vote cards cast (141.10% ). The National >>>> SEAL Museum, a St. Lucie county polling place, had 158.85% voter turn >>>> out, the highest in the county." >>>> >>>> How would Texas cope with that? >>> >>> Florida should engage one of the big four accounting firms to perform an >>> operational audit of the current system, and make recommendation >> >> Hi Leland, >> >> How would the auditors identify the fraudulent ballots? THAT is what has to >> be done! > > Just off the top of my head, an internal control might work something like > this. The starting point in a voter casting a ballot is registering to vote. > Because many people have the same name, at the time a person registers to > vote, they could be issued a unique ID number. > > In order for the voter to receive a ballot, when they go to vote, they could > be required to present their unique ID number. This number could be check, > and if its valid, and has not already been used, the voter could receive a > ballot. > > If the system is automated the voter could be required to enter his unique ID > to cast a vote. The voting machine would check to see if the unique ID > number had not already been used within a statewide voting system; before, > accepting the voters input. > > This kind of system would need strong security to protect the voters privacy. > > Without some kind of internal control in place, such as the example I > provided above, it may not be possible to identify fraudulent votes. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
