(06-11-2021 08:30 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 06:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 04:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But this points to a bigger issue...elections are expensive, and if you want to cry for more integrity, you need to be willing to pony up the dough to make that happen.

Absolutely. Including a reliable voter ID with photo, signature, and thumb prints embedded electronically, to be verified at the polls. Expensive? Yes. Cheaper than making the kind of mistake that voter fraud can lead to? Absolutely.

My thoughts exactly! The very fact that we hold elections mean they should be as secure as possible. If they are not secure then why even hold them at all? To pacify the sheeple?

Nope! Fair elections - PERIOD.

However, the assumption that they would be more expensive may not necessarily be correct.

One voting day.
Smaller precincts efficiently sized to be able to complete counting that day.
Paper ballots -- no machines.

Ditching electronic voting machines and tabulators should significant money per city/county.

Human counting is WAY less accurate than machine counting. Not to mention people claimed it took too long for a result this year since it took like 3 days. Ditching machines and going to one-day in person voting with fewer precincts would likely take 3 days alone just to get people through the polls in larger cities.

Would be a complete debacle.

dippos would shart their pandering pansies…

since rwt was quoted...

Tom, what do you mean that human counting is way less accurate than machine counting? I get that it would be slower, but lest accurate? You'll have to justify that one. Especially given the recent findings that human counting exposed incorrect machine counting.

And I didn't say "fewer" precincts. I said "smaller" precincts -- which means there would be MORE precincts.

The reason for smaller precincts is to ensure the number of ballots cast would not pose a problem for hand counting.