7188
Comments (211)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
18
mike1231 18 points ago +18 / -0

2 chiefs, one from each party with equal power who have to agree to transmit or they cannot transmit and if they don’t agree all ballots are immediately locked down with a lock/key from each person until an audit team can confirm the ballots at that location. The ballots are never moved from their location until they are confirmed by both parties representatives.

We need to have more safeguards and protections regardless of which side you are on.

17
kebabdrogo 17 points ago +17 / -0

Too easy to compromise 2 chiefs. All you need is some beads.

8
Ophelia 8 points ago +8 / -0

Correct. And don’t rule out infiltration. These “chiefs” are never vetted.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Lovepede 1 point ago +1 / -0

But then the problem would be isolated to a single voting location.

2
kebabdrogo 2 points ago +2 / -0

You mean every single voting location that has 2 people.

3
ScamCast 3 points ago +3 / -0

Dems would be posing as Republicans to take control of the voting locations.

2
datagod 2 points ago +2 / -0

There are more than 2 parties.

1
ScamCast 1 point ago +1 / -0

Casinos have tons of cameras that watch every move. The voting places need camera setups like the casinos have. Live stream all the cameras and let everyone watch every move. Ballots have to stay in camera view at all times.

1
abetterreddit 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agree with all of the principles above. Securing paper ballots should be a first class feature of the people in charge. Securing electronic copies of those paper ballots should be a first class feature of the technology stack. It's incredibly trivial to do this.