First, I would like to say that while I don't like government programs as a solution to every problem, I feel that Elections along with the Common Defense are 2 specific area's that are on firm constitutional grounds as federally backed entities. In short, the purpose of this proposal is to generate a secure and verifiable Federal framework for states to use in elections.

First, establishment of an Office of Federal Election Integrity (hereafter OFEI). This office will be responsible for issuing and maintenance of the infrastructure for the mentioned Federal Voter Identification Cards from the title (hereafter FVID's). The intent would be to have an office in every state capital within 2 years, then expand to post offices and other federal buildings like court houses, similar to the US Passport Offices Program. Within 4 years it should be firmly established enough to guarantee anyone that wants one can get one easily.

Second, the FVID's themselves. These should be PKI enabled tokens with Picture ID's (valid for ALL federal ID purposes). For the people that don't understand PKI, it stands for Private Key Infrastructure. In basic terms, these tokens work by having a private key and a public key, the public key can be shared anywhere but only people with the private keys can actually read the data. They can be used to sign or authorize access by using a PIN number only the token owner should know. Something you have (the card) and something you know (the PIN). Similar to a debit card, the owner can be sent the token and initial pin separately that will then ask them to change it to a new one immediately.

How they would work is that each voter would receive their new FVID. When they register for one, they will only need their birth certificate (or other proof of citizenship), their current address, and a photo ID. The back end system will register their initial entry data and create their FVID with that data stored on the servers of the OFEI. The voter will receive the card by mail and their initial PIN, changing them. If they need to change things like legal name they can simply visit the office and get a new one issued. If they simply need to change addresses or reset PINs, they can bring in the FVID and an photo ID and change it on the spot.

Why PKI? Well a widespread PKI infrastructure would allow several key things. First, it would allow a secure method of voting from any computer capable of reading the token. Second, there would be a 100% audit log, traceable down to the employee that issued the cards or changed the information if need be for researching any fraud that occurrs. Third it allows for immediate revocation of the PKI token for voting purposes if things like the Social Security Death Index matches the voter.

How to ensure there is no disenfranchisement? If the FVID's go bad on something like election day, lets say you drop it down the sewer pulling it out to get in line to vote, or it just refuses to read, or they moved and didn't update, or they didn't register for a FVID, or any other scenario like that, the voter will still be able to use a provisional ballot. They can then be given a confirmation receipt number page for the ballot that when they bring in the documentation to verify they can hand over to the clerk. After they have verified their information, the clerk will be able to upload the confirmation number to the database, and the provisional ballot will be released when the confirmation is verified. This system will allow a uniform "curing" process, while guaranteeing that invalid ballots don't slip through, and still allows for an easy seperate counting of the ballots left in provisional status if say they would decide the race.

How does this stop cheating? There will never be an absolute stop to ALL cheating, but this makes the sort of cheating that is suspected in the 2020 elections to be nearly impossible. Since the ballots will be signed and encrypted electronically by the voter, they can do a final review before signing and locking the ballot. The public vote would then be able to be matched against the private locked ballots in an automatic audit. Any attempts to change the votes after the fact by the machine would break the encryption and cause gibberish to result since they won't have the voters private key. People would no longer be able to just give a name they know won't vote, they would need to get the FVID's AND the PIN's without that being reported. If the voter doesn't receive their cards or PINs from mail fraud, they can just head to the office, show their ID, and either have the card invalidated or reset the PIN there. If the card is lost or stolen, same thing.

How will it be funded? We the taxpayers would have to foot the bill. It wouldn't be the cheapest thing in the world, but certainly less expensive than the unrest we're looking at over these current elections. And making it absolutely free AND letting it count as a federal ID for things like planes eliminates arguments that it would be disenfranchising people. It'd be useful, free, available widely, and help secure our elections in the meantime.

All you really would need is Precinct Level Data, and an ability to know total "straight party votes". They are focusing on Michigan because MI apparently has a "party line vote" option per other people's comments, making it extremely easy to know how many straight tickets there were to compare. Since you may not have that in any other states, your next best bet would be to find the average of the lowest 3 candidates for the republican and democratic tickets, then use that as your "straight line voters". With people doing it themselves instead of checking a block and also individual candidates maybe pissing someone off, there's enough human error that maybe they missed some candidates or what not, so the Lowest 3 Partisan Elections Average should give you the closest hardcore "I'm only voting Red or Blue" voters. For purposes of how to graph I'll do only Red, but you can also do Blue the same way by reverse.

Divide those precinct Straight Red results by total voters per precinct (Straight R Votes/Total Votes = R Percent), that will give you your X axis of "R Voter Percentage". You can then do the math yourself that they do, take the Total Trump Votes and minus the Straight R Votes, this will give you the margin of votes. (Trump Votes - Straight R Votes = Plus or Minus Margin in Votes). You can then find the Y Axis of the graph by dividing that margin in votes by total votes (Margin Votes/Total Votes = Percentage of Margin). Then you can just plot them all like they did (X= R%, Y = Trump Margin %). This will show the distributions, and more importantly exposes the curves.

Dr. Shiva showed how Wayne County, a heavy Democratic county had no visible algorithm applied and followed a relatively standard distribution. However this is also a county that did NOT have many precincts that followed the 20%-40% rule the other counties seemed to show as the trigger point for the algorithm. If there truly is a Dominion Algorithm in play, we would expect to see Non-Dominion states to have normal distributions while Dominion States should be a MIX of Algorithmed and Non-Algorithmed. If we have enough of that Data even in Michigan alone, we should be able to show whether this was deployed in counties that were CLOSE or Heavy Republican in 2016 or 2018, giving a legal avenue to claim intent. A "glitch" that ONLY shows up in close or Republican counties isn't a glitch anymore, and they wouldn't be able to claim otherwise. The only problem is especially in non-party line vote states it's a LOT of manual data entry and time. The math itself isn't super difficult, mostly Middle/High School algebra with instructions above to follow. The time and mass amounts is why it needs to be distributed to a lot of people to do though, and even repeats are great because it's now self correcting data sets.

A more modern code savvy guy with more time than me may want to build a site with a US county level map to either A) Post Results B) Data Sets or C) Results AND Data Sets to use. We would probably want the results per user formulated roughly:

COUNTY: PRECINCT #: STRAIGHT RED VOTER AVERAGE: RED %: STRAIGHT BLUE VOTER AVERAGE: BLUE %: TOTAL VOTES: TOTAL TRUMP VOTES: TOTAL BIDEN VOTES:

This user generated data set would be enough to perform a full SHIVA Analysis on the Precinct both ways, and should be relatively simple to gather. The math from this set should be simple to code and display on a County plot at well. I kept both Red and Blue votes total as important checks, since while you can assume a rough inverse, this would be the absolute cleanest data set to gather. It should also be easy to curate since once a certain number of hits per precinct are done (5 maybe) that agree with each other they can be locked and allow people to find a new target.

Here's the thing with fundamentalist's of ANY religion. You don't get to choose what they consider fundamental. Islam pretty universally considers conversion fundamental, but the way they do it varies widely. Some countries and groups by the sword, others by making it a requirement to do basically anything unless you have enough money to get around it. The same is true for fundamentalist Christianity though, they just have their extremes pegged about roughly where the most "moderate Islamic" countries are. They would have loved to make it the same where you need to be Christian to basically do anything, unless you're rich enough to pay them anyway which is almost as good.

None of this means Christianity is bad, or Christian Voters wanted to see this actually implemented, but you ARE talking about a religious imperative. Wars are regularly fought on less religious basis than this, and while they have moved past war as the tool, you're still looking at something they would rather die than give up on. When the GOP base was centered around the religious right in the 90's, these fundamentalist voices had outsized impact on the party. Even if they pushed away other voters in droves, it was a holy crusade with no one strong enough on the right around to stop them. This is where the "if only economics!" chants started. This gave rise to a schism where the two forces started butting heads and wasting power on each other. And the power of the party waned through the Bush establishment years as they all waged their establishment war.

The savior of the GOP wasn't really lessened fundamentalist Christian voices. As some have pointed out Trump has been really great for them with things like Judiciary and Supreme Court picks. ALL GOP voices lessened through that time as they fought. The "true savior" was the rise of "Woke" politics on the Left. Because as the total power waned, the diehards at both fringes started losing, and the party eventually moderated until Trump could emerge. And despite him allegedly being "literally Hitler!" Trump as an ex-Democrat from the East Coast is a VERY moderate GOP candidate with only his economic stances (and the children of them such as Immigration) being fairly Right wing. Meanwhile the Left has been building a new non-theistic fundamentalist religion in "Wokeness". For awhile it gave them momentum and fervor to push for more as most religions do. But in the early Obama years, it faltered. They had become enough of a force on the Left, that they now faced a Religious Schism. The establishment Democrat's thought they could reign it in, they held the reigns tight and went for things like Obamacare that they thought were small enough steps they could feed it to both the woke and the country, and they would accept it as both enough and not throw it up respectively. They then lost the House.

This set off a chain reaction. Without the power to do what ANY of them wanted, the Woke started seizing it anyway they could. Like a desperate rider clinging to the horse, Democrat's rode it, hoping to bring it back into control in time for elections. This cost them the Senate when Harry Reid decided to go with the Nuclear Option, and we all see the pain a Nuclear Turtle has wrought upon them. The Woke kept getting louder and more violent, with the establishment dragged along with them. This is around when BLM and the early Black-Blocs that would become Antifa emerged to prominence. As they got louder and more violent, they cost more and more power. Eventually it cost them the Presidency, as "basket of deplorables, and other woke power fantasies you can tell yourself at night" became mainstream Democrat talking points.

This was another tipping point. With the Presidency gone, and both chambers of congress in GOP control, the Left had no choice but to go full Woke. Media that was always already biased pushed it out far and wide, and the conflict itself was all blamed on Trump. Everything, from the mundane to the extreme became Orange man bad, Orange man's fault. The GOP also made a blunder, they said "well okay we won, time to go back to normal now!" This half measure cost them the same it cost the Left when they tried to bridge the same opposing gap in 2009. McCain torpedoes Obamacare repeal because "muh replacement not ready" refusing to accept that killing it first is the only way to get Democrat buy in enough to actually make a compromise. The Democrat's as a whole can then feel confident on just holding out until the GOP loses. Then they lose the House. But here the GOP made a Strategic Win out of a Tactical Loss. They gave up and bought in. Many candidates across the the Senate and House are now being measured by their willingness to MAGA. More than enough to cover any weaknesses left by RINO's at least for now.

What is happening right now with the election is crucial to solidifying MAGA as the main voice of the GOP. It's extremely important for everyone that wants to see this to vote for it. If after all of this, Trump is given the complete Big 3 (Big 4 with the Supreme Court picks now as well) again, they won't have half measures anymore. The GOP has been playing by the rules these last few years, while the Democrats have been screaming about and actually changing them when they have the power at every loss. There's nothing left for them if they lose, the field is now fully prepped for a GOP stomping ground BY THE RULES, and they know this. They're possibly counting on this to burn out the Woke in their own party, if they lose fair and square and the Woke start rioting, the Woke's strongest allies will all start standing up for them, and all it will take is stepping away from them to destroy the Woke as a force so that they won't keep losing elections anymore. It's a an extremely simple scenario with pretty low risk for them since they will have an excuse on a silver platter with the election.

Historically if this does happen they will start to break away and try to cash in politically by working with the GOP. They'll be able to excise the Woke power base, while using the loss and blaming it on them as the excuse, saying "we're just trying to make sure the American People still have their voices heard". They'll feign shock and disgust at things like BidenINC or Spygate while trying to keep the worst out of the news as "important for the nation to heal". The woke will be weakened or gone, and Trump will get what he wants which is actual fair negotiations from a position of strength for what he considers MAGA. Even if Democrat's still believe in Woke politics secretly, as a force it will be severely weakened or destroyed. If they keep supporting it, they are now helpless to stop the GOP anyway.

The likeliness of all of this is based on the election of course. If they hold or gain any one of the Big 3, then they may keep the Woke on board. Especially if they gain the entire Big 3, then the Woke have already publicly promised they will change the rules to give them the Supreme Courts, and why would the Democrats care since they've already changed the rules to suit themselves in the House? They may even continue to keep the Woke even if they lose all 3, which would leave them extremely exposed. The problem would be a Religious Schism from the Woke with all the fervor of a Holy War, and even if the Democrats as a whole wanted to try to sell them down the river, they may simply be worried they won't win if they do. If the Schism doesn't happen though, they also kick the can down the road to the next election, which is historically the number one move for a politician to do.

Final thought and TL;DR is that no matter what happens, the BEST and most MAGA thing to do is vote and get as many people onboard as you can. The field is EXTREMELY well-prepped for almost any situation President Trump or the GOP walks into, and the more MAGA votes, the easier MAGA becomes in Term 2. There's also the fact we need to ensure Term 2 first and foremost.

Why do people think voting by mail is magically easier and will actually drive up votes? When you go to a polling location, you show up, sign in, vote with the provided materials, drop off as you leave. 1% of people still tend to mess that up. Last time I voted in person it took 30 minutes from start of "I should vote" to voted since your polling location is by default close to your house. The line took about 5 minutes, voting another 5, and the rest was walking since it was a nice day. Meanwhile, depending on state, you need to receive the ballot, the ballot needs to be correct, you need to fill the ballot in with the proper color pen (in my state the ballot can be rejected if you use the wrong color) something most people never even think to check so possible store trip, you may need an envelope which few households keep on hand anymore another possible store trip, you need stamps to mail it depending on state and is illegal for others to provide federally which again few keep on hand anymore and few stores even sell anymore so another trip to USPS, then you need to do the ballot correctly with no one to ask for help, seal it properly with no help, then you either need to mail it which few people have even done nowadays, or go in to a central polling office to drop it off negating the entire point.

People are acting like vote by mail is the easier option, but I notice it's mostly older 50 somethings saying it, or young AOC types just parroting it. Mostly people that grew up with and in some cases still probably pay bills by mail. Meanwhile at my house which is a younger neighborhood with a younger postman they didn't even know that they could/were supposed to pick up letters FROM the mailbox until someone caught up to them and physically handed it to them and told them, saying please mail this. Think about how many people have literally NEVER mailed off a letter in their life, now remember if you're assuming Millennial's is the first group to have that as a majority well the average age for them is now mid 30's. Someone born in 1990 is 30 this year. The people that are actually successfully voting by mail are likely to older, which skews Republican already. The drive to switch with the Pandemic is likely just activating older voters who are at the most risk already to change to mail in. Young voters are constantly disappointing people relying on them already with the "this year they're projected to be 40%! Oh wait just 18% again..." WITHOUT tossing them into a system they never used, designed for older people, and you're talking about a massive enthusiasm gap already.

The entire premise of vote by mail being an easy option is that the entire world is set up for mailing letters, but in reality the Post Office NOW is setup for big hard to miss packages, bulk flyers that don't matter where they are dropped, and spam mail advertisements that no one particularly misses or cares if they are late or never arrive. It hasn't been so in likely 30 years, let alone since a huge chunk of the country has been of voting age. Even if you say half that to 15 years, that's more than half of Millennial's alone that have NEVER BEEN AN ADULT IN THAT WORLD. People are just claiming that "of course it will add votes, it's letting more people vote that's what it says!" probably also think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is South Korea not the North. They don't seem to register that they weren't voting before with a system everyone is taught about already, so why would they vote now when they have no idea about how it works?

My final point is, I see a lot of people using the numbers of "Mail in ballots requested and returned" as proof of some massive election turnout, which is supposed to historically be good for Democrats. But when you dig into the actual numbers, it's being driven by states like California, New York, New Jersey and the like that are FORCING vote by mail on their people. Of course early voting is at historic levels, a quarter of the population at least has been FORCED too. They are then using the percentages from 2016 to say "see this proves there will be a super duper blue wave!" from something they themselves initiated. It's the marketing BS tactics that shady companies do. They go to a client and say "here's youtubes growth chart, keep an eye on that!" Then they make 100k fake accounts on twitter and trickle them into the Product. Then they show them "look, your growth is even better than YOUTUBE at this point with us! You better stick around if you want to be the next big thing!" But it's with polls and elections instead, then they wonder why everything tightens right at the end and somehow their turnout wasn't super duper blue wave, it was actually all red. Because when the chips go down reality doesn't care HOW you vote, it just says "this is how many total votes there will be" and it doesn't care if you purposefully managed to shift a third to what used to be a quarter, it's still going to be a third. It isn't magically going to say "well this can only be a quarter, so here's 30 million new votes!"

There's an old political rule saying that if Black Americans EVER vote 15% for Republicans the Democrats will NEVER win again as the current party they are. The primary way demographic percentages are determined are from in person exit polling. But what if no one KNOWS that Black American Votes went say 20% to Republicans? If no one knows it happened, they could reasonably just keep it quiet and hope it was a Trump only thing. Sure there would be talk but with no numbers maybe they could massage the conversation back to just "Republicans = Racist" again. Disrupting the election and meddling aside, and sure that'd probably be a huge bonus for them, this is a literal extinction level threat to the coalition they've relied on for decades to win. It would also be an easier sell to their media allies than just pure corruption, they already thing they're the saviors of all things oppressed, and what better way than to "protect them from their own misguided impulses and shepherd them back to the right side of history"?

I don't particularly like the losers of the civil war, I don't particularly care either though, freedom of speech. Overall for Confederate symbols I say put it in a museum or erect a statue next to it of Civil Rights Leaders so you get the full context of start and end rather than just selective history. But yet you look around at the protest and see dozens of Soviet Union flags, symbols, and other memorabilia. How is that not infinitely worse? Not only did they kill far more, they disappeared and enslaved entire families into gulags, and this was like 30 years ago that they fell. They also existed for 70 plus years, 14 times as long as the Confederates. So I guess I really don't get the hypocrisy and am wondering if anyone else does?

I was thinking about the reaction to Terry Crews wanting equality under the law, a mainstream American position. And the original beginning of BLM versus All Lives Matter, when briefly both were associated with the same thing, since they had the same inciting incident, until BLM actively pushed themselves away. I've come to the conclusion that the only reason BLM wouldn't have co-opted at minimum or actively used ALM is because they actively were seeking the in-built Black Supremacy messaging. I will give the benefit of the doubt and say I think they thought they could use it early on then change to equality, but there was literally no reason not to use All Lives Matter otherwise. ALM polls higher to this day, and has no racial component outside of its ASSIGNED "racism" as being reactionary, even if it focused more on Black Lives it would be viewed by most as "well they're the ones getting hurt more".

Reasoning: If Black Lives truly are disproportionately targeted, then All Lives would have focused attention on them more anyway while not ignoring others for racial reasons like Duncan Lemp. So that's the "we need to stop the attacks on the most vulnerable" argument gone because multiple people can be hurt at once. If they didn't want Black Supremacists support, they'd have disavowed early and often, which I have not seen them do ever anyway. Terry Crews is in a mixed race family, he has felt the attack from both the reactionary ALM people and the Black Supremacists in BLM, which is why he's calling for all to be equal, but he wouldn't have to call out the Black Supremacists in BLM unless they existed.

Conclusion: Someone here should make an actual neutral All Lives Matter organization rather than reactionary hashtag. It will be both attacked and benefit from being pushed by Trump Supporters. But in the long run, assuming we actually want resolutions for the underlying issues, its the only way we can get them, because we are the only group that CAN and won't try to actively take advantage as has already happened on the other side. True neutral is impossible, long term we will see an actual benefit from leading the charge, but so long as the goal is "be neutral damned what they say" then we might actually make a real change versus "get power then change" that always stops at the get power part.

This is great overall. Whatever your thoughts on Tim the more exposure the better we are overall. Achievement Unlocked: Pim Tool Callout

Think about it. They stressed that he told Comey to do everything by the book. Since we know that on the 4th of January 2017 the FBI recommended dropping the Flynn case, and on the 5th the Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates stated Obama had direct knowledge of the FBI investigation despite her not having any knowledge of it herself and it being her purview, it is obvious that Barack Obama firmly believed at the time that Michael Flynn was completely innocent and James Comey was going behind his back. Clearly this was his attempt at polite intervention. I haven't heard any more statements from Obama on Flynn's innocence since, but there's no other logical conclusion because anything else would imply that Obama had direct knowledge of improper investigations being held open into the administration of his political opponent and presidential successor for political damage.