Election machines are immoral. My reasons are stated here. The immediate MORAL imperative is to bypass all the discussions about the current voting machine technology that is a never ending expenditure of valuable Patriot time and rather use that time to promote and build a different future that does not depend on hackable overly complex technology that the public does not and can never understand……otherwise known as voting machines. Regardless of whether you believe voting machines and hackable or not, one thing is irrefutably TRUE. The general public WILL NEVER understand black box voting machines.
this article is invaluable and a great example of what we need to do going forward - engage out of the box thinking to show that there are easy and simple solutions that most people can understand.
The difficulty is that the US Constitution mandates time, place and manner to the States. Any changes would require an amendment. What it doesn’t specify is method although manner can be argued to include method.
The Constitution does indicate manner. Voting methods have changed from hand marked paper, too mechanical machines to punch cards to various type of computers. All without a Constitutional Amendment.
Yes of course. What I meant was, with current wording in US Constitution, the changes would have to be made at State level. Blue States present a problem. The concept of count by weight is interesting however, although some form of token or coin (manufactured by the US mint) may work better at individual contest boxes. I’d have to see the process fined. Reporting box weights in addition to coin counting from each precinct and adding them to county, then state, then federal totals. Ha, juke box voting comes to mind.
I think that's an interesting idea, one I hadn't heard of before. However, I have two concerns: 1) Having 29 separate places to put a piece of paper; this would make voting take much longer, the lines are already long, and I think most people would do the first few and quit; 2) How much of this special currency paper for money do we have? Perhaps there is enough of cheap and equally weighted paper to get around this.
Remember, we are back to precinct voting in this model of 2000-3000 people. Assume a 75% turnout of 2500 people that is 1875 people in 8 hours worst case. If multiple ques are needed, that could be implemented. It needs to be studied further. Thanks for the comment.
There were many people that thought the last French presidential election for was rigged. There were thousands of ballots for the opposition candidate that weren't counted because they were torn, all in a similar manner. Marcon's popularity level is at about 30%. That might sound familiar. Pretty low for a guy that's winning elections.
The weak spot is if those digital scales are made to automatically report their totals at any point. Or when counts from individual precincts are aggregated and reported online and up the line until we arrive at the corrupted Edison feed. Or if someone can't do math correctly to covert weight to votes.
What happens to all that perfectly sized currency paper that could potentially be bleached and reprinted as money after the election?
There is no networking of scales. Counts and weights are logged and reported manually. There is no real time reporting of tally's because the tally does not occur until after the polls close and it is manually weighed and reported and posted at the precinct first. Your concern about manual bleaching and somehow using it as money is so far fetched, I won't even attempt to respond to it. That is simple to solve for.
That bit about bleaching and making counterfeit money was mostly a joke. I've read two novels in which bleaching one-dollar notes and reprinting as hundreds is what the plot hinges on. That's what brought it to mind.
I could be wrong, but I thought one point of electronic fiddling with the vote totals was far downstream in the reporting chain, so far down that sometimes it was possible to see votes change in real time on the tv broadcasts. Like, it doesn't matter what happens at the precinct, because the state levels is where things are being changed. Maybe the system you have described would make that impossible because the precinct totals would be known and transparent.
this article is invaluable and a great example of what we need to do going forward - engage out of the box thinking to show that there are easy and simple solutions that most people can understand.
You get to the heart of the matter agree 100%
The difficulty is that the US Constitution mandates time, place and manner to the States. Any changes would require an amendment. What it doesn’t specify is method although manner can be argued to include method.
The Constitution does indicate manner. Voting methods have changed from hand marked paper, too mechanical machines to punch cards to various type of computers. All without a Constitutional Amendment.
Yes of course. What I meant was, with current wording in US Constitution, the changes would have to be made at State level. Blue States present a problem. The concept of count by weight is interesting however, although some form of token or coin (manufactured by the US mint) may work better at individual contest boxes. I’d have to see the process fined. Reporting box weights in addition to coin counting from each precinct and adding them to county, then state, then federal totals. Ha, juke box voting comes to mind.
I think that's an interesting idea, one I hadn't heard of before. However, I have two concerns: 1) Having 29 separate places to put a piece of paper; this would make voting take much longer, the lines are already long, and I think most people would do the first few and quit; 2) How much of this special currency paper for money do we have? Perhaps there is enough of cheap and equally weighted paper to get around this.
Remember, we are back to precinct voting in this model of 2000-3000 people. Assume a 75% turnout of 2500 people that is 1875 people in 8 hours worst case. If multiple ques are needed, that could be implemented. It needs to be studied further. Thanks for the comment.
Find me on telegram. @papervote. I have similar. Go on rumble, find my channel called memphistn, watch vids.
Please contact me. I don't use YouTube.
I think you,me, Patrick Colbeck need to meet
Jim pruett
TN
Hello Papervote,
You can reach me at electiondataanalyzer@protonmail.com
Watch my vid called France
There were many people that thought the last French presidential election for was rigged. There were thousands of ballots for the opposition candidate that weren't counted because they were torn, all in a similar manner. Marcon's popularity level is at about 30%. That might sound familiar. Pretty low for a guy that's winning elections.
Cheating scales was a thing long before hacking computers became one.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Weights-And-Measures,-Laws
Seems to me banks would be using this method for their tender. If only the value of a vote could rise.
Having good political choices would increase a vote’s value.
Banking your vote with scales.
The weak spot is if those digital scales are made to automatically report their totals at any point. Or when counts from individual precincts are aggregated and reported online and up the line until we arrive at the corrupted Edison feed. Or if someone can't do math correctly to covert weight to votes.
What happens to all that perfectly sized currency paper that could potentially be bleached and reprinted as money after the election?
There is no networking of scales. Counts and weights are logged and reported manually. There is no real time reporting of tally's because the tally does not occur until after the polls close and it is manually weighed and reported and posted at the precinct first. Your concern about manual bleaching and somehow using it as money is so far fetched, I won't even attempt to respond to it. That is simple to solve for.
That bit about bleaching and making counterfeit money was mostly a joke. I've read two novels in which bleaching one-dollar notes and reprinting as hundreds is what the plot hinges on. That's what brought it to mind.
I could be wrong, but I thought one point of electronic fiddling with the vote totals was far downstream in the reporting chain, so far down that sometimes it was possible to see votes change in real time on the tv broadcasts. Like, it doesn't matter what happens at the precinct, because the state levels is where things are being changed. Maybe the system you have described would make that impossible because the precinct totals would be known and transparent.