In August 2017, some Georgia voters filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging that the Georgia vote-counting system is not reliable and the election results are not subject to being audited. Curling v Raffensperger, Superior Court, Fulton County, 2017cv-292233. A few weeks later it was removed to federal court, Curling v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:17cv-02989. It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg, an Obama appointee.
On May 2, 2023, a five-hour hearing was held to determine if there will be a trial. See this story. One of the reasons the case has taken so long is that in 2019, the Georgia legislature passed HB 316, which provided that all the voting machines should be refigured to produce a ballot marking device, a piece of paper handed to every voter after the voter finishes voting. The paper tells the voter which candidates the voter voted for. Plaintiffs are not satisfied with this modification, because they argue the paper produced by the machine doesn’t necessarily prove that the machine actually recorded the results in conformity to what the paper shows. Instead they want a paper ballot marked by the voter and then read by an optical scanner. With that system, the paper ballots themselves could always be counted by hand, if there were any doubt that the optical scanner had done a good job.
This case is possibly the most complex election law case ever filed, with tens of thousands of pages of documents already filed.
NEW AGE E VOTING MACHINES AS ROTTED AS NOW OLDE PUNCH CARD DEVICES ???–2000 FL BUSH V GORE MESS.
SCANNER SYSTEMS SINCE 1930S – FOR SCHOOL TESTS.
Standing count, can’t be beaten for accuracy.
There are proven solutions. Consider: https://chaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Secret_Ballot_Receipts.pdf
Secret ballots are a bad idea. Voting is political power, and power needs to be accountable.
https://ballot-access.org/2023/05/02/top-four-proponents-will-try-to-qualify-an-initiative-for-idaho/#comment-1154347
Standing count is the best proven solution. Accept no substitutions.
SECRET VOTING —
REMEDY FOR TYRANT PURGES — OLDE TYRANT PARTY BOSSES AND THEIR TYRANT ROT –
THREATS / BRIBES / JOB PURGES
You didn’t address the argument in the link.
What sort of accountability would there be for wrong-voters?
I’ll fetch the links. I’ve posted them on several threads.
First link
https://ballot-access.org/2023/04/30/california-bill-making-it-more-difficult-to-get-statewide-initiatives-and-referenda-on-the-ballot-advances/#comment-1154054
Second link
https://ballot-access.org/2023/04/30/california-bill-making-it-more-difficult-to-get-statewide-initiatives-and-referenda-on-the-ballot-advances/#comment-1154057
Neither of those links details what you would like to happen to wrong-voters, but thank you for reminding me of why I don’t take you seriously.
Nothing would happen since there’s much more accountability outside of government.
If nothing would happen, then why do the votes need to be public?
For one thing, to prevent vote fraud. For another, so the voters can be accountable. Do you think legislative and congressional votes need to be public? If you do, why should people voting to pick the elected officials, and in some of your states directly on legislation, be treated differently?
My system calls for precinct party captains to give speeches and assign speeches to their gathering followers to persuade other men of the precinct to stand with them. These men would be personally known to each other, and thus who gives the speeches and who stands with them would be just as important as anything being said.
The only thing being voted on would be peace officers. Crime would be very rare because punishment would be sure, swift, and severe. Peace officers may even be a part time position.
The peace officers would be a lot more likely to deal with the other voters in the precinct in their other capacities – family, friends, neighbors, fellow parishioners, business customers, etc. They would be liable to be replaced at any time by their party, or after a year the party can be replaced. Their wives would associate with each other; their children would associate with each other, etc.
The fantasies of punishing those who vote wrong, abuse of power by peace officers, and tyranny under this system are just that. Being picked as a peace officer would be more like jury duty, not an excuse to transgress against neighbors who can cause you many other problems in your life outside of public duty, especially when you can be replaced and retaliated against if you do.
So… in what way, specifically, would the voters be held accountable? You keep saying that voters need to be held accountable, but not why or how or for what.
Legislator’s votes need to be public so that voters know what they are voting on at the next election. The voters hold the elected representatives accountable for casting votes against their interests by voting for or against them in the following election. There is no need for voter’s votes to be public unless there is some form of punishment for voting wrong.
Who holds the voters accountable, how are they held accountable, and for what reason would they be held accountable?
Their friends, neighbors, household, etc. I see voters as an elite group, or you might say community leaders, so they would be accountable. Accountable doesn’t need to mean any extreme punishments. But, no form of political power should be unaccountable, and voting is a form of political power. Also, as mentioned, public on the record voting prevents vote counting fraud.
Public voting takes place now, in certain settings such as party conventions. I might be mistaken, but caucuses and town meetings also tend to have public voting. It doesn’t result in the sort of horrible consequences some people here like to imagine.
You have been advocating horrible consequences for everything else, why would people think you had anything different in mind for voting wrong?
What would your preferred outcome be, by friends and neighbors, if communists in your area attained sufficient votes to win an election?
They wouldn’t. My criteria for voting make that highly unlikely to say the least. Additionally, the powers of peace officers would be limited to applying the existing law, which would preclude communists from creating communism even if they were somehow elected. The population would be well armed.
The reason I advocate severe consequences for crime is to make crime extremely rare. I am more concerned for the victims and would be victims of crime, their family, neighbors, friends, all who live in fear of crime, and the property owners and taxpayers who bear the costs of crime and crime prevention, than I am with the well being of criminals.
Voting for a losing party is not a crime. I don’t see it being punished harshly.
Existing law written by whom?
Harsh punishments for criminal actions does not deter crime. That is pretty well established. If, for example, you increased the penalties for illegal drugs, the effect is to develop more elaborate methods to avoid getting caught, which raises the price of the drugs, which attracts more criminals duo to the increased profits, which then leads to violent clashes over sales territory, and stray bullets hitting innocent bystanders. And how you would think that a society can be well-armed while simultaneously thinking “corrective rape” of women for disrespecting an officer isn’t going to result in every single officer’s life ending in short order, just tells me your theory employs limited understanding of human nature and motivation.
Voting for a losing party wouldn’t be punished harshly or wouldn’t be punished at all?
Very simple law, one basic page. It would very rarely if ever change. Founding law of the precinct.
Harsh punishments do deter crime. China won its war on opium with executions of users. Criminals currently don’t fear being apprehended much, because there’s a high chance of catch and release or getting off on a technicality. Criminals are generally people with short time horizon. If punishment is not sure, swift, and severe, they tend to discount it. Many of them are quite comfortable with being warehoused. Being let out of prison is like a vacation for them.
I don’t believe your understanding of human nature is accurate if you think a lot of people will risk getting caught for, say, petty theft if it means that they will be executed that night. If I am correct, there won’t be a lot of criminals to catch, because crime of all sorts will be way down. Thus, the punishments, while harsh, will rarely ever have to be actually administered.
Voting for a losing party would not be legally punished. There could be some social consequences, but I doubt even that would be common. Government would have very little to do compared with now, so I expect the vast majority of people’s energy and attention would be elsewhere.
VOTING IN PUBLIC FOR THE *ENEMY* OPPOSITION WILL N-O-T GET A 4 AM PURGE VISIT ???
YEAH SURE.
MZ ***LAW*** — SHORTER THAN THE OLDE REPORTED 10 COMMANDMENTS ???
ANY CHANGES TO THE BASIC ***LAW*** EVER POSSIBLE ???
BY WHO ???
—-
SECRET BALLOT ACCESS PETITIONS
SECRET BALLOTS
It wouldn’t. I already explained why, repeatedly. Incredulity is not a substitute for a counterargument.
Not shorter than 10 commandments but shorter than your constitution.
Change could be possible but should be extremely difficult. Maybe unanimous vote or something very close?
There would be no ballots, no petitions, and nothing related to voting would be secret.