NO MORE VOTING MACHINES
It is a well-established fact voting machines have a sordid history of election anomolies at best, significant election fraud at worst.
It is a well-established fact voting machines have a sordid history of election anomolies at best, significant election fraud at worst.
There is no good reason voters should be standing and waiting in very long lines in all kinds of weather, considering our society has long ago technologically-advanced beyond the light bulb and voting booth.
Social Security voting is federalizing our national elections. Why federalize elections? Here is a list of good reasons why we should federalize our national elections:
Here is a good list of reasons why we should federalize our national elections:
1. ENDING VOTER SUPPRESSION: voters are tired of waiting in long lines to vote; tired of being ejected from the voter rolls; tired of ballot issues; tired of being turned away at the voting booth due to ID issues;
2. Social Security Voting is far more inclusive than waiting forever in long lines to vote at a polling station or voting by absentee ballots;
3. Social Security Voting eliminates local officials wrongfully tampering with national elections;
4. SSV eliminates the local cost of processing national elections;
5. SSV utilizes 256-bit AES encryption; provides true hacker-proof verified voting; Even if you used Tianhe-2 (MilkyWay-2), the fastest supercomputer in the world, it would take millions of years to crack 256-bit AES encryption.
6. SSV eliminates voting machines and voting machine issues;
7. SSV eliminates overvotes, discarded ballots, uncounted ballots and ballot issues;
8. SSV eliminates Voter ID issues;
9. SSV eliminates local control of national elections;
10. Social Security Voting literally eliminates voter suppression from our federal elections.
I wrote the Social Security Voting Act of 2020 to end voter suppression and to make it easier for everyone to vote – including people who do not have a mailing address to receive voting materials. I believe if you have a Social Security number, you should be voting. I contend Social Security Voting will vastly increase the number of voters participating in our national elections.
I have concluded that voter suppression, including election fraud, i.e., voting machine software manipulation, tabulation fraud, ballot issues, unequal voting machine access, etc. can be remedied by voters avoiding all these things and instead, log into your personal Social Security account and select ONLINE VOTING SERVICES to select the candidate(s) of your choice.
I remind every voter that hundreds of millions of Americans have been relying upon online encryption/security FOR DECADES to protect your money sitting in the nation’s banks.
EACH TIME YOU MAKE A DEBIT-CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION to make a purchase, you are literally “voting” or “selecting” the product of your choice. Online secure voting is no different.
If you want to understand how secure 256-bit AES encryption really is and how it works, read this >>>>
In Colorado, the State Elections office mails out a ballot to all registered voters and each ballot has a unique identifying number on it – you can tear it off and save it for your records.
So you voted by marking a ballot at home, tore off the perforated edge and saved your “ballot receipt stub.” You mailed in your ballot and a scanner will “read the ballots” and verify the corresponding ballot number.
Social Security Voting provides the voter with a unique identifying number that can be used to verify your vote was recorded and counted.
Donald Trump says you can’t trust absentee voting because somebody could print a bunch of fake ballots and mail them in. Of course the President is completely unaware of the sheer foolishness of his statements on mail-in ballots. When the ballots are mailed out the ballots are individually marked with a unique identifying number generated by a code generator; when the ballots are mailed back in a reader automatically scans the ballot number to verify its match in the system. If Donald Trump himself printed up a bunch of fake ballots with random numbers on his ballots, those ballots would not be read or counted. You’d be surprised how many Republican and Democrat Congresspersons do not realize this fact about absentee voting.
So Who Counts the Votes, If Not State Election Officials?
We need a small federal agency, i.e., U.S. Dept. of Elections, to administer the election software, tabulation and reporting processes. This agency could work with the Social Security Administration to produce and manage web content. Unlike 50 different state election systems, a federal Dept. of Elections would be completely transparent and much more manageable.
DID YOU KNOW YOU HAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL ONLINE SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT RIGHT NOW? If you have a social security number, you can go to https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/ and instantly create your own personal, online Social Security account.
Your entire life the Social Security Administration keeps a record of your earnings OFFLINE AND ONLINE. Your online Social Security account displays your annual reported earnings and how much you paid into Soc. Sec. and Medicare for each year since the first year you began working.
Social Security Voting would be far more inclusive than voting by polling stations or mail-in ballots. All that would be required is that you have a Social Security number, email address and can access the web – whether by cellphone, desktop computer, public library or other kiosks.
Currently, when one logs into the Social Security Administration website you see this:
We could add an ONLINE VOTING SERVICES section to facilitate candidate selection.
What About Security?
The primary objection voters may have to online voting is security: what about hackers manipulating the vote count?
Thanks to advanced encryption technology and multi-factor verification techniques, we can prevent hackers from manipulating our tabulation processes.
Some of the best features of SSV are:
1) the reduction of the number of individuals actually handling the tabulation processes from hundreds to less than a dozen;
2) Two-factor verification of login/voting;
3) Fail-safe 256-bit AES encryption;
4) In-account digital record of your vote;
5) Email verification of your vote.
How Secure Is Your Current Vote? Does My Vote Get Counted?
Currently, a quarter in a gas station cash register enjoys more security than your vote. There are so many election security issues in our current system we should NOT be using the current system, period. The 2020 Democrat Primary was a pathetic display of defective state election systems. Our national voting system is little more that a hodgepodge of fifty separate, dilapidated, state election systems.
Because of political bias, greed and racism, our national voting system should be removed from the hands of local officials and placed in the hands of a much, much smaller manageable group of persons overseeing the final tabulation processes. There are no good reasons for voters to continue to be subjected to dishonest local officials; and mechanically and constitutionally defective state election systems. Local officials traditionally enjoy a myriad of methods to manipulate the tabulation of votes. SSV eliminates those opportunities for local election fraud.
Do you realize how election fraud can occur at the local level, in the tabulation/reporting processes? For example, precinct captains report machine totals to a central election office, usually by writing totals down on a piece of paper and faxing that paper to a central election office. This low-tech opportunity for election fraud has been taken advantage of more than once in our U.S. election history.
One of the great things about SSV is by federalizing our national elections, all 50 states can eliminate state election system costs from their budgets.
Bi-partisan Pushback Against Social Security Voting Act of 2020
Currently, I believe Republicans would probably oppose Social Security Voting en masse. However, if Democrats gain control of the Senate, the White House and retain control of the House of Representatives, the Social Security Voting Act has a decent chance of passing. I believe there will be pushback from local officials (through their Congressional representatives) who oppose SSV legislation because federalizing our national election via SSV will eliminate local officials’ traditional “undue influence/manipulation” of our national elections.
For a very long time Republicans have engaged in massive long-term voter suppression. Recently President Trump said we can’t let more people vote because if we did, Republicans would never win. Voter suppression is a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization, activating otherwise inactive voters, or registering new supporters. Voter suppression, instead, attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against a candidate or proposition.
The tactics of voter suppression range from minor changes to make voting less convenient, to physically intimidating and even physically attacking prospective voters, which is illegal. Voter suppression can be effective if a significant number of voters are intimidated or disenfranchised. In 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Shelby v. Holder that voting laws had resulted in voter suppression and discrimination.
Voter suppression appears in many forms, including:
1) Unconstitutional election laws: Many states have imposed unconstitutional election laws designed to either eliminate voters from the voting rolls or to eliminate the voter at the polling station;
2) Selective distribution of voting machines: It is a historical fact that black/minority neighborhoods/polling stations have been routinely denied a sufficient number of voting machines – drive across town to the white voting centers and there are little to no lines and plenty of voting machines.
3) Republicans using the courts to maliciously and criminally remove voters from the voter rolls. Between 2016 and 2018, over 17 million names were purged from voter rolls across the United States.
4) In Texas, a voter ID law requiring a driver’s license, passport, military identification, or gun permit, was repeatedly found to be intentionally discriminatory. A similar ID law in North Dakota, which would have disenfranchised large numbers of Native Americans, was also overturned.
Texas Procedures for Voting: When a voter arrives at a polling location, the voter will be asked to present one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of photo ID that is current or, for voters aged 18-69, expired no more than four years. Voters aged 70 or older may present one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of photo ID that is expired for any length of time that is otherwise valid. If a voter does not possess one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of photo ID and cannot reasonably obtain one, the voter may present a supporting form of ID and execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter’s reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of photo identification, stating that the information contained in the declaration is true, that the voter is the same individual personally appearing at the polling place to sign the declaration, and that the voter faces a reasonable impediment to procuring an acceptable form of photo identification.
Election officials are still required by State law to determine whether the voter’s name on the identification provided (acceptable photo ID, or supporting form of ID, if applicable) matches the name on the official list of registered voters (“OLRV”). After a voter presents their ID, whether it’s an acceptable form of photo ID or a supporting form of ID (if applicable), the election worker will compare it to the OLRV. If the name on the ID matches the name on the list of registered voters, the voter will follow the regular procedures for voting.
If the name does not match exactly but is “substantially similar” to the name on the OLRV, the voter will be permitted to vote as long as the voter signs an affidavit stating that the voter is the same person on the list of registered voters.
If a voter possesses an acceptable form of photo ID but does not have it at the polling place, the voter will still be permitted to vote provisionally. The voter will have six (6) days to present an acceptable form of photo identification to the county voter registrar, or fill out the natural disaster affidavit referenced in the Exemption/Exceptions section below, or the voter’s ballot will be rejected. Alternatively, a voter who possesses an acceptable form of photo ID but does not have it at the polling place may choose to leave the polling place and return before the close of the polls on election day with said acceptable form of photo ID to, if the voter would otherwise qualify, vote a regular ballot at that time.
5) In Wisconsin, a federal judge found that the state’s restrictive voter ID law led to “real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities”; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was “a cure worse than the disease.” In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.
6) Other controversial measures include shutting down Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in minority neighborhoods, making it more difficult for residents to obtain voter IDs; shutting down polling places in minority neighborhoods; systematically depriving precincts in minority neighborhoods of the resources they need to operate efficiently, such as poll workers and voting machines; and purging voters from the rolls shortly before an election.
7) Often, voter fraud is cited as a justification for such laws even when the incidence of voter fraud is low. In Iowa, lawmakers passed a strict voter ID law with the potential to disenfranchise 260,000 voters. Out of 1.6 million votes cast in Iowa in 2016, there were only 10 allegations of voter fraud; none were cases of impersonation that a voter ID law could have prevented. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, the architect of the bill, admitted, “We’ve not experienced widespread voter fraud in Iowa.”
8) Limitations on early and absentee voting: In North Carolina, Republican lawmakers requested data on various voting practices, broken down by race. They then passed laws that restricted voting and registration many ways that disproportionately affected African Americans, including cutting back on early voting. In a 2016 appellate court case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down a law that removed the first week of early voting. The court held that the GOP used the data they gathered to remove the first week of early voting because more African American voters voted during that week, and African American voters were more likely to vote for Democrats. Between 2008 and 2012 in North Carolina, 70% of African American voters voted early. After cuts to early voting, African American turnout in early voting was down by 8.7% (around 66,000 votes) in North Carolina.
9) As of 2020, Georgia requires absentee voters to provide their own postage for their ballots. On April 8, 2020, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging this rule, claiming it “is tantamount to a poll tax.”
10) Voting procedure disinformation:Voting procedure disinformation involves giving voters false information about when and how to vote, leading them to fail to cast valid ballots.
For example, in recall elections for the Wisconsin State Senate in 2011, Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group founded in 2004 by brothers Charles and David Koch to support Republican candidates and causes in the United States, sent many Democratic voters a mailing that gave an incorrect deadline for returning absentee ballots. Voters who relied on the deadline in the mailing could have sent in their ballots too late for them to be counted. The organization claimed that it was caused by a typographical error.
Just prior to the 2018 elections, The New York Times warned readers of numerous types of deliberate misinformation, sometimes targeting specific voter demographics. These types of disinformation included false information about casting ballots online by email and by text message, the circulation of doctored photographs in 2016 which claimed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were arresting voters at polling places and included threatening language meant to intimidate Latino voters, polling place hoaxes, disinformation on remote voting options, suspicious texts, voting machine malfunction rumors, misleading photos and videos, and false voter fraud allegations.
The Times added that messages purportedly sent by Trump to voters in Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, and Georgia were actually disseminated from Republican organizations. In 2018, Trump actually spread information about defective machines in a single Utah county, giving the impression that such difficulties were occurring nationwide.
We The Voters can transcend these and other voter suppression techniques by implementing Social Security Voting.
Polling stations and mail-in ballots are no match for the efficiency and inclusivity of Social Security Voting.
The number one objection to online voting is security concerns. The reality is, technology does provide a virtually fail-safe, hack-proof system featuring verified voting.
Support Social Security Voting.