Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
You would not fly on a plane, or drive in a car, that was not designed and built with a decent quality system, subject to both internal and external audits. Quality is achieved through a rigorous series of cross-checks and processes to systematically root out error. These systems rely on competing and counter-incentives to ensure that work is critically assessed.
It is not a surprise that voting systems are subject to fraud. Water flows downhill, and it is pretty easy to follow the incentives. What is surprising is that voting systems do not adopt the same kinds of quality systems and processes that govern everything from the supply of fresh eggs to finished aircraft. All of those have transparent, published processes, clear governing oversight, and cross-checking by people interested in finding mistakes and incentivized to do so.
At the very simplest level, ballots could be counted by just Republicans, and then a team of just Democrats, each tagging the ballot as they assess the vote. Discrepancies pop up and are adjudicated by mixed teams. The result would be far, far better than what we have seen.
And we could do the very same thing with signature matching, etc. The entire process, from truing the voter rolls, to ensuring ballots are not going to out-of-state residents, is not so hard to update using quality standards.
I understand that government does not want to open the kimono and show us what we already suspect: they are really very bad at just about any executive function. Nevertheless, it is necessary to do so, to ensure that we do not end up with a significant percentage of the population who believe that elections are rigged games, and they are the suckers.Published in