Voting Rules Going forward (Genie is out of the bottle)

[DirtMcGirt]

Since the Genie is out of the bottle with mail-in ballots how do we make sure this is done "fairly"? I realize voting rules are done state by state but the federal gov't can give guidance to curb fraud and lawsuits.

Maybe if you decide you are a mail-in state then every registered voter gets one unique trackable ballot sent to them two weeks out and it is their job to get it in by election day?

Further Suggestions and brainstorming needed...

[PAF]

I realize voting rules are done state by state but the federal gov't can give guidance to curb fraud and lawsuits.

"Grow the Fed", on RonPaulForums.

This country is definitely, without a single doubt, toast.

[DirtMcGirt]

"Grow the Fed", on RonPaulForums.

This country is definitely, without a single doubt, toast.

A little dramatic...

Just looking for solutions for blue-leaning states changing voting rules weeks before elections. As you know once it happens once in gov't and one party benefits greatly it will happen again. These rule changes greatly influenced voter turnout and if it goes unchecked the system will be gamed.

Unless you're an anarchist, you want fair elections.

[PAF]

A little dramatic...

Just looking for solutions for blue-leaning states changing voting rules weeks before elections. As you know once it happens once in gov't and one party benefits greatly it will happen again. These rule changes greatly influenced voter turnout and if it goes unchecked the system will be gamed.

Unless you're an anarchist, you want fair elections.

The opposite of Statist is, you are correct.

An Agorist Primer

Enjoy ;-)

[tod evans]

A little dramatic...

Just looking for solutions for blue-leaning states changing voting rules weeks before elections. As you know once it happens once in gov't and one party benefits greatly it will happen again. These rule changes greatly influenced voter turnout and if it goes unchecked the system will be gamed.

Unless you're an anarchist, you want fair elections.

More government isn't the solution to too much government.

[Occam's Banana]

Since the Genie is out of the bottle with mail-in ballots how do we make sure this is done "fairly"? I realize voting rules are done state by state but the federal gov't can give guidance to curb fraud and lawsuits.

Maybe if you decide you are a mail-in state then every registered voter gets one unique trackable ballot sent to them two weeks out and it is their job to get it in by election day?

Just looking for solutions for blue-leaning states changing voting rules weeks before elections. As you know once it happens once in gov't and one party benefits greatly it will happen again. These rule changes greatly influenced voter turnout and if it goes unchecked the system will be gamed.

If the problem is "blue-leaning states changing voting rules," then how can that problem be adequately addressed by coming up with new or other rules? After all, any such rules will be just as subject to being changed "weeks before elections" as the old rules were. (And you can't make a rule that says the rules can't be changed, because that rule can just be ... changed.)

And even worse, leaving the matter to federal "guidance" just moves the problem up one level - which means rules that are changed in order to favor one side will no longer be isolated to just some states, but will apply to the whole country. That really doesn't seem likely to improve anything ...

More government isn't the solution to too much government.

tod is right. And if you're going to insist on having a democracy, then the only "solution" is a government that is allowed to exercise so little power that the outcomes of elections won't really matter that much, even if they are "gamed." Sadly, that is not even remotely close to being the case, and it doesn't look to be the case any time soon.

So ... welcome to democracy! Ain't it grand?

[Dary]

Since the Genie is out of the bottle with mail-in ballots how do we make sure this is done "fairly"? I realize voting rules are done state by state but the federal gov't can give guidance to curb fraud and lawsuits.

Maybe if you decide you are a mail-in state then every registered voter gets one unique trackable ballot sent to them two weeks out and it is their job to get it in by election day?

Further Suggestions and brainstorming needed...

I see that nobody wants to offer any suggestions.

I'll give it a shot.

Voter roles should be purged after each election or at some determined time each year depending on run off schedules etc.
Voters would need to re-register after each election or again at some determined time depending on run offs and such.
No more same day registration.
4 proofs of ID.
States would no longer be able to announce unofficial results.
English only.
No USPS involvement. Ballot drop boxes must be maintained by the National Guard.
Severe punishment for fraud.

[DirtMcGirt]

Thanks for all of your insight so far.

I agree gov't needs to be limited for liberty's sake. IMO it appears we are teetering on US citizens taking up arms against each other, and not just the extreme sides that are rooting for it. If the MSM and social media keep controlling the narrative and we have a close 2024 election the odds increase. I am prepared but I rather not see this happen to our Republic.



I like some of your ideas Dary- USPS involvement 0. Ballot drop box security. No same-day registration.

How about any person delivering more than xxx ballots (could weigh them to see how many) has to be certified by x

[PAF]

I see that nobody wants to offer any suggestions.

I'll give it a shot.

Voter roles should be purged after each election or at some determined time each year depending on run off schedules etc.
Voters would need to re-register after each election or again at some determined time depending on run offs and such.
No more same day registration.
4 proofs of ID.
States would no longer be able to announce unofficial results.
English only.
No USPS involvement. Ballot drop boxes must be maintained by the National Guard.
Severe punishment for fraud.

1. RFID - Check
2. Retinal Scan - Check
3. Finger print - Check
4. Implanted Biometric ID - Check

Perfect way to FUND tptb.

How about do what I do. Take responsibility. If you are that concerned, work the local precinct yourself.

This place never ceases to amaze me. RonPaulFroums.

[Dary]

1. RFID - Check
2. Retinal Scan - Check
3. Finger print - Check
4. Implanted Biometric ID - Check

Perfect way to FUND tptb.

How about do what I do. Take responsibility. If you are that concerned, work the local precinct yourself.

This place never ceases to amaze me. RonPaulFroums.

I was thinking more like:

Driver's license
Birth certificate
U.S military id
Passport

Besides, what do you care? You don't vote anyway.

[PAF]

I was thinking more like:

Driver's license eVerify.
Birth certificate Frowned upon.
U.S military id - Join. It is an adventure, according to billboards and teevee.
Passport Was supposed to be temporary until after the WW, moving to Biometric Implants.

Besides, what do you care? You don't vote anyway.

Voting is ineffective when attempting to reduce the size and scope of government/corporate control. It will take a moral/principled people which seems to be in decline.

[CCTelander]

Passing additional laws to prevent election fraud is very similar to trying to stop criminals from having guns via victim disarmament (gun control). These people are ALREADY VIOLATING EXISTING LAWS. Additional laws are extremely unlikely to have any positive effect.

Election fraud has a very long, colorful history in these united states. It is unlikely that there has ever been an election of any significance that wasn't impacted to some degree by it. It is, quite literally SOP. Everybody knows it is rampant and it seldom, if ever gets punished. To think that additional laws or rules will have any significant effect is naive.

[DirtMcGirt]

Passing additional laws to prevent election fraud is very similar to trying to stop criminals from having guns via victim disarmament (gun control). These people are ALREADY VIOLATING EXISTING LAWS. Additional laws are extremely unlikely to have any positive effect.

Election fraud has a very long, colorful history in these united states. It is unlikely that there has ever been an election of any significance that wasn't impacted to some degree by it. It is, quite literally SOP. Everybody knows it is rampant and it seldom, if ever gets punished. To think that additional laws or rules will have any significant effect is naive.

That just hit me like a ton of bricks. I hear you but I am going to keep searching for a logical (not perfect) solution

[Dary]

Passing additional laws to prevent election fraud is very similar to trying to stop criminals from having guns via victim disarmament (gun control). These people are ALREADY VIOLATING EXISTING LAWS. Additional laws are extremely unlikely to have any positive effect.

Election fraud has a very long, colorful history in these united states. It is unlikely that there has ever been an election of any significance that wasn't impacted to some degree by it. It is, quite literally SOP. Everybody knows it is rampant and it seldom, if ever gets punished. To think that additional laws or rules will have any significant effect is naive.

So are you ok with the number of laws that we have or maybe we shouldn't have any election laws at all? Is there a difference between procedures and laws. If we change procedures then we can reduce the amount of fraud committed. Starting with enforcing existing laws would be a good place to start.

[Dary]

Voting is ineffective when attempting to reduce the size and scope of government/corporate control. It will take a moral/principled people which seems to be in decline.

NOT voting is going to reduce the size and scope of government/corporate control? That's a good one.

If you want to dispute my post, go for it. But I think that it isn't right for you to change what I posted by editing the quote.

[PAF]

NOT voting is going to reduce the size and scope of government/corporate control? That's a good one.

If you want to dispute my post, go for it. But I think that it isn't right for you to change what I posted by editing the quote.

2 Gangs live among my community; LeftXgang and RightYgang.

They both claim to offer protection/perks and constantly urge for my support. Many people in the community belong to one or the other, but I and a few others do not. The people who belong to either gang insist that I must join because those are the two choices in my community.

I and a few others ignore the 2 gangs and do business among ourselves. We help each other with removing a fallen tree, a wiring job for an additional room or house, mechanical help with our cars, and trade/sell food that we grow/raise in our gardens/farms.

Every once in a while, somebody in the community sees and understands what we are doing, and decides to quit the gang they belonged to and now do business with us.

There are some things that are inescapable, but over time as our numbers grow we can ignore those things altogether.

Yes, I know all about Red Pill versus Blue Pill. When freedom/liberty come from within and are actually practiced every day, no pills are ever needed. With no pills at all, that is an added savings.

Oh, and we never need to pay strangers [politicians] to act as a "third party" to get in the way of personal/private contracts.


Check out Page 46. You're welcome ;-)

An Agorist Primer

[Dary]

2 Gangs live among my community; LeftXgang and RightYgang.

They both claim to offer protection/perks and constantly urge for my support. Many people in the community belong to one or the other, but I and a few others do not. The people who belong to either gang insist that I must join because those are the two choices in my community.

I and a few others ignore the 2 gangs and do business among ourselves. We help each other with removing a fallen tree, a wiring job for an additional room or house, mechanical help with our cars, and trade/sell food that we grow/raise in our gardens/farms.

Every once in a while, somebody in the community sees and understands what we are doing, and decides to quit the gang they belonged to and now do business with us.

There are some things that are inescapable, but over time as our numbers grow we can ignore those things altogether.

Yes, I know all about Red Pill versus Blue Pill. When freedom/liberty come from within and are actually practiced every day, no pills are ever needed. With no pills at all, that is an added savings.

Oh, and we never need to pay strangers [politicians] to act as a "third party" to get in the way of personal/private contracts.


Check out Page 46. You're welcome ;-)

An Agorist Primer

The US government is not the same thing as the two gangs in your hood, and it won't get any smaller by you NOT voting. In fact the only way that you may hope to make it smaller is to VOTE for candidates who are committed to making it smaller. Thanks anyway.

[Occam's Banana]

In fact the only way that you may hope to make it smaller is to VOTE for candidates who are committed to making it smaller.

In that case, we are so screwed ... so, so screwed ...

[CCTelander]

In that case, we are so screwed ... so, so screwed ...

Hey! Just because it hasn't worked in for over 2 centuries doesn't mean we won't get it to work eventually. Quit being such a pessimist. Next time for sure.

[Dary]

In that case, we are so screwed ... so, so screwed ...

Most of us came here because we wanted to have Ron Paul become president. We wanted to VOTE for him. We had hope. He had hope and he still does.

I wish I did.

I get where you're coming from. But I won't stop voting either for the candidate that I believe who will be best or against the candidate who I believe will be the worst.

One of them will win regardless of PAF's pie in the sky dream land society.

By the way, if I believe that both are the same, then I'll do what I've done in the past. I'll vote for Ron Paul.

[Occam's Banana]

Most of us came here because we wanted to have Ron Paul become president. We wanted to VOTE for him. We had hope. He had hope and he still does.

I wish I did.

I get where you're coming from. But I won't stop voting either for the candidate that I believe who will be best or against the candidate who I believe will be the worst.

One of them will win regardless of PAF's pie in the sky dream land society.

By the way, if I believe that both are the same, then I'll do what I've done in the past. I'll vote for Ron Paul.

I feel you. And I'm not asking (let alone telling) anyone not to vote.

Vote or don't vote, as you wish. I just don't think it really matters, one way or the other.

At least among libertarians and their fellow-travelers, too many people spend too much time obsessing about and agitating over voting (either for it or against it).

I think it's silly to condemn, denounce or criticize people who do vote by blaming them for the way things are (or will be).
I think it's silly to condemn, denounce or criticize people who don't vote by blaming them for the way things are (or will be).
I think it's silly to condemn, denounce or criticize people who dont't vote "the right way" by blaming them for the way things are (or will be).

Voting is essentially just sticking marked-up pieces of paper into boxes. That's all. Nothing more. It's just an epiphenomenon.

Voting doesn't (and can't, and won't) change anything outside the range of what the "deciding deciders" are willing to tolerate. Even within that range, voting is not going to somehow make the "deciding deciders" change anything except what it already suits them to change, in the way that it suits them to change it.

I caucused for Ron Paul - but not because I thought it would substantively change anything. I did it for the psychic gratification of affirming (publicly and to myself), "I'm with him." I strongly suspect that this (or it's obverse, "I'm not with him/her/them") is the reason that actually lies at the ultimate root of peoples' votes (and not the belief that their votes actually have any substantive weight, whatever rationalizations they may have for that belief). And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. We just shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that there's anything more to it than that (which is the mistake that both the ardent "pro-voting" and ardent "anti-voting" factions make).