Torillian said:
Jimbo1337 said:
It’s also worth looking at the scale of what we consider a threat to our elections. Back in 2016, a major focus was placed on the 26 Russian nationals indicted for trying to influence the election, and there was broad agreement that we needed urgent action to protect our system from foreign interference. If 26 foreign nationals warrant national concern and policy shifts, then nearly 400 non-citizens actually casting ballots through a state system failure is a vulnerability we shouldn't dismiss just because the number seems small. Security should be consistent, whether the vulnerability comes from foreign hackers or domestic software glitches. |
It's about the scale of the threat and the side effects of the fix. 26 foreign nationals working on influencing an election can have a much larger impact than 400 non-citizens voting. But beyond that my main concern is with the solutions being proposed. I would not want to make things more difficult for actual voters just to avoid a mistake that didn't even impact any elections. So you bring me a solution that won't negatively impact actual voters and I'll just agree that they should do that. |
Using airport-style identity checks actually perfectly addresses your concern about side effects, because it proves we can have high security without making life harder for the average person.
Think about how the TSA operates today: you walk up, insert your ID into a scanner, a green light flashes, and you walk through. It takes five seconds. The advanced technology does the heavy lifting on the back end, while the experience for the traveler remains seamless and simple.
Bringing that same logic to voting doesn't mean adding long lines or complex paperwork for citizens. It means updating local polling places with modern, automated ID scanners that instantly verify eligibility against state records. High security doesn't have to mean high burden; it just means using smart, fast technology to protect the system automatically.