Torillian said:
Jimbo1337 said:
You are misunderstanding how scanners operate. That’s like thinking a valid boarding pass lets you board any plane you want, and then being confused when the gate scanner flashes red and blocks you. The scanner reads the backend data, not just the card itself. It works the exact same way with voter eligibility.
The proposal isn't merely about checking that a piece of plastic is real; it is about the automated validation of the data attached to it.
When an ID is scanned, the technology instantly checks the individual's eligibility against live state records. If the underlying database has been updated or audited to flag specific administrative errors, the automated scanner catches that status immediately.
This eliminates the reliance on manual checks by poll workers, who have no way of knowing if a name on a printed roster or standard e-poll book contains a systemic error.
I'm glad you came around and agree that we need to validate voter rolls.
|
Let's try this again: You are misunderstanding where the error lies. No manual poll worker mistakenly let these people vote, they correctly let people who were mistakenly registered to vote do so.
The 400 names were in the registered voter rolls which is what your system would use to validate that they were eligible. The manual checks were not the issue here, it's the system that put people on the eligible voter rolls in the first place. The solution could be to make it more cumbersome to register to vote in New Jersey, but this is not something I'm likely to agree to.
Lastly, I do not agree with having ID requirements as it would not have even solved the problem, and makes voting more annoying compared to mail-in ballots with a drop box which is my preference for the sake of convenience.
|
Let’s take a look at our posts side-by-side, because my previous message actually addressed the exact database issue you are raising.
You wrote: 'The manual checks were not the issue here, it's the system that put people on the eligible voter rolls in the first place.'
But my post explicitly accounted for that: I noted it is 'about the automated validation of the data attached to it,' and specified, 'If the underlying database has been updated or audited to flag specific administrative errors, the automated scanner catches that status immediately.'
This is exactly why I concluded by saying we agree on the need to validate voter rolls. An airport scanner is structurally tied to verified backend data; the scanner and the database are not separate concepts. That validated backend has been the foundation of my proposal from the beginning.
I do appreciate that you recognize the distinction between identity checks and security checks, which sets this apart from SanAndreasX’s recent post. His post is simply on cloud 9.
I’ll leave my point about manual checks by poll workers brief for now, as I think if you look back at how automated enforcement interacts with an audited database, the connection will be clear. I have faith that I don't need to explicitly state every single point in fine detail. Please don't prove me right.
Last edited by Jimbo1337 - 2 days ago
