The Trump Thread

[Torillian]

Jimbo1337 said:

Torillian said:

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.

Edited to include this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_I_hI3_kik

Watched the video and it showed exactly what I thought: they check the ID is valid, that it's you, and that your on a list of people flying that day. So in the case we are talking about they all got mistakenly put on the voter rolls at the DMV by pressing the wrong buttons, probably while getting their driver's license. So they would have a legit ID, they'd be the person on the ID, and the lookup would find them registered to vote. They'd pass your check with flying colors. 

The issue is on the backend which was the process at the DMV. There are ways that could be avoided but usually they involve making the process more difficult for everyone involved and I'm not going to support that. For instance instead of this being a process done semi-automatically when you get a driver's license it could be completely separate so you couldn't accidentally click a wrong button but would have to be specifically intending to become eligible to vote. That would mean less legit voters would bother and would be much less convenient so I'm against it. Personally I'm a fan of the process I dealt with in Michigan in 2020 when everyone on the voter rolls got sent a ballot in the mail automatically and then you dropped it in a box. 

BTW: this condescension you've descended into is getting old fast. How about you prove to me you know what the fuck you are talking about and tell me what they should do that would fix the actual problem.