On 11/11/2012 02:32 PM, Paul Hill wrote:
On 11 November 2012 19:15, lelandj <lela...@mail.smvfp.com> wrote:

Just off the top of my head, an internal control might work something like
this.  The starting point in a voter casting a ballot is registering to
vote. Because many people have the same name, at the time a person
registers to vote, they could be issued a unique ID number.

In order for the voter to receive a ballot, when they go to vote, they
could be required to present their unique ID number.  This number could be
check, and if its valid, and has not already been used, the voter could
receive a ballot.

You just described the voting system as used by half the world!

Here in the UK I receive a card in the post which I take down to vote.
It can only be used once and only at one place (normally a local school, in
my case the local judo club).

The alternative is the system used in India.  The voter dips his/her finger
in a strong dye.
If you have a blue finger you can't vote!


OK, I just looked at my Texas "Voter Registration Certificate" and it has a UVID number of 1056035183 in my case. I do not understand Florida having such a hard time with its system. LOL It could be a lack of internal control, non-compliance with the current system in place, a lack of education of those managing the voting locations, willful manipulate of the results, LOL, who know what else.

What I do know is any system with a lack of internal controls cannot be audited.

Regards,

LelandJ


_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/50a01e5a.80...@mail.smvfp.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to