Introduce a machine to print the ballot once candidates are selected.

Voters take their properly formatted ballot, verify the information is correct, and drop it in a box.

Machines should be able to do recounts quickly, and the paper trail receipts can be verified.

No more having to worry about the different mistakes people make on their forms, and counts and recounts would be much faster and require less effort.

That’s a fairly common approach. That’s how I’ve been voting in Indiana for decades.

This is how it's done in Texas.

Maybe e-voting from sauna? [0]

-[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vUYq_Lfs54

I think most of the improvements can be made in relation to voter registrations and rolls. How a state can keep people who have obviously died on voter rolls should be a red flag.

I'm pretty sure if I looked I could find you:

1. A voter registration of a T R D* in the Detroit area in the 1970s

2. A death certificate for T R D from the 1980s

3. A record of a T R D voting in the Detroit area in the 2020 election.

That's because T R D from #1 and #2 was my uncle, who grew up in the Detroit area, and died in the 1980s; and the T R D from #3 is my brother, who also grew up in the Detroit area, and is still alive and well.

It turns out that 1) a lot of people are named after their relatives. And also, 2) a lot of people still live where those relatives lived. And, 3) a lot of those relatives, being from the previous generation, have died. Any intersection of #2 and #3 will give you the "evidence of dead people on the voter rolls" (or "evidence of dead people voting") that we've been hearing so much about.

How big is that intersection in a state with 10 million people?

(* Full name redacted, but I have a very specific T R D in mind)

You seem to miss the point - they do not have the same date of birth. You're oversimplifying the situation and potential of fraud to satisfy your Democratic bias.

And you're assuming bad faith, perhaps due to your Republican bias.

The main examples I've seen on my feed are claims of dead people voting, all of which match the situation I described. If you're talking about people still registered where the DoB makes it unambiguous, then yes, we're talking about different situations.

I agree and like to point out the downvotes to your comment raise a "red" flag itself

I think most democrats would agree purging dead people from the voters roles is something that could be improved. However, dead people voting is not a significant problem. Trump is using it as a reason to cast doubt on the election outcome.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/07/tweets/lis...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/18/chain-emai...

No one likes to hear these, but some simple ones to try:

1. Central database of all citizens. (Can be state-level if you want to do that). 2. Require voter-ID to link against 1 above. 3. Tick off people on the database as they've voted so they can't vote twice.

And just like that, most (but not all) of the "mail in ballot" concerns are rendered mute and we can all continue with trusting the election results.

I've only worked on one US election (Colorado 2014), but they did check people off a database when they voted. So some places already do this. Unfortunately that database went down multiple times during the day, leading to long queues and delays for voters.

In Australia, we do a similar check, but using paper rolls and cross-check for duplicates afterwards. No computer to go down means no delays. If they find a duplicate they investigate, and if there's ever enough to make a difference, they would re-run the election in that area. Once we lost a box of votes and they had to re-run the election across a whole state to make sure.

1. Already exist in various forms, for the purposes of voting.

2. See #1.

3. When people vote by mail, they get ticked off in #1. This doesn't happen immediately, because mail-in ballots can be claimed lost or found to be spoiled (with opportunity for correction), and because they have to be cross-referenced against in-person votes - which is why it takes days or weeks for all ballots to be tallied.

People running elections aren't stupid. They've already thought of all this.

Unfortunately, the barrier to making false or completely unsubstantiated allegations about wide-spread voter fraud is zero, so every Tom, Dick, and Harry is currently throwing in their two cents on the matter. (Bonus points if they don't actually understand, or actively pretend to mis-understand how the process currently works.)

I'd give those claims the time of day when their proponents are ready to put some skin in the game, and swear on them under penalty of perjury.

> Central database of all citizens.

That's like saying a shotgun can cure cancer. The tradeoffs required are so laughably bad your solution is not worth considering.

These databases already exist. How else do you think your government can determine whether or not you are allowed to vote, or whether or not you can be issued a passport.

What tradeoffs? That you're on some government list?

You can do this but with anonymized private key cards.