On Aug 11, 6:19*pm, wrote:" Yeah, and again,
attempting to copy the additional information to the existing
information would be instantly noticed by one of the anal little old
ladies that tend to make up the bulk of the personnel at a polling
place as "funny business" going on."


you claim, instantly noticed, so then how did the dude in the story
below manage to leave the polling place with "multipage ballots, the
voter roster, a memory card that recorded the votes cast, a voting
machine access key and a poll worker's cell phone, police said"? You
are living in with a false sense of security


http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...ts-2333835.php


Mandating that a voter show a picture id (driver’s license being the
most common) reveals, name, date of birth, address, driver’s license #
(if card is used), at a place where the voters name and address are
found on a printed list. You are creating a focal point for personal
information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
stealn formation, based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
personal information. That focal point is a place where close to 70%
of the total voting population will be revealing their personal
information in a 1-day window. The total popular vote for president
in 2008 was just under 130 million, the state of Missouri’s poll
worker instruction manual boasts about its 20,000 poll workers. That’s
quite an opportunity you are creating for lots of money to be stolen
(unintended consequences), based on the ideal of creating a 100% clean
election. Absentee ballots are subject to tampering, so to increase
mail in ballots would not assure a clean election, which means your so
called solution is nothing more than a dodge, in an effort to make
walk in voting 100% clean, you just skipped over the other option,
which is not 100% clean. You did this by using with the statement.
Everything is subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate
issue.” which is an illogical fallacy, based on the fact you are
trying to clean up the election process. Such poor logic on your
part begs the question as to why you think the poll volunteer vetting
process is not subject to flaws/mistakes/misses/tampering. In fact
when pushed your only assurance that identity theft will not occur at
the polling place is that "anal little old ladies" are on duty, which
is pure idiocy on your part. Identity theft protection includes
shredding waste that contains important information so people who go
through a households *TRASH*, have a harder time stealing your
identity. The typical household waste contains food/dog/cat/toiletries
along with the personal information we are told to shred, this sits
and stews a week before it goes to the curb. With today’s cell phone
cameras, one only needs a press of a button to capture an image of the
voter roll (address and voters name), and a good memory for numbers
when inspecting the photo id, to gather such crucial personal
information. So if people are willing to go through a person’s week