Policy Proposal: Comprehensive National Voter ID and Biometric Verification System with AI-Integrated Voting Infrastructure for Election Integrity

Homeland Security
,
1

Objective:

To establish a National Voter ID system for all American citizens, using biometric verification and advanced AI-supported voting infrastructure to ensure election integrity, prevent fraud, and deliver immediate, reliable results on Election Night. This policy addresses the flaws in current voting systems by creating a streamlined, secure, and transparent process that protects the rights of American voters and upholds public confidence in elections.

Rationale and International Precedent:

Countries such as Australia and India have implemented biometric-based voter identification systems, and many have also adopted secure, centralized voting systems to prevent manipulation and ensure quick result tabulation. In the United States, the current decentralized and often outdated voting technology has contributed to delayed results, security vulnerabilities, and concerns about potential fraud. By integrating biometric verification with a modern, AI-driven voting infrastructure, the United States can lead in secure and efficient election practices.

Policy Framework:

  1. Establishment of a Free National Voter ID System (as previously detailed):

• Free National Voter ID issuance with biometric data (fingerprint or thumbprint) collection to authenticate voter identity.

• Secure issuance process through DMV offices or similar agencies, with mobile verification for elderly or disabled citizens.

  1. Implementation of AI-Supported Voting Infrastructure with Biometric Verification:

• Biometric Verification at Polling Stations:

At polling stations, voters will present their National Voter ID and undergo biometric verification via thumbprint or fingerprint scanning to authenticate their identity. This step will prevent impersonation and double voting, ensuring only eligible citizens cast ballots.

• Secure AI-Driven Voting Machines:

The policy mandates the replacement of current voting machines with a new, secure AI-integrated system that operates on a single, standardized platform across the nation. This AI system will be designed to detect any anomalies or irregularities during the voting process in real-time, immediately flagging potential issues like vote-switching, software glitches, or unusual patterns in voting behavior. AI algorithms will audit each ballot cast, ensuring accurate recording and preventing unauthorized manipulation.

• Immediate Digital Tabulation with Biometric Logging:

Each vote cast on this new system will be securely logged with biometric verification, ensuring each vote is linked to an authenticated ID without storing personal data in a way that compromises voter privacy. The system will enable real-time tabulation, providing results that are immediately accessible and fully auditable. Election results will be finalized and publicly available by midnight on Election Night, removing the need for prolonged counting periods and increasing public trust.

  1. Paper Ballot Backup and Auditability:

• Dual-System Voting (Digital and Paper):

While voting will primarily occur through AI-driven machines, each vote will automatically generate a paper ballot as a physical backup. Voters will have the opportunity to review this paper record before submission, ensuring it accurately reflects their choices.

• Randomized Audits:

After voting concludes, random audits of paper ballots will be conducted to verify the accuracy of digital tabulation. This process will ensure that electronic results align with physical ballots, providing an additional layer of transparency and security.

  1. Restriction and Verification of Mail-In and Provisional Ballots (as previously detailed):

• Strict eligibility requirements for mail-in ballots, limited to military personnel, verified disabled individuals, and those with verifiable need.

• Biometric verification required for mail-in ballots, with real-time tracking and auditable chains of custody.

  1. Independent Oversight Body for Election Integrity (as previously detailed):

• Establishment of an independent, nonpartisan oversight body responsible for managing the National Voter ID system, monitoring AI-driven voting infrastructure, and conducting audits.

• Real-time monitoring by the oversight body on Election Day, allowing immediate intervention if any issues are detected.

  1. Regular Purging of Voter Rolls (as previously detailed):

• Automatic removal of ineligible voters from voter rolls, with periodic updates to reflect changes in citizenship or eligibility.

  1. Elimination of Fraud and Safeguarding Election Integrity:

• AI-Based Fraud Detection:

The AI-integrated voting system will continuously monitor for any irregularities, such as suspicious patterns, repeated votes from a single biometric ID, or sudden surges in votes in specific regions. The system will alert election officials in real-time if potential fraud is detected, allowing for prompt investigation and response.

• Immediate Results with Secure Tabulation:

By integrating biometric verification and AI-driven vote counting, this policy ensures that all votes are accurately recorded, and results are finalized by midnight on Election Night. This approach will prevent prolonged vote counting and eliminate the risk of delayed outcomes, increasing public confidence and reducing contention over results.

Additional Provisions for Fair Implementation:

  1. Public Education and Outreach (as previously detailed):

• Informing citizens about the new voting process, including biometric verification, AI safeguards, and the role of the oversight body.

  1. Data Security and Privacy Protections (as previously detailed):

• Ensuring that biometric and personal data are encrypted and stored securely, with transparency reports on data usage, retention, and security.

  1. Redundancy and Fail-Safe Mechanisms:

• Back-Up Power and Network Redundancy:

Each polling station will be equipped with backup power sources and network redundancy to prevent interruptions in voting or tabulation. This ensures that all votes are counted, even in the event of technical issues.

• Manual Override for Emergencies:

Should the AI system detect an anomaly or experience failure, a manual override system will enable officials to revert to a hand-counted audit of paper ballots. This fail-safe mechanism ensures that votes are not lost and election integrity remains intact.

Expected Outcomes:

The implementation of a National Voter ID system, coupled with biometric verification and AI-driven voting infrastructure, will transform election integrity in the United States by:

• Preventing Voter Fraud: The biometric and AI verification processes will eliminate impersonation, double voting, and unauthorized participation.

• Providing Immediate, Reliable Results: Real-time tabulation and AI-backed validation will allow for election results to be finalized by midnight on Election Day, eliminating delays and ensuring transparency.

• Maintaining Accuracy and Transparency: AI monitoring and the dual-system (digital and paper) voting setup ensure that each vote is correctly recorded and easily auditable, enhancing trust in the system.

• Supporting Accessibility for All Eligible Voters: Mobile verification and secure mail-in options will accommodate military members, disabled individuals, and those in exceptional circumstances, making voting accessible while protecting integrity.

This policy represents a modern, secure approach to voting that preserves the rights of American citizens and provides robust protection against fraud and election tampering. The integration of biometric verification and AI-backed voting infrastructure ensures the accurate, efficient, and transparent operation of U.S. elections.

2 Likes
2

The question of who programs and maintains the AI for this voting system is critical, as it directly impacts transparency, security, and public trust. Here’s how this aspect could be addressed in the policy:

  1. Transparent AI Development and Oversight Process:
    • Independent, Nonpartisan Development Team: The AI system used for vote verification and counting must be developed and maintained by an independent, nonpartisan team composed of experts in AI, cybersecurity, election integrity, and public policy. This team should have no affiliation with any political party or candidate and must operate under strict ethical guidelines to ensure impartiality.
    • Open-Source and Transparent Codebase: To build public confidence and ensure there are no hidden biases or tampering vulnerabilities, the AI codebase should be open source. This allows independent experts and watchdog organizations to review, audit, and verify the code for fairness, accuracy, and security, ensuring that no political or ideological biases are embedded in the AI’s programming.
    • Regular Audits and Real-Time Monitoring by the Oversight Body: The independent oversight body responsible for election integrity will also oversee the AI system’s operation. This body will conduct regular audits of the AI’s programming, functionality, and decision-making processes. Additionally, the oversight body will monitor the AI in real time on Election Day to detect and address any anomalies or unexpected behavior.
    • Publicly Available Audit Reports: All audit results, system performance metrics, and any detected anomalies should be made publicly available to ensure transparency. This will allow voters to see that the system is functioning as intended and that any issues are promptly addressed.
    • Strict Accountability and Security Protocols: The development and maintenance team will operate under strict accountability measures, including background checks, security clearances, and contractual agreements that prevent tampering, unauthorized access, or biased programming. Any individual or organization found violating these protocols would face severe penalties.
    • AI Testing and Certification by Multiple Agencies: Before implementation, the AI system should be rigorously tested by multiple independent agencies, including those with expertise in AI ethics, cybersecurity, and election processes. Certification by these agencies ensures that the AI meets high standards for accuracy, fairness, and security before deployment.
    • Public Input and Feedback Mechanism: To further enhance transparency, a public feedback mechanism could be established to allow voters, watchdog groups, and cybersecurity experts to report concerns, provide input, or suggest improvements. This input would be reviewed by the oversight body and the development team, ensuring that the system evolves based on public trust and needs.

These measures ensure that the AI’s development and deployment are transparent, secure, and free from political influence, creating a fair voting system that the public can trust. Let me know if you’d like to expand on any of these points.

3

I am actually proposing legislation in 100% opposition to this. The violations we saw under Pres. Obama (who set the foundations) and Pres. Biden (COVID policies, persecution of J6ers, and hundreds of other lawfare cases, including President Trump) is a strong reminder that you don’t want to be at the mercy of an anti-citizen government. We don’t want any kind of version of the vaccine passport or the Chinese Social Credit System - which has already made inroads in the U.S. and needs to be stopped.

Obama’s building of the 1 million + (1 million +!!) sq ft Utah Data Center (UDC), also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center in 2012 - leaves every American’s privacy violated. Actually every person foreign or national on US soil violated.

One of the most import policies to me that I will propose is that biometic ID be 100% voluntary forever more, with EASY and EQUAL alternatives (no penalty, offering the same services for which the ID is required) if a person does not wish to engage. At the moment, for example, in Colo, without a biometric ID you can not receive unemployment. And you can not get a guard card in Denver, required for many to work. So in both cases you are out money and livelihood if you do not comply to a biometric ID.

You are welcome to a biometric ID if that is your desire. Please, just do not impose that on your fellow citizens.

4

Thank you for your input, LibertyLisa. I appreciate your concerns about privacy and government overreach, especially in light of past actions by various administrations. The intention behind the National Voter ID policy is precisely to ensure a transparent, secure, and citizen-focused election process that respects individual freedoms while protecting the integrity of each vote.

To clarify, this policy is not about creating a surveillance system or government control mechanism like a vaccine passport or a social credit system. The National Voter ID is solely focused on verifying voter eligibility to prevent fraud, ensuring that each vote cast is by an eligible American citizen. Here’s how it differs fundamentally from the systems you’re concerned about:
1. Focus on Privacy and Security: The policy includes strict measures to protect citizen data. All biometric and identifying information would be encrypted and stored securely, with access limited to authorized personnel. The goal is to protect voter rights without compromising privacy.
2. Independent Oversight: The system would be overseen by a nonpartisan, independent body to prevent any political party or government branch from exploiting it. This body would be responsible for maintaining transparency, conducting regular audits, and addressing any concerns regarding data misuse.
3. Preventing Election Fraud, Not Tracking Citizens: Unlike systems designed for continuous surveillance or behavior tracking, the National Voter ID system is a one-time verification used solely for election purposes. It’s meant to ensure that each voter is a legitimate, eligible citizen, protecting against fraud without tracking individuals’ activities beyond voting.
4. Accommodation for All Eligible Voters, Including Those Abroad: The policy ensures that all eligible voters, including those with limited mobility, elderly citizens, and the disabled, have access to this system without being left out or forced to navigate excessive bureaucracy. It also provides for American citizens abroad who cannot participate in person, allowing them to vote with the same secure, biometrically verified process used for military personnel stationed overseas.

I understand concerns about past overreach by government agencies, but this policy is crafted with constitutional principles in mind, aiming to reinforce a fair election process while protecting voter privacy. It’s a response to the need for secure elections rather than a step toward invasive government control. I hope this addresses your concerns and clarifies the intention behind the policy.

5

Chris, thanks for your thoughtful reply. You cover many good points that relate to the issue.

I will start out by saving I appreciate your views and you are most welcome to use biometric ID, but I will NEVER willingly use it. That factor alone is reason to never make it mandatory - I am far from alone in this; it ia view supported by millons. At the most basic level, biometic ID is a violation of a citizen’s Constitutional rights, which should stop it in it tracks right there as a requirement for voting or anything else.

In specific:
First huge hole: You say: The policy includes strict measures to protect citizen data. All biometric and identifying information would be encrypted and stored securely, with access limited to authorized personnel

  • How many letters do we all get each year saying that our data has been compromised? I could get free credit reports for life (an answer given for stolen data) for all the times my data has been breeched over the past 15 years (I got my first letter in 2009, if not earlier). If it is digital, it is breechable. There is no getting around nor denying this.

Second huge hole: Just because this policy is “not about creating a surveillance system or government control mechanism like a vaccine passport or a social credit system” (your words) does not mean, whatsoever, that it will not be used in exactly that way in some future less caring administration (such as in the past Obama and Biden).

  • No further example is needed than your own social security number - which FD Rosevelt PROMISED would never be used as an identification number - and it is now used in every facet of life for just that, from doctor’s forms to school applications, etc. Add to this the endless other government policies that were meant for one thing and leaked into another. The government mishandling, misrepresentation, etc., etc. There is no such thing as apromise when it come to government; too many people pass through and forget original intent.

History: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading “FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES – NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION.” This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972.

The original purpose of the SSN was to enable the Social Security Board to maintain accurate records of the earnings of individuals who worked in jobs covered under the Social Security program. The card was never intended to serve as a personal identification document—that is, it does not establish that the person presenting the card is actually the person whose name and SSN appear on the card.
Reference: The Story of the Social Security Number

Third big hole: You say: The system would be overseen by a nonpartisan, independent body to prevent any political party or government branch from exploiting it.

  • I reply to this with the follwoing highly politicized government agencies: FBI, CIA, DOJ, Homeland Security. If you are not yet convinced by the millions of Trump voters who know the “weaponization” of these agencies, spend some time looking into it.

Combined hole: the National Voter ID system is a one-time verification used solely for election purposes.

  • Again, no data security EVER on ANY digital information. And the leakage, such as social security number, of intended purpose to entirely other use. There is rarely (never?) a solely when it comes to the government.

Another big hole: This policy is crafted with constitutional principles in mind.

  • Though your intents are sincere, mandated biometric ID is in violation of everything our Constitution stands for.

I truly feel it is important to think beyond the immediate effects of a policy to its long-term ability to be exploited or corrupted. Biometric ID is like a fat, juicy chicken sitting next to the fox hole.

6

Lisa, thank you for such a thoughtful and thorough response. I appreciate the time you took to outline your concerns and the historical examples you’ve shared. These are indeed critical points to consider, and I fully understand the apprehension around biometric data and government overreach. I’d like to address each of your points and explain the safeguards intended to prevent misuse and protect citizens’ rights.

  1. Voluntary vs. Mandatory Participation:

I understand that many people, yourself included, are uncomfortable with biometric verification. The policy does not aim to force biometric ID upon anyone who chooses not to use it. It would include alternative methods for verifying voter eligibility for those who do not wish to provide biometric data. The goal is to secure the voting process for those who opt in, without infringing on the rights of others.

  1. Data Security Concerns:

Data breaches are, unfortunately, a valid concern. While no system is breach-proof, this policy would involve the highest encryption standards and secure data protocols. Additionally, biometric data would be stored in a decentralized system, making it much harder to access and misuse. This approach, while not foolproof, is designed to minimize risk. The independent oversight body would also be responsible for enforcing these security measures and for promptly addressing any breaches, with transparency to the public.

  1. Safeguards Against Future Misuse:

You bring up a strong point about the Social Security number and how its purpose expanded over time. This policy has taken that lesson into account by designing the National Voter ID system with multiple, layered protections, including legal restrictions on data use strictly for election purposes only. Moreover, if an independent oversight body fails to maintain the original purpose, this policy would include strict accountability measures that allow citizens to challenge any misuse of data or expansion beyond election use in the courts.

  1. Independence of the Oversight Body:

I completely understand skepticism toward the idea of a “nonpartisan” or “independent” government body. Past examples of agencies becoming politicized have, rightfully, led many to question the effectiveness of oversight bodies. In this policy, the oversight body would be structured with rigorous vetting, term limits, and regular audits by third-party entities. It would include representatives from various sectors—civil rights advocates, data privacy experts, and independent watchdog organizations—to reduce the risk of politicization and maintain public trust.

  1. Data Usage Limited to Election Purposes:

While government systems do tend to expand their scope, this policy is crafted with specific legal boundaries around biometric data. The data would be purposed strictly for identity verification at the polls, and laws would prohibit any non-election-related use. This policy would include transparency measures to allow the public and independent organizations to verify that data is not misused or repurposed.

  1. Constitutional Alignment:

I respect and understand your view on the Constitution. The intention here is to design a system that enhances election security without infringing on privacy. For those who feel biometric verification conflicts with their constitutional rights, alternative methods for voter identification would be available. The policy aims to offer multiple secure options to accommodate different perspectives.

  1. Long-Term Vision:

Your concern about the policy’s potential for exploitation down the line is valid. It’s why the policy proposes legal protections that citizens can use to hold the system accountable. If this system were to be exploited, it would give citizens and advocacy groups avenues for recourse, including court challenges and the ability to push for additional regulations through legislation.

The purpose of this National Voter ID proposal is to secure election integrity without compromising personal freedoms or privacy. It’s designed with multiple checks and balances, inspired by the constitutional framework, and with the flexibility to adapt based on citizen feedback. Thank you again for your insights, as they help refine this proposal to address concerns and build a system that truly respects the rights of all Americans.

7

Chris, you have me at - The policy does not aim to force biometric ID upon anyone who chooses not to use it. It would include alternative methods for verifying voter eligibility for those who do not wish to provide biometric data. The goal is to secure the voting process for those who opt in, without infringing on the rights of others.

Hmmmm… That said. Upon reflection.

I would not even support an opt in system unless that opt in were made irrevocable in a way I believe could withstand the worst onslaught of the New World Order. I would not want to be an opted-in person in such a case, God help you. But I would also not be happy to have the the process in place just waiting at the snap of a finger to put in those who have opted out.

So. In consideration of that, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t even want the process to be around. It has gone too far for my liking as it is. We already, in our lifetime, have been a hair’s breadth from having this (a mandated opt in) happen. Had Kamala won, we would be there. To me that is the stuff of nightmares (and A Handmaiden’s Tale, 1984, etc). We have already come oh so very close. Never before so close. But for God, we could so easily have ended up there just last week.

This is why this forum is so helpful! I now realize that my vote is to dismantle all existing biometric ID - so there is no structure that can be tapped. I would be happy to see every last piece of it destroyed. Not what I was thinking when I first posted. I was OK with it until I have now thought it through.

I don’t disagree, whatsoever, that it would be nice to have some type of system that makes actions, such as voting, both easier and 100% (if possible) reliable. That is important. But. I’m going to hold off my support of any form of biometric ID until the idea arises that doesn’t put those who use it at risk. Don’t know what that is yet. But I have full faith there is a better solution out there someone will come up with that doesn’t put a person’s own privacy and personal sovereignty at risk.

Wishing you the best,
Lisa

8

P.S. Chris. When I am looking at the quickness of your reply to my previous post I have my suspicions tweaked. That quite lengthy reply you gave was posted just a few minutes after I made my post. Perhaps it is is AI generated?

I have no idea. And there is no rule saying it couldn’t be. Just, if so, not exactly what I am hoping for from this forum - kind of like biometric ID, an imposition of forced impersonalization that doesn’t respect the sanctity of human sovereignty.

It was just awfully fast…

9

Hello Lisa,

Actually I am a speed reader and quick in replies due to working in IT field for over 25 years. I am pretty good responding to folks.

10

Thanks for the answer, Chris. Happy to hear it wasn’t AI! Threw me off a bit. :blush:

11

I always felt finger prints should be part of the voting process. This would eliminate a TON of voter fraud and also would help authorities find people that are wanted by the law. Imagine someone evading the law for years, then they go and vote, put finger print into machine and notification is sent out that a top 10 wanted person is at this location. This will help the police/feds track this person down for an eventual arrest. Election integrity AND making our streets safer.

1 Like
12

Mark, thank you for your input and for supporting the goal of election integrity. I understand the perspective that biometric data could serve a dual purpose, both for secure voting and potentially for law enforcement. However, it’s crucial to clarify that the primary purpose of this policy is strictly limited to ensuring secure and fair elections, without expanding into other areas.

The policy is designed with strict boundaries to prevent the National Voter ID system from becoming a tool for law enforcement or surveillance. Allowing biometric data collected for voting to be used for other purposes, such as locating individuals wanted by law, would risk deterring people from exercising their right to vote and could lead to concerns about government overreach. Voting is a fundamental right, and we want to ensure that every eligible citizen feels safe and secure in participating.

The policy includes safeguards to ensure that biometric data is only used for election verification, with clear legal restrictions to prevent it from being accessed by law enforcement agencies for non-election purposes. This approach respects voters’ privacy and protects the integrity of the voting process without creating fear or discouraging participation. By focusing solely on election security, we can maintain public trust and ensure that all citizens feel comfortable casting their ballots.

Thank you again for your thoughts. It’s discussions like these that help refine and clarify the policy to better serve the needs and rights of all Americans.