This concept is introduced based upon the belief that there can be no confidence in an electronic election count system until each an every state provide what would be called the virtual precinct that provides an after-the-fact ability for the voter to validate his own counted ballot, in addition to providing a method for auditing the vote count within the voter’s precinct. So how would such a system work? First, we need to identify the two big concerns to the average voter.
Concern #1 is identifying exactly who is eligible to vote and what is the total count of eligible voters at the time of an election. Certainly a county government is able to identify its eligible voters by referring to a county’s property tax roles. But this only covers property owners. What about renters? It makes sense for a state government to obtain this information by referring to its DMV driver’s licenses, assuming there are no non-citizens allowed a drivers license. But what about those who do not own property or own a car, ie, the homeless, who may be citizens?
So we see there remains a problem in identifying all those who should be eligible to vote in any given election. One solution has been offered called VOTER ID. However, it does not solve the problem of ballots being issued to dead voters. To solve this problem, I suggest that to be eligible to vote in a general election, an eligible voter must have voted in the primary election within the same year of the general election. In this manner, one can be reasonably assured of an accurate total electorate count within a state. Of course, there may be deaths and resident transitions within the few months between the primary and general elections. But why should a state allow any new residents to vote immediately when they can vote in any subsequent elections. In implementing such requirements, one can expect that the count from the primary will not be any greater in the general election.
Concern #2 is what can only be called the opaque electronic count system. It is not sufficient for a vote count to not be publicly audited. Transparency is an absolute necessity to provide trust in the results. This can only be done by the state providing to the voter a virtual precinct.
================================================
How are records accessed within the database structure. Let’s begin by examining two possible versions, A & B.
A. 
In version A, you can see two different record-types represented by the two big boxes with rounded corners, ie, an upper external master header record-type connected to a lower detail voter-id record-type. The header record-type is a single master record & externally accessible given its voter-id = 0. It is the “head” or “master” or beginning of a sorted link chain. Via the line connection from this single master record to the lower level detail voter-id records, this master record 0 allows access to the entire list of other voter-id records sorted in voter-id number order. You should note that additionally each individual voter-id record is externally accessible given its unique voter-id number. This makes the lower level record a “hybrid master”. So every detail voter-id record is a naked hybrid master record as well, because there is no indicated master to detail record-type indicated below it. Regardless, it should be clear that any given detail voter-id record is also directly accessible given its unique voter-id number and indirectly accessible by going through the sorted list of voter-id records.
B. 
Version B shows two connection lines that replace the single line in version A. This is two allow administrators at different levels to communicate, specifically between a more local election administrator & a more distant federal administrator who has access to citizenship records. The need for two link chains (as indicated by the two connecting lines) is to separate new voter-id requests initiated by a local administrator from those voter-ids that have already been validated by one of the 3 federal agencies.
“But”, you ask, “Why not use just one link chain between the two record-types & simply flag the voter-id record as new or approved?” Answer- Do you really want to go through Africa to get from LA to New York? I dont think so. Having two link chains expedites the feds job of identifying new voter-ids requiring their approval, where just one link chain would not queue them to look at specific records. In approving a voter-id record, all they need do is zero out the voter-id record’s new link field and plug in a new link in the approved link field. Furthermore, when an approved voter-id record becomes expired, it automatically goes back to the new voter-id chain from the approved voter-id chain.
