We have serious threats to election integrity that must be fixed before the next election.

[pnwmom]

We know that the US Election Assistance Commission was hacked -- but we don't know how long we had the vulnerability or how many hackers may have taken advantage of it.

We know that some of the states used voting systems that had cellular connectivity as an option -- so they were vulnerable to hacking. But we don't know how many states used the option.

More info here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028418875#post3

[triron]

1. Thanks

[kentuck]

2. I would like to see us go back to precinct voting with paper ballots...

and only use computers to store the information after counting.

Most precincts are very easily counted.

I think that would help to restore faith in our electoral system.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Let's go back to handwritten sales receipts, too...

The reason we have machine voting is because of the problems with paper ballots. Not only were they easier for corrupt poll workers to invalidate than hanging some chads out, they were subject to exhausted poll workers making mistakes.

You're OK with electronic cash registers, bank statements, ATM's, and debit/credit cards but while computers can adequately handle your financial and other personal needs, they can't count a lousy vote?

A Presidential ballot here will have maybe 5 or 6 party lines to be counted, with House and sometimes Senate candidates repeated for each party. Then there's the local candidates, with maybe a few more party lines. I love the "Pick 3" instructions for judges, school boards etc.

Then there's the propositions on the back.

So, we've got poll workers who have been there since 5AM and after closing the polls at 9PM are expected to accurately add all this up for between 500 and 1000 ballots per district?

[kcr]

5. If we're going to have machine voting, it should be done correctly

And too many states handle it badly. Machine voting can involve a paper trail, and it should.

Your argument fails when you compare voting to cash registers and bank statements. For one thing, voting is a scheduled event. Banking is a daily event that happens year round. You simply can't compare the two when it comes to resources allocated. Counting votes, and bank security fraud are two completely different things.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Yes. there should be a paper trail, but to condemn all machines for the sins of a few is silly...

Here in NY we have several choices, and my county picked a ballot scanner. By law, we also have to have a ballot "writer" for the handicapped, fully equipped for anyone who can't see or write easily. I've been working every election since it was first bought, and haven't seen it used once. I've also been through several recounts, and with a dozen eagle-eyed lawyers from each side watching the recounts, there just hasn't been any machine error or fraud. Missing absentee ballots, affidavit ballots... problems there, but nothing to do with the machines.

I've also been to elections where some tiny party managed to get enough signatures for a primary and the machines were set up with 6 election judges and the support staff out all day for the three voters who actually showed up. And don't get me started on the major party and office primaries set up for different dates...

So, we do overuse resources as it is. But with people saying how important voting is, just what constitutes waste?

And, counting votes is not really different than counting cash. Counting is counting and is what computers excel at. Actually, all they do is count things, with the counting becoming more and more complicated with advanced applications. And security is still security. Putting voting machines on a network does add risk, and is probably not worth the security for ATMs, but, unlike ATMs, there is no need to put them on a network.

[crazycatlady]

46. The manufacturers of voting machines also make ATMs

As a former bank employee, I can tell you that an ATM does leave a paper trail on the inside (that only the bank employees have access to) as well as offering the customer the option of a receipt.

I don't object to voting machines (even though due to travel, I always vote absentee). If I were the powers that be, I would have the voting machine print two customer receipts. Before the ballot is cast, a paper receipt prints out saying who you voted for) and allows any corrections before hitting submit. That receipt should be deposited in a ballot box to serve as backup in case of recounts. The 2nd receipt would be a customer copy.

[triron]

47. Still how do we know that the internally counted vote is

identical to what the receipts say?

[HoneyBadger]

49. If the machines are Internet enabled as has been reported here numerous times

The voting machine can email you a receipt of your vote in real time. The sent email can be retained. Which can then be compared to the tabulations. Pretty trivial compared to hacking the machines really.

[uponit7771]

14. No problem, if it would bring integrity to the voting process back

[TreasonousBastard]

16. My point is simply that it wouldn't. Andwhere did you get the idea that...

the voting process once had "integrity"?

[uponit7771]

17. Of course, I'm not a "they've already decided" or anything close type voter

[Sunriser13]

18. So give us better verification methods.

You're OK with electronic cash registers, bank statements, ATM's, and debit/credit cards but while computers can adequately handle your financial and other personal needs, they can't count a lousy vote?

I can also go over my copy of each of those things and verify the content for accuracy. I can't do that with my machine vote at the present time.

I understand that a "receipt" for my vote opens up the can of worms regarding vote buying, though. How does one assure accuracy and still keep the integrity of my vote?

[TreasonousBastard]

20. What do you want? At this point a scanner reads your little black dots and adds them up...

Do you want verification that it read them correctly? Our machines give a warning if your vote can't be read properly and an opportunity to change things or start over.

What more than that do you need? Even if you got a receipt for your vote, the machine could easily be programmed to falsify it.

In the event of recounts or other challenges, the scanned ballots are locked away and can be compared with the totals on the chips. We also keep tight control of the all ballots in printed, even the unused and spoiled ones, to reduce the possibility of playing with ballots.

Tests, recounts, and such stuff are always done involving beady-eyed lawyers from at least two parties making sure nothing funny is going on.

There are, amazingly enough, a lot of people out there who are both honest and have a lot of experience with elections who have worked very hard to make things go smoothly and correctly. there will always be a few problems here and there, and I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but I have very little fear of fraud or manipulation in our system. The recounts we have had have shown that.

[HoneyBadger]

25. Electronically vote with a coded paper receipt for the recount that is also texted to you

And that requires an affirmative response within 2 minutes. Very similar to resetting a password on a bank account. We all do this sort of validation every month for something. Does require a cell phone. Your vote is recorded and shown to you immediately. There is a paper trail that cannot be read by human eyes, but can be used for a recount. And you the registered voter know right away if someone voted on your behalf. There is no reason that voting should be less secure than Facebook.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. And for those who don't have cell phones?

Do they just not vote?

[HoneyBadger]

29. Better verification cannot happen without electronic verification

Who does not have a cell phone that votes? I am sure that a special polling station could be set up for them or they could vote absentee like the guy on the International Space Station, however rare they are. But we should not assume that it is normal in this day and age.

NASA astronauts who work at the International Space Station (ISS) may be away from planet Earth during election time, but this does not mean they can't participate in the elections.

Rule 81.35
A bill passed by Texas legislature in 1997 has made it possible for astronauts stationed at the ISS to cast their ballot from space. The law put in place the technical procedures involved so astronauts get the chance to cast their vote even if they are working in orbit.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. OK

So we complain that having to have photo ID is voter suppression, but having to have a cell phone isn't?

[HoneyBadger]

31. Don't need id to vote absentee

I am sure that astronaut did not need to show id to anyone on the International Space Station to cast his vote

[TheFrenchRazor]

37. oh please, the presidency of the US is a little more important that cash register receipt; and ballo

ballots have been counted by hand for centuries, so it can obviously be done. yes, even hand counts can be rigged, but it's harder and the extent of it is less.

[HoneyBadger]

10. Paper is too easy to hack

Just run it through again and again. If the recount cannot match the paper to the total, the original count stands. Now that the hack is public, watch out, Michigan is gonna have 300% turnout.

[TheFrenchRazor]

12. WTF??? is that you Pootie? PAPER BALLOTS, HAND COUNTED!! no machine to "run it through," OK?

[HoneyBadger]

21. Unless the count happens in front of the voter there is no assurance that their vote actually counts

Too easy to lose or alter the ballot

[TheFrenchRazor]

34. 3 person team counts votes; this is nothing new. there is no way that paper is *easier* to hack

than machines. yes "stuffing the ballot box" is possible. but the degree of hacking that can be accomplished is much less.

[HoneyBadger]

36. It is infinitely easier to make a pencil mark on a piece of paper than it is to hack a computer

Times that by a million pieces of paper, because there is literally no way to prove that a paper ballot was altered or purposely lost.

[TheFrenchRazor]

38. please explain how this will happen directly under the eyes of poll workers from

from both major parties. where i vote, poll watchers observe every person putting their ballot into the box, and then assuming legitimate reps from both parties observe the transfer and opening of the boxes, how are all these ballots either going to be altered or lost?

[HoneyBadger]

50. What happens when 1000 ballots are recorded, a recount is ordered by the Greens and there

are zero ballots in the box. Or 2000. Or the original 1000, but they are have been marked up in a way to invalidate them. No one has eyes on the ballots the entire time between election day and the recount. Someone slips in and changes everything. No way to prove that the election day count was valid. Instantly you have a new President.

[TheFrenchRazor]

53. you could say the exact same thing about machines, X1000. nt

[charlyvi]

3. The problem is that Republicans think the election worked just fine.

And they hold ALL the power. They think the election worked just fine.

[TheFrenchRazor]

7. exactly. nt

[uponit7771]

15. They know somethings fucked up about this election and gish gallop all Benedict Donald's Putin

... praises.

[Sunriser13]

19. Of course it did, since they won.

Before the election, all they could say was how everything was hacked.

Funny how many of those voices are now silent...

[TheFrenchRazor]

6. problems need to be fixed, but they won't be. nt

[elleng]

9. Yes we have, and getting worse.

Past efforts seem worthless.

[Achilleaze]

11. k and r

[uponit7771]

13. THANK YOU !!! If they fucked us this time what's to stop the from fucking us again !?!?!

[MoonRiver]

23. Nothing

Dems have REFUSED to address this threat, even during the times they were in charge. I have NO hope they will do anything now that they are completely, or almost, marginalized. Welcome to the brand spanking new Banana Republic of the "United" States of America.

[uponit7771]

24. +1

[KittyWampus]

32. And it'll just be worse since the Republicans now have total power in federal/state Governments.

[uponit7771]

33. Yeap, they've already shown they'll break the law without Russian help

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

22. Paper ok - machine only if system designed for security with adequate approriate audit and recount

process built in. You didn't see banks waiting around to see if anyone would steal money before devising a secure system.

Moot point tho - Repubs are lovin the idea of single party govt, in perpetuity. In other words, its working for them, why would they change it?

Me I woulda have liked cleaning up this mess to have been the Dems legacy, before Obamacare - actually as minority opposition party now, maybe its not too late to get back to basics and start to rebuild.

btw I was not aware the 1965 Voters Rights Act had been gutted a few yrs ago paving the way for Crosscheck and the massive disenfranchisement that occurred this election. Restoring/creating a voters rights act for the 21st century ought to be at the top of the Dem to do list.

[RKP5637]

26. It should be, but likely little will happen, certainly not by the GOP who would sell

the US down the drain to win if it enhanced their cash flow.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. I'm in favor of paper ballots

machine counted. Or, if they are electronic machines, a receipt that can be maintained, like a ballot, in case of recount/audit.

I'm not in favor of hand counting unless there is an audit or recount, and in the case of recount, there should be a random sampling audit first, and if there are significant discrepancies, then a hand recount is in order.

Any cellular capability for transmitting results should only be turned on once the polls have closed, and only for long enough to transmit the results, then turned off again.

There should be no internet connectivity for any voting apparatus, either voting machines or tabulators.

[TheFrenchRazor]

35. paper receipts are useless because they never see the light of day. votes must be hand-counted the f

the first time, by teams made up of at least one rep from both major parties and maybe an independent as well. even if a random audit uncovered some discrepancy, you would be lucky to even get that particular machine's results reversed, much less the entire election's, so there is really no penalty for attempted hacking.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. Sorry, I completely disagree n/t

[TheFrenchRazor]

42. so you don't think the local powers-that-be could prevent those paper receipts from being seen? seri

seriously?? where have you been for the last 20 years? i think you're giving new meaning to the expression "faith-based voter." me, i want to see the paper.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. If there is a hand recount

they have to be seen. If there isn't a hand recount, there is no reason for them to be seen.

[triron]

44. I'm confused by your answer

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Not sure why

it's in response to the previous poster saying that powers that be would stop paper receipts from being seen.

[TheFrenchRazor]

48. well, that's kind of the point. the local authorities determine whether there is a hand recount; ev

even if this is spelled out in law, it is the state legislators who write these laws, and a good portion of them like things just the way they are. if there are "recounts" at all, they are machine recounts most of the time, which are completely useless. look what just happened in the presidential election. trying to get a meaningful statewide hand recount is virtually impossible. you don't think that's a problem?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

51. No, I don't think it's a problem

that states get to set the rules for recounts.

[TheFrenchRazor]

54. ok; you're fine with invisible votes and selective recounts; i'm not. glad we got that cleared up.

[UCmeNdc]

39. You are right. There is no integrity left in US election results.

Go back to paper ballots! Hand counting.

[triron]

41. yes only sure way.

But first Trump is a traitor and should go to prison for awhile!

[Hekate]

52. KnR