Slashdot Mirror


Virginia Ditches 'America's Worst Voting Machines'

Geoffrey.landis writes: Computerized voting machines are bad news in general, but the WINVote machines used in Virginia might just have earned their reputation as the most insecure voting machine in America. They feature Wi-Fi that can't be turned off (protected, however, with a WEP password of "abcde"), an unencrypted database, and administrative access with a hardcoded password of "admin." According to security researcher Jeremy Epstein, if the machines weren't hacked in past elections, "it was because nobody tried." But with no paper trail, we'll never know.

Well, after ignoring the well-documented problems for over a decade, Virginia finally decided to decommission the machines... after the governor had problems with the machines last election and demanded an investigation. Quoting: "In total, the vulnerabilities investigators found were so severe and so trivial to exploit, Epstein noted that 'anyone with even a modicum of training could have succeeded' in hacking them. An attacker wouldn't have needed to be inside a polling place either to subvert an election... someone 'within a half mile with a rudimentary antenna built using a Pringles can could also have attacked them.'"

31 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. Meet the new guy by mindcandy · · Score: 2

    The vendor specs no doubt call for fully (and publicly) audited replacements, right? It's like the (false) Russian space pen story .. how can every 3rd world country have figured out the ink/thumb solution that costs nothing while we spit into the wind with Billions?

    1. Re:Meet the new guy by DaHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how can every 3rd world country have figured out the ink/thumb solution that costs nothing while we spit into the wind with Billions?

      Because most of them don't think voting should be as easy as any other day to day task and believe that the possibility of fraud is something worth working hard against... instead here, asking to see a photo ID is somehow racist.

    2. Re:Meet the new guy by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not the asking to see a photo id - it is the specific methods of photo ID that is racist.

      Massachusetts for example has a wonderful photo ID law - if you don't have one, then you vote provisionally and can prove your Identity later to have your vote counted if their is a run-off.

      But the 'voter id laws' of states like Texas a) don't let you vote at all, b) make it illegal to use state funded college ID or an out-of-state Driver License to prove your identity even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of a year - and therefore have the legal right to vote, c) make it very difficult to prove your ID and COSTLY in both time and energy.

      It's not the concept of a voter ID law that sucks, it is the intentional attempt to create a system designed to stop liberals from voting. Using a false claim that you are just trying to stop non-existent fraud does not explain why they pull crap like this.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re: Meet the new guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason the Rs want voter ID has nothing to do with racism. They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why? Because those who don't tend to vote Democrat.

      I can live with requiring ID so long as it doesn't turn into a poll tax.

    4. Re:Meet the new guy by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Insightful

      can you please tell us where today there is a place with a "no blacks" sign with regards to getting photo IDs?

      You can get a photo ID from your local DMV! Of course, your "local" DMV is 40 miles away. Oh, and the bus to take you there requires 3 transfers and will take 4 hours--not counting the time spent waiting at the DMV. And the hours of operation for the DMV are M-F from 9 AM to 5 PM.

      So if you've actually got a job during those hours, you're SOL.

      Funny how these things seem to happen around black neighborhoods. White neighborhoods, conversely, have 3 DMV offices in a 20 mile radius that are open on weekends. But, unfortunately, the state just doesn't have the budget to offer weekend service at all DMV offices.

    5. Re:Meet the new guy by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
      Wow - what a great set of insults. Too bad they completely failed to respond to the actual issues I raised. For example, I show you how Texas is attempting to do something illegal against college students and you pretend that I think that is racist. Of course you make no attempt to deny that what they are doing is illegal, instead you make fun of me because you thought I was claiming racism in that case. Are you really stupid enough to think a crime is still acceptable unless I prove it is racist crime?

      I also love how you did not understand a simple comparison. Let me explain. Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.

      Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.

      You might do better if you go back and re-read everything I wrote.

      Unless of course you are just a troll paid to insult intelligent people (or worse, doing it for fun)

      Oh and finally, your huge attempt to pretend this is all about race basically proves that no you do not care about anything EXCEPT racism. You yourself implied that you think the "lazy/stupid/poor" should not be able to vote.

      Which happens to be the most Un-american of ideas. The Supreme Court found that when some piece of shit tries to prevent the 'lazy/stupid/poor" from voting, it is racist. SCOTUS found in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, that attempts to weed out the "lazy/stupid/poor" were violations of the 14th Amendment of the United States of America. In other words, yes, the very things you are claiming are not racist, the Supreme Court of the US declared to be racist

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Meet the new guy by DaHat · · Score: 2

      It is entirely within the realm of possibility for a policy to not have racist intent and still have a racist result.

      I think you need to look up the meaning of 'racist'

      (Though in this particular case, there is certainly the appearance of intent.)

      In such a ridiculous hypothetical yes... but it is just that, a non-existent hypothetical.

      Let's assume that only one of the qualities you list can present an impediment.

      So skin color is automatically an impediment? Still waiting to see/how/where that is to getting a voter id.

      If blacks are on average more poor than non-blacks, is it possible that this is a result of racism?

      It's possible, but I'm still waiting to see an explicit example of that being the case across the board.

      (Hint:yes).

      Citation? And yet that apparently only applies to blacks? How then do we account for those who are not in fact poor? No one was racist enough to them?

      The whole voter fraud problem is itself a fraud.

      Tell you what... turn off most of the logging on your server, disable most of the firewall rules and publish the IP address of it publically... I assure you any rumors of it getting hacked are just a rumor as you've got no concrete evidence of it happening... because you lack the tools to identify such actions.

    7. Re: Meet the new guy by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why?

      Because voting is a right reserved for citizens of the US and the political subdivision holding the election. Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.

      There are continuous claims that voting is ineffective because "my vote doesn't count" when it is because someone is voting for a losing candidate, why should we dilute the vote even further by letting everyone who walks into the polling place vote? Why SHOULDN'T voting be reserved for citizens?

    8. Re:Meet the new guy by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.

      But doesn't count the vote until you provide the identification that you should have had in the first place. You think "not able to vote" and "vote but not have it counted" are significantly different? Different enough to flame against Texas and hold Mass up as a shining example of how to do things right?

      Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.

      IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Oregon elections? Register where you do claim residence and vote there. Pretty simple.

      ...you do not care about anything EXCEPT racism. You yourself implied that you think the "lazy/stupid/poor" should not be able to vote.

      Last time I checked, none of "lazy", "stupid" or "poor" were races protected by equal-opportunity acts.

      In other words, yes, the very things you are claiming are not racist, the Supreme Court of the US declared to be racist

      Wow. You've just entrenched some really insulting stereotypes as definitions of "race". Do you also include "eats watermelon" and "walks with a shuffle" in your list of racial definitions?

    9. Re:Meet the new guy by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Wow - what a great set of insults. Too bad they completely failed to respond to the actual issues I raised.

      I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with sarcasm.

      For example, I show you how Texas is attempting to do something illegal against college students and you pretend that I think that is racist

      No, you didn't 'show' anything, you 'claimed' something. Further, you failed to cite specifically how it was illegal as constitutionally (see 10th amendment) it is up to the states to define eligibility requirements to vote... restricted by a few areas (religious test, race, sex).

      Of course you make no attempt to deny that what they are doing is illegal, instead you make fun of me because you thought I was claiming racism in that case.

      Correct, I'm not going to try to prove a negative.

      Are you really stupid enough to think a crime is still acceptable unless I prove it is racist crime?

      Still waiting to see/hear how it is a crime. Feel free to cite a specific statute if you'd like.

      I also love how you did not understand a simple comparison

      I also love how you do not understand sarcasm or taking ideas and added a good mix of progressive double-think in to highlight the ridiculousness of what you are saying.

      Let me explain. Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.

      Yup, saw that the first time you said it... but again, you are describing different states, which sometimes have different laws believe it or not. Ex: Age to get an unrestricted drivers license in Texas is 17, Massachusetts's is 18, while Maine it's 21. Racism? (is that better?)

      Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.

      Yup, they have specific requirements. Different states have different rules for ID, polling times, absentee voting, etc. What is the news?

      You might do better if you go back and re-read everything I wrote.

      Why? You keep repeating the same arguments without actually considering their place in the larger system.

      Unless of course you are just a troll paid to insult intelligent people (or worse, doing it for fun)

      And there is where we know I've won... you assume I'm trolling vs arguing against your nonsense while using a fun bit of rhetoric along the way.

      Oh and finally, your huge attempt to pretend this is all about race basically proves that no you do not care about anything EXCEPT racism.

      I'm confused... you claim I'm pretending this is all about race... but I don't really care about anything but race? How exactly does that work? More so... how exactly do you know just how I'm thinking? What if... you are wrong about more than just that?

      Or is it just a battle against out of state college students? I don't often hear that argument on the evening news or from lawyers who are fighting against voter ID laws... they tend to be the ones who scream racism.

      You yourself implied that you think the "lazy/stupid/poor" should not be able to vote.

      Wait... I thought you said 'finally' above... still more?

      Oh that's a good one! You accuse me of not reading/comprehending what you said... and yet you have this good nugget. I use that line as a rhetorical play against those who claim it is all about race who simultaneously are practicing the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

      Which happens to be the most Un-american of ideas

      Agreed... any other arguments you wish to try to straw-man me with?

    10. Re: Meet the new guy by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why?

      Because voting is a right reserved for citizens of the US and the political subdivision holding the election. Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.

      There are continuous claims that voting is ineffective because "my vote doesn't count" when it is because someone is voting for a losing candidate, why should we dilute the vote even further by letting everyone who walks into the polling place vote? Why SHOULDN'T voting be reserved for citizens?

      Oh please! Show me a case of where in person voter fraud is more than an occasional occurrence. The GW Bush administration made it a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they found basically nothing. Voter ID is a solution looking for a problem. I thought the R's were against more regulations and bureaucracy.

    11. Re:Meet the new guy by vux984 · · Score: 2

      if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs...

      It worked for a few hundred years.

      If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud [...] how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?

      Well, for starters, when you showed up to vote, there would be a record saying that you already voted.

      Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning

      Correct. But you know and record that an incident of fraud has occurred. So we're using all this direct evidence of fraud to make the case that we need photo id right? Where is that evidence? We're passing a law, and creating bureaucracy to manage a problem we actually have right?

      What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all?

      Go do some follow up spot checking; Hi... it says here you voted at 7am at polling station X; can you confirm this? Or put someone on going through the list at a few close polling stations for a bunch of deceased voters. Again... demonstrate some evidence of fraud.

      it's almost certain that we are in the margin of fraud

      All we need now is some actual evidence that it's actually happening.

      Not asking for photo id is like turning off the password requirement on a server after disabling anything but the most basic logging mechanisms (ie "Joe Smith logged in at DD/MM/YYYY") and then assuming no one is going to hack you... and if they do, you'll be able to figure out who did it and go after them.

      I don't assume I'll be able to figure out who did it. I assume though that I'll be able to show clear evidence that wrongdoing is actually taking place (and in the case of voting the rudimentary logging and auditing trails that should be present should suffice to show this); before I justify making it harder for people to use the server.

      ---------------

      is the solution to simply not require such IDs... or to make an effort to make sure as many as people have such IDs?

      Except your not actually making any effort to get these people such IDs. You aren't making it easier for them. You aren't providing them any assistance.

      And you underestimate how difficult it is to reconstruct an identity. If you have a drivers license its pretty easy. But if you don't? Pulling birth certificate records for a senior citizen immigrant born in a town destroyed in the 2nd world war, whose misplaced his immigration paperwork 40 years ago. But since he'd already opened a bank account, and didn't drive or fly.... just let it go. And hasn't needed photo id for 40 years. But which you think you are doing him a "favor" by pushing him to get one...

      Things which are more often than not required in plenty of other facets in life be it flying, driving, opening a bank account or just buying a six-pack of beer.

      That's just nonsense. Nobody anywhere is saying "thank goodness for voter id laws! I was stuck here on the ground using moneytree because I didn't have a bank account... but voterid laws motivated me to get an id and now I have a bank account, and drink beer on a jet!"

      If the lack of and need for a bank account wasn't enough to motivate someone to get an id, then telling them they can't vote every few years... you think that's the carrot they needed?

      Take a look at what is required to get a photoid if you don't already have one:

      Here's Georgia:

      1) "Documentation showing your identity, residential address, full social security number, and U.S. citizens

    12. Re: Meet the new guy by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Homeless people are not 0.001% of the population, they're more like 1% of the population. And they're not a random 1%, they're a 1% with a lot of common needs and interests. That 1% block can swing many an election.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re: Meet the new guy by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Honestly, why does a voter ID have to have a permanent "home"? I know it matters for political subdivision purposes, but really all that matters is that you:

      a) establish residency in that subdivision
      b) are not voting in more than one place

      If you are homeless, then if you want to vote locally, you establish a pattern of living and working in that one place. There are ways of doing that. Your ID could then reflect that instead of a home address. Things the homeless would do normally, like getting on a list for a homeless shelter could count, if they could associate that with an ID. You don't own the shelter or rent it, you don't even live there all the time, but establishing enough residency there could be enough to associate you with that neighborhood. As long as the system does not let you vote twice, and it establishes some reasonable attachment to the locality to each voter, the chance of you becoming a "bussed in voter" is less likely and the tactic less useful.

      Let's be honest with ourselves, though. Many people don't want to say this, but the reality is that some people don't want the homeless on the voter rolls because the homeless have a list of wants and needs, but not much in the way of a list of what they can provide. If Joe Middle Class and his family want better schools, they feel that they earned the right to ask for them because they pay taxes into the system. That's why residency is important, and why no one wants to make it easy for people to establish residency.

      That said, even the poorest of the poor homeless citizen of the US has more legal right to a vote than someone who is not a legal immigrant but who might be working (illegally, of course). Otherwise, votes are strictly about money, and not about citizenship. If that is the case, we should probably just re-institute the poll tax, because at least that's honest.

      I don't think it would be too difficult to arrange for an ID for homeless or otherwise disenfranchised citizens. We just have to make the effort and accept that certain concepts like residency need to have alternate definitions which include all citizens. Ensuring that you can identify actual citizens who vote and have residency also gives you ammunition against people who complain that social program money is all going to illegal immigrants. Otherwise, the other side just ignores your homeless argument because you don't propose an alternate suggestion on how to ensure that poor citizens can be told apart from illegal aliens.

    14. Re: Meet the new guy by HiThere · · Score: 2

      OK. Make it hard for those with incomes of over a million dollars a month to vote, and I won't object. They can hire people to take care of the details. But if you think the extremely poor are around 0.001% of the population then you need to think again, and perhaps open your eyes.

      And for the extremely poor even the requirement to VISIT the DMV can be impossible. Many of the offices are designed to be driven to. And at least around here you're supposed to phone for an appointment which may be a month later, and then when you get there you need to expect a few hours wait. (I generally avoid this problem by being driven to an office in the suburbs ... I don't drive, but then neither am I extremely poor.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Meet the new guy by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Oregon elections? Register where you do claim residence and vote there. Pretty simple.

      I live in Oregon. In this state you are not required to have voter ID. We have vote-by-mail. The only ID requirement is your signature on the outside of the envelope your ballot is enclosed in (actually your ballot goes in a privacy envelope or the signature is on a piece of the envelope they can tear off before opening the actual ballot envelope so they can connect your ballot to your name). The signature on the ballot envelope is compared to the signature on your voter registration card to validate your right to vote. If the signatures don't match they will let you know so you can come in and correct the situation.

      I will say that's changed a bit in the last legislative session earlier this year. Now in Oregon everyone who gets a drivers license and is otherwise eligible to vote will be automatically registered to vote and they use you signature from your drivers license for ID.

      The time to validate whether someone is eligible to vote is when they register to vote and if you're going to require voter ID it should be issued at that time at no cost to the voter. Anything else is needless regulation and bureaucracy on election day.

  2. No shit, Sherlock by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where was Captain Obvious ten years ago? Why is there no outrage over "trivial to hack" and "we can never know"? Little else is as sacrosanct to our system of law and government as the integrity of the electoral process. That those who knew better were unable to get attention focused on this problem until now is deeply troubling.

    1. Re:No shit, Sherlock by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where was Captain Obvious ten years ago?

      She was (and still is) here. Alas, as you mentioned, no one wanted to listen.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  3. all voting should be paper and pencil by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    electronics, and to a lesser extent voting machines, just exponentially increase the amount of attack vectors

    of course you can still fake votes with paper voting, but then you are talking about a crazy conspiracy involving delivery trucks and teams of people. it's a lot harder to hide

    rather than one well placed hacker

    the poorest democracy and the most advanced democracy should all vote the same way

    the overriding point is legitimacy: people have to trust their vote counted. replacing paper and pencil with a black box of gears or electronics does not engender trust

    this is far, far more important than getting results a couple hour earlier

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:all voting should be paper and pencil by sribe · · Score: 2

      this is far, far more important than getting results a couple hour earlier

      Or, allowing people with severe disabilities not to have to suffer the utter humiliation of requiring assistance.

      Yes, that was sarcastic. But advocates for the disabled pushed this fiasco really hard...

    2. Re:all voting should be paper and pencil by Mateorabi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are being sarcastic. But the mistake the advocates make is assuming that the machines must both assist humans in filling out the ballot, and recording that ballot. Machines are good at the former (input validation, audio UIs, etc.) and outputting something that doesn't rely on human handwriting/chad-punching. But the latter requires too much trust in something uninspectable. Instead just use the machines to make error free ballots, which are kept as a paper trail, and tallied just like the ballots of yore were.

      Or better yet, feed the ballots into two+ independently built/owned/designed counting machines and investigate if the answers are ever not 100% in agreement, if you want your results faster. You can even go back and hand count later in an audit.

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    3. Re:all voting should be paper and pencil by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the perfect electronic voting machine would operate like so:

      1) A well-designed touch screen interface would let you select your candidates based on your available ballot choices.
      3) The device would print out a "voting receipt" for the person to verify.
      4) Once verified:
                4a) The device would store the results electronically (locally, not via a network connection which could be rendered insecure).
                4b) The person would put the receipt into a slot that leads to a locked box.
      5) When the results are ready to be counted, they can be electronically tallied, but there would also be a paper trail to make sure the electronic votes weren't tampered with.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:all voting should be paper and pencil by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      absolutely. OCR it. but everything should still be done by hand, on paper, and that has to be kept

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:all voting should be paper and pencil by DaHat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who says it has to be a fully electronic system?

      A decade ago in South Dakota I used an electronic system which was actually more secure than what you describe.

      You walk into the voting booth, insert your ballot, it scans it and displays a single race per screen, you make your choices, confirm your choices in the end, then marks your ballot and returns it to you.

      Prior to putting your ballot in the final box, you visually confirm that each race is what you selected... so you have the convenience of a touch screen system but with the verifiability of paper.

  4. Mostly old news by jandrese · · Score: 2

    As a Fairfax county resident, those machines haven't been widely used in years. Most people get scantrons. The machines are mostly just for blind people and the non-english speakers, because they have audio out and can read the ballots in multiple languages. The last time everybody used them was 2004, which coincidentally was the last time the state voted for a Republican president.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  5. Now that that is done by bondsbw · · Score: 2

    America needs to ditch the world's worst voting system.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  6. Misinformed Dropping it in the mail is costly? by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    > But the 'voter id laws' of states like Texas
    > a) don't let you vote at all,

    O Rlly? Prett sure I voted.

    >b) make it illegal to use state funded college ID or an out-of-state Driver License to prove your identity even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of the year

    Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID. You can instead choose to vote by mail in your home state. Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.

      > c) make it very difficult to prove your ID and COSTLY in both time and energy.

    Dropping your ballot in the mailbox is SO difficult and expensive. The mailbox is all the way outside! Damn you libs are lazy MFs. (No ID required for voting by mail.)

    If you choose to vote in-person, it's convenient that you ALREADY needed to have yoir birth certificate handy to register for school, because yes you will need it if you want to stop by the DMV to get your FREE voter ID (only needed if you don't have a DL, other state ID and want to vote in pereon).

    1. Re:Misinformed Dropping it in the mail is costly? by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      Then you get your Texas state ID or the FREE Texas election ID.

  7. The cost of the ID isn't the $10 by dlenmn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The issue isn't the $10. You don't simply fork over $10 and get an ID; you need some proof of identity, like a _certified_ birth certificate. Don't have one? They're not free either. Moreover, you often need a government issued ID to get a certified birth certificate. That's a bit of a catch-22, right? The solution varies by state. Sometimes you can use a combination of utility bills, W-2s, car registration, bank account, etc. The first requires a permanent residence. The second requires a real job. The latter two probably required a photo ID in the first place. Almost all states allow an attorney to request a certified birth certificate, but attorneys aren't free either. The situation of not having a real job, permanent residence, and certified birth certificate is probably totally foreign to /. users, but there are a non-trivial number of (usually poor) American citizens in that situation, but they still deserve the right to vote.

    Now, some states try to avoid this mess. E.g. in WI the non-driver IDs are free if you need one to vote. Also, if you don't have the documentation you need, you can fill out a form and the DMV will take care of everything -- at least in principle. I don't know how well it works; the WI DMV is already stretched kind of thin.

    I have mixed feelings about all this. Voter fraud is simply not a problem in the US. (Yes, some idiots filled out fake voter _registration_ forms last election because they were paid to fill out lots of registration forms. That's not voter fraud since no fraudulent votes were cast.) Voter ID laws are there to make life difficult for poor people who tend to vote for Democrats. End of story. What's the upside? Because of the political angle, voter ID laws have lead to organizations assisting poor people to get ID cards. I don't know how effective the organizations have been, but the people who get an ID probably benefit.

  8. seriously, enough about IDs and illegals by almechist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do realize that even the most rigorous ID check in the world wouldn't have stopped an election from being subverted if these machines were used, right?

    I'm tired of hearing biased party hacks and online wingnuts rant about "voter fraud" and what must to be done to stop it. The fact is, it's very hard to swing an election using ID-related fraud, and there's no evidence to indicate it has ever been a real problem or might have swung an election - and don't bother with that rabid reply with links to an example, it might possibly have happened once or twice in some insignificant local race somewhere, but that's completely irrelevant when at the same time WE HAVE STEAMING PILES OF SHIT LIKE THIS MACHINE BEING WIDELY USED MAKING IT TRIVIAL FOR SOMEONE TO ALTER EVERY SINGLE VOTE CAST IN ANY MANNER THEY WANT!!! So spare me the crap about ID laws being essential to combat fraud, those shouting that the loudest somehow managed to say nothing about the glaringly obvious potential for major fraud with electronic voting machines, despite those vulnerabilities being fully pointed out at the time by various security experts. Those detailed reports were completely ignored by the same folks claiming to be so concerned now.

    The real agenda behind voter ID laws is insultingly obvious.

  9. Prosecute the Polticians by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    She got caught. Good. I want to see prosecution of people who commit voter fraud. But are you assuming that there must be hundreds or thousands of people who did the same thing without getting caught? Enough to materially affect the election? Seems like a big stretch to me.

    I want to see the people who think it's okay to disenfranchise entire groups of people because they're not likely to vote your way get prosecuted. There is absolutely *no* excuse for the voter ID laws they are putting in place today--it's like jim crow laws, you're just trying to exclude people who won't vote for you. It's reprehensible and in a civilized society it would be criminal.