Slashdot Mirror
New Bill Could Finally Get Rid of Paperless Voting Machines (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A bipartisan group of six senators has introduced legislation that would take a huge step toward securing elections in the United States. Called the Secure Elections Act, the bill aims to eliminate insecure paperless voting machines from American elections while promoting routine audits that would dramatically reduce the danger of interference from foreign governments. "With the 2018 elections just around the corner, Russia will be back to interfere again," said co-sponsor Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). So a group of senators led by James Lankford (R-Okla.) wants to shore up the security of American voting systems ahead of the 2018 and 2020 elections. And the senators have focused on two major changes that have broad support from voting security experts.
The first objective is to get rid of paperless electronic voting machines. Computer scientists have been warning for more than a decade that these machines are vulnerable to hacking and can't be meaningfully audited. States have begun moving away from paperless systems, but budget constraints have forced some to continue relying on insecure paperless equipment. The Secure Elections Act would give states grants specifically earmarked for replacing these systems with more secure systems that use voter-verified paper ballots. The legislation's second big idea is to encourage states to perform routine post-election audits based on modern statistical techniques. Many states today only conduct recounts in the event of very close election outcomes. And these recounts involve counting a fixed percentage of ballots. That often leads to either counting way too many ballots (wasting taxpayer money) or too few (failing to fully verify the election outcome). The Lankford bill would encourage states to adopt more statistically sophisticated procedures to count as many ballots as needed to verify an election result was correct -- and no more.
The first objective is to get rid of paperless electronic voting machines. Computer scientists have been warning for more than a decade that these machines are vulnerable to hacking and can't be meaningfully audited. States have begun moving away from paperless systems, but budget constraints have forced some to continue relying on insecure paperless equipment. The Secure Elections Act would give states grants specifically earmarked for replacing these systems with more secure systems that use voter-verified paper ballots. The legislation's second big idea is to encourage states to perform routine post-election audits based on modern statistical techniques. Many states today only conduct recounts in the event of very close election outcomes. And these recounts involve counting a fixed percentage of ballots. That often leads to either counting way too many ballots (wasting taxpayer money) or too few (failing to fully verify the election outcome). The Lankford bill would encourage states to adopt more statistically sophisticated procedures to count as many ballots as needed to verify an election result was correct -- and no more.
Ballot images should exist, too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I feel the electronic voting machines should have a few questions on the constitution and civics and only after you answer them correctly should you be shown the screen which allows you to vote. Too many people who have no idea of what democracy means vote hence making the whole exercise a farce where the one with the most TV time (and by extension the most corporate lobbies) wins because most people dont know what they are voting for.
The questions can be pulled from a rotating questionbank so no 2 people get the same 5 questions and if some party is willing to educate their voters on the right answers to all 5000 questions well now you have an informed voter.
**Life is too short to be serious**
There is a very simple way to do this. Have an electronic voting machine with a paper printout. Voter votes, prints out his ballot and puts it into the ballot box. When counting the electronic count is used but with 10% of the paper votes counted by hand to verify the counts are good. If the counts dont match up statistically or the election is close the backup paper ballots get counted by hand. You get speed and you get accuracy. You have a national level organization standardize the machine format to be used by all local authorities. Heck in India there is a National Election Commission whose only job is to conduct elections. They are pretty multipartisan as their terms overlap across elections and every party which comes to power gets to put its appointees on the commission but that would never work in US as the US distrusts federal solutions.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Also remove every "(R)" and "(D)" from the ballot. Let's not make it quite so easy for people to vote along party lines.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
As long as they are talking about making voting more secure, they should add into the bill voter ID requirements
Absolutely, but a particular group always tries to bring that up right before elections. This ends up becoming a dogwhistle to make certain that the faithful get out to vote.
The fix for this is very simple. When you register to vote, you get a photo ID taken, and a card issued. If you are already registered you get one the next time you vote. And in addition to the photo id, it goes into a database that you have the id. If you cannot find your ID, your drivers license wil be cross referenced with aanother form, such as Driver's license, oyu ar eissued a new ID, and you can vote.
Then it is phased in over a couple election cycles.
Then along with the ID, you cannot be denied the ability to vote - indeed keeping a person from voting should be a third degree felony for the polling place manager(s) Give them an incentive for promotion of enfranchisement. Lines with a wait time longer than an hour will be a misdemeanor, and must be addressed by a new group of poll workers and a solution. As well, the Voter should get a confirmation that their vote has been counted.
Any problems with that? Disenfranchisement as a felony will probably be the one most people doen't like. But some groups like issuing felonies, so maybe that's a win win?
Now the interesting thing is that I am holding in my fat little hand, a voting ID card. Seems they already exist. Standing by to hear why my proposal won't work.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
How do you get to the DMV if you live 30 miles away from the closest one, and have to work two jobs just to put food on the table?
Same way you get to the polling station?
if you don't have a birth certificate or SS card, what then?
I am not sure. What do we do if someone can't prove they have a legal right to vote which is what I thought the point of a voter ID was supposed to address?
This is discriminatory, and is intendedt to be so.
HOW?!?! I don't understand. They can get to the polling station but not the DMV (as an example, I am sure they can get the ID in other government facilities that the law would spell out. Hell allow over the phone or by mail to solve that problem). They can't prove they have a legal right to vote but they can still vote but it's discrimination if you ask for proof of who you are?
There are 12.5 million illegal immigrants in the US. In California, they are given a drivers license which is enough to be able to vote. How many votes swung the last election? Clinton had 3 million more but actual swing votes? 60,000 maybe in key districts? Do you think maybe that could have an influence on our election, more so than spurious anonymous sourced Russian meddling?
Do I need an ID to purchase a gun?