Slashdot Mirror
Top Voting Machine Vendor Admits It Installed Remote-Access Software on Systems Sold to States (vice.com)
Kim Zetter, reporting for Motherboard: The nation's top voting machine maker has admitted in a letter to a federal lawmaker that the company
installed remote-access software on election-management systems it sold over a period of six years, raising questions about the security of those systems and the integrity of elections that were conducted with them. In a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) in April and obtained recently by Motherboard, Election Systems and Software acknowledged that it had "provided pcAnywhere remote connection software ... to a small number of customers between 2000 and 2006," which was installed on the election-management system ES&S sold them.
The statement contradicts what the company told me and fact checkers for a story I wrote for the New York Times in February. At that time, a spokesperson said ES&S had never installed pcAnywhere on any election system it sold. "None of the employees -- including long-tenured employees, has any knowledge that our voting systems have ever been sold with remote-access software," the spokesperson said. ES&S did not respond on Monday to questions from Motherboard, and it's not clear why the company changed its response between February and April. Lawmakers, however, have subpoena powers that can compel a company to hand over documents or provide sworn testimony on a matter lawmakers are investigating, and a statement made to lawmakers that is later proven false can have greater consequence for a company than one made to reporters.
The statement contradicts what the company told me and fact checkers for a story I wrote for the New York Times in February. At that time, a spokesperson said ES&S had never installed pcAnywhere on any election system it sold. "None of the employees -- including long-tenured employees, has any knowledge that our voting systems have ever been sold with remote-access software," the spokesperson said. ES&S did not respond on Monday to questions from Motherboard, and it's not clear why the company changed its response between February and April. Lawmakers, however, have subpoena powers that can compel a company to hand over documents or provide sworn testimony on a matter lawmakers are investigating, and a statement made to lawmakers that is later proven false can have greater consequence for a company than one made to reporters.
if you dig any further maybe reach china.
oops:
Symantec pcAnywhere has been discontinued. The following FAQ helps you answer your queries that are related to this End-of-Life announcement.
Does it matter?
Same as any other distributed application.
But it is stupid that the remote access s/w was pc anywhere, instead of ssh.
It's plausible that an admin or tech installed it for convenience at certain trouble customers and current execs just weren't aware. It doesn't mean they lied. This was 15-20 years ago. Pretty common practice.
If your electronic voting booth runs a commercial operating system then you have already failed to secure your systems.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The Man finally figured out that stealing money is for chumps. The best crime is to steal the whole country.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
"and a statement made to lawmakers that is later proven false can have greater consequence for a company than one made to reporters."
Indeed..
I'm sure when motherboard called up some low level person handled the query off the cuff - "Gosh, I've worked here as an intern for 6 months, and I'm sure we'd never do that".. while...
When the letter on US Senate letterhead shows up with an official inquiry, bells went off and the "legislative affairs" people were brought in, and they went around investigating, and having company counsel review the response.
Simple thing - for the former, at worst it's a "we misunderstood the question", for the latter it's "in which federal facility would your CEO like to be imprisoned".
"provided pcAnywhere remote connection software ... to a small number of customers between 2000 and 2006,"
The same PCAnywhere that was so egregiously exploitable that Symantec - Symantec of all companies, gave out free copies of version 12 to users who owned literally any prior version no matter how old it was? THAT is the product that was being utilized on voting machines?!
It has become abundantly clear that any company selling technology-based solutions to the government which can successfully win a bid should under no circumstances be allowed to do the job.
This seems to be a much bigger deal than *russia*.
ANY back door is a security risk and a potential for remote hacking. Especially if all the units have ONE backdoor login.
This was 15-20 years ago. Pretty common practice.
A STUPID and IDIOTIC practice. And if any of the voting machines still have that access, that would be negligence.
They went back to machine graded multiple choice exams on paper. And then they invited in millions of ghost voters to screw up the voting counts.
{o.o}
I TOLD YOU SO GOD DAMN IT.
Why would you assume they wouldn't install a backdoor? WHY??? Changing election totals gave them trillions of dollars in tax cuts and complete power.
Don't talk about open-source replacements. Any solution with electrons will be hacked and controlled. Go back to paper, the way Canada does, or did before the Tories rammed e-voting in. I wonder why, I wonder.
They put PCAnywhere on the MANAGEMENT systems on a few customer's systems. This was NOT on voting machines.
Folks do need to realize that this risk pretty much requires internet access and requires firewall access rules that allow it. This is not some huge risk and is easily mitigated by your standard network firewall configuration. Your home router would be sufficient to prevent unauthorized access using PCAnywhere. Big woop.
So why did the story change? Because, it wasn't part of the normal systems sold back in 2000-2006 and somebody remembered that in a few cases PCAnywhere was used to provide support for some selected customers and pointed that out to the people making these statements. Then, presented with evidence contrary to their original statement, they tell the truth and modify their statements.
Where this is something that needs to be fixed and PCAnywhere removed from the systems in question, there is very little real risk.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not just closed source, the problem goes deeper:
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/doylestown/all-pa-voting-machines-will-have-paper-trail-2020-election
"Currently, about 83 percent of voters in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania cast their ballots on electronic voting machines that record the choices directly onto computer memory and produce no paper record"
Essentially worthless voting in Pennsylvania there. Even the company who owns the closed source software cannot tell you if the result is real or not.
It seems verified voter paper trails have not been implemented across a lot of states.
Owner, CEO, CTO, Sales VP, Head Engineer
If there are no teeth or significant personal repercussions for this, then it will continue to happen.
Make voting equipment 'regulated' in the same manner that pharmaceutical manufacturing systems are. The FDA has a rather lengthy, and well documented, requirements around the systems - including: access (physical and digital (e.g. network)), change management, etc.
For example, once a pharma system is 'certified' for production they cannot be changed without, more or less, an act of Ghod, approval of the FDA, and a rather lengthy documentation process.
Yes, there are drug manufacturing systems that still run DOS, Win 3.11, Win 95, antiquated AS/400, VAX, etc. These are the systems that were installed when production was certified. And it significantly costs more to upgrade and recertify the environment than to keep them locked inside a closet, air-gaped, and humming along.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=820&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:8.0.1.1.12.7
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/SmallBusinessAssistance/UCM456367.pdf
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/manufacturing/ucm090016.htm
https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/postmarketrequirements/qualitysystemsregulations/default.htm
As much a folks like to bash the FDA as a bureaucratic morass - keep in mind their prime objective - ensure the public safety with regards to the medical industry - in that they do what would be almost impossible for folks to do themselves - purity, efficacy, and standardization drugs, medical devices, and similar bits.
Fred in IT
The statement contradicts what the company told me and fact checkers for a story I wrote for the New York Times in February. At that time, a spokesperson said ES&S had never installed pcAnywhere on any election system it sold. "None of the employees, ⦠including long-tenured employees, has any knowledge that our voting systems have ever been sold with remote-access software,"
You mean to tell me some corporate spokesdrone would LIE to a reporter and not until their feet are held to the fire by legitimate legal power would the truth come out??!!
Shocked, I tell you. I am shocked.
Reading up on verified paper voting trails. (=My personal wishlist item for verifiable elections) reveals some disturbing stuff from 2016's election:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/paperless-pennsylvania-can-swing-state-verify-2016-vote-n660266
"Even benign breakdowns of aging equipment — 43 states have machines that are more than a decade old ", i.e. states with voting machines from before 2006, the new standards didn't come in until 2007 and ESS only removed this software on machines made AFTER 2007.
You claimed it was 15-20 years ago, but the article says 2007 was the time they removed them and then only for new voting machines sold.
"when Pennsylvanians go to the polls to elect a new president in a month, more than 80 percent of them will be using machines that don't have a paper-backed audit."
Let me guess, Pennsylvania was polling strongly for Clinton yet elected Trump by a slim and plausible margin.
"Hillary Clinton leading by up to 12 points in Pennsylvania..."
(From Wikipedia after the article)
Trump wins Pennsylvania by 48.18% to 47.46%...
I'm guessing that this is odd.
2012, strong Obama, 2008 strong Obama, 2004 kerry, 2000 Al Gore....
Yeh right, and now you can't even verify it because you didn't have a paper trail to verify against.
FFS,
We are subjects, and we have no control.... if we ever did.
You're an ID-10-T and a moron.
The voting management systems are the machines that actually count the votes!
Where would you like to put your hack? Somehow on the 1000+ individual voting machines in a county that folks walk up to? or the one ring (machine) that rules them all that actually counts the votes?
And it could be something fairly small....
On each race, for every vote for party x, adjust 5% of votes on party x down by one and party y up by one. Enough that a landslide would still ring true, but a typical 5-10% spread election would be shifted without notice... could even add logic that if the actual election is really close (under say 3%) - make no adjustment! That way there is no scrutiny in the system.
Voting machines decide who gets a huge amount of power in our government. Backdoor access via a software package whose source code had been leaked and exploited, leading to the manufacturer recommending that it be removed, is huge goddamn deal.
So free!
Whens the violent revolution against the 1% who stole Amerika begin? Gais??
Americans are such pussies.
They put PCAnywhere on the MANAGEMENT systems on a few customer's systems. This was NOT on voting machines.
One would only need remote access to a voting machine if they wanted to change the votes recorded by that one machine.
Assuming it was even on all the voting machines for a customer, there are only so many votes in total that district would be able to have before being noticed.
If you wanted to have any effect on the vote count, you'd need either remote access on all of the voting machines, or optionally remote access to just one management system that totals all of the voting machines votes.
Oh wait, that's what happened.
Folks do need to realize that this risk pretty much requires internet access and requires firewall access rules that allow it. This is not some huge risk and is easily mitigated by your standard network firewall configuration. Your home router would be sufficient to prevent unauthorized access using PCAnywhere. Big woop.
"Standard" firewall configuration is to allow all outgoing connections, but either block all incoming connections, or perform NAT so incoming connections are not directly possible.
But note the allow all outgoing connections part. You home router, if it is an off the shelf end-user level device, is guaranteed to be configured this way.
PCAnywhere makes an outgoing connection to provide remote access.
As you will note from above, your home off the shelf router will allow that. Standard configurations will allow that.
You'd need a non-standard configuration to block outgoing connections except for explicitly allowed ones. Plus you'd need to not explicitly allow the management system to make outgoing connections too.
Those facts make your claim incorrect.
Also I would have serious doubts about the reality of the networks these management systems would be on to be properly configured in this non-standard way to prevent outgoing connections from the PCAnywhere client. Lowest bidder contractors and all tend to do the bare minimum to give the illusion of things working and no more.
Not changing the default firewall to prevent outgoing connections would certainly qualify as giving the illusion of working. Why put in the extra work when it isn't specified and they aren't getting paid for it? I'd guess they wouldn't.
Where this is something that needs to be fixed and PCAnywhere removed from the systems in question, there is very little real risk.
What situation could you postulate that would convince me a person that was authorized to physically access this system, didn't double-click the PCAnywhere client to provide outside access to the machine?
"The voting management systems are the machines that actually count the votes!"
Not on the ES&S systems being described. It's not your fault for not knowing that since they conveniently left those details out. The point is to reinforce the myth that the elections are rigged against you when you lose.
Sorry son, the House of Saud does not tollerate debate.
How many different governments had their hand in this cookie jar?
The solution to multi-party corruption is not different politicians. The solution is limiting what those politicians can do.
Fuck Californee for being home to ethnics right? Fuck yeah.. white guys!
So, are they saying the electronic voting machines, the scanner machines... or are they talking about the systems that the votes are uploaded *to*?
The last would make the most sense... and why change individual votes, when you can change the uploaded vote data files, and thus change the totals, via that one system?
This damn well ought to be jail time for the CEO.
You have (thus far) written nine posts claiming "NOTHING TO SEE FOLKS" but have provided zero actual data or citiations, just your personal assurances. Can you provide a link to any source that supports your assertion here?
This alleged "fact" is not found in any of the reporting on this that I have seen such as original New York Magazine story, updates by Motherboard, The Verified Voting watchdog project, etc.
You wouldn't be, y'know, just making stuff up now, would you?
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Never in the ENTIRE history of American politics had there been a differenve greater than 3% in exit-polls vs tallied results yet in 2004 Diebold voting machines saw a 15% vote-shift between exit polls and tallied results. No one has ever been charged for these crimes and Bush 2 sat for a second term as President in a position he was never ever elected to hold.
Your guns cannot defeat the 1%. You are lost.
I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. The idea that PcAnywhere being installed on a management system 15 years ago has fuck-all to do with anything is the extraordinary claim that requires evidence, and there is none.
I'm not defending electronic voting by the way. It's a horrible idea.
"false belief in election-rigging that's become common practice"
ATM's are hacked all the time, to pretend voting machines are different, given the flippent security measures, is laughable. People should be skeptical of elections, because skepticism causes verification. They don't have to like a result, they have to be able to verify it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-banks-atm/hackers-hit-u-s-russian-banks-in-atm-robbery-scam-report-idUSKBN1E51SZ
"A previously undetected group of Russian-language hackers silently stole nearly $10 million from at least 18 mostly U.S. and Russian banks in recent years by targeting interbank transfer systems"
You think they can steal dollars and not change votes? Even when basic security measures are not taken? Even when you don't even put the printed audit trail on the voting machine?
Seriously?
Back in 2001 I got laid off and was *this* *close* to getting a job with these bozos.
I was *also* in the final interview, pre-offer stages to take a job with Adelphia at their headquarters in backwoods Pennsylvania (apologies in advance to any readers from Coudersport. I'm sure it's very nice, and i would have likely enjoyed living there, but i also would have preferred to be employed.)
<whizzzzz> multiple. bullets. dodged.
If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.
There are classes of people who will have trouble getting ID (especially RealID compliant), but who are citizens and have the right to vote:
1) Proof of residence - tough if you're a homeless person and don't have a handy utility bill with your name (or your parent's name - my 22 year old daughter doesn't get any utility bills in her name)
2) Proof of SSN - Think about this - do you have a *photo ID* with which you could prove your SSN? Didn't think so. If you bring your previous photo ID (drivers license) with address that matches the address and name on a W2 or 1040, they'll take that. Hmm, homeless person.. think they have W2's handy?
3) Proof of citizenship - original certified birth certificate - Oddly, because of the increase in identity theft, it's harder to get one of these purely by mail. Some states or counties require you to appear, in person, at the county recorder. California requires a notarized sworn statement that you are the person named on the request. Notaries do not work for free, nor do they hang out in homeless encampments or sketchy areas of town. AND, they ask to see ID - so you're in that circular argument of needing ID to get it notarized to get your ID.
Assuming you're in a "get it by mail" place, we're back to the "what does a homeless poor person do?" Walk to the post office and get a postal money order, then mail the letter, with a return address of "under the I-95 freeway bridge where it crosses the bay, on the left side" (this what people in Florida who were sex offenders had to do)
And lets not even get started on the whole "all you have to do is go online and fill out this form and submit it with your credit card number" for any of the steps. There's a whole lot of people who cannot do this.
...wouldn't be willing to risk his job, pension, and jail time to change a few votes? Totally worth it.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
While *you* might think that "ability to vote" is low on your priority list if you are poor and/or homeless, there's an awful lot of people who are citizens, who have the right to vote, want to do so, and do not have the means to get all the ID required. And it's quite challenging if you're homeless and poor. - no utility bills, paychecks, bank statements, driver's license, etc.
If not then FUCK YOU for being a fascist cockgobbler.
Even when proposals are made to require ID and to make it free, or free to those who say they can't afford the nominal fee, the Democrats say it's racist.
Apparently it's too onerous for someone to go and get an ID, and that it's disproportionately onerous to certain races. Yet they're perfectly fine with requiring every person to buy health insurance. And they're perfectly fine with requiring extensive background checks for purchasing firearms.
Whatever your position on the matter is, it's clear that the Democratic party's position is entirely duplicitous.
The DNC is fighting to keep dead people on the voter rolls. They're fighting to keep people who live in other states on the rolls in their former state.
They don't want you purging the voter rolls of people who have died or people who have moved to another state. They don't want you verifying that the person voting is the person they claim to be. Why?
Require an ID to vote. Make it free or cheap to get (and free for anyone who bitches and moans, I guess). If someone tries to vote without one, give them a provisional ballot and count it only after they satisfy ID requirements. It's not hard. We have the infrastructure in pace to do it (DMV offices, post offices, any place you can register to vote, etc.). Yet some people are against taking basic steps to secure the integrity of our elections. The SAME people who have been screaming for over 18 months that the election was "hacked".
The DNC is fighting to keep dead people on the voter rolls. They're fighting to keep people who live in other states on the rolls in their former state.
:citation needed:
. Sigh.
Yet some people are against taking basic steps to secure the integrity of our elections. The SAME people who have been screaming for over 18 months that the election was "hacked".
It's called "psychological projection." The Democrats and the left in general suffer from it. They cannot accept qualities in themselves that they view as bad and therefore project them onto everyone else. They hate minorities and black people in particular, and therefore decide that any attempt to make things fair is "racist."
They claim the election was hacked, because they know it was hacked, because THEY DID IT. (And still lost anyway because they ignored "safe" states.)
They claim Russia colluded because THEY colluded with Russia. Clinton first sold uranium to Russia and then hired their intelligence agencies to get "dirt" on Trump.
Pretty much, any time you hear a Democrat (or really any leftist) complain about something, you can be sure it's because it's something they're doing.
hrc is still nacho president!
get over it you cheating sacs of crap!
Out going to where? Norton's server? NAT affords you some security here by limiting firewall connections to OUTBOUND only, outside traffic cannot initiate a connection unless you have port forwarding turned on, in this case for PCAnywhere.
You see, the ISSUE here is that you can get out, but ONLY when somebody initiates the connection from the inside. Just having PCAnywhere on your system does NOT make it immediately exploitable. PCAnywhere does not just broadcast it's existence and getting IN though a NAT connection is not possible without some other issue in play.
So behind a NAT, this is pretty much a non-issue, unless you have some other security problem such as a compromised router or another server that has some compromise that allows remote access. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I am saying that the risks of that happening are significantly less given that nobody is going to put such systems on the internet directly, unless they are idiots. In which case, PCAnywhere is the least of your worries.
Then you suggest that unauthorized physical access *might* be an issue? Again, IF that's the case, PCAnywhere is the very least of your worries because you are an idiot about security in the first place....
Then there is the whole, It wasn't part of the standard package and only installed on a handful of systems to enable remote support (likely for those who paid extra for this level of support).
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Careful, you might not like what you find!
If we start really looking at these voting machines, we'll soon uncover the Diebold CEO's comments promising to deliver the 2004 election to George W. Bush (specifically Ohio, which they did, and which deviated from exit poles with huge sample bases- by a whopping 6% -- a wide enough margin to trigger new elections in other countries like the Ukraine, but mysteriously not in Ohio). It is likely we'll find many state and local elections have been "stolen," and probably one or two federal and even presidential elections (2004, 2016) where the results may well have been changed (but we'll never know--except by noting abnormal deviations from exit poles like in '04--since there's no audit trail. About the only results we can trust is where the margin of victory was sufficiently large to make such shenanigans impractical (2008, 2012).
Republicans not liking democratic outcomes date back to at least the 1990s when they impeached Clinton, and certainly include 2000, when they stopped a recount they would have lost (as was widely reported outside of the United States when the recount eventually happened, but strangely the US media was either quiet, or buried the story on page 12). 2016 isn't an aberration, it's part of a wider pattern, the only difference is this time they accepted help from a foreign adversary to achieve their goals, so desperate were they to stack the supreme court with their own ideologues for another generation.
You're an ID-10-T and a moron.
The voting management systems are the machines that actually count the votes!
Where would you like to put your hack? Somehow on the 1000+ individual voting machines in a county that folks walk up to? or the one ring (machine) that rules them all that actually counts the votes?
And it could be something fairly small.... On each race, for every vote for party x, adjust 5% of votes on party x down by one and party y up by one. Enough that a landslide would still ring true, but a typical 5-10% spread election would be shifted without notice... could even add logic that if the actual election is really close (under say 3%) - make no adjustment! That way there is no scrutiny in the system.
You are suggesting these systems where hacked via PCAnywhere that basically *requires* local access to initiate the connection. Given your scenario is hypothetical and obvious requires more than just some on line script kitty level hacking to compromise the system, but includes the requirement of having unauthorized administrative and physical access to the systems in question, I think you have overlooked some much bigger security issues.
Then there is the AC posting calling someone a moron angle. Got to love the irony of that... LOL
Sure, sure, lots of things are POSSIBLE... A magnetic storm and cosmic rays could alter the vote count too, but without evidence that it actually happened you cannot somehow claim that it did. So let's dispense with the hypothetical musings and concern ourselves with reality and what we can prove. There is no reason to think the vote counts where messed with after they where cast.... (Although there IS evidence that illegal votes where cast and counted... Like by dead people via mail in ballots and such).
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
in a case like this I'm willing to chalk it up to malice. After all, you just have to control who counts the votes...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
that wants e-voting without a paper trail. Always in the name of fiscal austerity...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
its previous testimony:
“The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why it WOULDN'T be remote access.’ Sort of a double negative."
Out going to where? Norton's server? NAT affords you some security here by limiting firewall connections to OUTBOUND only, outside traffic cannot initiate a connection unless you have port forwarding turned on, in this case for PCAnywhere.
They are Symantec servers now, they purchased Norton. But yes, it connects outbound to Symantec servers to await remote control.
Then you sign in to Symantec server, enter the client ID shown in PCAnywhere, and a password also shown in PCAnywhere, and you have remote control of the system.
Again, NAT does NOT block outgoing connections by default, and especially in a "standard configuration", so yes this outbound connection through NAT is all that is required.
You all keep bringing up incoming connections as if that matters. Inbound isn't needed, at all, so it doesn't matter if you can or not. Port forwarding too, it isn't needed, there is NO inbound connection to speak of, so it doesn't matter if there would be one setup.
Then you suggest that unauthorized physical access *might* be an issue? Again, IF that's the case, PCAnywhere is the very least of your worries because you are an idiot about security in the first place....
Yes, insider access is the problem. Physical access is just as bad as remote access so far as being bad.
Remote access sounds slightly less accountable than physical in this case. Unless they have security cameras or something watching the operator (which I doubt, but I guess is possible)
Physical access would still be access controlled. They would know who all is on shift when the security breech happened. Sure that just narrows down the list of suspects, but its better than nothing.
Remote access however can be initiated at one point in time, and not utilized for some time.
Depends if there is a reboot or other maintenance schedule setup.
But the fact it quite possibly could be that the person running PCAnywhere and thus enabling remote access can be days or weeks separated from USING that remote access to do anything.
This puts your list of suspects back up to "everyone who has potential access to the system, over the past week+"
I'm not claiming they are not idiots about security here, quite the reverse in fact :P
I'm also under no illusion that this isn't exactly the desired operation of things.
That was the result of a state's regulations not being effective. Any reason to believe state electoral commissions will be better?
That was the result of a state's regulations not being effective. Any reason to believe state electoral commissions will be better? (Trying to repost as a real person - wasn't logged in before!!)
I'm in the center, and I am seeing BOTH sides being ridiculously incalcitrant here. Democrats bitch that any voter ID proposal is bad before even looking at it, and Republicans complain that voter fraud is rampant despite the total lack of evidence. Never mind both sides being hypocritical and creating gerrymandered districts.
I think we should let everyone eligible be able to vote. If they don't have an ID or someone to vouch for them, then create a provisional ballot. It may slow down the counting, but I'd rather it take months to decide the winner than to disenfranchise someone. I also think college students should vote if they're living 2/3rds of the year in the county, and I think that ex convicts should vote also if they've served their time, and I think armed forces serving over time should be allowed to vote.
Voting is every citizens right and duty and no one should stand in the way of it. That's the top priority, and I don't have issues with voter ID if it doesn't get in the way of anyone of any political persuasion from voting.
It's also plausible you're kissing trump's ass again.
In case you've forgotten who Train is, he is a 100% trumptard. They can do no wrong in his book. Like trump, he really hates this collusion investigation. No matter how much data multiple agencies present, he stands by his decision that no one hacked anything regarding, related to, or involving our election system-- experts be damned. He gets to see data the rest of us Rubes don't have access to evidently so he knows all the facts. He's totally all over the DNC getting hacked though cause they deserved it.
using blockchain for voting?
Your response is iequally retarded. It's not simple at all. What if no one runs on that platform? Oh you're gonna tell me to run aren't you? Again, not simple or practical. Keep licking your master's boots, Reek. The only thing we agree on is e-voting is too corrupt.
SIGH. GOOGLE IT.
voter roll dead
voter roll moved
Obama had the house and the white house. There is obviously a lot of vote machine rigging, and the republicans are much better at it than the democrats. But Obama did nothing. Wanted to build a consensus.
Nice fellow, that Obama.
Remember boys & girls: in every state where Hitlary Clinton won, she won because of election fraud. (Not voter fraud - election fraud: tampering with the voting system to give a false vote count.)
Clinton actually lost the popular vote by a landslide.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can tell you don't actually know any homeless people.
Not surprised. The company involved has strong ties, if it's not practically the same company as Diebold.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm to the left of center I suppose. I don't think convicts should lose their right to vote. This is a Jim Crow law remainder. Don't let them people vote on that thing that put them in prison.