Slashdot Mirror
West Virginia To Introduce Mobile Phone Voting For Midterm Elections (cnn.com)
West Virginians serving overseas will be the first in the country to cast federal election ballots using a smartphone app, a move designed to make voting in November's election easier for troops living abroad. But election integrity and computer security experts expressed alarm at the prospect of voting by phone, and one went so far as to call it "a horrific idea." CNN: The state's decision to pioneer mobile voting comes even as the United States grapples with Russian interference in its elections. A recent federal indictment outlined Russia's attempts to hack US voting infrastructure during the 2016 presidential race, and US intelligence agencies have warned of Russian attempts to interfere with the upcoming midterm election. Still, West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner and Voatz, the Boston company that developed the app, insist it is secure. Anyone using it must first register by taking a photo of their government-issued identification and a selfie-style video of their face, then upload them via the app. Voatz says its facial recognition software will ensure the photo and video show the same person. Once approved, voters can cast their ballot using the Voatz app.
Especially since Obama was recorded telling him he'll have more flexibility after the election.
But is it illegal to let someone else tell you who to vote for?
No: what's illegal is coercion, or attempts to intimidate or threaten a voter to vote a particular way. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
We had a meeting yesterday where our CEO went over who to vote for. I think most people just did what they were told. Our ballots are due today. I think most people just did what they were told to
That might be a grey area; since the CEO presumably has hiring and firing authority over the workers, so you could see it as maybe edging toward coercion. I'd say that, given a secret ballot, it's not coercion, since they can't actually tell whether you vote as they suggest or not. But, of course, a non-secret ballot makes coercion a lot more practical.
since, for example, who is going to do the research to pick from 30 different senate primary candidates? Thirty!
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The entire Russian operation, mostly after the election, was to sow discord and distrust
Judging by this conversation, I'd say they succeeded.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Since Obama knew about the "hacks" but did nothing, by your reasoning, Barack Obama colluded with the Russians to get Trump elected.
McConnell told Obama he'd deny the allegations if Obama went public, and given the pizzagate lunacy, the Republican base would have 100% believed him and Obama would look like he was manipulating the election himself. Other than dumping the data and thereby betraying god knows how many sources, how do you propose he should have bypassed McConnell and the party of puppets? It's the same logic that blames Obama for Gitmo when the Republicans actively passed measures to forbid him from spending a red cent to close the camp.