Senators Introduce Bill That Would Require State and Local Governments To Use Paper Ballots in an Effort To Secure Elections (cnet.com)

From a report: On Tuesday, nine Senators introduced a bill that would require state and local governments to use paper ballots in an effort to secure elections from hackers. The bill would also require rigorous audits for all federal elections to ensure that results match the votes. "Leaving the fate of America's democracy up to hackable election machines is like leaving your front door open, unlocked and putting up a sign that says 'out of town,'" Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said in a release. "Any failure to secure our elections amounts to disenfranchising American voters." The Protecting American Votes and Elections Act of 2018 was drafted amid intense scrutiny of voting systems ahead of the mid-term elections in November. Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has elevated concern over the security of the country's voting systems. The senators said rigorous audits will ensure votes are legitimate. Currently, 22 states don't require post-election audits, according to the release.

Comments

Re:What about voter ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote? Because requiring voters to identify themselves and verify eligibility to vote is part of securing an election. If you oppose that, then you obviously want to disenfranchise voters.

The right to vote is a constitutional right.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that presenting a government issued ID is required in order to exercise your rights.

Please Google it: Ihre Papiere bitte

We still use paper ballots up here, eh

[dstyle5]

We still use paper ballots in our elections here in Canada and I'm fine with that. For the most part they work very well, except when they don't have enough ballots. We encountered that in our city elections last year in Calgary, which caused an uproar. Hopefully that doesn't make them decided to go electronic.

Thankfully the Calgary Flames/Gary Bettman/NHL annointed candidate of choice lost, seemed like he was ready to cut them a nice big juicy new arena cheque had he won.

Re:What about voter ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problems with voter ID laws is that then politicians close down DMVs in areas where they want less voters. Also, DMVs require more documentation for IDs than is necessary to vote. If implemented properly, voter ID laws would be fine - in reality, that's never happened:

Alabama:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/01/alabama_closes_dmvs_in_majority_of_black_belt_counties_passed_voter_id_law.html

Wisconsin:
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsin-is-systematically-failing-to-provide-the-photo-ids-required-to-vote-in-november/

Can work

[ixuzus]

We use paper ballots in Australia and usually the result is known within four hours of votes closing. I wasn't aware of some of the other protections that go into the process until I was early to vote one year. I was invited into the polling centre and asked to inspect the empty ballot boxes before they were sealed and signed to confirm that the serial numbers of the seals matched. This has to be done by a member of the public - it can't be done by an electoral official. I believe another member of the public must verify the seals again when the boxes are opened. I was also told that each polling centre has to account for all the ballot papers issued to them. Remaining blank ballot papers plus spoiled ballot papers (people made a mistake and exchanged for a fresh paper) plus votes cast must be very close to ballot papers issued or there is cause to dispute the result. At one election 1400 ballot papers went missing for the senate. The whole senate election was rerun. That's the sort of protection you want.

The other thing I really like is optional preferential voting. As a voter you can vote for as many candidates as you want in order - or not. All the first preference votes are counted and the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their ballot papers are distributed to the next preference on the ballot paper. This is repeated until only one candidate remains. You can vote for an independent or minor party but if they don't get elected your vote still counts toward which of the major parties gets elected.

Re:A good start

[asackett]

Well, okay, depending upon which idiots we're talking about. In reading Madison's Notes it's important to keep in mind that the "minority" whom the founders spoke of protecting was their own class, the moneyed elite. Which made everyone else the idiots.

Re: you omited the most tasty part

[that this is not und]

You also can't spell Democratic without an R.

Re:What about voter ID?

[Obfuscant]

Also, DMVs require more documentation for IDs than is necessary to vote.

My DMV requires proof of citizenship and proof of residence for ID. For DL, proof of vision and at some time in the past proof of driving ability. So, for ID, everything that is required for voting and nothing more.

alabama_closes_dmvs

If only there were some way of getting ID by mail ... like maybe going to a post office and doing something ... States don't control post offices like they do DMV offices.

This bill is being pushed by Wyden, and yes, Oregon is a state with a lot of logging that supports papermaking plants. It is also a state that mails ballots out to every registered voter, losing all control of where they wind up and who actually votes them. How do you audit a voting system like that? You have unsecured ballot drop boxes, and unsecured trash containers where people discard ballots they aren't going to vote. The validation of the elector is a signature on an envelope which is compared by eye with a recorded signature. If your ballot is tossed because the "signature doesn't match" nobody tells you so you can rectify the situation.

This is what Wyden wants for the entire US. Toss ballots to the four winds and count what comes back. You can provide perfect security for the paper ballots once they get past the eyeball signature check, but if everything up to that point is wide open for fraud you don't really have a secure voting system.

I oppose it

[rsilvergun]

because:

a. It's been shown to be unnecessary. Voter fraud is not the problem. The problem is the election officials cheating. Go google the actual research on voter fraud and you'll find this out.

b. It's also been clearly shown to be a suppression tactic. Republican official have been caught several times doing research to prove that it targets their opposition (minorities and women mostly), that the fees associated with the Ids are defacto poll taxes and that the laws exist only to prevent legitimate voters. This is why the laws have been struct down over and over again.

Anyone who suggests voter Id is a solution to fraud is lying to you and opposes democracy. You should be highly suspicious of them and their motives. Again, spend a few hours on google and you can corroborate all this yourself. If you want voter Id to stop the "wrong" persons from voting then I can't really argue with that. But if you actually believe in democracy then you should oppose it.

Re: What about voter ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

And nowhere does it give the federal government the authority to mandate how states run their elections.

Except in Article I, Section 4, and in the 15th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.

You should really review the law instead of making false claims.

Re:Paper ballots work in Canada

[Strider-]

That can't happen.

The election is observed at each polling station by representatives of each party involved. The ballots are counted on site, in triplicate, under the supervision of representatives of each candidate contesting the election. These results are then phoned into the central reporting system, and the scrutineers can verify that the correct numbers were transmitted.

Recounts rarely result in more than a change by one or two votes.

Re:A good start

[DamnOregonian]

The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown.

You can claim that as a theoretical use of the elector system, for sure. You however cannot claim that is what it was designed for. It's well documented what it was designed for. It neatly implements the 3/5ths compromise in presidential elections, as well as handles the issue that suffrage in the south was limited to land owners, making their popular vote tally quite small.
To quote Mr. Madison, the pragmatist who was the force behind having it implemented:

The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention

We accept your apology for spreading falsehoods.

Assuming faithful Electors, however, their vote is worth about as much as anyone else's.

Sigh. Another lie.
Someone from Wyoming for example: Their vote is worth the vote of 3.18 Americans *not* from Wyoming. Far worse if from say, California.
You're really letting me down, sexy.

Unless their State is stupid enough to tell Electors to vote in a winner-take-all scheme.

Which is literally every state in the Union, minus two. Friendly tip, when you're arguing that reality is a certain way, don't suffix it with "Unless this condition that is actually the status quo is true"

to smooth out the rounding error.

You seem to be confused about what a rounding error is.

Aside from all that, your mention of slavery is entirely misplaced.

No, it's not, as the was clearly discussed during the Constitutional Convention that led to the fucking rules.

You're likely referring to how the population of each State is counted when determining the number of Representatives to apportion to a State.

If only the number of representatives apportioned to a state had something to do with a state's electoral power in a Presidential election... oh wait.
Come on, dude. Come the fuck on.

The bicameral legislature and the Electoral College are entirely separate things from this issue.

Except for the fact that both were apportioned according to that "issue", and that the founders preferred a popular vote for the Presidency, ideologically speaking, were it not for fears of the very limited suffrage in the south. As such, the electoral system was in fact the 3/5ths compromise, applied to the election of the executive, and was never dressed up as anything else until assholes such as yourself in the modern era tried to rewrite history to gaslight the truth behind the odd quirks of our electoral system, birthed in slavery, that favor today's "conservative" (see: antebellum) voters.

Despicable, dude.

You don't even need optical machine

[aepervius]

You just need to have distributed counting like many other countries do. The one I was born to, slice the voting places by about a few thousand electors. Then during election days they ask for volunteer. Usually they get around 20 from many political affiliation. I was one for many election. Then each is separated in a small group, then we get each a part of the ballot to count, then we note the number, then the ballots get shifted to another table then it get recounted, and finally the results which only officials can see until recount are finished, are compared (to avoid bias and people simply telling the same number). At that point maybe 1 hour has passed after the election, number are put on a board then summed, and result toldf loudly. Then the results are sent/cascaded/tabulated by region so everybody in the voting county can check the number they found is correct. Within 1 or 2 hours the results are in for 95% of all places, with recount already going on if there are problems. Then the paper ballot are kept under key for some times, with the name of the county. And yes the number of potential elector while not being 200 million , is around 1/5 of that so it ain't a micro island where that happens. You get the results without expansive optical readers, AND you get transparency to the voters.

Again, google

[rsilvergun]

see here. 538 is a well respected political blog. They've got plenty of research to back up how voter Ids laws disproportionately impact minorities and in turn disproportionately benefit Republicans.

If you're OK with voter suppression then by all means, support voter Id. Just understand that you're opposing democracy. You may have your reasons. You may earnestly believe those people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But you should at least be aware of what your support for Voter Id laws is actually doing and not delude yourself into thinking you're protecting democracy.