Slashdot Mirror
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.
"In addition to Wyden, the bill was sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Sen. Ed Markey (Massachusetts), Sen. Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Sen. Patty Murray (Washington), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut). All are Democrats."
somehow, I knew it would not be the R's that wanted an audit trail.
funny, that...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Next up, we must eliminated the electoral college, which is a remnant of the founders' deep-seated fear of democracy.
First of all, wrong. Tbe federal government was, among other things, a convocation of independent and sovereign states. The state governments wanted a finger in the control of the feds or they ain't buying into it. What's the past tense of ain't? They t'warn't buying into it.
And good luck convincing the myriad small flyover states that what's wrong with the country is the concrete canyons of the coast don't have enough power and control to do the things they hate.
Your idea there is something inherently great in your position is ahistoric and made up out of whole cloth. You have control over your state, who has control over their chunk of the federal government.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
the next more important step is ensuring the paper trail is audited, as part of the election process, not some vague "recount" territory.
That's already in the bill. From the article: "The bill would also require rigorous audits for all federal elections to ensure that results match the votes."
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
> OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote?
I feel that we first need proof that in-person voter fraud is a big enough problem to require a solution that can potentially disenfranchise vulnerable populations.
(Absentee ballot fraud, on the other hand, could arguably be worth addressing.)
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/
Being an established computer consultant, I got to provide input when the US Virgin Islands' election system was upgraded, a good friend on the Board of Elections brought over a bunch of brochures for me to review one evening in the early 1980s. There were chad systems ("Punch cards? You must be joking!") and push-button machines ("Where's the paper trail? Do you know what a 'hacker' is?" "It's available but 'costs extra'. Are these people for real??"). And there were optical zoned page scanners.
My friend and I agreed -- his vote on the Board of Elections -- was to keep the paper ballot. People are used to it. If anything, beef up the security and oversight surrounding transport of ballots cast; use bleeding-edge technology cautiously and wisely: do the counting of paper ballots with optical readers. Because just like the money counter machines, you can do it again quickly to see if you get the same result. And if the machines break and the power goes out -- the election process is 'safe', breezes along as smoothly as ever -- only the results are delayed.
Just WHEN was it decided that election results needed to be tallied in hours or minutes? From where did the pressure arise such that hand counting of paper ballots (or in the least, optical scan of same) is too slow? That we instead impose few-vendor centralized no-paper systems that are inherently hackable?
Here's the test I impose. A paper ballot system may also have its problems -- BUT -- any given layman you bring in off the street to observe the tally process will have a clear view of a ballot box's chain of custody. Any layman observing the subsequent counting of those ballots (by hand or optical reader, with verification of random batches to test the reader) has a clear grasp of the process, and can tell whether the system is honest. No one can say if a wholly computerized system is honest. And even if you find someone who claims they are sure, no one can tell whether they are being honest.
If it's Democracy you want, use as simple a voting/tally system as possible; for the tally process use as many human beings as possible, local volunteers as participants and observers. If it's Oligarchy you want, go ahead and totally castrate the process of transparency by implementing insecurity through obscurity, touch screen BS with no hope of verification or recount.
The idea of all-electronic voting really should have been laughed out of the room, once upon a time. This is coming from a techie who favors modernization in other areas of society. xkcd agrees.
My friend on the Board was voted down: they decided to purchase push-button machines from Shouptronics... but at least each station had its own built-in battery backup and built in receipt-type printer that ran a paper tape. Unlike most today.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
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.
Government issued IDs when voting are not necessary as anybody who as studied this issue knows.
Voter fraud is not an issue. First, I need to define this term. Voter fraud is when a person votes or attempts to vote as somebody different than who they are. It is hard to imitate a different voter and not very efficient. Republicans have been trying to prove massive voter fraud for many years, at least since George W. Bush has been in office. I don't have exact statistics handy, but there has been less that two people per state per year. It is not a problem.
However there have been documented cases of legitimate people being denied the right to vote because they could not get an ID. IDs cost money, and some people could not afford the fees and/or could not afford the transportation costs to get the ID. Even if they could afford the ID, they could not afford to take off time from work to get IDs.
In some states, officials reduce the hours of offices where you could get IDs or closed offices. Most of these offices where minority areas or heavily Democratic areas. In Texas, they allowed hunting licenses to be used, but not student IDs issues by state schools because they thought that hunters were more likely to be Republicans than students
So no, it is not a double standard to opposed government issued IDs because the requirement was and is used to deny the people their right to vote.
and has been ruled as such multiple times. The scam isn't even that complex. Women tend to lean a bit left so it's beneficial to make it harder for them to vote (when they marry and their names change they need new Ids). It's easy to close the DMVs and other places where a voter could get Id. Finally fees can be attached to getting an id creating a defacto poll tax that seems small unless you're poor.
Multiple emails have leaked where Republican leaders didn't just talk about how these factors made voter Id a suppression technique but where they did the research to prove that it was before they put the effort into passing it. Those leaked emails have been what's caused voter Id to be thrown out where ever it's been tried. The Republicans have noticed this and are working to stack the courts with judges who will ignore the rule of law. So far they're succeeding.
If you're involved enough in politics to know about voter Id laws you are probably aware of all this. If not then I trust you no longer favor voter Id. If you are somehow still in favor of voter Id knowing all this then it's clear you oppose democracy. If that's the case then just come right out and say it. I'm tired of listening to dog whistles.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Most of those "adaptations" failed quickly (often violently, "President" turns into dictator fast - see Turkey, and Russia). In fact the presidential system has been called "America's most dangerous export". It's a terrible system, and it's sheer crazy luck that it survived in the United States.
The U.S. system is actually just a really dumb adaptation of the Westminster System. The biggest problem in 1776 was poor allocation of seats in Parliament. Various areas had little or no representation, while other areas were overrepresented (rotten boroughs). Fixing that is of course very difficult, as reform threatens the entrenched powers. The UK passed the Great Reform Act in 1832.
Ironically, the UK ended up with a better system. There's too many reasons to list here, but it's enough to say this was recognized even by the U.S. When we went to write the Japanese constitution, we modeled it on the British system. Parliamentary systems have proven far more resilient and democratic than presidential systems. Even if someone as nutty as Trump had somehow managed to get enough votes in Parliament to become PM in the first place, his government would have lost a confidence vote and been replaced long ago.
(Oh, and separation of powers isn't really the greatest invention either, the British system is based on fusion of powers and it works fine)
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.