Slashdot Mirror


To Deter Foreign Hackers, Some States May Also Be Deterring Voters (npr.org)

A number of states are blocking web traffic from foreign countries to their voter registration websites, making the process harder for some U.S. citizens who live overseas to vote, despite the practice providing no real security benefits. From a report: On its face, the "geo-targeting" of foreign countries may seem like a solid plan: election officials around the country are concerned about foreign interference after Russia's efforts leading up to the 2016 election, so blocking traffic to election websites from outside the United States might seem like an obvious defense starting point. But cybersecurity experts and voting rights advocates say it's an ineffective solution that any hacker could easily sidestep using a virtual private network, or VPN, a commonly-used and easily-available service. Such networks allow for a computer user to use the Internet and appear in a different location than they actually are.

86 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Won't hackers just use a VPN? by cshark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like the only thing something like this would do is deter voters. Hackers know better. This is a perfect case and point as to why people who don't understand computers, networks, or the internet shouldn't be making rules that govern it.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

    1. Re:Won't hackers just use a VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It probably does a good job of preventing deployed military from registering and voting, which is probably the real intention.

    2. Re:Won't hackers just use a VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would think most deployed military is about 25, so they probably didn't vote before the internet.

      Baby Killers

      Why is it you think they are all pro-abortion democrats?

    3. Re:Won't hackers just use a VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Deployed military are on the DoD net and have .mil addresses, they dont use local ISPs, you dune kune.

    4. Re:Won't hackers just use a VPN? by pgmrdlm · · Score: 2

      if the ones putting this into effect are liberal, I would agree. Our military votes republican most often.

      https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2016/05/09/military-times-survey-troops-prefer-trump-to-clinton-by-a-huge-margin/

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    5. Re:Won't hackers just use a VPN? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Seems like the only thing something like this would do is deter voters. Hackers know better.

      Apparently not. I get tons of hacking attempts direct out of Chinese IP space (for those I've looked up), and probably other IP spaces that I haven't looked up. Blocking non-US IP addresses would be much more than just "deter voters", it would block a lot of hacking.

      This is not something that is highly real-time dependent. You don't have to register "right this second". If you've waited so long that it truly is the end of registration time and you need to do it "right this second" using some web site, that's your own fault for waiting. There are almost certainly email-based methods of registering if there is a web version, and that won' t be blocked.

      And, of course, this has nothing to do with voting or blocking actual voters, unless it's the stupid app-based voting intended for out-of-country people. If you can point to an example of an online voting system where out-of-US IPs are blocked, THAT would be deterring voters.

    6. Re:Won't hackers just use a VPN? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, no true red blooded American would know that other countries even exist, so it's only detering those bleeding edge librals who are pretending to be in different countries.

    7. Re:Won't hackers just use a VPN? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They used to send in absentee ballots, until some registrar in Florida suspected them all of being from illegal aliens. Never underestimate the intelligence of election officials.

  2. Re: Not a perfect solution by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Why don't you use a VPN?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  3. It isn't what but how. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes we want to be sure people who are allowed to vote should be able to vote. We don't want people who are not allowed to vote to be able to vote.
    However the current trend of interference in the election isn't hacking the system and casting fake votes. But from foreign groups working hard to make us distrust our neighbor, who happens to have a different view of politics. And Radicalize you and them to prevent consensus to actually move forward.

    If you are left of center, anyone right of you are racist bible thumping bigots who will avoid all science, and would let the world die just as long the GDP stays positive.
    If you are right of center, anyone left of you are spoiled brats who just want freebees without contributing to society. Who would let society collapse just to save a tree.

    We should know that both depictions isn't true for either group, while they may have some people who may go to those levels. However most people will be more reasonable when faced with the actual issues. But the media combined with other groups trying to egg on these differences really cause people to take sides, once they take sides, they will move from near the center and more firmly into the stupid Territory of their particular political leanings.
     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:It isn't what but how. by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      But the media combined with other groups trying to egg on these differences really cause people to take sides, once they take sides, they will move from near the center and more firmly into the stupid Territory of their particular political leanings.

      Yes, other groups such as Russia. This is how we wound up with Trump.

    2. Re:It isn't what but how. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Personally I go the pro-environment/ethno-nationalist/anti-war route. It gives me opportunity to get yelled at by basically the entire population.

    3. Re:It isn't what but how. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, other groups such as Russia. This is how we wound up with Trump.

      The whole Russia false narrative is getting really old, and I can't believe how many people have fallen for it. Hot off the press: Obama Had a Secret Plan in Case Trump Rejected 2016 Election Results It's pretty easy to see that when Trump won instead of lost, they decided to go forward with the false narrative anyway, and their useful idiot friends in the media helped to perpetuate it.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:It isn't what but how. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I said a consensus not an agreement.

      My problem with both sides right now, is each are out for blood. People in group X are suffering, So party 1 wants to help them, while party 2 doesn't because group Y is suffering from different conditions that party 2 wants to help. Party 1 will discredit group Y pain and make them seem like bad people not deserving help. While Party 2 will discredit group X and make them seem like they are not worthy to help.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re: It isn't what but how. by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      The 'primary' system should be replaced with a run-off election; so the final vote is between 2.

    6. Re: It isn't what but how. by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jill Stein being in the race and taking more votes in 3 states than Hillary lost by is how you got Trump.

      That's also wrong, as more Republicans voted for Johnson and McMullen than Democrats did for Stein. Take third parties out of the race and Clinton would have done worse, not better. In fact she would have lost at least Minnesota, as she was ahead of Trump by only 45,000 votes in that state - Johnson and McMullen put together had more than three times that many.

    7. Re: It isn't what but how. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The 'primary' system should be replaced with a run-off election; so the final vote is between 2.

      If you're unhappy that we have a mostly two-party system, then you need to realize that what you just suggested would often result in a one-party system. Any district that has a super-majority of one party will wind up with two candidates from the same party. In the final election you get a choice between, e.g., a Democrat or a Democrat. You want to support a Green Party guy -- to bad, he's not even on the ballot.

    8. Re:It isn't what but how. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      No one(that matters) has said that Russia put Trump in office.

      Plenty of people in the media have said it and continue to say it, from late night TV hosts & SNL, to newspaper & TV journalists. They may not be in the government, but they certainly shape public opinion.

      And why not? Trump has done nothing but lick Putins boots since even before being sworn in.

      You mean like this: Trump launches military strike against Syria, or like this: Trump signs bill approving new sanctions against Russia ? Those don't strike me as boot licking...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    9. Re:It isn't what but how. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      That's true but it's a cop-out to place the majority of the blame on foreign actors. We have a rot in our collective soul. It's unfortunate, it has potentially horrifying consequences, but it wasn't put there by the Russians or the Chinese or international socialists, or Islamists, or the Nazis who escaped to Argentina in the 40s and snuck across the Mexican border in the 90s. I was and is exploited by our enemies, but that's true with everything that falls in the same bin as "The CIA invented AIDS to kill black people."

      You have to ask why things like that are believable. With that, it's believable because we imported slaves, kept them as slaves for centuries, and when we liberated them we kept them as an underclass. That alone is a red herring, because no one who was a slave or born to slaves is still alive, and the number of people born into a legally codified underclass is dwindling and dwindling. But the point is that there are enough people primed to believe it, and there are enough bad actors in society to give people reason to believe it.

      That's the right winger's way of explaining away fake news as a product of the mindset of "those people" who aren't in the mainstream of society. Now let me look inward: I am a while male Republican and work for an academic institution in one of the bluest of the blue states. If a female or an ethnic minority were to even accuse me of sexual or racial insensitivity (let alone harassment), I have absolute confidence that my employer will not have my back and that I may very well lose my job and be blacklisted from working anywhere around here. Part of that blacklisting would be self-imposed. I'm not a liar and I would answer truthfully if asked why it was that I'm looking for work and why it is that I don't have it. And it would be poison. After MeToo and Kavanaugh and James Damore, no one around here would make a hire like that, even if it's just an accusation. I don't have children yet, but when I do, I worry for them too. I'd like to think that we as a society value reason and logic and the rule of law and freedom of speech and tolerance and the presumption of innocence, but I'm not as cock-sure of that as I was even two years ago.

      Let me summarize: I, an upper-middle-class member of the technocrat class, embedded in the belly of the education establishment, distrust the higher education establishment, technology companies (big and small), the media, and just about any cultural or government institution we have. I'm pretty damn sure I'm not alone. Strategically, that's death. If smart people don't trust something as fundamental as education, as employment, then we're all done. We won't push ourselves or our kids to push aspire to reach the top (why bother if a single accusation ruins you), we don't go out on a limb at work (why push yourself if someone can cut you down for good with a word), we won't start businesses or go into politics (why put yourself out there if the consequences of failure can push your family into poverty for generations?), and we'll all be weaker and poorer for it.

      Why does that stick in my head? Why can a Russian or Chinese internet troll push my buttons so that I believe what I just said? Same reason: there's a kernel of truth to it. Google did not stand up for free speech and intellectual honesty. Universities have publicly failed to stand up for free speech and intellectual honesty. Half of the Democratic members of congress have failed to stand up for intellectual honesty and rigor and the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. The media may have fanned those flames (to their everlasting shame) but they didn't create the lynch mob. The lynch mob has always been there, waiting to accrue members and burn a witch. What had been happening in this country for a very long time (to its everlasting credit) is that we, the people, our elected officials, the leaders of our cultural and educational institutions, had consciously chosen to suppress the instinct to join the mob. And I don't mean "violently suppress

    10. Re:It isn't what but how. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like that.

  4. Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go back to paper and skip all this electronic nonsense which has auditing and outside influence trouble. Short of providing a PDF on a state voting site someone can download and fill out there really isn't a solid solution to keep electronic voting secure and frankly it sounds like there never will be.

  5. Do you want a secure election or not? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All this bitching about needing ID's to vote is insane, no other country in the world is stupid enough to relax the voting requirements as much as some states do...

    It's a great reason to have the state system the U.S. does, so the stupidity of one states voting system can only spread so far.

    Before we can even talk about different kinds of elections in the U.S., we really need to firm up voting security across the board.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Do you want a secure election or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All this bitching about needing ID's to vote is insane, no other country in the world is stupid enough to relax the voting requirements as much as some states do...

      No ID required: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland)

      ID required only when identity in doubt: Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden

      Multiple non-photo IDs accepted: India, Canada

      Photo ID required, but easy to obtain: Spain, France, Malta, Belgium, Mexico

      You were saying?

    2. Re:Do you want a secure election or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Attacks on GOP:
      Steve Skelise(sp?) shot, Rand Paul shot at
      Rand Paul attacked 6 broken ribs
      Rand Paul assaulted at airport (noticing a pattern yet?)
      Cruz chased out of restaurant
      \Sarah Sanders chased out of multiple restaurants
      Pam Bondi chased out of movie theatre

      Calls for violence against GOP by...
      Corey Booker
      Maxine Waters
      Eric Holder

      Attacks on DNC
      Gabby Giffords shot by insane liberal.

      Calls to violence against DNC by... ...

      Yea, one attack is weak evidence, a string of attacks with calls to violence by leaders of a party is another thing. Sorry you are such an ass and support such attacks as valid protests.

    3. Re:Do you want a secure election or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No ID required: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland)

      That's not true. As a Dane, I have to show ID when voting and know my date of birth. On top of that I have to hand in a "voting card", which on top of containing some data for me (like name and address), it has a barcode and a serial number. The barcode is scanned and everything has to match to be allowed to vote. Also it blocks the serial number from voting again, ensuring one person can only vote once in each election. Before the barcode approach, I had to go to a specific table at the polling station because the tables where they handed out ballots had printed lists of voters. Not only did you have to be in the list, they marked when a person voted, meaning you had to be in their list without a mark to get the ballot. Even with the barcode approach, they have a person to marks people on paper to verify the computer and fallback in case the computer stops working (like power outage).

      If you know a way to get around the checks, then I would like to know about it. I also believe the politicians and police would want to know how that could be possible.

    4. Re:Do you want a secure election or not? by jythie · · Score: 2

      In other nations you also get those IDs by default. In the US it can cost thousands of dollars to get the needed documentation if you do not already have it, and a lot of people do not already have it. If the state handled this process for them instead of depending on churches or private attornies it would be another matter.

    5. Re: Do you want a secure election or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You cited one instance of gun violence against the GOP.
      Literally everything else was either non violent or Rand Paul losing a fight with his neighbor for being an asshole. Neighbor was a registered R too btw.

      A neighbor decking you after you mouth off about keeping as much trash as you want on the edge of your lawn next to his property isnt particularly moral, but it is not political violence.

    6. Re:Do you want a secure election or not? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Why are right wing people blamed for or treated as benefiting from various election interference measures when they are the only ones wanting to secure our election system with the equivalent of a user name and password?

      Because they try to tie voter registration to only certain government IDs, which you obtain by going to the equivalent of a bank window hidden in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." For example, a driver's license. Easy to obtain if you drive to a Secretary of State's office located in a metro suburb during business hours. A bit harder if you do not drive, live inside a city, have a couple a jobs, and can't blow at least your own day (assuming you don't have someone drive you, then it's only half a day each) taking the bus out and back to do it.

      And they expect you to pay for it.

      You want to call it "the equivalent of a user name and password?" Then make it just as easy. Allow people to obtain one from practically anywhere and make it free. Untill then, it's a false analogy.

    7. Re:Do you want a secure election or not? by GbrDead · · Score: 1

      > I also believe the politicians and police would want to know how that could be possible.

      As a citizen and resident of Bulgaria I find your faith in your politicians and police quite strange, if not disturbing. Maybe they deserve it, I don't know... Ours certainly do not.

  6. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    once again, this is just good 'ole fashion voter suppression.

    For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty. That would be the best way to end voter suppression. Also move voting to Saturday or Sunday and/or make it a national holiday with mandatory pay. Oh, and I don't care if you're convicted of a crime or even currently in prison. _Everyone_ gets to vote. If America has so many Ax Murders and child molesters they can swing an election maybe we should fix that first before worrying about who gets to vote...

    Of course, our ruling class isn't going to allow that. Sad thing is there's a portion of Americans who really believe we should stop the "wrong" people from voting. I get the racists and why they feel that way, I even get the nutters who want to repeal the 19th amendment. But then you get regular folk who just have some vague notion of who the "wrong" people are that they can't put it in words that I can't explain. Maybe they get it from right wing talk radio, I don't know. Either way it's messed up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by elcor · · Score: 1

      I like that. I'm emailing my representative with these ideas.

    2. Re: Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I like that. I'm emailing my representative with these ideas.

      I'll email your representative whilst in Russia using an American IP address.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty.

      Nothing says freedom like compulsion! Have you ever considered that many people who don't vote do so consciously because they don't like any of the available choices? Or that they don't believe in government in the first place (i.e. anarchists, Amish, some pacifists)? Or how about sortitionists, who don't even believe in elections?

      Then there's Jury Duty. I think jury duty would be better if they allowed people to voluntarily sign up. There's probably no shortage of retirees and unemployed that wouldn't mind making a few extra bucks.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty.

      Well, Jury duty isn't truly mandatory....

      If you don't register to vote, then you are not put into the pool of possible jurors.

      I"m not sure I like mandatory.

      I understand your feelings behind it, and I would applaud more people participating in general, HOWEVER, I don't like a free country forcing the citizens to do something...maybe they don't like any of the choices, you know?

      And also...if someone isn't interested enough in utilizing their right as a citizen to vote, to go register, and show up at the polling place, etc...I'm guessing they are likely also too un-interested to be an INFORMED voter.

      If someone is un-informed, then I would posit they are likely to be more readily swayed by foreign propaganda as we have seen the Russians do, and I"m sure other state actors do (surely this isn't first attempt by foreign states)....

      So, while I agree with your intentions on that, I disagree in that it might not be the best idea.

      I'd rather have few voters that were better informed on what and who they are voting for, rather than a larger voter pool filled with many or most who don't know the issues or the candidates.

      The uninformed are much easier to be swayed by exteral forces that might not have the US's best interest in mind.

      At least those are some of my thoughts on it...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re: Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by elcor · · Score: 1

      That Russia scapegoat again...

    6. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      For my money I want to see voting made mandatory,

      I understand the "it's not really the people's will if only half the people vote" philosophy.

      However, a part of me feels like if voting was mandatory there would be a lot of people voting for the first name on the ballot, or the name that sounds the most familiar- or more just straight-party voting without knowing anything about the candidates involved.

      I know a lot of this goes on already; but I feel like, if you don't know anything about the candidates, you're doing more of a disservice by voting than you are by not voting. I've not voted in the past in several races where I either didn't know the candidates or didn't know enough about them- because I feel it would be wrong to do so.

      I'd prefer everyone get informed and vote rather than not vote. However, I'd rather people who are not informed or "don't care" don't vote.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Have you ever considered that many people who don't vote do so consciously because they don't like any of the available choices?

      Yeppers. I decided about 40 years ago to never vote AGAINST a candidate. I will vote FOR someone, but I won't do the "lesser of two evils" thing. The Lesser of Two Evils is still evil.

      Which is why I didn't, in the last Presidential Election, vote for either candidate....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >Well, Jury duty isn't truly mandatory....
      >If you don't register to vote, then you are not put into the pool of possible jurors.

      Bullshit. I'm not a US citizen and I certainly haven't registered to vote (since it would be a crime) but I've been selected for jury duty 4 times. Each time I get to fill in a post card and tick the "I'm not a citizen" excuse box.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      There's no need to make voting mandatory, only to make showing up at the polls on election day mandatory like in Australia. Then the Electoral College would no longer be needed to avoid regional factions from having too much voting power (see Federalist No. 10). If you want to abolish the Electoral College, it helps to remove its advantages.

      But of course the party of voter suppression would never go for mandatory voting so this idea is dead in the water for the moment.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    10. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by jythie · · Score: 1

      Make voting mandatory and I doubt you would actually stop voter suppression, you would just be adding a layer of fines on top of it. So poor people would not only have trouble voting but end up locked into the never ending for profit 'fine' system.

    11. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by jythie · · Score: 1

      Something to keep in mind : often people fail to vote not because of disinterest but because of difficulty accessing the system. That is why there has been so much effort to require new types of IDs, closing poling places, and making hours shorter in some regions. Moving something from 'minor inconvenience' to 'significant personal hardship' is often enough to stop people who would want to vote from doing so, while making it as convenient as possible for other groups increases the chances that even not terribly interested or informed people show up because it is such a little deal to do so.

    12. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      As long as it's a secret ballot, you can spoil it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      However, a part of me feels like if voting was mandatory there would be a lot of people voting for the first name on the ballot, or the name that sounds the most familiar- or more just straight-party voting without knowing anything about the candidates involved.

      The time for worrying about that passed a long time ago. Right now the most incentivized voters are the most tribal. And politicians themselves have little incentive other than to rile up their tribal base. We need to get away from that.

      FWIW I would also get rid of primaries. I can see people being horrified by the idea that local parties would pick their own candidates, but I suspect that having professionally run parties run by people who actually want to get elected would mean candidates that are somewhat more in touch with their bases. Britain doesn't have primaries, and their candidates are a hell of a lot better than you get over here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      FWIW I would also get rid of primaries. I can see people being horrified by the idea that local parties would pick their own candidates,

      Primaries are how the parties pick their candidates. At least, that's how it's supposed to work. Why are you so horrified of parties picking their own candidates that you'd eliminate the method they use to do that?

      Now, of course, the system isn't perfect. We have people in this area who are quite proud of the fact that they lie when they register to vote and claim to be Republican, just so they can vote in the Republican primaries and "help" them pick "better candidates". I'm not surprised that Democrats would lie to try to torpedo the election. No, I've never heard a Republican say he's going to mis-register to do that, but lots of Dems do. This is not a "both sides do it" thing.

    15. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I would like to get rid of primaries too as they tend to polarize the parties and get the worst* overall candidate nominated from each party. Actually, I think George Washington had the right idea- he wanted political parties to play no part in American democracy. Votes should be about an individual's ideas- not a party's ideas.

      * Worst from a neutral's perspective or the other parties perspective- best from that party's hardliners normally.

      I like the French system personally, where you cast two votes, and if your first vote isn't for one of the 2 most popular candidates, then your second vote gets used. It's ideal because, you can vote for who you really think is best... so if you think Hillary and Trump both stink, you can pick someone else... but at the same time it's not a wasted vote because, if you pick the lesser of the two main evils for your second pick- your vote still counts rather than being "wasted" on a third party.

      It also means two conservative or two liberal politicians can run without taking votes away from each other and means the electorate as a whole picks the best candidate... not the party.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I would like to get rid of primaries too as they tend to polarize the parties and get the worst* overall candidate nominated from each party. ... * Worst from a neutral's perspective or the other parties perspective- best from that party's hardliners normally.

      Who cares what the other party's members think about the candidate? Isn't it almost a "by definition" that one party will think the candidate that wins their primary is better than the one that wins the other party's?

      The purpose of a primary is not to make the other parties happy. It's to nominate someone who can BEAT the other party's, which will, of course, make them UNHAPPY. In fact, the more that the other parties whine about the candidate I've help select for mine, the better I know mine is.

      if you pick the lesser of the two main evils for your second pick- your vote still counts rather than being "wasted" on a third party.

      So you essentially get to vote twice. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?

      and means the electorate as a whole picks the best candidate...

      No, it does not. It still means that the minority doesn't pick. That's a problem with current election, you know. The losers keep claiming that their voice wasn't heard or that the winner "isn't my President" or whatever office they didn't win.

    17. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Yes, Republicans suppress people who might vote Democrat, and Democrats also suppress people who might vote Democrat.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    18. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered that many people who don't vote do so consciously because they don't like any of the available choices?

      Yeppers. I decided about 40 years ago to never vote AGAINST a candidate. I will vote FOR someone, but I won't do the "lesser of two evils" thing. The Lesser of Two Evils is still evil.

      Which is why I didn't, in the last Presidential Election, vote for either candidate....

      Either candidate?? as if there was only two, you tool..

    19. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      some vague notion of who the "wrong" people are that they can't put it in words that I can't explain

      The wrong people are the ones who vote for different things than me.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    20. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      If people don't like the options, they can turn in a blank ballot. Which would register as "consciously voting for nothing" as opposed to "being lazy".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    21. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Your problem is that engaged doesn't seem to correlate at all with informed. I mean, I'd say that people who are engaged are more likely to watch, and agree with, Fox News or MSNBC. So, whichever you disagree with is the counterexample.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    22. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We already have enough wackos on juries who assume anyone who gets arrested is automatically guilty otherwise the police wouldn't have wasted time on them. We really don't need a bunch of volunteer bozos showing up hoping to hang someone.

    23. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's a good reason to not vote. I do remember that I used to vote for a candidate, but it's been so long that I can't remember who it was.

    24. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by antdude · · Score: 1

      Not true. Non-registered voters still get summoned for jury duties. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    25. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I stopped the lesser of evils thing too. But I still go to the polls and write in a name to do my part to push the post one half a vote.

    26. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Also move voting to Saturday or Sunday and/or make it a national holiday with mandatory

      Good luck getting service businesses to allow their employees off for this. Or if you did, I'm sure we'd have plenty of people shrieking about how they are going to die if they can't buy McDonalds at every second of the day.

    27. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Who cares what the other party's members think about the candidate? Isn't it almost a "by definition" that one party will think the candidate that wins their primary is better than the one that wins the other party's?

      The purpose of a primary is not to make the other parties happy. It's to nominate someone who can BEAT the other party's, which will, of course, make them UNHAPPY. In fact, the more that the other parties whine about the candidate I've help select for mine, the better I know mine is.

      Clearly Trump wasn't the most electable republican- and Hillary wasn't the most electable democrat as almost no one voted FOR a candidate but rather AGAINST a rival. All projections showed that there was a lost stronger support for almost every other republican candidate compare in a 1v1 against Hillary- and clearly Hillary was not very popular either even amongst democrats but got through because of the democrats' shady primary process.

      As happens usually- you end up with extremists that only a handful of people are happy with and the majority of people are unhappy with.

      if you pick the lesser of the two main evils for your second pick- your vote still counts rather than being "wasted" on a third party.

      So you essentially get to vote twice. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?

      You get to vote for who you really want to get elected rather than the best of the worst, the person you think is more likely to "beat the worst". There would be a lot more spread of votes in America if we weren't forced into a polarized binary system. The majority of people who aren't extremists have to vote for an extremist on the left or an extremist on the right. Rational and common sense politicians aren't given a chance. If you vote for someone decent in the middle your vote is wasted because they stand no chance.

      Instead of stable or gradual change we get wacko on the left followed by wacko on the right and back again every 4 to 8 years.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    28. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Nothing says freedom like compulsion! Have you ever considered that many people who don't vote do so consciously because they don't like any of the available choices?

      I wish ballots had an option of 'no confidence' for every position. And if it gets some sizable portion of the population, both candidates are tossed and new ones have to be presented. In the case of the Presidential election, I would propose those electoral votes become available to no one but they still have to get 270 EV. If neither candidate can get 270, then a new election occurs nationally with new candidates.

    29. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Clearly Trump wasn't the most electable republican- and Hillary wasn't the most electable democrat

      So what? Who said that was the purpose of the primary?

      You get to vote for who you really want to get elected rather than the best of the worst, the person you think is more likely to "beat the worst".

      And then when THAT person loses, you've gotten to vote for someone else, too. Two votes. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?

      There would be a lot more spread of votes in America if we weren't forced into a polarized binary system.

      Nobody is forced into a two party system. In fact, do you know how you get completely away from a two party system? PEOPLE VOTE FOR WHO THEY WANT INSTEAD OF WHO THEY THINK WILL BE ELECTED. If 40% of the people voted Green Party, guess what? We'd have at least a three party system. Whose fault is it that we don't?

      But that doesn't answer the question.

      If you vote for someone decent in the middle your vote is wasted because they stand no chance.

      You know, that's exactly like what happens in any voting district where there is a solid majority of one party voters. The other party in a two party system stands no chance. Do we change the system so that the guy whose party is in the minority has a good chance of being elected? Do we re-wire the voting district lines (gerrymander) so that every voting district is a 50/50 split? This is good because ... ?

      So, do you know why your "decent in the middle" candidate stands no chance? BECAUSE NOBODY VOTES FOR HIM. You want to solve a problem of the voters choosing the wrong guy based on your definition of "the wrong guy", or improve the chances of "the right guy" based on your definition of "the right guy", but either way you want to improve the chances of someone the voters did not vote for to be elected. By giving everyone TWO votes instead of just one. If the candidate benefiting from this was one of the two main party's, this would be called "rigging the election". Because it is for someone you prefer, it's "the right thing to do".

    30. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      So what? Who said that was the purpose of the primary?

      So you agree the system is broken?

      And then when THAT person loses, you've gotten to vote for someone else, too. Two votes. This is compatible with "one person one vote" exactly how?

      That's no more than with a primary. And... who cares? So what? You let people vote who they want to vote for instead of one of two people they don't. That is inherently a better system.

      Nobody is forced into a two party system. In fact, do you know how you get completely away from a two party system?

      Actually they are, because the two parties primaries are funded by the state but no one else's is. The system is inherently rigged to be difficult to third parties and the parties have changed very few times over the life of the US.

      Voting and how people are elected is easily one of the most broken parts of US democracy and doesn't accurately represent the people.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  7. Oh C'MON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DER RUSSIANS HACK'D DUH ELECSHUNS IN 2016 AND GAVE US DRUMPF.
    So the government registration websites block Russian IPs.
    DEH EVIL-RETHUGLICANS IS TRYING TO STOP PEEPLES FROM VOTIN'
    If the Russians (and other state actors) are going to go through that much effort to hack facebook (as is claimed) to throw an election - don't you think they'd go through greater effort to hack it *at it's source*?!

  8. Poor skilled security experts. by will_die · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do you know you have security experts who have not kept up their skills and craft? They agree with the above report.
    As has been shown in many reports and presentation in security conferences that yes it is easy to get around but it is one of the best way of dropping the number of scans, script kiddies, basic attack attempts, etc done against a system. That small cost is still a barrier, it will not stop some state run APT but it stop a large amount of those people running armitage against you and fillin up your logs and requiring some time to deal with. It also has no negative consequences if you are not doing business to those countries.

  9. Re:Not a perfect solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd also like to add anyone 65 or older should be ineligible to vote. If you're too old to be fully impacted by the consequences of your vote, you're too old. You don't get to change the music on your way out the door.

  10. LMAO it will ONLY stop legitimate voters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hackers all have acces to VPN and things like that to look like their are from somewhere else....
    Thats sooooo pathetic seriously.... who gave the go on this stupid idea...

  11. Re:Your prudence is irrelevant by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Informative

    He didn't say "Obama" - he said Homeland Security and they DID attempt to infiltrate their systems along with several other states.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/0...
    Ostensibly it could be argued that they were "testing" the security but that's not been confirmed one way or the other or why they didn't bother notifying the states when they got in that their security was compromised.
    Interesting also that this story just went away after the election.

  12. Online Voter Registration? by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

    Is this a thing? My state has no online voter registration. To register I needed to visit the town clerk in person and fill out the registration form. This is a one-time activity.

    I found that 38 states have online voter registration. https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-registration-modernization-states I would support the automatic voter registration referred in this link, however that is unlikely to happen where I live for some time given the various databases are unlinked.

  13. Re:Not a perfect solution by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Hyperbole.

    No solution is perfect, but if your solution creates more problems for the legitimate users than for the illegitimate ones your solution is bad.

    See also DRM.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  14. Keeping telling yourself that about Trump by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is how we wound up with Trump.

    No, you ended up with Trump for a few simple reasons:

    1. Republican voters were so sick of establishment politicians who routinely stab us in the back that we were willing to flip the coin and say "heads we win, tails we burn your house down" to the GOPe.
    2. The Democrats ran a candidate who could lose a popularity contest to Elizabeth Bathory at an all female middle school.

  15. Re: Not a perfect solution by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Because the hassle of signing up for and possibly paying for a VPN for one person to give one vote is disproportionate to a Russian call center to give a thousand votes.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  16. hackers "could" do anything... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    ... but most of them don't.

    Blocking foreign IPs objectively reduces the amount of incoming attacks, hugely.

  17. Interfering? by flajann · · Score: 2

    By "interefering", do they mean crackers breaking into online voter servers? Or just posting opinions and the like in social media?

    If the latter, that hardly "interfering". Just voicing opinions. Double-plus good oh my brother!

  18. Re: Not a perfect solution by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Living abroad, which city and state is your fate tightly bound with, that you know enough about to choose well and so that your vote affects your wellbeing? If there isn't such a location, you shouldn't be voting.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  19. Re: Not a perfect solution by Nutria · · Score: 1

    There's no other reason why you want .com websites to think you're in the US?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  20. Now Bear With Me... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    It's almost like they need to hire competent security staff and then follow expert recommendations instead of their "common sense" ideas.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  21. Re: Not a perfect solution by Calydor · · Score: 1, Troll

    Better to jail an innocent than let a guilty man get away, huh?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  22. Um, this is not voting, but REGISTERING by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    So, if the states listed are blocking foreign IP addys from their online registration, that does not prevent them from voting.

    First off, you don't vote in a state, rather a county. Second, there are zero counties in the US that allow internet voting at the moment. (Yes, military and overseas voters can use a fax and some use email, but it is still a scanned document, which is printed and then tabulated.)

    If the military and overseas peeps want to re-register, there are are ways without going through the secretary of states' websites. They can mail in a registration card or call.

  23. Most ppl don't know who the VP is by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Personally, I prefer for decisions to be made by people who have at least *some* interest or knowledge of the subject.

    The majority of Americans don't have enough interest in civics to even know who the current vice president is. That's fine, it doesn't mean they are stupid; they just prefer to spend their time on attention on other things.

    If someone is interested in botany and knows all about which plants grow well here, I want them to help decide what to plant. If they don't even know who their current senator *is*, how could they possibly judge the senator's performance? They can't in any useful way, of course. At best, they might see a 140 character Twitter "vote for Sheesa Crook - do it for the plants".

    Page 1 of any economics textbook will introduce the two main branches of economics. Most Americans don't know the two main branches, the stuff from page 1, so how the heck can they make informed decisions about national economic policy? They can't, of course. They can only vote based on a bumper sticker.

    I'd prefer if all the people running around saying "everybody needs to vote" would switch to saying "everybody should learn a about civics so they can make informed voting decisions".

    You disagree? Think about some of the people who have been elected lately, because people vote without having a clue about the policies each candidate represents.

  24. I voted while living in China, no troubles by Hasaf · · Score: 1

    I have returned from a decade of living in China. In the city where I lived, to fax my ballot would have required for me to do that from the main police station and a copy of my "political activity" would have been placed in my foreign resident file. Frankly, that was a lot of work.

    The solution was easy. I visited the county clerk and signed a document that had three purposes, the first was to provide notice that I understood that the method offered no privacy. The second purpose was to have a copy of my signature on fine. The third was for me to tell them which email account my ballots would come from.

    Then, I filled out my absentee ballot, that was mailed to me inChina. I then took pictures of it and emailed the jpg files to the county clerk.

    The trouble is that this method was not terribly secure and it was labour intensive. What I find a bit funny is that this method was more secure than many of the absentee e-ballots being proposed.

  25. If u like criminals voting, move to a D state by huckamania · · Score: 1

    Do you want to do these things before or after the following:
    -Removing the Electoral College
    -Abolishing ICE
    -Stacking the court with non-partisan Leftists
    -Impeaching the President and/or Vice-President and/or Bart O'Kavanaugh

    U got to have ur priorities

  26. Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a loser by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    Sad thing is there's a portion of Americans who really believe we should stop the "wrong" people from voting. I get the racists and why they feel that way,

    Oh, knock this silly shit off. It is NOT racist to want only those people who are citizens to be able to vote. "Not a citizen" is "wrong people", and "not a citizen" has nothing at all to do with race. Another "wrong people" is "people who don't care enough to vote". People who don't care enough to vote should not vote. You keep misrepresenting people you don't understand, and it only makes you look foolish.

    For my money I want to see voting made mandatory,

    You keep saying this silly thing, too. Forcing people to vote will not improve the results, it will only add noise to the signal. People who do not care enough to vote will not care enough to be informed voters. They will either vote for random people (first on the list, e.g.) or the names they hear the most on the radio ads.

    If you want to make money even MORE important in elections, then make voting mandatory. When "name recognition" becomes the selection method for the majority of voters who have nothing else to base their decision on, then politicians will just buy more ads to keep their name in front of the public.

    I am quite happy if the turnout for an election is only 40% or 50% of the potential voters. That means that 40% or 50% of the potential voters cared enough to have an opinion and express it. The rest don't matter at all -- if you have no opinion or you don't care, then don't pretend that your voice must be heard, and don't pretend on their behalf that their voice must be heard. You are trying to speak for people who just don't care. If they don't care, why do you?

  27. Re:Your prudence is irrelevant by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    He didn't say "Obama" - he said Homeland Security and they DID attempt to infiltrate their systems along with several other states.

    You can't have it both ways. If Trump is responsible for everything done by anyone in the executive branch today, then Obama was responsible for everything done by anyone in the executive branch, such as DHS.

  28. Bright by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Because a state-level hacker is an idiot who can't route to a secret intelligence service with a proper IP somewhere.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  29. This is a lie by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Not Registering to vote does not prevent you from being called to Jury duty. In some states (notably Red ones) it does increase the likelihood you will be called. This is on purpose. It is another form of voter suppression.

    To be clear I don't think you're the one lying, but rather you're the one being lied to.

    The benefits from eliminating voter suppression outweigh the occasional ill informed voter. the ruling class will mobilize ill informed voters. I remember a commercial against net metering (the practice where if your solar rig puts power back in the grid the power company pays you for it). The power co didn't want to pay for it, so they got a law on the ballots by tricking folks into signing a dubious petition. That done they had to get it passed, but people overwhelmingly supported Net Metering. What to do?

    So they ran these ads. There was a bunch of old people sitting around and talking about something _scary_. Not once did anyone say what the scary thing was. At the end there was an impassioned plea to vote yes on prop such and such. They ran it in an off election when the only old folks were voting. It passed in a land slide.

    Those are the kinds of voters we get when we pick and choose who votes. You get voters that the ruling class has picked. They're not informed, they're what most call "useful idiots"...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. Wow. Just, wow.... by McFortner · · Score: 1

    Remember just two years ago when everybody was accusing Russia of hacking the election? Hell, it was still a thing up to a few months ago. So now you want to let somebody outside the US register fake voters so they can vote over the Internet and/or cellphones (another stupid idea for another article) and definitely influence the elections?

    Hell, we have enough problems as it is with both parties stacking the deck with dead people voting. When will people realize that the Internet only makes things more complicated and risky and not the universal savior of all the world's ills?

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  31. Michigan by Ark42 · · Score: 2

    I constantly have this problem with Michigan, while living in Japan.

    Pay my quarterly estimated taxes? Website blocked
    Pay my business LLC fee? Website blocked
    Register for an absentee ballot? Website blocked

    It's a constant battle to call people late at night when it's early morning there. And there answer is just to clear my cache or try a different browser.
    After long battles, I managed to reach the right IT people in some of the departments and get some of the access enabled. But it seems like each department has a different IT contact and I wasn't able to get the business department people to understand the problem still. I'm pretty sure they're still firewalling all non-US IPs for "security"

  32. Re:The "smart" IT people at Vangaurd also do it. by Ark42 · · Score: 1

    Really? While I have all kinds of problem with the State of Michigan websites, I can use Vanguard with no problem from Japan.

    The business website at https://cofs.lara.state.mi.us/... is still blocking me, despite all my emails telling them about it. Do they want my yearly business fee payment or not?