Senators Demand To Know Why Election Vendors Still Sell Voting Machines With 'Known Vulnerabilities' (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Four senior senators have called on the largest U.S. voting machine makers to explain why they continue to sell devices with "known vulnerabilities," ahead of upcoming critical elections. The letter, sent Wednesday, calls on election equipment makers ES&S, Dominion Voting and Hart InterCivic to explain why they continue to sell decades-old machines, which the senators say contain security flaws that could undermine the results of elections if exploited. "The integrity of our elections is directly tied to the machines we vote on," said the letter sent by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Gary Peters (D-MI), the most senior Democrats on the Rules, Intelligence, Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, respectively. "Despite shouldering such a massive responsibility, there has been a lack of meaningful innovation in the election vendor industry and our democracy is paying the price," the letter adds.

Their primary concern is that the three companies have more than 90 percent of the U.S. election equipment market share but their voting machines lack paper ballots or auditability, making it impossible to know if a vote was accurately counted in the event of a bug. Yet, these are the same devices tens of millions of voters will use in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. ES&S spokesperson Katina Granger said it will respond to the letter it received. The ranking Democrats say paper ballots are "basic necessities" for a reliable voting system, but the companies still produce machines that don't produce paper results.

Comments

Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[aitikin]

People keep buying the machines. Just like people keep buying the new versions of Skyrim.

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously dude, don't drag Skyrim into this. What did it ever do to you?

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[Anonymous Coward]

It could have been anything, why Skyrim? I never wasted a minute of my life on that shit. Total non-sequitur except as perhaps an age indicator...

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[sexconker]

I bet it involves an arrow and his knee.

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[aitikin]

Nothing. But the head of Bethesda literally said that about why they keep remaking Skyrim on different ports.

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[bob4u2c]

I was going to post: because the machines keep making them money. Why stop selling something that makes you money because of some sill vulnerability thing?

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[rtb61]

I would have gone with because the vulnerabilities are a feature not a bug and without them those locations that buy them would not and would go back to pencil and failure. Being able to mass change votes, A FEATURE and not a bug.

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[aitikin]

If I had mod points and the ability to mod, this would be high on my funny list. That being said, I've honestly never played any of the Elder Scrolls games. I've heard it's well worth my time, but I also don't have the time to commit to any of them (and I hate not starting at the beginning of a series)...

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[DamnOregonian]

Just like people keep buying the new versions of Skyrim.

Guilty.

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet it involves an arrow and his knee.

And lolligagging ... and maybe a sweet roll.

You and I, we're the only ones who aren't complete idiots. ;-)

Re:Same reason they keep remaking Skyrim

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not missing anything by skipping the beginning, Arena is terrible, and most of its lore is in books in the other games. Daggerfall was good for it's day but not really worth playing now. Morrowind is well worth playing (and a good entry point). You can skip Oblivion. Skyrim is pretty good too.

You know it's funny

[rsilvergun]

how they're all Democrats. Ok, it's not that funny. In fact, it's not funny at all. It's more than a little messed up actually.

Re:You know it's funny

[rsborg]

how they're all Democrats. Ok, it's not that funny. In fact, it's not funny at all. It's more than a little messed up actually.

GOP must just love the idea of rigging elections. I mean, why do none of them speak out against these situations?

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it obvious? There's no way to smear Latinos or African Americans in this, who as groups Republicans are now entirely dedicated to minimizing and inhibiting the legal voting of.

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a criminal but we're not discussing his treason, we're talking about security flaws in voting machines being a problem for REAL AMERICANS, not you fakedick traitor Ivan-hoes. Give my best to Putin's cock, traitor.

(With your moist bitch mouth of course.)

Re:You know it's funny

[nehumanuscrede]

" GOP must just love the idea of rigging elections. I mean, why do none of them speak out against these situations? "

If the GOP needs any tutoring / coaching in the area of rigging anything, they should ask Team Blue for tips on how they rigged the DNC. :|

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is, these voting machines are supposedly "decades old" and "insecure". And they are probably right. Knowing the general state of technology in this country, and the level of corporate corruption and incompetence, I have no doubt that most voting machines are crap and need to be fixed.

But, what's really funny is, not one of those Senators was complaining about it in 2016 when they were absolutely sure that their favorite candidate was going to win the election. Not one complaint about old, insecure voting machines. None. Zero.

Funny, eh?

After wasting two years blaming "the Russians" and coming up with a gigantic nothingburger, they have gone looking for a new scapegoat.

Re:You know it's funny

[Immerman]

It's got nothing to do with Trump (unless you're implying he won because the election was rigged?)

Election integrity is the single most important aspect of a democracy, and the fact that apparently only Democrats seem concerned with the fact that so many of our elections can be easily and invisibly rigged should be deeply disturbing. *Especially* to Republican-leaning voters, since it means that at best their politicians don't actually care about election integrity, and at worst intend to rig elections so that they don't have to depend on your support to maintain power.

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Leftists are hilarious.

1. Always have some sort of excuse for losing elections
2. *AND* The excuse MUST be a conspiracy.

Whether "Russia! Russia! Russia!" or some other conspiracy.

Can't you jack-offs at least come up with non-dumb non-conspiracy ideas?

Re:You know it's funny

[sexconker]

Trump is a criminal

Oh my. You haven't heard.
Who gets to tell him?

Re:You know it's funny

[sexconker]

Election integrity is the single most important aspect of a democracy,

Maybe, maybe not. This isn't a democracy, by the way.

and the fact that apparently only Democrats seem concerned with the fact that so many of our elections can be easily and invisibly rigged should be deeply disturbing.

Whenever the Republicans are concerned and want to do something as simple as require an ID to vote, people call them racist.

If you don't need to ID to vote, you shouldn't need an ID to buy beer or guns.

Re:You know it's funny

[fafalone]

Have you looked into *why* people are calling them racist for their Voter ID laws? I agreed with Voter ID before I did. They actively make it harder for poor areas to obtain a suitable ID, and disallow legitimate ID types that are still government-issued that are more likely to be possessed by the poor while allowing ID types like college IDs more likely to be possessed by the more wealthy. There's burdens in time and money required to get a DMV ID that are significant obstacles for the very poor, and Republicans are unwilling to address them, and actively exacerbate them with their placement of DMV facilities, their operation hours, and their staffing levels-- they attack all of those points to favor wealthy white areas and hurt poor, minority-populated areas.
If you take a look at my post history you'll see I'm extremely hostile to the identity politics bullshit, so if I'm calling out a seemingly neutral policy as racist, you can bet it's for cause. Look into it yourself. If Republicans supported addressing the problems I described above, I'd be right there with you arguing it's not a racial issue, but they're not only not addressing them, they're making them worse, and in a specifically targeted manner.

Then there's also the point that Republicans have lied over and over about wide-scale voter fraud that ID checks would prevent; it simply doesn't exist, so the fact they're lying about their motive is just one more item in the list of why in this case, it is indeed either a race issue, or targeted in a way that so closely correlates without fact-based justification (e.g. there is a reason to more heavily police certain areas, but not to relocate DMV offices away from them) to it that there's no meaningful difference.

Re:You know it's funny

[Immerman]

> This isn't a democracy, by the way.
Of course it is. Or, at least it's supposed to be. A democratic republic is one of the many forms that democracy can take. The basic unifying principles being that the authority of the government is taken to flow from the people, and that the people control the government (to varying degrees) by voting.

Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives..."[1]
Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."[2]

They are not mutually exclusive, and the U.S. is (supposed to be) both.

Re:You know it's funny

[DamnOregonian]

This isn't a democracy, by the way.

/me rolls eyes.
The US is a constitutional representative democratic republic.
It is a democracy. It is a republic. If you don't know that, you should have been doing something more constructive during social studies.

Whenever the Republicans are concerned and want to do something as simple as require an ID to vote, people call them racist.

That may, in fact, have something to do with the fact that their voter ID push was precipitated after paying to have studies done examining which part of the populace would vote less if an ID was required. Hint: it wasn't non-citizens.
I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. The court records are there. That's pretty fucking undemocratic.

If you don't need to ID to vote, you shouldn't need an ID to buy beer or guns.

You have an enshrined right to vote. You do not have one to purchase beer or guns.
I'm ok with voter ID, as long as the state makes sure all eligible voters are able to obtain one.
Funny enough, the voter ID pushers aren't ok with that. Which would make sense if they were in fact simply trying to disenfranchise people.

Re:You know it's funny

[DamnOregonian]

There's also this small fact, right here.
The DNC is a 527 organization (IRC s.527)
It is free to do what it will within that organization. It's free to select the candidates it puts on its tickets however it sees fit.
Is what they did hypocritical, since they seem to support universal suffrage? Yes.
But it's not even the same ballpark is changing laws in ways that are proven to disenfranchise legal voters.

Re: You know it's funny

[astrofurter]

"You have an enshrined right to vote. You do not have one to purchase beer or guns."

Actually we do have an enshrined Constitutional right to purchase guns. Unfortunately, in every city I have lived in as an adult, the Second Amendment (among others) has been de facto repealed.

Re: You know it's funny

[pslytely psycho]

Gonna play devil's advocate here.

Which "well regulated militia" did you say you were part of?

I am well aware that the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, yet, I keep hearing from the right how we should be following the Constitution to the letter.
I guess this is the exception?

Ok, done being DA, here are my actual views.

I believe there should be controls on weapons, I don't want the local crazy to get one, I don't want untrained idiots shooting up the place in a Rambo fantasy. Gun ownership should require at least minimal training, with exceptions of course for military, police, and others with prior weapons training.

I believe in the 2nd, but also in control. There can be a middle ground, I live in a very blue state with open carry. We also recognize any states Concealed Permit IF they recognize ours. We also forbid local laws to be more than restrictive than state laws. Overall, a good compromise.
(I am a veteran and own a classic .45 Colt M1911A1 because shooting twice is silly and it's what I trained with)
And yeah, I lean left socially. Surprise, liberals own weapons too!

Re: You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Have federal legislators made a ruling on what the definition of "well regulated militia" means in modern terms? What distinguishes a militia from, say, a street gang, or a gun club, or a private security contractor? What regulations must be followed, and what body determines how well they are being enforced?

Not being sarcastic or anything, I'm not an American but I'm fascinated by the complexities of the U.S. constitution, and I'm genuinely curious as an outside observer.

Re: You know it's funny

[AntronArgaiv]

"You have an enshrined right to vote. You do not have one to purchase beer or guns."

Actually we do have an enshrined Constitutional right to purchase guns.

No, we have a right to "keep and bear arms". The 2nd Amendment says nothing about a right to buy and sell them.

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Your whataboutism is showing.

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Each side does it when the other is in power, and there's an election coming up.
The Red's hated on voting machines when Obama was in power. Now the Blue's are doing the same now that Trump is in power.
The real crime is not being able to see the similarities in the two groups.

Re: You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, you're constitutionally guaranteed to buy and sell guns. Voting however is much less enumerated. It's assumed and backed by Supreme Court decisions but the right to vote isn't defined in the Constitution.

This is why any "ID CARD FOR CIVIL RIGHTS" requirement is foolish. They're all Jim Crow on purpose, the ony difference is some people will agree with Jim Crow A and others will prefer Jim Crow B but not enough people are willing to admit that any Jim Crow law is terrible.

Re:You know it's funny

[nine-times]

It's also important to note that there's been a long history of the US trying to suppress minorities from voting. As soon as black people had the right to vote, there were laws specifically designed to make it hard for them to vote. So when someone suddenly proposes a new law that makes it harder to vote, and seems like it would disproportionately affect minorities, it should be understandable that people would be suspicious. They should be prepared to make a case why the change is needed, and how they're going to prevent any disparities in who faces hardship in voting.

Re: You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

All able bodied men are in the militia. You signed up for the selective service, right? But being in a militia isn't even required in the original writing. The amendment states:
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Even a cursory analysis will reveal that being in a militia has no bearing on the right. It's simply clarifying. It tells you the purpose, which is to defend the freedom of the country. The usual method of showing this is to just change the subjects to something with less emotion:
>A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and consume food shall not be infringed.
Who gets the right to keep and consume food? The people, or the well balanced breakfast?

The supreme court was not taking a political stance when they declared the 2A an individual right. They were simply interpreting the text correctly and making an undeniable and reinforcing statement in the face of some individuals purposefully reading it incorrectly in order to push their own agenda.

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar.
The United States is a Democracy, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic"

  In person voting fraud is not and has never been an actual issue. Voter suppression has been a Republican go to for at least 70 years. And I can assure you that your position proves you are a racist.

Re: You know it's funny

[DamnOregonian]

No, you don't.
You have a right to bear arms, whatever that means.
Not a single one of those laws implies that we have to allow people to sell them to you.
A whole shit ton of federal law is based upon that fact.

Re:You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

#NOTMYPRESIDENT

I moved to Canada. I'll be back in late 2020.

Why do you keep crying about "soshulizm!!"? You do realize it has absolutely nothing to do with real Socialism, don't you?

Re:You know it's funny

[Dragonslicer]

Whenever the Republicans are concerned and want to do something as simple as require an ID to vote, people call them racist.

Well, yes, when the voter ID laws are carefully crafted to make it harder for minorities to vote.

The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" — then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

Re: You know it's funny

[DamnOregonian]

The "right to vote" in the constitution is taken as implicit in the guarantee of a Republican form of government.
The constitution acknowledges the State's right to choose who was eligible to vote.
Amendments were then passed to limit the limitations the state was allowed to impose.

In short, it's more than "assumed"- it is guaranteed. If the state has not (or can not) restrict your eligibility, the Constitution guarantees you the right to vote for the people who represent you. What exactly that means, is largely left up to interpretation. That interpretation has come to mean via case law, that the state cannot cannot limit your eligibility unless it can show a great need.

Re:You know it's funny

[eaglesrule]

Just links to democrat mouthpieces, the same sources that peddled the Trump collusion narrative. So insightful.

You know what would happen to anyone making a counter argument, but linking to Fox or Breitbart instead. Biased moderation isn't convincing anyone, it just damages any hope for a balanced discussion.

Re:You know it's funny

[eaglesrule]

Election integrity is the single most important aspect of a democracy, and the fact that apparently only Democrats seem concerned with the fact that so many of our elections can be easily and invisibly rigged should be deeply disturbing.

Democrats are only concerned with election integrity in Republican held districts, for obvious reasons. You don't get to grandstand about the how much the Dems care about integrity of elections, when they are actively involved in censorship on social media, obstructing voter ID laws, and smearing Republican opponents as being supported by Russian trolls when they themselves are the Russian trolls.

Does Republican states need to be held accountable for voting integrity? Absolutely. But let's not forget for one moment the Dem's tendency for projection.

Re: You know it's funny

[Immerman]

>Gun ownership should require at least minimal training, with exceptions of course for military, police, and others with prior weapons training.

That doesn't sound like any sort of exception at all - just recognizing that such training is already a part of certain occupations. I'd certainly hope that cops get much better training than required just to own a gun, considering how much more likely they are to be firing their weapon in a populated area.

Re: You know it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

#WillfullyObtuse

What a Cluster...

[EndlessNameless]

Normally, I would disagree with the following quote:

The ranking Democrats say paper ballots are "basic necessities" for a reliable voting system, but the companies still produce machines that don't produce paper results.

But if these vendors can't even patch their systems, I don't trust them to implement an auditable system that guarantees privacy based on a solid understanding of modern crypto.

So, sadly, paper ballots seem necessary in 2019.

Re:What a Cluster...

[alvinrod]

It's not like paper ballots are really any better. There's no shortage of stories about them going missing. You can get a whole list of Google auto-complete suggestions for "box of ballots found" to help you narrow it down. If you want to ensure that an election isn't getting tampered with in some way, you need to make sure that as many opposed parties can participate in the process. Even if they're all independently crooked, they'll keep each other honest.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you need a roll of paper coming out of the machine that only shows you your vote, as it goes into the large roll that can be audited... This seems like it'd be on all voting machines. Such a basic and verifiable audit trail.

Watch them use a chad based bunch hole thingy, about as reliable as a toilet paper used as an paper for auditing votes

Re:What a Cluster...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 100% retarded logic that because "some" go missing (which is inevitable in either system) that's not better than "no verification existed at all" - absolutely retarded. Some verification > Zero verification.

Re:What a Cluster...

[darkwing_bmf]

Our system is much simpler. You fill out the paper ballot like a scan-tron and the voting machine eats it and tallies the numbers. Election officials can always go back and count the ballots by hand if needed.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Freischutz]

Normally, I would disagree with the following quote:

The ranking Democrats say paper ballots are "basic necessities" for a reliable voting system, but the companies still produce machines that don't produce paper results.

But if these vendors can't even patch their systems, I don't trust them to implement an auditable system that guarantees privacy based on a solid understanding of modern crypto.

So, sadly, paper ballots seem necessary in 2019.

Yup, that is true. As things stand people can ... oopsie daisy, wipe the database containing the key voting data whenever it is convenient: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/... Kemp's explanations sound hard enough to believe as it is. If there were paper copies he'd really have to stretch to explain why the paper copies accidentally caught fire and burned to ashes in an old old oil drum in the yard behind his office the very same day the database was wiped.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Immerman]

> I don't trust them to implement an auditable system that guarantees privacy based on a solid understanding of modern crypto.

Neither do I, which is why an auditable paper trail is so important. Until someone actually manages to make an independently tested, audited, open-source, electronic voting system with perfect security, the only way to ensure that elections aren't rigged is to be to have an unhackable paper trail.

Well, that, and to *actually perform* random manual recounts on a frequent and wide-spread basis to verify that electronic rigging isn't taking place.

Granted, there's a lot of room for improvement on maintaining the integrity of paper ballots - but the problems pale in comparison to those of the electronic alternatives.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Immerman]

There are admittedly currently some big problems with how we handle things - but we could require things to be handled better with minimal difficulty.

For example, as paper ballots are collected put them in a box until it's full. Then seal the box and slap a label on it that gives it a unique identifier, along with listing the IDs of the immediately previous and next boxes from that polling place, or "does not exist" for the first and last boxes from a particular election and polling place. For further security and convenience, also keep a receipt of all the labels printed so that boxes can be easily validated against the receipts before opening, to more easily detect missing or improperly labeled boxes.

Now you have a doubly-linked-list of boxes, and can easily recognize when one is lost, or an extra added, by confirming that each box does in fact belong to a valid and unbroken linked list. Any box without a valid label is discarded as a fake, though someone with sufficient access could still duplicate a box label (which would be obvious), or replace one, if they have access to make the original disappear.

To take it a step further, if you want the convenience/redundancy of electronic vote counting along with much greater security: electronically tally the ballots in each box before sealing it, with the totals displayed on the label along with a cryptographic hash of the tallies, the linked-list IDs, and the hash from the previous box. Use a good enough hash, and it will be basically impossible to tamper with any of the information recorded on the labels without also tampering with all of the subsequent labels.

In addition, keep a second "receipt" copy of each label on a single unbroken printout, with every poll worker getting a copy so that a massive cross-party conspiracy is necessary to tamper with the vote tallies.

Any box that doesn't show up on the receipt is fake. Any box that gets lost, still has its tally on the receipt as a backup. And if you're doing a manual recount, either as the definitive count, or as an audit, you can do it on a per-box basis - you just need to make sure you only ever have one box open at a time, and validate that the tallies on the box are correct. If the vote tallies don't match the label within an acceptable margin of error, then you know that there was tampering either in the initial tally, or with the box itself, and have to perform a new election if there's a potential of the outcome being changed.

Or, as a simpler purely human solution: after the polls close the sealed ballot boxes are *immediately* taken to the counting place under the supervision of a cross-party group of observers, where they get handed over to another cross-party group who provide a receipt listing the number of boxes and their individual ID codes, then remain on constant guard in the same room as the boxes until such time as the counting takes place. Any avoidable delay or other dereliction of duty by the observer groups to be considered proof of ill intent and carry an automatic felony charge for everyone involved. Any failure to *provide* the observer groups, or adequate instruction, is an automatic felony charge for the bureaucrat responsible for running the poll. While tallying, only one box is ever to be opened at a time within any room, and then re-sealed with all ballots within, and its tally clearly marked on the outside. No boxes leave any room except accompanied by an observer group who transports them directly to their destination, under the risk of the same automatic felony charges.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit its inevitable, we can keep track of every fucking dollar spent and everybody somebody takes a shit. But we cant keep a handful of other numbers from disappearing? I can't believe that for one single minute.

--Highdude702(mods)

Re:What a Cluster...

[dryeo]

Why not just count them at the polling place with members of all parties and any interested members of the public watching?
Then do your labeling in case a recount is ordered.

Re:What a Cluster...

[dryeo]

Even an independently tested, audited, open-source, electronic voting system with perfect security isn't good enough unless the average, or better, most all, people can understand it. As long as it is a black box to the average voter, there won't be any trust.

Re:What a Cluster...

[phantomfive]

But if these vendors can't even patch their systems, I don't trust them to implement an auditable system that guarantees

If it needs patches then it doesn't guarantee anything.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Immerman]

We could, though you you need to manage far more (but far smaller) countings. And either do it immediately after the polls close, or arrange for the ballots at each polling place to be guarded by a cross-party group overnight.

Heck, make the "boxes" small enough, and you could even "volunteer" voters for counting duty throughout the day. Show up to vote, and have a 10% chance of being pulled aside to the counting room to tally a couple packets of maybe 50 ballots each, instead of waiting in line. That lets each box get counted 10 independent times without putting an undue burden on anyone. Make sure everyone knows their count has to agree with a previous one before they're allowed to leave, but don't tell them what that count is. That should help keep everyone motivated to count carefully and accurately. (In practice, you probably don't want to enforce that on the first few counts of each box, so that there's a good chance that one of the previous counts is correct.) A well-designed ballot

Re:What a Cluster...

[Immerman]

Why would you say that? Most people don't even understand all the details of how the current election system works.

All you really need is that the system be straightforward enough that most people know somebody they trust who is capable of understanding the system well enough to assure them that it's trustworthy.

You can get into all sorts of counting complexities like condorcet voting, etc., but that's something completely independent from "can I trust the integrity of the system"

Re:What a Cluster...

[AntronArgaiv]

It's not like paper ballots are really any better. There's no shortage of stories about them going missing. You can get a whole list of Google auto-complete suggestions for "box of ballots found" to help you narrow it down. If you want to ensure that an election isn't getting tampered with in some way, you need to make sure that as many opposed parties can participate in the process. Even if they're all independently crooked, they'll keep each other honest.

There are two advantages to paper ballots:
1. They are marked directly by the voter and are documentary proof of the voter's intention.
2. They are at any time, hand countable

Voting machines are unreliable, expensive and unverifiable. There is no records of individual votes, except the data in the memory of that machine, which may or may not be accurate. Voter-marked paper ballots, automatically counted is the only reasonable way forward. Voting machines are only a win for the companies that sell them.

Re:What a Cluster...

[nine-times]

There's also a very good argument that computerized voting is just inherently untrustworthy. You have to trust the developers both to make it work properly in the first place, and to make it unhackable. You need to make sure the code is audited, and that the software actually running is identical to the audited code. You need to make sure that nothing has been tampered with-- not the hardware or software of the machines themselves, nor any systems where the information is gathered or stored. And as you address all of those things, you're going to make the system more complex, which decreases any given person's ability to understand how the whole system is working, thereby increasing the likelihood that some security hole might be missed.

Paper? You can have verifiable physical security. We've been doing physical security for thousands of years, and generally have a pretty good ability to do that. People can lay eyes on the votes. There isn't much to understand or be fooled by.

I think if you do electronic voting, there should at least be a legal requirement that it prints a paper receipt that you can view and verify that it printed what you wanted it to print, and then that receipt should be handled with the same physical security as we would provide to a paper ballot. The electronic voting can provide quick and easy counting, but the paper receipt would give a definite audit trail.

Re:What a Cluster...

[dryeo]

All you really need is that the system be straightforward enough that most people know somebody they trust who is capable of understanding the system well enough to assure them that it's trustworthy.

Well, I don't know anyone that I'd trust to know the system is trustworthy and I probably know more techs then the average person.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Anonymous Coward]

With an automatic selection of random machines/paper ballots checked every election.

If the results are off more than X, then it triggers an automatic hand check of EVERY machine vs their paper ballots.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Immerman]

A bold statement, considering wehaven't actually mentioned any particular system. A straightforward electronic counting of paper ballots, designed specifically to be as small and easily-understood as possible, should be pretty easy for any decent programmer to audit.

It's worth mentioning that personally I think any electronic voting or tallying machine should be an embedded system with no operating system at all, and be as minimalist as possible for exactly that reason - every line of code on the machine that's not critical to serving its purpose only serves to obfuscate the critical components, and potentially hide malicious elements that could interfere with the proper functioning of those critical components.

Re:What a Cluster...

[dryeo]

There seems to be a lot of people that can't be convinced that vaccines are a positive, the Earth is not flat and various other things, so even if the black box is very simple, a sizeable number of people will not understand it or won't believe it is actually what it says on the box.
It's the advantage of paper, pencil and simple boxes, everyone can understand it.

Re:What a Cluster...

[Immerman]

There'll always be a fringe of idiots. Sometimes they'll even be a modest percentage. And you'll never convince them of anything they don't want to believe, so don't waste your time trying.

Meanwhile, we currently have elections, electronic and paper, that are often so badly managed that stealing an election would be relatively straightforward - and most people seem to believe we don't have a serious problem. So apparently the mediocre masses don't actually have a problem so long as they think they understand how it works.

That said - absolutely, paper is the way to go, as a backup/audit mechanism at the very least. Though I do see a few ways electronic systems could improve the process:

Paper ballot validation - paper ballots can analyzed to immediately identify any problems before it gets submitted, while the voter is still there to correct it. and/or
Paper ballot preparation - fill out the ballot electronically, with all the benefits of eliminating the possibility of improperly filled ballots, assistance for the vision-impaired, pretty candidate pictures for the illiterate and name-recalling impaired,etc,etc,etc. And then you print a paper ballot and double-check it to make sure what was printed is actually what you wanted. Strictly optional, and security isn't a huge problem so long as people are strongly reminded to double-check their ballot.

Automated tallying via *very* minimalist, easily auditable machines. Ideally as a cross check for manual voting, but it also makes things like instant-runnoff voting *much* simpler to implement, breaking the stranglehold of a two-party system. And while IRV doesn't necessarily pick the "best" candidate, but it does have the prominent feature of being very easy for people to understand - You count everybody's first-choice pick just like usual, then eliminate the biggest loser, and re-count the ballots of everybody who voted for them based on their next choice.

Hmm, a bit of a tangent, but I just thought of an electronically-assisted manual counting process for "normal" or IR voting that would still call for human validation at every stage of the process, but be potentially hundreds, maybe even thousands of times faster than counting by hand.

0) Record votes on punch cards - the first column gets the ID of your favorite candidate, the second column the ID of your second-favorite, etc. (possibly using more than one column per pick-level, depending on how many candidates there are)

1) Feed the punch cards into an automated sorter that groups the cards according to their first pick, so you get separate stacks of the ballots that voted for each candidate.
2) Take manageable chunks of each candidate's stack, square them up nicely, and hold them up to the light to verify that every ballot does in fact have the same first-pick hole punched., allowing one person to easily verify the proper sorting of hundreds of ballots per minute
3) Count and record the votes for each candidate - since they're already grouped by candidate you don't have to actually look at the individual ballots, just count them, which is much faster - either by hand, or using a simple card-counting machine that's nigh impossible to "hack" since you can use the same machine to count the ballots for all candidates, and it has no way to tell who the ballots are for. (You'd still need to guard against physical sabotage that would allow someone in the room (or spying remotely) to tell it to "count high" or "count low" on the fly)

For normal voting, you're done

For Instant-runoff voting

5) Take all the biggest-loser's ballots, and feed them through the sorting machine again, sorting by the second pick this time.
6) Validate that all the second-choice picks in each new stack are the same.
7) Count and record the second-pick votes.

Be careful to keep the first-choice ballots for a candidate separated from the second-choice ballots for them (and from third and later choices, as those begin to accumulate), as you can only quickly ver

Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Because thats what they were paid to do.

"Election Vendors"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really *quite* fitting. And instantly makes the title answer the question.

Re:"Election Vendors"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it Diebold who got caught promising to "deliver you the election" to a bunch of Republicans a couple years back? The backlash then forced him to rename the company into "Premier Election Solutions", wasn't it?

No, I don't care it was this party instead of that. What matters is that it was a political party at all. And, of course, that far too many places in the USoA still think that such voting machines are a good idea, or that throwing away the voting tally slips is okay, and so on, and so forth.

Re:"Election Vendors"

[_merlin]

Eugh, there was software I'd been involved in the development of running on those Diebold voting machines (I didn't work for Diebold, just a vendor they bought software from). It wasn't the kind of software I'd want running on a voting machine.

Re:"Election Vendors"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that explains a heck of a lot. Diebold, the people who you'd expect to be writing the software, are passing the buck down to third-party contractors. No wonder their machines aren't secure, they outsource their liability.

Certifications take too damn long

[Anonymous Coward]

Then ask them why they take so long to certify things. You wait 6 months for FIPS or whatever and then find that new vulnerabilities have been discovered in the mean time...

Re:Certifications take too damn long

[Anonymous Coward]

That's hardly even close to the actual issue here, even if you had 1/2 of a point about certs taking time. They are failing well beyond what's been exposed since applying for certification, WELL beyond. It's not the issue.

Has anyone read the license terms for these?

[david.emery]

I haven't... Do the vendors offer any warranty/assertion of 'fitness for use'? Or do they follow most of the rest of the software industry with license terms that basically say "We will not warrant this software does what it's supposed to do, so you can't sue us for any problems."

Re:Has anyone read the license terms for these?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? Does it not matter that your government are knowingly buying insecure systems, and knowingly putting those insecure systems in front on you when they ask you to vote?

The vendors are just doing what they're allowed to do by their procurement rules for the contract to supply. If the contract said "must have passed an independent audit by XYZ testers", then they'd sure as hell make it secure enough to pass that test. As it is, it seems the only condition on the contract is "must have taken X number of politicians to dinner in the last year".

Better question

[burtosis]

How is even selling these legal? Any electronic voting machine that doesn't print out a human legible ballot for the user to read, verify, and turn in to be counted manually as the main tallying method should be illegal.

how else

[renegade600]

how else can incumbents win relection?

Found the traitor, that was easy!

[Anonymous Coward]

^ Found the traitor-bot Republ-Ivan idiot that openly admits it prefers election fraud to a paper trail and security auditing... back to the bottomless GOPit with you, vermin.

They all provide paper ballots.

[Anonymous Coward]

ES&S provides paper ballots on all voting machines. They also produce tabulators that count paper ballots.

Dominion Voting only produces tabulation products that count paper ballots.

And Heart intercivic appears to provide similar products to ES&S.

Please before you start slamming these companies do some research on their products and you will realize that this is a bunch of hog wash to get them votes.

Paper ballots are the center of democracy but the real problem is the electoral college which is not democracy. So lets keep looking for scapegoats, allowing for campaign finance to let companies and special interest groups give massive amounts, or maybe gerrymandering.

Re:They all provide paper ballots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another clown programmed to believe the electoral college isn't superior to popular vote.

Go read some history on the country, for God's sake, or even a dictionary. It's a collection of states, not one big monolithic entity. Each state gets to choose. If a state is not represented in the federal government, why would they want to be part of the union?

In popular vote, only about 4 of the most populous states would matter. Candidates wouldn't give a shit about anybody else. Again, why would any of the states that aren't represented under such a system agree to be part of it?

The loser Dems are pushing this, and it's dishonest as hell. I always thought the GOP was corrupt and scummy, but somehow the Dems manage to outdo them in all manner of things evil.

Re:They all provide paper ballots.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for ES&S in 2007, and at that time they did have non-paper ballot based machines. I refused to work on those in principle because I don't think they're a good idea (even if they work perfectly the lack of an audit trail a layperson can understand makes them a bad idea just because they can be questioned in a way that undermines an election).

I think ES&S has phased out all of the non-paper, but likely still supports the touch screen voting machines. I won't be shocked that ES&S has a support contract that requires them to provide replacements for older machines that might have security issues.

Re:They all provide paper ballots.

[phantomfive]

Paper ballots are the center of democracy but the real problem is the electoral college which is not democracy.

If the vote count is so close that the electoral college makes a difference, then the problem isn't the electoral college.

Re: They all provide paper ballots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how every single other country in the world doesn't have an electoral college.
They also have universal health care, are happier and aren't corporatocracies.

Re:They all provide paper ballots.

[nine-times]

By that logic, if the vote count is so close that the electoral college makes a difference, then the electoral college isn't the solution.

Fundamental to your argument is that the electoral college can't stray far enough from the popular vote to make a meaningful difference. So if that's true, why bother having it?

Ask George Soros

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask George Soros

Because local governments buy them

[Chris Mattern]

Duh.

Re:Because local governments buy them

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it, duh moron.

Re: Still IMPERSONATING me JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you stalking gweihir and subie with unidentifiable anonymous posts?

What difference does it make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really??
As long as Americans are too stupid to create a third party you still have a choice between a turd burger and a shit sandwich. It makes absolutely no difference who wins. They're just two different sides of the same shitty coin.

So do something about it!

[Chelloveck]

You know, I agree with their complaint. Without an audit trail you can't even come close to being able to check for fraud, cheating, bugs, or anything else. But, unlike the Senators, I'm not in a position to do much about it.

You want to know why they're still selling them? Because people are still buying them! You want them to stop? Pass some fucking laws regulating elections! There's nothing to investigate here, no answers to be demanded. Other than of our lawmakers who could put an end to this if they damned well wanted to. Calling the manufacturers in to the principal's office is just posturing.

Yes, elections are the domain of the States, not the Federal government. So go beat up the States about it. Don't give manufacturers grief for selling a product in compliance with the laws, don't expect them to change out of the goodness of their hearts. Work to change the laws. Like a legislator is supposed to.

Re:So do something about it!

[jeff4747]

Pass some fucking laws regulating elections!

That would require Republicans to vote for those laws. And Republicans, despite all their "concerns" about election integrity when it comes to in-person impersonation voter fraud, just can't quite get concerned about all the various kinds of election fraud.

Yes, elections are the domain of the States, not the Federal government.

The Feds can still set minimum standards, such as requiring a paper trail.

Re:So do something about it!

[DamnOregonian]

The federal goverment's power in the federal election of states is very limited. Even the Voting Rights Act was a stretch, and only allowed because they were enforcing the enfranchisement of African Americans, which was allowed by the 15th amendment.

Ultimately, a state doesn't have to have a federal presidential election at all. They are technically free to select its electors as it sees fit. By straw poll, if they like.

Re:So do something about it!

[jeff4747]

Ultimately, a state doesn't have to have a federal presidential election at all

Because presidential elections are the only elections.

Also, the way this works is the Feds offer money and one of the strings attached to the money is the state must agree to the minimum standards. States are free to refuse, but since there's cash on the line and the minimum standards make sense, they accept the money.

Big difference is team blue

[rsilvergun]

changed their rules after they got caught (though the right wingers in the party managed to hang onto some of their power sadly). Check the links above. The GOP keeps getting caught again and again and again. No changes whatsoever. They keep doing it because they keep getting away with it.

Re:Big difference is team blue

[Z80a]

Come on, it's fair because both sides do it!
Except for the other sides that can't, but no one care about those because only two parties is perfect and all.

Re:Big difference is team blue

[Anonymous Coward]

One side is supporting security, the other side is fighting it. Your false equivocations are bullshit from the fountain of it.

I would say he did

[rsilvergun]

there was rampant voter suppression going on all across the country. Poor districts were understaffed and/or had too few machines. There were several cases of voter intimidation too when the Supreme Court overturned rules that prevented people from "campaigning" near polling offices (it was used by white supremacists in black neighborhoods to intimidate voters by showing up open carrying with racists signs).

Trump won by a few thousand votes. These sorts of things, taken together, are how he won.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

When Republican faggots lie, their tiny penises get even tinier. Tragic already, when Trump dies in prison they'll be entirely sexless blobs. More so I mean.

Re:I would say he did

[lgw]

Trump won because Hillary was the most corrupt politician since the robber barons. That's where the fault lies. Pick a better candidate next time - one whose deep corruption isn't so well known!

Re:I would say he did

[fafalone]

So because Hillary was somewhat corrupt, an assessment I certainly do not disagree with (nor do I disagree that her actions regarding her e-mails were criminal), the response was to elect a man that was not only obviously ignorant and intensely dishonest, but was also extraordinarily corrupt in his private business dealings, in the expectation that he would somehow be *less* corrupt in office? I also suspect you're going to deny that he's been more corrupt in 2 years in office than Clinton was in her whole career, despite the overwhelming evidence that is indeed the case, even setting aside anything Russia-related.
See this is why people think Trump voters are dumb. It's not that you're wrong about Hillary being terrible, it's the farcical argument that Trump was *less* terrible, especially on points like corruption-- that one doesn't even pass the laugh test dude.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble with the "better candidate" claim is - look at who actually won. It's true that Hillary was a bad candidate, but Trump is beyond question more corrupt by about two orders of magnitude.

If corruption was the issue, she should have won in a landslide. (Maybe lost to McMullen in Utah, but otherwise swept every state.)

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump won because russian hackers stole the election from Hillary even though it was her turn to be president.

Fixed That For You.

No need to thank me... just correcting the record.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing the point - many people simply would not vote for Hilary or another Clinton. It doesn't matter who the other candidate is.

What White House person has Trump had murdered or interfered with the investigation of their murder?

Re: I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

It must really be frustrating to have lurid gay sexual fantasies about straight men.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no collusion, there was no hacking and the DNC was caught framing the Russians. This is what the evidence and the facts are saying. If you do not believe this, there is something wrong with your brain, and you should see a doctor.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

When Republican faggots lie, their tiny penises get even tinier.

Yeah, but when Democrat faggots cry, Republican penises get even bigger, so it all evens out.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. Having a bad candidate is likely to keep someone from voting for them. It's not likely to make them vote for the worst of the remaining options.

Maybe many of the republicans didn't like their candidate, but they still considered a corrupt politician that would put conservatives on the supreme court a better choice than any of the alternatives.

Where a democract may decide to vote for the green party, independant, libertarian or national socialist. Or just abstain.

There were plenty of Bernie supporters who did not vote for Clinton.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump won because Hillary was the most corrupt politician since the robber barons. That's where the fault lies. Pick a better candidate next time - one whose deep corruption isn't so well known!

True ... people seem surprised at how deep Trump's corruption is. Worked really well for the Republicans.

They also seem to mostly be turning a blind eye to his actions, so like a Groundhog seeing its shadow, I guess we're in for an additional 4 years of Winter.

Re:I would say he did

[lgw]

Trump could have been defeated by any credible Dem candidate. One who would actually campaign. One who would give speeches to non-donors. One who would have town halls (not packed with pre-vetted supporters) and accept criticism. One who seemed the least bit interested in the concerns of the common voter. But the Dem political machine chose ... poorly.

Re:I would say he did

[eaglesrule]

Say what you want about Trump. But thanks to his election we got to see how corrupt are the FBI, the FISA courts, the DOJ, and how the Democrat party and the majority of the media was in Hillary's pocket the entire time. It was only this corruption permeating through critical organs of government that allowed her to even to run as a candidate, that denied a reputable statesman the very opportunity.

Also we have no idea the true extent of the corruption and crimes that Clinton has done, as even Trump's DOJ is shielding her. We don't even know the nature of the SAP classified material she was leaking due to negligence or otherwise. Has there ever been a real investigation, when we know the leadership at the FBI held such deep partisan bias?

There isn't even a point for comparison yet.

Re:I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't your hear? It's Mueller Time, baby!!!! Trump was cleared of all Russia charges.

You're the one rotting in a mental prison of your own making. Have fun in there . . .

Re: I would say he did

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the Repubs were the party of Law And Order? What happened?

Why would Repubs elect someone so clearly corrupt as Trump? What happened?

Braying on about Hillary only shows that you have no insight, no self-reflection. You've bought into Trump and sold your soul. We're the 40 pieces of silver worth it?

gweihir KNOWS better & subie = a dolt... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

gweihir KNOWS better (told you fools off & he knows you IMPERSONATE me) https://science.slashdot.org/c... & subie is a DOLT I let ANNIHILATE himself publicly due to HIS stupidity vs. me https://hardware.slashdot.org/... (hilarious STUPID of "subie" that was & I shot him to pieces for it).

APK

P.S.=> All too easily... apk

You're the fraud, GOP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Voter ID laws are unConstitutional and don't prevent fraud anyway... certainly not vote-switching en masse fraud via hacks. You're kind of retarded, the only voter fraud in-person campaign was Republicans this last election.

You're the fraud, GOP.

Re:You're the fraud, GOP.

[sexconker]

Voter ID laws are unConstitutional and don't prevent fraud anyway... certainly not vote-switching en masse fraud via hacks. You're kind of retarded, the only voter fraud in-person campaign was Republicans this last election.

You're the fraud, GOP.

They would go a long way to preventing fraud. They're no more unconstitutional than requiring an ID to purchase guns or beer.
We witnessed massive voter fraud in 2018 in Florida. What are you fucking talking about? The lady in charge who was CONVICTED of the same shit years earlier was creating box after box of fake provisional ballots and kept "finding" them well after the deadline to count and certify. It was so brazen that she resigned in an attempt to avoid another round of charges.

Re:You're the fraud, GOP.

[DamnOregonian]

They would go a long way to preventing fraud. They're no more unconstitutional than requiring an ID to purchase guns or beer.

Currently, this is true. I suspect it won't be forever, though.
Voting is a right the state cannot restrict without proving an urgent need.
The purchase of guns and beer are not subject to that requirement.

Re:You're the fraud, GOP.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Scotland, you simply state your name and address, and your name is crossed off the list. If the same person shows up twice, an investigation happens. Just use that method with paper ballots.

Re:You're the fraud, GOP.

[AntronArgaiv]

Voter ID laws are unConstitutional and don't prevent fraud anyway... certainly not vote-switching en masse fraud via hacks. You're kind of retarded, the only voter fraud in-person campaign was Republicans this last election.

You're the fraud, GOP.

They would go a long way to preventing fraud. They're no more unconstitutional than requiring an ID to purchase guns or beer.
We witnessed massive voter fraud in 2018 in Florida. What are you fucking talking about? The lady in charge who was CONVICTED of the same shit years earlier was creating box after box of fake provisional ballots and kept "finding" them well after the deadline to count and certify. It was so brazen that she resigned in an attempt to avoid another round of charges.

Massive voter fraud in Florida in 2018? No. Massive *election fraud*, yes. Voter ID is a solution for a problem that does not exist (to any significant extent) and this has been demonstrated over and over again. "Election fraud", such as in NC-09 and Florida, involves fake or legitimate ballots or totals altered by an intermediary or election official. Voter ID would not have prevented either of those two frauds.

Voter ID is, and will always be, a way of discouraging low income or disabled voters from casting their votes. The Constitution says nothing about proof of identity or citizenship being required to exercise your right to vote. You are presumed to be a legitimate voter unless proven otherwise.

People count better than machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a tech site, right? All they have to do is let me verify my vote was counted correctly. But then people will realize just how corrupt the system is, with paper or without it.

Democracy my ass.

Known Vulnerabilties?

[bobbied]

You mean they can be hacked by folks with physical access to the hardware or logical access to the software?

Well, I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED I say they'd sell something with KNOWN Vulnerabilities here..

I'm curious, what kind of system that does something useful in the real world isn't vulnerable to some kind of exploit? There is always something...

See you in prison, Trumptards.

[Anonymous Coward]

3 million more votes = Americans, and the only ones caught in voter fraud WERE REPUBLICANS! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/republican-voter-fraud.html
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/election-fraud-is-real-and-it-involves-a-republican.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/04/north-carolina-elections-fraud-allegations-mark-harris-campaign-house-1045355

Re:See you in prison, Trumptards.

[sexconker]

3 million more votes? What are you talking about? Trump won 306 to 232.

Geography does not matter more than people do.

[bussdriver]

Geography does not matter more than people do. They already play around swing states to game the system; at least population targets PEOPLE!

You can not have equal voting rights if you weight voting power by additional factors:
Slaves are 3/5 of a human vote (in the constitution) which is an indirect method of geographic and wealth weighting.

If it were not for the lack influence back in Europe's long established dynasties monopolizing power based upon perpetual land ownership...the USA would have been different, or not have existed.

Some inbred rural yolkel gets more power than 100s... at least they are not Royalty anymore...

Oh, and the senate algorithm is deeply flawed too! At least it's not as heavily rooted in racism. It needs a major rewrite; nobody's kernel would be so pathetic.

Puerto Rico gets no representation and they have more Americans than 21 states!

Re: Geography does not matter more than people do.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Geography does not matter more than people do. They already play around swing states to game the system; at least population targets PEOPLE!"

Agree with the sentiment but it is flawed. We are not A state. We are 50 states. 50 separate groups of people. The federal government is a bolt-on after the fact to facilitate theose states acting as one in the larger world. The constitution was designed to keep states more powerful than the federal government. Why? To keep the power close to the people. It's designed to protect exactly the intent you exhibit... Keep the people foremost in power and the federal level in check. Have we screwed up that design? Yes.

"You can not have equal voting rights if you weight voting power by additional factors:
Slaves are 3/5 of a human vote (in the constitution) which is an indirect method of geographic and wealth weighting."

15th amendment fixed the 3/5 issue. It's what Amendments do, and as such is just as much part of the constitution.

"If it were not for the lack influence back in Europe's long established dynasties monopolizing power based upon perpetual land ownership...the USA would have been different, or not have existed."

Sure. The founders were trying to prevent the parts of European government they didn't like. Bringing power to all the people. A serf could never become a Lord, but the "withouts" here have equal opportunity to rise to wealth or power
If they so choose. (Didn't say it's easy. Doesn't guarantee equal results.)

"Some inbred rural yolkel gets more power than 100s... at least they are not Royalty anymore..."

That inbred yokel has a name. You're about the people right? Yokels included.

"Oh, and the senate algorithm is deeply flawed too! At least it's not as heavily rooted in racism. It needs a major rewrite; nobody's kernel would be so pathetic."

Senate algorithm used to be that each state's legislature picked their Senators. Power to the states again. The 2 senators per state factor in the algorithm provided equality across states regardless of population and geography... Those are among your goals, right? It balanced the proportionally-sized , people-elected house to make a more balanced Congress. However the "not peoply votey directy enough" movement got the senate elections changed to a more direct vote. Clearly you don't like the current system for picking Senators, yet that's exactly what you propose for the president. Color me confused.

"Puerto Rico gets no representation and they have more Americans than 21 states!"

You understand the difference between a territory and a state right? Personally, I'm in favor of statehood for P.R. I never understood what the point of perpetual territories is. Heck, adding a state now and then would be great for resales of Old Glory. (Another star? Ok, I'll go buy it again.)

Re:Geography does not matter more than people do.

[phantomfive]

The only reason they can target swing states is because people in the other states are reliably owned by one party or the other.

Re: Geography does not matter more than people do.

[bussdriver]

Slavery is a stark example of the BIAS in the system design at the time and why you can't just accept it as a flawless document without a need for revision. Every amendment after the 1st immediate batch is bug fix. Not the same as being bug free and beyond criticism.

NOT all the founders wanted perpetual equal opportunity; especially to the lesser humans. Wealth capping schemes came about later when it became more apparent that a ruling dynasties were becoming a real threat. You can't have separation of powers if you ignore some types of power. The 4th branch failed to be clearly defined but until Lincoln, it was heavily funded (aka press.)

The inbred yokels have unequal political power; just not as much as the Royalty of the past (who had inbreeding problems; but they get respect and the yokels do not... neither deserve birth right benefits outside of the extra healthcare their genetics create.)

The 3 official branches of government are elected to power by different means; they need not be the same; probably shouldn't be given how any system will have specific flaws.

State governments should have more federal input; however, populations change while state borders are static which creates a serious problem of unequal representation. As Puerto Rico points out in the extreme (not being even being a state but out numbering nearly half the states.)

It is only going to get worse as the progression to cities continues with empty states commanding more disproportionate power. In the EU you have real history and culture drawing borders; the USA isn't remotely similar but it will over time (but likely retain a common language.) Redrawing state lines would make sense but be difficult to sell people... when humanity loves to war over their borders.

Ultimately, no perfect system could function perfectly when operated by humans. You 1st have to curtail ALL unequal sources of power. That means wealth caps, corporate limitations unseen since the civil war (and surpassed,) diversified press, and with the internet probably no means to limit online mobs led by influencers. You can't make citizens responsible let alone mindful...

Simple, so they can sell upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not understand the software industry?

1. You have no rights.
2. Nothing operates quite right.
3. You pay for upgrades in the hope that you can goto 2.
4. Nothing operates quite right
5. Repeat, profit, rinse, lobby

And in California ...

[fahrbot-bot]

Their voting machines will only print a paper ballot if you ask for it, otherwise they'll just provide ballots "only in electronic form." /future-irony

Re:And in California ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, this is a serious flaw, the machine cannot know who will or will not be vetting the vote in the future.

Re:And in California ...

[timere969]

Their voting machines will only print a paper ballot if you ask for it, otherwise they'll just provide ballots "only in electronic form." /future-irony

I've been voting in California elections my whole life. Not once electronically. We use a stamp method in the area I vote in.

Why not use slot machines?

[Krishnoid]

They could start with slot machines and modify those. Getting the information/percentages/security correct on those is of huge importance to manufacturers, regulators and casino operators considering it's directly tied to revenue and a high-value hacking target.

Re:Why not use slot machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but the mob will impose severe penalties if they find you have been "fucking about" on them ... and that is why voting machines will never be "secure" against tampering. There are insufficient penalties imposed for "fucking about". If the penalty for "fucking about" was death by plonking you and your entire family (basically all living relatives) in a vat of hydrofluouric acid, you can be assured that the manufacturers of the machines would be VERY careful to make sure they worked properly and the system could not be compromised.

However, since the only penalty is a bunch of silly old farts wringing their hands and asking stupid questions, the devices ought never be expected to be reliable.

Simple answer, the machines must be certified

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

I worked designing ballot counting machines in the 80's. It was a lot of fun and we had an active R&D department where I worked. After the Federal Election Commission started requiring us to certify new machines through a very rigorous and expensive process, the company stopped all new development work and simply sold the last models that were certified.

3 companies?

[dynamo]

How is it that only 3 companies are making such an easy and in-demand product? I could do a voting machine in a weekend including the hardware and a blockchain-based audit trail. So could a lot of us. I'm busy, someone do it.

This isn't about making a new one

[rsilvergun]

this is about fixing serious vulnerabilities in the existing machines. The 4 Senators would settle for a new "version" without the obvious, glaring vulnerabilities that make it child's play to game elections.

Re:This isn't about making a new one

[lgw]

Do you believe that the people in actual power in the US want actual democracy? Do you think their pet senators see these vulnerabilities as a bug, or as a feature?

Just to be clear

[rsilvergun]

you're ok that 538 people get to decide how the country is run right?

Re:Just to be clear

[lgw]

Yes. I believe the Constitution is a work of great wisdom. The more we've subverted it in recent decades, the more our standard of living has stopped improving.

Re:Just to be clear

[DamnOregonian]

The wisdom of the electoral college was keeping the slave-holding states in the Union by granting the state the suffrage it would have if all its residents could vote.
It was created for that reason, and for that reason alone. It's well documented, no matter what bizarre contrived theories you guys peddle around for its existence.
Ultimately, though, that wisdom no longer applies in today's world.

Re:Just to be clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the electoral college is an important part of the United States presidential election as it gives the smaller states a stronger say in how the country is run, without it they could very well stand up and say "We are effectively not being represented, we will no longer pay taxes until we are" . Meanwhile in an alternate universe where every vote was reversed, you are praising the electoral college because it allowed Clinton into office despite losing the popular vote.

It is a bit outdated and needs revision however.

Re:Just to be clear

[Riceballsan]

In my opinion, the electoral college is just broken beyond belief anyway. The main arguement of it is that without it, candidates would be able to win just by representing the densest population areas, but in reality reaching out to more or less the top 20 large cities, still wouldn't even reach the double digit percentage of voters. Now in the general election more or less, 10 states or so matter. The other 40, you can pretty much already mark down for the republican or democrat before we even know who the nominees are.

Re:Just to be clear

[lgw]

People will believe anything to denigrate the US, I guess.

Re:Just to be clear

[DamnOregonian]

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.

People will believe anything to reduce their cognitive dissonance, I guess.

Tour the France proves: No they won't.

[Anonymous Coward]

A colleague of mine was a candidate for the first French bicycle racimg league, and he told me, it works like this:

EVERYBODY dopes.
And everybody is checked for doping by the doctors of the competing teams. Bit if the doc of team B finds something on team A, then the doc of team A will find something on team B too.
So nobody finds anything.

The only reason anybody is ever caught, is because everybody wanted to get rid of him.

It will be the same for ballot counting. Nobody will say anything out of fear of being caught themselves.

Election results should be 100% repeatable, and openly peer-reviewable and verifiable. Basically every citizen would get to, or even be*required* to watch and check for anything weird.

A single wrong count in enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

And BAM, you have Bush instead of Kerry. (Not that Kerry would have been acceptable either. But you know.)

That is what he meant. Either you know that that is what he meant, and are an asshole, you you don't, and you are the retarded one.

Re: A single wrong count in enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore, not Kerry

It's not fair

[rsilvergun]

but the difference is that when the Dems were called on it they made changes. When the GOP is called on it they deny, evade, lie, double down, and do it all over again.

Seriously?

[Ol Olsoc]

Because the gawddamm things are simple to hack and alter votes.

Shit, those senators might be biting the hand that feeds them. The voting machines are working just as they were designed to work.

How else ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are no vulnerabilities to be exploited, then how could you rig the election results?

Are there Senators really that fucking stupid?

widespread election fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Widespread election fraud was the only reason universally-despised candidate Hillary Clinton "won" the popular vote.

Capitalism, baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it legal? Probably! Let's make lots of money.

More whitewashing DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

DNC riggs election, liberals give them a pass...
News at 11

So we have Somollett hoaxing a hate crime, no charges, no liberal outrage
We have Clinton deleting 30,000 subpoenaed emails, no problem
Bill Clinton, serial rapist, never charged, no problem
Northam in VA is KKK member, no issue
Fairfax in VA is serial rapist, no issue
Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Stroke, Page, Powers, Clapper, Brenen, etc all lie under oath, no issue

Meanwhile...
Trump Jr. talks to Russian lawyer for fifteen minutes... "Trump Sr. Much be impeached and imprisoned for life"

When you never win an election again for the rest of your life, the above can explain it to you.

Re:More whitewashing DNC

[DamnOregonian]

I'm not giving them a pass. I'm pointing out that both the DNC and RNC are private organizations. I think they're both despicable. I think they're the fucking root of what is wrong with party politics.
The fact remains though, that they are in fact private organizations, and we simply have zero right to dictate to them how they select their candidates.
And that is still very distinct from the actual public democracy.

California doesn't want a "paper trail"

[sabbede]

At least I assume they don't. They are banning paper receipts after all.

No it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

since unlike Republicans, Democrats have no principles, so it's easier for them to change themselves to fit the whims of the mob, or to drop members as not being True Scotsman^Democrats, disguising their populism as integrity.

Relevant XKCD

[Jason Levine]

Relevant XKCD about voting software: https://xkcd.com/2030/

Ha ha ha...

[VeryFluffyBunny]

...Americans still believe that they live in a democracy where their votes count. That's so cute... ...and naive of them.

If there was ever an electoral system in need of a complete overhaul, it's the US'. It seems that between them, the DNC & GOP have been gaming the system for so long, it's next to impossible to get nominated, let alone elected, without billionaires' & corporations' support.

How can you accept electronic voting?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so obviously a fraud, words fail me. Paper voting is bad enough, what with the ballot boxes almost always being taken elsewhere to be counted (i.e. so that they can be adjusted on the way to the counting place). Why aren't all ballot boxes opened and counted at the polling station? Have these people not heard of mobile phones that can livestream to Facebook, and video record the counting? Have these people not heard of telephones and e-mail? Gee... we could actually e-mail or upload a video of the results so that the central office responsible for counting the votes could get them! What a crazy idea.

What militia?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times does it have to be said? Guns are required to form a militia. The militia isn't required own guns.

The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms is required in order to form a well regulated militia, therefore that right shall not be infringed.

God, I am so glad . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . I play for the blue team!!

GO BLUE!!!

Being poor sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the burdens of being poor itself as well as the fact that poor cities can't fund things like large numbers of DMV staff. Poor people need ID for *everything else* in life--driving, etc. and somehow only voting is an issue for ID. It's not like we have Dems on camera admitting to voter fraud, right?

Oh, wait, we do...

voter id

[eaglesrule]

"burdens in time and money required to get a DMV ID"

Especially if you're an illegal immigrant, don't have a birth certificate or a SS id card. Those are a hassle to come by dishonestly. Thankfully there's states that don't have such requirements, and you can find them here on this handy map.

"they really want to vote but can't afford $20 for an ID" doesn't really fly when the ID's are free. You'd think not being able to do all the things that having an ID is required for just for daily life would be a motivating factor, but noooo. We have to play the "non whites are just too poor and disadvantaged to have one" while accusing the other side of racism. It's so fucking illogical it makes my head hurt.

Re:voter id

[Immerman]

Where are you that the ID is free? I've never seen a DMV that offered such a thing, and $20 will easily feed an adult for a week.

Good question, but...

[Cowardly Lurker]

Why the fuck are they BUYING these???