CBSnews (2017): Hackers break into voting machines within 2 hours...

[triron]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hackers-break-into-voting-machines-defcon-las-vegas/

[Takket]

1. how quickly did they hack a pen and paper?

[turbinetree]

2. Very good point "Paper Ballots"

I am going to write a letter to Tom Steyer asking him if he would be interested to fund a program to demand paper ballots in the mid terms..................or place an ad on TV to demand "Paper Ballots".......................

[CrispyQ]

7. Paper ballots counted by human beings.

No electronic voting machines or tabulators! My county has paper ballots, but they are fed through a tabulator to count the votes. Once the vote is digitized, it can be manipulated. Love your idea, but be sure it is a 2 step solution.

[turbinetree]

9. I fully understand. I believe that if we can get him to subsidized this for the mid term

it would be more important to get the paper ballots into the system first and then do the second issue that he has had millions sign onto............we need to be sure that this election isn't tainted and the only way is paper ballots and human beings counting and human beings tabulating the results with "both candidates' have a attorney present for the results.

All of the primaries will mostly be done this coming August or September in all fifty states, so it would not be hard to print and count..............if my Maryland ballot was like it was last month...............it can be done.........

This election does not have to be certified until Dec, 20, of the year of the election, and we have 100 days to get this done.............

Now to find out how to get in touch with him.....................

[CrispyQ]

24. He has a Facebook page. Maybe start there?

I thought that impeachment campaign was a waste of money. So many better ways he could have helped, IMO.

[turbinetree]

25. I am hoping that there are enough of us to do that...............I believe the more the better ....

[genxlib]

11. I'm not sure that is needed

The major difference is that paper ballots can be recounted manually. They can be randomly checked on a percentage of the machines and fully recounted anywhere that produces a small margin or unexpected result.

True electronic voting is a real black box with no records to prove otherwise

[TheFrenchRazor]

18. wrong, because the recount will never happen unless the margin of error is sufficiently small, and t

there are all kinds of legal hurdles and obstructing officials that can stop a meaning statewide hand recount from ever happening, so the paper ballots or "receipts" become essentially irrelevant. they need to be counted by hand from the very beginning.

[genxlib]

20. First of all

Your reply is rude and overly dismissive. If you want to enact change, you may want to try a better tone.

Second of all, if you want to hand count over a 100 million ballots, then please proceed to make your case.

For my part, I don't need to see hand counts in Alabama or California just to make sure that the margin of victory is 10 or 20%. It always comes down to a few states. Having the ability to count those is what matters.

Having the paper ballots allows for verification through actual recounts. But it also provides deterrent. Just the fact that they exists lowers the probability that someone would be successful and get away with it. It also raises the stakes on the people that make the counting machines because they will be checked.

It should be noted that counting ballots is not as simple as creating two stacks. All ballots include multiple races, initiatives, amendments, etc. Counting would be a logistical nightmare as individuals would be tallying up multiple races simultaneously. If you think that all that can happen under the pressure of election night, then you may want to think it through again. In truth, it probably would be less accurate and still prone to abuse. You are still counting on those individuals to count correctly and report fairly.

Nothing in substantial volume gets hand counted anymore; not cash, not coins, not traffic, not people. We have the technology to count the votes with machines. What we lack is the ability to make sure it has been done well without ill intent. If you want to change the rules about recounts/margins and legal challenges I am all for it. Those are still easier arguments to make that hand counting everything.

[riverbendviewgal]

12. We do it in Canada

It works good.

[LiberalArkie]

10. Pretty quickly in south Arkansas back

Before the machines came out. The deputy picking up the locked box that the ballots were in just gave the county clerk a different box.

[TheFrenchRazor]

19. as bad as that is, a far larger hack could be perpetrated by one person via computer voting machines

and the scenario you mentioned could be avoided by having party reps (from each party) handle the ballot boxes together.

[shanti]

3. Not really news though, CBS.

We've known about this for years and nothing has been done. Black box voting, anyone?

[oasis]

4. Paper ballots. Who cares which network is 1st to call the winner?

Democracy demands paper ballots, even if it takes 3 days to count them.

[CrispyQ]

5. Not just paper ballots, but paper ballots hand counted by humans!

No electronic voting machines & no tabulators!

[triron]

6. Exactly.

[TheFrenchRazor]

17. correct. nt

[Grasswire2]

8. throw those damned machines in a Dumpster

We've known this since 2004.

In some troubled countries the monitors use NCR 3-part paper. One copy to the ballot box. Second to an archive box. Third to the voter. Zero chance of fraud if they are then hand counted.

[Ms. Toad]

13. 100% chance of fraud

You've just handed the voter the means to prove to the person who purchased their vote (or coerced their vote with the threat of job loss, etc.) the means to prove they earned the $ paid for their vote (or that they have earned the right to keep their job because they voted the way they were told to vote).

Giving voters a means to prove who they voted for is a much easier way to rig the vote than hacking voting machines. The above hacks were under extremely artificial circumstances. To actually alter an election by hacking voting machines, under real-world circumstances is much more complex.

[Grasswire2]

14. nope

That's a myth. The incidence is very small, and easily regulated.

[Grasswire2]

15. the data

"Voter fraud, by any method, is still rare. A study by News21 — a consortium of journalism schools — found 867 cases since 2000 in which someone had admitted guilt or been convicted of a voter-fraud offense. That was out of about 146 million registered voters."


867 cases in 18 years. Not a drop in the barrel.

[Ms. Toad]

23. Yes, under the current conditions which prevent the voter from establishing how they voted.

Voter fraud is when a voter pretends to be someone else, or votes multiple times.

This would not be voter fraud because each voter under this scenario would be eligible to vote, and would vote once for candidates they "chose."

But once they can prove to a third party how they voted, it opens the doors to vote buying/forcing. Spouses who beleive they own everyone in the family, and who might beat their spouse if they don't vote the "right" way; companies who require their employees to vote for their favorite candidate to retain their jobs, to prevent layoffs, etc; or Republican billionaire's who purchase votes for their candidate.

That is why none of the current methods of voting give voters a "receipt." Being able to prove how you voted opens the system to vote rigging by buying/coercing votes.

The scheme proposed puts that proof in the hands of voters - and yes, creates 100% chance of fraud perpetrated by those who would buy or coerce votes.

In case you are not familiar with this history:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vote-that-failed-159427766/

(This discusses multiple issues, but lack of ballot secrecy and the vote buying it facilitated is one of them.)

[TheFrenchRazor]

16. WTF? you don't get to leave with your ballot, nor does it have your name on it, so how

how are you going to use it to prove to a 3rd party how you voted? you seem to be determined to continue using repug-owned, easily hackable machines to elect our leaders.

[Ms. Toad]

21. Did you read the proposal?

One copy to the ballot box. Second to an archive box. Third to the voter.

What do you think the voter is going to do with it, other than leave with it? There is already one in the ballot box (for counting), and a second in an archive box (for verification of the ballot box count).

[turbinetree]

22. Brad Blogs and voting 7/19/2018

http://bradblog.com/?p=12648

Please note I live in Maryland...................in the fifth paragraph it mentions that Maryland has issues................

"At the same time, after the FBI informed Maryland just days ago that its entire election system was being hosted on a private commercial server said to be owned by a Russian oligarch tied to Putin (as discussed in detail on yesterday's BradCast), we learn this week that the top U.S. election system vendor, ES&S, has been lying about remote access software and modems installed, for many years, on systems still used by a majority of U.S. voters."

Why in the fuck does my election equipment have to be owned by some fucking Russian , this is why I am asking all Marylander's to call


The State Board of Elections..............


https://elections.maryland.gov/voting/index.html

[samnsara]

26. we only have paper ballots and all mail in...

..so I guess someone could go rob mailboxes..?