The Nation's Best Hackers Found Vulnerabilities in Voting Machines - But No Time To Fix Them (politico.com) 189
Hackers at the DEF CON conference in Las Vegas identified vulnerabilities in voting machines slated for use in the 2024 U.S. election, but fixes are unlikely to be implemented before November 5, organizers said. The annual "Voting Village" event, held away from the main conference floor due to security concerns, drew election officials and cybersecurity experts. Organizers plan to release a detailed report on the vulnerabilities found.
Catherine Terranova, an event organizer, said major systemic changes are difficult to make 90 days before an election, particularly given heightened scrutiny of election security in 2024. The process of addressing vulnerabilities involves manufacturer approval, recertification by authorities, and updating individual devices. This typically takes longer than the time remaining before the election, according to Scott Algeier, executive director of the Information Technology-Information Sharing and Analysis Center. The event comes amid ongoing concerns about foreign targeting of U.S. elections, including a recent hack of former President Donald Trump's campaign, reportedly by Iran.
Catherine Terranova, an event organizer, said major systemic changes are difficult to make 90 days before an election, particularly given heightened scrutiny of election security in 2024. The process of addressing vulnerabilities involves manufacturer approval, recertification by authorities, and updating individual devices. This typically takes longer than the time remaining before the election, according to Scott Algeier, executive director of the Information Technology-Information Sharing and Analysis Center. The event comes amid ongoing concerns about foreign targeting of U.S. elections, including a recent hack of former President Donald Trump's campaign, reportedly by Iran.
As a programmer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a programmer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Connecting a voting machine to the Internet is just nuts. And there is no need for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a programmer... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:As a programmer... (Score:4)
Well, they were technically right that there was fraud... they just got the side wrong [apnews.com]...
Re:As a programmer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they're saving tax dollars. That's the reason. They could have someone drive to all precinct locations and update the air-gapped machines with a thumb drive, but that costs money. They could all count paper ballots, but that costs money.
Remember the big push to get voting machines was after the Bush v Gore fiasco in Florida, when suddenly everyone was buying the machines in a hurry, because there was suddenly money available to do so, and because there was a panic that they needed to update the old ways. Now they have no money to change the machines, it's a sunk cost that they have to live with.
Re:As a programmer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're saving tax dollars.
Ummm, what is more important? Saving a hundred million dollars or ensuring free and fair elections?
To me, it not even a contest. Even if it took every penny that existed, a free and fair election is far more important. Why is money even a consideration here? It is a fig leaf over the corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, you have to think like a politician, not like an average citizen. To the politician what is important is winning; free and fair elections are not the highest concern. Even the group claiming that elections are full of fraud are not really concerned with free and fair elections, instead they are concerned that their side was losing, and thus is was ok for them to respond to allegations of cheating by cheating.
Advocating for free and fair elections does not get one elected. However, claiming that every
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you split the job of "printing the human-readable marked ballot" from the job of "counting the ballot" that lowers the risk of connecting the "vote counting" machine to the internet, but not until the polls close and a local printout is made.
Once the results are printed, there's nothing wrong with connecting the vote-counting machine to the internet to send the results to the county or state registrar, or to the media for that matter.
With proper division of effort, all the security risks pretty much go away. Use a series of signatures (blockchain) to record how the vote progresses from machine to machine, with the voting machine logging the initial vote, a verifying machine that you use to make sure your vote was recorded on the card, flagging problems and sending it back to a voting machine to correct mistakes if needed, etc., with time stamps at each step in the process being signed with a per-device key. Ensure that the validators
Re: As a programmer... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/2030/ [xkcd.com] https://xkcd.com/463/ [xkcd.com]
Yes, I was very much thinking of that first one when I inserted the word "blockchain", and decided to use the term anyway, because the idea of signing a digital ballot every time a new device sees it can be an incredibly useful tool in terms of making the entire path auditable/verifiable as a digital ballot goes from machine to machine prior to ingestion.
It adds very little in terms of complexity, but significantly increases verifiability after the fact, at least when combined with a write-only ledger (read
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge difference between a closed blockchain and an open blockchain. Closed blockchains are very useful for things like inventory management and have been used practically since the 90s. Open blockchains burn acres of rainforest so "technically it's ephebophilia" libertarian techbros can run unregulated securities fraud schemes on procedurally generated pictures of monkeys.
Re: As a programmer... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about...not?
There's no reason it has to be any more complicated than marking a paper ballot, and then counting the ballots. It's that simple. No blockchain this or digital signature that...simple.
Machines to count the ballots is fine, but you keep the paper for auditing and recounts.
Why do we have to make it so complicated?
Oh yeah, somebody gets paid to make the digital piles of horseshit. Silly me. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason it has to be any more complicated than marking a paper ballot, and then counting the ballots. It's that simple.
Paper ballots still have the "extra suitcase full of ballots" risk. Can you prove that those additional ballots didn't come from a polling station? Can you be absolutely certain that no polling station workers will collude to inject more ballots somehow? Having an electronic voting record makes such things considerably harder, because you have a time-stamped log of every event.
Having an electronic record also makes things considerably faster, because instead of taking hours to tabulate, the districts can
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, it's not that hard. Each poling place gets a known/finite number of ballots. Every ballot that's handed to a voter gets initialed by the person handing it out. You know how many voters have come through, as you're already crossing them off the registration list as you hand them a ballot. (Or adding them to the list as a provisional ballot) And you know how many unused ballots are turned in at the end of the day. Adding the machine count is just icing on the cake.
I have limited experience with the vo
Re: (Score:3)
That's consistent with what happens in Australia. Before polls open a citizen who is not a member of any party is called into each polling centre and invited to inspect the ballot boxes and satisfy themselves that they are empty. . The ballot boxes are then sealed and the citizen signs to confirm the seal numbers. The ballot stay in full view from then on. A polling station is issued a set number of ballot papers and the votes cast plus the blanks must match the number of issued papers with very low tol
Re: (Score:2)
Use a series of signatures (blockchain) to record how the vote progresses from machine to machine,
Yes because blockchain [thedefiant.io] never has [wired.com] security [coindesk.com] problems [wired.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, sure. By the way, if you don't vote for my preferred candidate, I'll know, and I'll know where you live...
Re: (Score:3)
And that's the problem. The founding fathers certainly knew this. Every idiot knows this. The people who want public voting know this as well, they just want to be the ones beating up those who voted the wrong way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite is also true. If you do vote how I want, I can then surreptitiously reward you in a way that can't be proven as a bribe in a court of law.
Re:As a programmer... (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone gets discriminated against for any of their politics, it's a protected class and you have anti-discrimination cause against them. Obviously that system works and works well.
So... let me get this right. Your proposal is to make every person's voting history public information. And the back-stop for the all-but-guaranteed blowback from it is to make that blowback illegal? You're joking, right? There is no way that was a real suggestion.
EVERYONE would have full faith and trust in the election
Everyone, eh? We still have people that legitimately believe we live on a flat earth. You can show them the live feed from the ISS and they'll tell you it's fake. More on-point: We still have people that legitimately believe the 2020 election had enough fraud that it changed the outcome, with absolutely ZERO proof of such widespread fraud.
Re:As a programmer... (Score:4, Informative)
There was proven fraud and attempted fraud - but those found guilty were for the most part Republicans. One was found guilty just yesterday, but probably Trump thinks this person is a hero (https://coloradosun.com/2024/08/12/tina-peters-verdict/).
Re: As a programmer... (Score:4, Interesting)
"We should just get rid of the secret ballot"
Do you have any ideas at all that aren't completely ignorant and/or corrupt? I can't remember ever seeing you express one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spoken like a heterosexual able-bodies white man who has never in his life actually faced discrimination and refuses to understand how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with all the solutions getting money for them. Who pays for it? The officials get their jobs by promising to cut costs, the county budgets for elections are tiny and they rely upon volunteers.
The best solution I think is in use already - mail in ballots. But for some reason a group of mentally deficient candidates don't like them because they're too convenient, and when something is convenient then the wrong sorts of people end up voting. Of course they don't come out and say this out loud,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you split the job of "printing the human-readable marked ballot" from the job of "counting the ballot" that lowers the risk
See; 99% of software risks could be eliminated by having Multiple separated modules within each voting machine. Use 3 single-board modules which are physically isolated and dedicated to each task, instead of 1 big computer that runs the whole voting machine.
1. Polling device module - dedicated solely to user interface. No network connection. Only physical ports are: 1 Power i
Re: (Score:2)
Event sourcing this seems so easy. My assumption is that it was not built by a bunch of interns and I hope the vulnerabilities are elsewhere.
PLC (Score:5, Interesting)
You drive it via ladder logic and a PLC. The tree for a complex election shouldn't be more than a couple dozen lines. Have the PLC code checksummed and displayed on the front of the machine - it should be the same for every machine in the precinct and everyone can check.
You have a count on the back of the machine hidden by a hatch that disables the machine once opened. Backup to a paper tape.
For the uninitiated, a PLC only runs a series of programmed I/O sequences. It doesn't run arbitrary code.
Re:As a programmer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you imagine if a bank connected their equipment to the internet? Everyone's account would be drained in minutes!
Germany uses these kinds of machine too, and last time I checked Germany is a 1st world country. They legally require some kind of verifiable backup, typically a printed receipt of your vote that can be checked and if necessary manually counted.
I'd be more worried about people trying to get voters removed from electoral registers and voter suppression. Those things are demonstrably happening right now.
Re: (Score:2)
At most companies, quality gets in the way of profit. If you want a quality voting machine you have to pay extra, in a market where officials are elected based upon the promise of cutting costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some reason you think they are connected to the Internet?
The point of this type of article is to drum up interest by prompting people to make such assumptions. Then they compound that by ignoring the larger security context, such as what would happen if a particular machine that was inappropriately left connected to the internet registered a bunch of votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok but how do you get a timestamp without an Internet connection?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok but how do you get a timestamp without an Internet connection?
GPS or radio clock.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple system (Score:5, Insightful)
Paper ballots and hard pencils. With the right paper, difficult to damage with water and graphite doesn't run.
Vote. Scan for fast tabulation, lock up the ballot as your backup. Protect the ballot boxes. Anything statistically unlikely triggers a manual count.
Allow a representative of anyone on the ballot to act as an observer. And maybe throw in a neutral 3rd party.
It's not complicated, and it's extremely difficult to exploit. But an Internet-connected 'voting machine'? That's just asking for widespread automated fraud.
No paper ballots = You want to cheat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You bring very strong and valid points.
Now tell me which corrupt cheating party fights the most against your points.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why shouldn't (citizen) felons be allowed to vote?
They after all have the most contact with the government they're voting for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No paper ballots = You want to cheat (Score:3)
Re:No paper ballots = You want to cheat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: No paper ballots = You want to cheat (Score:2)
This is something that often puzzles me about US elections. We recently had our elections in the UK with hand-counted paper ballots. With no machines involved the first constituencies returned results three hours after the polls close and perhaps two or three counts still ongoing at 6am the following morning (polls close at 10pm).
Yes the US has about five times the population, but that just means you need more people counting ballots. Why bother with voting machines at all? Fear-mongering of voter fraud by
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they still around? (Score:2)
After all the bruhaha about 2020 election, I'm surprised any county is still approving and using digital voting machines. Neither conservatives nor progressives have a fondness for them. Conservatives used to see them as a way to cut election costs, but the 2020 paranoia and accusations has wiped most that view out.
Re: (Score:3)
But why deal with a screen in one format and paper in another? Just have paper ballots and skip the middle stuff. Live with an occasional mark ambiguity. That's the least evil compared to machine risk.
Corrupt system. (Score:3)
Paper ballots and hard pencils. With the right paper, difficult to damage with water and graphite doesn't run.
First off, a guy named Chad has been Hanging around since the 2000 election to argue for the right paper. Haven’t figured it out yet.
But more to the corrupt point..the simpler a solution appears, the more voting taxpayers should understand the ones in Control right now don’t want to fix this.
Now, or ever.
Re: (Score:3)
The hanging chad issue was caused by using a punch voting system that incompletely removed the paper, compounded with the fact that it used a system to align candidates with holes that confused some users.
An optical scan ballot has none of these issues.
Re:Simple system (Score:4, Informative)
You just described the Elections Canada system, verbatim. There's a reason Elections Canada representatives are asked to be neutral observers at other countries' elections.
Re: (Score:2)
>You just described the Elections Canada system
Sorry, I have no idea how that happened, eh?
I live in Ontario.
Re: (Score:2)
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [osce.org]
and
Organization of American States [oas.org]
There are many of these international observers watching the US elections. They would definitely report to the world if there was significant fraud.
Human Count (Score:2)
Vote. Scan for fast tabulation
Even better have the vote counted by humans in a room where representatives of all the candidates are allowed to walk around to inspect that the process is being done honestly and flag anything they see that does not look right to the returning officer.
Vote counting is something that needs to be both done right and seen to be done right even if that takes longer, although the UK uses a monitored human vote counting system and gets all of its votes counted far, far faster than I've ever seen in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
paper and pencil can get "hacked" as well.
of course, the "monkey with elections" stuff always brings to mind this one ... https://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/a... [jpfo.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Protecting the polls is a separate (though equally important and more visible) issue.
I think blocking a voter's access to a polling centre should be a summary execution offense, but the mechanics of that are difficult to set up safely. Similarly, disenfranchisement attempts like limiting polling station locations, hours, and purging voter rolls weeks prior to an election should also be capital offenses. And I'd love to see gerrymandering on that list, too.
Democracy isn't a sporting event to game the rules
Secure machine-aided voting isn't hard (Score:5, Interesting)
Election day:
Step 1: Human-readable, clearly-marked paper ballot that can be hand-counted is the official record in the case of a dispute or recount. With machine-aided voting that prints out a clear, marked ballot, this is a solved problem.
Step 2: Venezuela-style end-of-day tally-sheets from each local vote-counting machine are made available confidentially to all contestants as soon as each polling site closes. Exceptions only when doing so would reveal who voted for whom (very-low-turnout voting stations).
Step 3: The same tallies are made available to the press with not-all-polls-closed-yet races subject to a press embargo.
After election day:
Step 4: Statistical audits on each vote-counting machine to find evidence of gross counting errors. Most would be done using an automated method that is independent of the vote-counting machine under test (i.e. different vendor). To short-circuit any conspiracy theorists, a few randomly-selected ones would be done by hand under the watchful eye of the press.
Step 5: Full hand-counted audits of a few randomly-selected machines under the watchful eye of the press. The main purpose of this is to deter wholesale cheating: The more cheating you do, the more likely it is that it will be detected. It also serves a side-purpose of detecting counting errors that don't show up in step 4. It should also satisfy the conspiracy theorists.
Step 1 makes vote-count-cheating recoverable. This step is non-negotiable.
Steps 2-3 get results to the public as soon as possible. Cheating is harder if you are pressed for time.
Steps 4 and 5 deter cheating, find problems with machine-counting, and, hopefully, placate the conspiracy theorists.
With these steps, even if your vote-marking, vote-counting, and vote-tally-aggregating machines are compromised, the compromise will be much easier to detect and, once detected, votes can be re-counted by hand if necessary.
Problems outside the scope of this solution: Denial-of-service attacks against polling stations, preventing voters from getting to the polls at all (voter intimidation, blocking traffic, etc.), fraudulent in-person voting (voting for your identical twin using his ID, etc.), bribing voters to vote a certain way, absentee/mail-in/drop-off-ballot fraud, and basically anything else that isn't a voting-site-issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Venezuela-style"?
I was referring to the recent Presidential election in Venezuela where the opposition party was able to use the per-machine vote-tally sheets to prove they won the election, despite the official outcome being different.
Perhaps I should have used different words to evoke the memory of that election instead of calling it "Venezuela-style".
Re: (Score:2)
"Venezuela-style"?
It's a special mode where you can vote for whom you want but the same party always wins.
Re: Secure machine-aided voting isn't hard (Score:5, Insightful)
"It should also satisfy the conspiracy theorists."
Prepare to be disappointed
Re: (Score:2)
With these steps, even if your vote-marking, vote-counting, and vote-tally-aggregating machines are compromised, the compromise will be much easier to detect and, once detected, votes can be re-counted by hand if necessary.
Why not just skip the unnecessary previous steps and just do counting by hand all the time? As you note all your steps make it harder to compromise vote machines but not impossible and when it comes to something as important as an election you need a process that is not only secure but that is seen to be secure. It is much, much harder to fool a room full of humans - both those doing the counting and representatives of the candidates checking that they are doing it correctly - than it is to fool a computer
Paper (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no cognizable benefit to voting machines.
European nations with 60M voters regularly use paper and have their results the same day. These systems scale just fine. Each state is that size or smaller.
Voting machines are much more expensive, more complex, black-boxed, difficult to secure, error-prone, difficult to audit, and we know they're really poorly built and maintained. Plus officials constantly lie about connectivity, password management, access controls, and the like.
It's not even like changing the candidate list a week before an election is a feature we'd even want.
The only thing they seem good at is allowing for the possibility of cheating (which has a rich history going back to mechanical voting machines).
The only remaining conclusion is that we have them to enable cheating.
It was great when the Democrats railed against voting machines (1950s-2019).
Only paper ballots stand a chance of creating a free and fair election at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>The only remaining conclusion is that we have them to enable cheating.
That's not the only reason. They are also more expensive than paper which is a way for state governments to funnel taxpayer money to their well-connected friends.
Re:Paper (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of votes in the US are cast on paper ballots [reuters.com].
* 70% cast their votes with hand-marked paper ballots
* 23% of voters vote with machines that physically mark a paper ballot
* Fully electronic voting machines only cover 7% of the electorate
Additionally, the vast majority of fully electronic voting machines are used in Republican-dominated areas (there's a map in the linked article above). I don't personally think they did it with cheating in mind... I suspect they thought it would save money somehow.
In any case, it shouldn't be difficult to move that 7% back to paper ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to forget who INSISTED on electronic voting machines.
Look up the phrase 'hanging chads'.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some benefits. On complex ballots the machine can ensure that the voter completed it correctly. That's particularly important where you have representative systems that aren't just first-past-the-post, or where multiple elections are being combined.
Arguably that tangible benefit, which is measurable by the number of incorrect ballots being cast, outweighs fears of hacking which have yet to result in a single known case of fraud.
Also, if you absolutely insist on people having ID, then you probably
Machines DO provide benefit (Score:2)
There's no cognizable benefit to voting machines.
Remember Florida in the 2000 US Presidential election, and the hanging chads?
One of the benefits of op-scan machines is that voters know if their ballot is filled-out unambiguously.
Hang around a polling place, and you'll find that voters routinely double vote single races, leave ambiguous marks, and try to vote blank ballots (yes, really). Op scan machines catch all of these situations, and return the ballot to allow the voter to fix their mistakes. Without the machines, the paper ballots would remain unins
Re: (Score:2)
Having a machine that *checks* that a ballot is valid: yes.
Having a machine that *counts* the ballots and tabulates the results itself: no.
Machines (Score:2)
First time I voted I got to use one of the old electro-mechanical voting machine booths. Big chunky jobbers built in the 1960s. Heavy toggle switches. You yanked down on one and a big green circle filled in next to whom you voted for. You could flip the toggle back up to un-set your choice. Once done, you pulled a big slot machine looking lever, and your votes were printed out on a paper strip that you could see through a window. Pulled another lever and the strip would scroll down so the next person couldn
Not HAVA-compliant (Score:2)
They were big and unwieldly, and I don't think anyone ever had a problem with them.
They weren't well-liked by voters with physical disabilities. Actually, there was a DoJ lawsuit about that [justice.gov].
Send the list to the My Pillow guy (Score:2)
I hear he's an expert on this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Four fucking years to fix. (Score:4, Interesting)
Catherine Terranova, an event organizer, said major systemic changes are difficult to make 90 days before an election, particularly given heightened scrutiny of election security in 2024.
I’m sorry, but wasn’t Democracy itself on the ballot before, according to the fearmongering party?
You haven’t had 90 days to fix this. You’ve had four fucking years to fix this. You don’t want to. Stop bullshitting voters already, morons. Damn.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends entirely on the vulnerability and when it was discovered. There are new problems in the Linux kernel reported regularly. All releases, including the most recent development versions have vulnerabilities. Old ones do get patched. Sometimes this shows a new flaw. That's just a Linux example, but is true of other O/Ss as well. It will always be true. The application running, if with no shared libraries or DLLs at all, could be proven secure in 4 years. If it relies on shared libraries or DLLs or and O/
Re: (Score:2)
Depends entirely on the vulnerability and when it was discovered.
You really believe that? If so, take a good hard look at just how long DEFCON/Black Hat has been reporting on voting machine vulnerabilities and insecurities. Then tell me how long it took for those to get patched. Compare and contrast that effort to any other patching/corrective effort. You might just see the level of give-a-shit here.
Securing a single-purpose voting machine, is no longer rocket science. Not even close. Tends to beg the question as to why we can’t do it. As another poster poin
Re:Four fucking years to fix. (Score:5, Insightful)
Catherine Terranova, an event organizer, said major systemic changes are difficult to make 90 days before an election, particularly given heightened scrutiny of election security in 2024.
I’m sorry, but wasn’t Democracy itself on the ballot before, according to the fearmongering party?
You haven’t had 90 days to fix this. You’ve had four fucking years to fix this. You don’t want to. Stop bullshitting voters already, morons. Damn.
Exactly this. Just make voting machines subject to the same regulations as slot machines [riskcompliance.biz], and the problem would go away.
How it's easier to hack a voting machine than a gambling machine is beyond me.
Trump wasn't "really" hacked (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL (Score:2)
LMAO even.
Re: (Score:2)
Just slap an antivirus on it, AMARITE? (Score:2)
Surely that fixes everything! (cough) https://xkcd.com/463/ [xkcd.com] (cough)
Lots of Simple Questions with Answers (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of people are asking questions in these discussion threads with the intent of them being rhetorical, but most have really simple and truthful answers. I'll start responding to them in this post and thread. Also, I'm not suggesting that the responses are sufficient justifications, I'm only answering the question and generally form an operational standpoint.
Example:
Q: The bathtub overflowed. Why did you leave the bath water running while not in the bathroom.
R: I got distracted by a TV show.
Q: That's a horrible justification!
R: It's not intended to be a justification, but it IS what happened.
Q: What about vulnerabilities in voters? That would seem to be the bigger issue.
R: Stupidity is an unwritten right. People are allowed to be idiots and still vote. And even if they're genuinely intelligent, but brainwashed, they're still allowed to vote.
Q: Why bother with electronic voting machines at all?
R: Because it's much harder today (and getting harder still) to convince people to volunteer their time to do election work. From working the polls themselves to auditing pen/pencil marks, discerning intent from "hanging chads", and hand-counting ballots in close races, it's genuine work. And assholes make the work HARDER by spreading conspiracy theories both about the work and the people doing the work. A working digital solution would be easier to run an election with fewer volunteers required.
Q: Why bother with internet-connected voting machines at all?
R: See the response above and then add in the possibility to both run an audit an have instant results remotely.
Q: How many cases of election fraud in the US have traced back to a compromise of electronic voting machines?
R: To the best of my brief research, there hasn't been a significant breach of an electronic voting machine system in an American election. Almost all voting fraud in the last 20 years is the result of illegal voting on behalf of another person which doesn't require access to an electronic voting machine.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes! Just like that! You're imitating one of the guys screaming, "STOP THE STEAL" at 85-year-old pensioners handing out "I Voted" stickers perfectly!
News flash: The elections are audited. You don't see it because you've chosen not to be part of that particular system. You can also choose to put the work in and be part of the audit.
Loser can claim (Score:2)
The US government had 4 years to find and fix this.
Now, every loser can claim the election was stolen: Elected, I win, not elected, you lose. Which is accurate, regardless, because US voters consistently refuse to vote for a minority party.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. If thats their will, so be it. Fuck you for thinking you have the right to decide on what criteria or what information they chose their representative. That is strait up fascist shit. If they chose to believe something you know to be false, thats on them, and not on you. Welcome to democracy.
It is democracy yes. Still, if enough people with no grasp of reality vote in enough representatives with no grasp of reality you will end up with a country with no grasp of reality. That may or not be what the founding fathers intended, but I'm not sure how you could not consider it a problem regardless.
Re:What About Vulnerabilities In Voters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What About Vulnerabilities In Voters (Score:5, Insightful)
The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
Says someone who apparently has the false notion he is ignorant of nothing. The importance of anti-intellectualism is that it questions the false notion that understanding abstract ideas and intelligence trump actual experience. In Asimov's case it goes beyond that to an apparent belief that imaginative invention trumps reality.
It has been obvious for a long time that actual voting machines in the real world are not reliable. The claims that they can be made secure are almost all theoretical, based on intellectual models rather than tested experience. They do however deliver quick results on election night for the media and they eliminate all the other things required to keep paper ballots secure. Its not like stuffing a ballot box is a modern invention. Voting machines just make it easier to accomplish and harder to detect.
Re: (Score:2)
Code can't be hacked without physical access, unless the programmer ordered the computer (intentionally or unintentionally) to accept instructions from hackers. You'd know this if you had real world, actual experience on the subject instead of abstract ideas on how hacking works. A programmer adding security vulnerabilities to their code might be understandable for complex, unimportant programs, but not for what is basically just counting (in fact, this is probably a good case for a non-programmable circuit
Re: What About Vulnerabilities In Voters (Score:2)
Well, yes and no, depending on how you mean it. Democracy means that the voters make informed decisions. Which means that the voters are well informed. If the voters are not well informed, then this is not "democracy working" but rather "democracy being perverted and used as a pretext". You can think that's cool, but why would you?
Of course we can argue about who defines "well informed". We don't want a ministry of truth obviously. So instead we can look at access to reliable information. And the thing is,
Re: What About Vulnerabilities In Voters (Score:2)
"I don't think that democracy is working" as in "I don't think that democracy is currently working as it is supposed to"
Re:What About Vulnerabilities In Voters (Score:4, Insightful)
Voters tend to vote predictably in large numbers, and local culture is a strong indicator. This allows some types of elections to be controlled by a process called gerrymandering, effectively disenfranchising the undesirable voters.
Re: And here we go (Score:3)
Re:And here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
Pray you don't experience that level of justice.
I'll try really hard to not fuck a porn-star while my wife is pregnant, lie about it, then try and claim a silence payment as a business expense. Also, in your insane assessment of the trial, how do you account for the jurors? Or did the barely-coherent-yet-somehow-master-puppeteer, Joe Biden, somehow coerce them into a unanimous verdict?
Re: (Score:2)