Senate Rejects New Money For Election Security (apnews.com) 456
The Republican-controlled Senate has defeated a push by Democrats to set aside an additional $250 million for states to upgrade their voting systems to protect against hacking and other cyberattacks. From a report: An amendment offered by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy received 50 yes votes, 10 short of the 60 needed for approval. Leahy said securing U.S. elections and "safeguarding our democracy" is not a partisan issue. He said the Senate "must send a clear message to Russia and other foreign adversaries that tampering in our elections will not be tolerated. The president will not act. This duty has fallen to us." A similar effort was also rejected in the House.
States can get serious (Score:3, Insightful)
This problem can be addressed at the state level with it being major talking point at federal level for the elections. Great opportunity to find where lawmakers stand, and yes some Democrats are dirtbags on the issue too, despite what comes out of their mouths.
Re:States can get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"All elections are local"
The distributed nature of our elections means we can get the best security if each state implements different security measures, so an attacker would need to figure out the weaknesses of 50 of them, as opposed to a single monolithic system.
The way our voting system works, if one state was "hacked" then the worst that would come of it would be the electoral votes from that one state would be potentially affected. This could swing an election, in theory, if a swing state was "hacked".
Re:States can get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Since hacking seems to be party dependent, it follows that those states in favor of the pro-foreign-intervention party will deliberately ignore hacking attacks, counting on a favorable result to justify minority rule.
Re:States can get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
If "pro-foreign-intervention party" states are the only ones affected by foreign intervention, then nothing will change with or without additional security. Those states will still be won by that party.
After all, what's the difference between a state sending 3 Democrats and 7 Republicans to congress (with a 50-50 popular vote split, see gerrymandering [wikipedia.org]) or 0 Democrats and 10 Republicans with a 3-97 hacked vote split, right? Where's the harm in letting Russians decide the outcome in a few states? Maybe they'll even pick some libertarian or green candidates to win, and won't that be fun?
</sarcasm> for the humor impaired.
Re:States can get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how election security works.
Security begins and ends at the ballot box. The voting machine has to be shown untampered; it has to be observed untampered throughout the day; and the counts have to be demonstrated with no chance of tampering before being shipped off to SBE. SBE publishes ballots and you regenerate the counts to show that they all come up with the right tally, thus integrity is maintained.
You can also attack the ballots from other directions. Voting methods which allow manipulation--such as plurality--are wide-open to such attacks. Clones can turn a narrow race into a sure victory (have a friend run against you, mimicking the campaign of your opponent). The election generally revolves around tipping a small amount of the swing vote and exciting the party voting base, so propaganda at the right time can directly select any candidate.
Resistance to attack requires strong procedural election security and a voting rule that resists manipulation (such as certain Condorcet methods and STV). An election system monoculture benefits from greater scrutiny and adherence to procedure; the most important procedure is the minimization of attack surface and the strict maintenance of integrity. Varied systems create more opportunities to discover weaknesses--which doesn't matter if you've got no attack surface, but then you're relying on a property which (again) suggests varied systems aren't a defense but rather a liability.
Re:States can get serious (Score:4, Insightful)
All the anti-tampering methods in the world can be for naught if the voter ID requirements are designed to disenfranchise certain groups of voters.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly - do you know how difficult it would be to swing a vote through this method, compared to silently flipping some bits or simply coercing the electorate through emotive social media campaigns?
Re: (Score:3)
The local human control is one of the first layers of security in elections. It's why we have designated polling places, and why we call names out loudly when you show up: other humans identify you, as you should live in the local neighborhood.
Registering for multiple voter IDs is actually relatively high risk and not generally coordinated due to being extremely high risk thanks to FBI tactics of leveraging one conspirator against others (informants). This is further discouraged by people in general l
Re: (Score:2)
Like if some states used U2F security keys and others used SMS [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:3)
"All elections are local" ... The way our voting system works, if one state was "hacked" then the worst that would come of it would be the electoral votes from that one state would be potentially affected. This could swing an election, in theory, if a swing state was "hacked".
Okay, so duh, just hack Florida and Ohio.
Re: States can get serious (Score:4, Informative)
No real evidence of that, just claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: States can get serious (Score:5, Informative)
Sure there is. You can add up all the confirmed cases of in-person voting fraud, and use it as an estimate of how likely it is that there are millions of people committing in-person voter fraud in California.
In the 2016 election there were....4 cases. Across the entire United States. Btw, two were Trump voters, so our massive number of four cases were not exactly shifting the electoral results to one party.
That makes it really, really unlikely that there are millions of cases of in-person voter fraud in California. Especially since it would require millions of people to not talk about their crimes.
There's also the fact that public polling in California does not indicate a latent Republican majority being defrauded. And if you want to claim that's just the ebil librul media, Fox News polling shows the same.
But people like you will pay lots of money for entertainers to lie to you about voter fraud, so they're gonna keep lying to you.
Re: (Score:3)
"If Democrats were really serious about immigration, they'd work with Trump and bring a sane immigration policy that put American interests first."
If Republicans were really serious about illegal immigration they'd propose solutions to illegal immigration that would actually stand a chance at working well like making the already existing e-verify system mandatory for employers in this country. No jobs for illegal immigrants means no illegal immigrants, it's incredibly simple.
But no, stupid ideas like a mass
Re: (Score:3)
"The Dems have moved hard-left as they've won issue after issue."
You gave me a chuckle there.
The only realistic way to determine how far out of wack a given ideology is, is to compare it to others so as to be able to put it on a spectrum. Relative to other first world countries our Democrats are mild conservatives when it comes to economics. On social issues (which is what you seem to have a hard on for here) they are very much in line with mainstream political views throughout the first world which means t
Re: States can get serious (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is why everyone believes in unicorns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: States can get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: States can get serious (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not affect the integrity. The people do not elect the president states do! if a state wants to risk their franchise that is that states business.
Its not even clear, states have to put the presidential election on a ballot. They could conceivably choose a candidate in their legislatures. In fact that might be a better system
Re:States can get serious (Score:4)
Quite so. There is no requirement that there be an election for Pres/VP at State level. Electors are what are chosen at the State level, and there is no specific requirement as to how Electors are chosen.
Note that if the Electors worked as designed by the Founders, two of the Electors from each State would be chosen by the State governments (remember, originally, the Senators were representing their State, not the people of same) and the remainder by a separate election in each Congressional District.
Of course, as originally designed, it was possible to have Pres and VP be from different Parties, the winner of the Electoral College being Pres, and whomever (of whatever Party) came in second would be VP. That didn't last long though.
Sometimes I think it would've been better that way, sometimes not so much....
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, if it helps me win, I'm okay with it" - All Senators that opposed the issue.
Honestly though, lots of money has been dumped into making ballots secure, and they have never really been that well protected from hacking/interference. A $250 mil earmark may be a waste of money compared to having some IV&V with blackhats prior to making purchases of ballot systems.
Re:States can get serious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been quite concerned that they apparently robbed Bernie of his chance at the 2016 election. I've been quite vocal about it in fact...
Glad we could clear that up. So you can stop calling BS and start actually replying to forum comments in a constructive and hopefully insightful manner.
Good Day Coward!
Re:States can get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya ya ya "they're both the same!" but they're not so stop with that horseshit please. Republicans have REPEATEDLY blocked upgrading election security. The party that can't seem to throw enough money at corporations is now suddenly very much against giving new money away.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they personally benefited from the Russian hacking and election interference.
Re:States can get serious (Score:5, Informative)
The article summary would sound a little different if they also included this line from the article:
Re:States can get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because election security at the polls relies on locality to the community, loud announcement, and non-reuse of voter ID. We essentially presume that fewer people can repeatedly show up at the same polling place and claim to be someone else without anyone noticing it's the same person or, alternately, wander from polling place to polling place casting other people's votes without the real voter appearing or anyone recognizing them as not that person than there are voters who would be unable to produce a State ID for various reasons.
It's harder to defraud an election than one might think.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be all for requiring ID at the polling place IF state officials were required to make sure that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in their state had the ID required.... at the STATES expense. All you fucking conservatives are doing is trying to add a poll tax.
Best solution: Every single citizen is imm
Re: (Score:3)
This problem can be addressed at the state level with it being major talking point at federal level for the elections. Great opportunity to find where lawmakers stand, and yes some Democrats are dirtbags on the issue too, despite what comes out of their mouths.
The states are hardly the ones to trust [wikipedia.org] with ensuring fair elections [wikipedia.org].
Much bigger threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Much bigger threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Well it's a hobby of the Republicans at the moment and they're the ones in power. They're not going to make a fairer system if it harms them.
I now await a reply along the lines of "what about something unrelated bad the Democrats did", as if one bad action somehow justifies another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
yes because taking a bunch of fucking hormones your body isn't supposed to have at those levels is "normal", the fact that you're so blinded by social justice and the like is why you look more often than not to be a babbling moron. at least i can admit that my world view isn't perfect. you're whats wrong with society.
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:3)
This has always been true... The party in power has ALWAYS done this and unless the people get tired of it always will.
The really sneaky thing is that everybody uses this issue to whip up the base and drive voter turn out. "See how unfair the other party is! Se how they ignore principle and ethics! Throw the bums out!"
Why change what's working? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans are very happy with the situation now. Easy for Vlad to help out keeping them in power. Why risk upsetting the gravy train?
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like every time we upgrade to the latest and greatest voting machines, they are found to have serious security flaws. I am not convinced that throwing a ton of money at upgrading voting machines would really fix the issue of security.
Re:Why change what's working? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck machines, throw that money at >=$15/hr jobs where people hand count paper ballots.
Temp work is work. Who cares if CNN/Fox Shit/etc don't have immediate counts to give audiences, go vote, watch the news about exit polls, but then go to sleep and wait a couple days for a legitimate count.
Fuckin instant satisfaction is the true illness here.
Paper can be "hacked" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. See those big arrows pointing to the hole they're supposed to punch out: https://www.historyonthenet.co... [historyonthenet.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Democrats make up the stupidest excuses to accuse Republicans of stealing elections when they can't accept defeat.
Help me out with the narrative (Score:3)
The Republicans are very happy with the situation now. Easy for Vlad to help out keeping them in power. Why risk upsetting the gravy train?
I thought that no voting machines were hacked, and no vote tallys were changed. Is that no longer true?
I'm having trouble keeping up with the narrative here.
Can you help me out? Do you have a link to a recent article or something?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All you need to know is that we've always been at war with Eastasia.
What a bizzaro quote to use.
(1) Orwell was all about the evils of fascists like okian - he took a bullet from one of okian's fellow travelers. [rjgeib.com]
(2) That quote refers to state media retcon'ing history, none of these events involves rewriting history, it is about revealing more information as investigators dig deeper and deeper into the conspiracy to defraud the american people.
Re:Why change what's working? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a mistake to think that Russia is on their "side". They are interested in conflict, not one side winning over the other.
This is true, but you need to be careful, because it conflicts with the mainstream /. narrative. You'll most likely be downmodded & have an AC call you a Russian troll.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. Like any country, they are interested in the side winning that is most likely to give them what they want. Of course, the particular side might change over time, but it's likely that in 2016 that was Trump.
Oh really, what about VoterID? (Score:2)
You claim this is a partisan issue yet you sit uncomfortably and stare off in the distance any time someone wants to institute any kind of real voter ID (you know, the kind everywhere in Europe does already)....
Why pay to update failing electronic systems?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a matter for the states. they are in control of their voting machines, not the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey. Get that shit out of here. It shows a basic understanding of how our government is designed. Parading that kind of information about is offensive.
If the problem is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... "outside influence", rather than election fraud, then fixing the voting machines is not addressing the problem.
According to many people who are fighting efforts to stop efforts like requiring picture ID to vote, there is no election fraud going on. So what is the $250M supposed to fix, other than contracts for people who sell insecure voting equipment?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If the problem is ... (Score:5, Informative)
The summary says the money was supposed to be "to protect against hacking and other cyberattacks". So changing out machines which could have their results tampered with for ones which, for example, have a clear paper trail. My county did that this year - the old touch screens are gone, replaced by scannable paper which can be stored and audited if needed. My county is relatively affluent, so can afford to do this; it would be good to have it happen all over.
Lots of studies have found that there are vanishingly small amounts of in person voter fraud happening. The problem with some of the touch screen machines is, if there is fraud happening, it's very very hard to tell. And the fraud could be perpetrated by foreign adversaries. It's safer just to have a paper trail.
We need LESS money (Score:5, Insightful)
Slips of paper and human counters are pretty damn hard to hack - Since we cant seem to get open source hardware and software platforms for voting, the only option is slips of paper and manual counting.
Re: (Score:3)
Slips of paper and human counters are pretty damn hard to hack - Since we cant seem to get open source hardware and software platforms for voting, the only option is slips of paper and manual counting.
Open source has nothing to do with having secure electronic voting machines.
Security is done by design and the licensing of the IP doesn't affect design.
You need a hard copy of the vote cast that the voter can see and verify. Any software-only solution is insecure.
Why is this a federal responsibility? (Score:3)
Elections are managed by the states.
Not everything is the Federal government's job to fix or manage. God knows they've screwed up enough things already.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The federal government can't be in charge of securing the election for itself. Classic conflict of interest.
Federalism works.
No surprise (Score:3)
Paper ballots? (Score:2)
I don't see why we ever moved away from paper ballots? They are cheap, easily counted, and by definition create a reliable paper trail.
This was meaningless (Score:2)
As for the US Senate, with out 60 votes almost nothing passes in the Senate. To say the Republicans control all 3 branches of government means nothing. And is just political misdirection used for propaganda reasons since most Americans are ignorant about how the
Re:As long as the security isn't proper id... (Score:5, Informative)
The more illegal aliens a state has, the higher the chances are that they will get more representatives after the next census.
Re: (Score:2)
The more illegal aliens a state has, the higher the chances are that they will get more representatives after the next census.
The sun will also come up tomorrow. So what's your point?
For those who don't know, the US Constitution is silent on whether illegal aliens count in a census or not, mainly because when the document was written, there was no such thing as an illegal alien. You got on a ship, you came to the USA, they let you in. I'm not a lawyer so I can't cite specific cases, but basically the law is interpreted that you just count bodies in the census and you don't put people into groups of legal or illegal to dete
Re:As long as the security isn't proper id... (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberal here. Willing to agree to voter ID laws under 3 conditions:
1. Election days are national holidays.
2. Same day registration everywhere.
3. The ID is 100% free.
None of these compromise the security you are looking for. However, no conservative will agree because they do prevent actual voters from being disenfranchised, which is actually what they want.
Prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on #1 and #3 but it's too time-consuming and expensive to verify same-day registrations. Why not just register to vote when getting your free ID?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Provisional balloting procedures already exists. The post I was replying to appears to be demanding something entirely different.
Re: (Score:2)
I will correct this for you as someone who is not a liberal nor a conservative.
1. Election days are national holidays.
2. The ID is 100% free
3. Getting the ID is registration to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
That third one is a huge sticking point. People have to invest time, money, and effort into getting an ID--especially when they don't have documentation (homeless people don't carry an archive of their birth certificates and whatnot, so it's hard to prove who you are). Issuing an ID is constrained by certain rules, and it can be kind of rough to get one even when you know who you are and you're supposed to have one.
Election holidays are meaningless. My employer gives us four days off each year. There
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please! How does one function in life without an ID period? Do you know anyone who is eligible for a US ID that doesn't have one or can't find a way to get one? What are we talking about, .0000001% of the population (if that)? No social services that I'm aware of are available to anyone who cannot produce an ID.
Re:As long as the security isn't proper id... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I've met several. In my city, around 5% of the population and 6% of the voting-age population haven't got ID and don't have the cash or time to get one. That's only the ones I can roughly count, and doesn't count things like adults who never got an ID in the first place because they didn't drive and their parents didn't keep records. The same thing happens with many elderly who no longer drive: they lose their social security cards, and have to pay $125 to get a copy of their birth certificates and have licenses printed up and all--often these people are on a fixed income.
You can get SNAP and other welfare by uh...using your voter registration card as an ID. Seriously. You can use just about anything--a school ID, an ID badge from a job, proof that you're receiving or have received some other form of welfare...
Re: (Score:2)
In your city 1 in 20 adults do not have an ID? That just isn't believable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's common in places where adults might end up unable to eat or pay rent if they lose $20 and IDs cost some $40 to get. Your parent aren't taking you to the MVA and they're sure as hell not getting you an ID for things they can't afford, like cars or college. 60% of the households in my neighborhood don't have cars.
You often see breakdowns that claim something like 13% of blacks, 10% of hispanics, and 5% of whites in America lack a government ID. Household incomes show no confirmed ID for 12% of those
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How are they legally employed in the first place without having an ID?
(they aren't)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal here. Willing to agree to voter ID laws under 3 conditions:
1. Election days are national holidays.
2. Same day registration everywhere.
3. The ID is 100% free.
None of these compromise the security you are looking for. However, no conservative will agree because they do prevent actual voters from being disenfranchised, which is actually what they want.
Prove me wrong.
I don't think #1 is necessary. Not when you can easily vote by mail.
#2 would be chaos. The better approach is to cast a provisional ballot and then clear up your shit later if you care.
#3 I agree. It should be free or cost a nominal fee that can be waived in certain cases.
Re: (Score:3)
We have #2 in my state. It's not chaotic in the least. No provisional ballots are necessary. You just show the documentation, they look it over and verify you're in the correct precinct, add your name to the rolls, and give you a ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
Absentee ballots exist in every state. That's "mail-in voting"
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal here. Willing to agree to voter ID laws under 3 conditions:
1. Election days are national holidays.
2. Same day registration everywhere.
3. The ID is 100% free.
None of these compromise the security you are looking for. However, no conservative will agree because they do prevent actual voters from being disenfranchised, which is actually what they want.
Prove me wrong.
I'm a conservative in the Libertarian sense, and I think that's exactly how federal elections should function. Sure beats spending millions of dollars on useless "security" programs that do nothing but line someone's pockets with tax dollars.
Congrats, you've been proven wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As long as the security isn't proper id... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As long as the security isn't proper id... (Score:4)
The boss is already breaking the law by employing someone without verifying they are legally eligible to be working and filing the proper tax documents. You know, by checking their ID.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Democrats believe it's possible given the huge margin that Trump lost the popular vote by
So democrats think that the electoral college was created by the Russians?
Re: (Score:2)
This stuff is taught in grade school (or used to be). Where were you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary was running victory laps in California, while trump was focusing on states not people.
More like victory lapse.
Re:Do they really believe what they are saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have to believe the election was stolen to want to secure it? It seems both sides agree our elections are in jeopardy and nobody wants to do anything about it.
What is wrong with doubling down on securing our election tools? We have ample proof that outside parties want to manipulate our elections. If they have or have not does not matter, we need to take steps to ensure that our elections are secure and safe. They are literally the most important part of our country. If they are compromised the US is compromised.
I could give a fuck who is president, but I want to know for sure that idiot (be it democrat, republican, or reptilian) was elected properly and without interference from outside parties.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems both sides agree our elections are in jeopardy and nobody wants to do anything about it.
Some people do, just not republicans it seems.
Moot (Score:2)
That's mostly a moot question: other nations tried, and we should not give them a shot at changing the outcome in the future either way. Many Presidential elections have been close.
Re: (Score:3)
There was attempts to influence the elections. It probably had no effect on the outcome. However, neither should it be treated as if it's perfectly ordinary. Russia was involved in trying to influence the election and that can't be allowed to just be glossed over. And this most certainly was not the peak of their capabilities and they've not lost the means and motivation. In fact, the bigger scandal is not the Russian interference itself but the attempt to cover it up and deny it.
So true, some Democrat
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Hillary during the debates the one that said it dangerous to question the integrity of the election? She said that even suggesting the election could be rigged or hacked was dangerous to the country. And she looked like she believed it and wasn't just lying. Then she lost and we saw that belief was just another Clinton lie.
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't wild explanations. No one is seriously claiming that the Russians "stole" the election, except some stupid voters who don't know how to reason (and we have plenty of those types of voters on both sides).
The real problem however is him trying to hinder the investigation. This is going to hurt him far more than if he just admitted that the Russians indeed tried to influence the election. He's only doing this because he wants everyone to believe he's the most popular guy ever, that he had the lar
Re: (Score:3)
If you were running a nation state hacking the US election and want the person you put in power to stay in power you:
Attempt to hack and change millions of votes so your unpopular person can win a 'majority vote'?
Or
Use the existing loopholes to get him into power with only minor vote tampering (thousands of votes)?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called the electoral college, it's pretty ironic that you call out someone else for being dumb. It's how it's always been done, for good reason, and it's not a "loophole". If you can't understand that we are the United STATES of America, and not just "America", as in, one huge monolithic overbearing federal government, then the whole concept of the country is lost on you.
Furthermore, they weren't looking to back any one candidate: Mueller's info shows that the Russians that were indicted were essent
Re: (Score:2)
I have Hillary and I did not vote for her. I think she was a terrible choice for president. I have seen no evidence of your claims. So if you are going to make claims like that you are going to need to provide real, audit-able, substantial proof. Otherwise I'm just going to believe you are talking out your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
"I hate Hillary" is what I was trying to write. I take full responsibility for not proof reading.
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians have never hacked an election.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, retard! Guess what?
I don't know if you noticed or not, but all links here show the destination in square brackets next to the link.
Are you too fucking stupid to understand that everyone already knows that is a goatse shot without clicking on it?
I swear, these trolls on Slashdot get stupider by the minute.