6 ms·

From the "Next Steps" section in the report: >Congress Must Fund Election Security:​ National defense is not the role of state and local government. Further, n

• zackmorris 8y ago
  I was just going to post that. I'm concerned that since election security is not (just) a technological problem, that very little will be done to improve it in the foreseeable future. I'm from Idaho which is currently conservative by close to a 2/3 majority, but remember growing up that we had many liberal elected officials like Cecil Andrus and Frank Church. From my perspective, democrats are working to improve election security while republicans are not. Is this simply a partisan issue? Does anyone from more liberal states have examples of democrats opposing election security? If so - then how do we work to improve election security when our elected officials refuse to? If not - then how do we accomplish reforms within the republican party or make election reforms into political capital that it might be willing to trade for?
  • explainplease 8y ago
    > From my perspective, democrats are working to improve election security while republicans are not. Does voter ID improve election security? Which party opposes voter ID laws?
    • kadendogthing 8y ago
      >Does voter ID improve election security? It does not.
      • explainplease 8y ago
        If one defines "election security" as "ensuring that each voter is registered, is alive and present, votes only once, and votes only in the correct location," then obviously requiring voters to legally identify themselves, just as they do when doing any number of everyday activities that involve local government, improves election security. Your assertion seems a bit knee-jerk.
        • fzeroracer 8y ago
          None of those things you've mentioned requires voter ID, so I'm not sure why you're advocating for a solution that fixes nothing you claim is an issue. Specifically: You can figure out if a voter is registered by cross-checking with the voting rolls, you can figure out if someone is alive by cross-checking obituaries and the other two issues can similarly be figured out by cross-referencing across all elections in a state. None of this requires strict voter ID to figure out and while it's possible that identities could be hijacked to vote for a certain person I believe but voter fraud is incredibly rare in practice. Additionally all of those checks actually open up more avenues for hackers or less honest individuals to take advantage of said systems. For example dropping a bunch of people off of voter rolls to ensure that they have trouble voting or can't meet the deadline, mistakenly registering people as deceased and so forth. One of the major fears during the possible election tampering was that by altering voter roles you could shift the outcome of an election. I think your assertion seems more knee-jerk than the person you're responding to.
          • explainplease 8y ago
            > None of those things you've mentioned requires voter ID, so I'm not sure why you're advocating for a solution that fixes nothing you claim is an issue. Respectfully, you're putting words in my mouth. I did not advocate for anything. I was responding to the OP's assertion that, "democrats are working to improve election security while republicans are not." That assertion is facially incorrect, and Voter ID (whether you like it or not) is a reason why. > Specifically: You can figure out if a voter is registered by cross-checking with the voting rolls, you can figure out if someone is alive by cross-checking obituaries and the other two issues can similarly be figured out by cross-referencing across all elections in a state. None of this requires strict voter ID to figure out. Voter ID solves those problems at the ballot box. The volunteers sitting behind the desk aren't cross-checking obituaries or all elections in a state. You know that, so why did you say all that? > voter fraud is incredibly rare in practice. Why do you think that? After the last election, we saw video evidence of people being bused across state lines to vote where they weren't registered. That's just one example. > Additionally all of those checks actually open up more avenues for hackers or less honest individuals to take advantage of said systems. How would requiring photo ID matching that on the list of registered voters open up more avenues for attack? It's an additional form of authentication. > For example dropping a bunch of people off of voter rolls to ensure that they have trouble voting or can't meet the deadline, mistakenly registering people as deceased and so forth. What does requiring photo ID have to do with those forms of attack? Those can be done right now, without requiring photo ID. Why are you confusing the discussion with irrelevant issues? > I think your assertion seems more knee-jerk than the person you're responding to. Actually, your comment is the most knee-jerk in this thread so far. You've put words in my mouth and torn down a bunch of strawmen. You've identified me as an enemy when I haven't even advocated for one side or the other. All I'm doing is making logical observations. If you disagree with those observations, by all means, show me why.
    • int_19h 8y ago
      The opposition to voter ID laws is usually down to the implementation details of them that make them non-viable - for example, requiring costly IDs that are also difficult to get (while also closing facilities that issue them in some areas which just happen to vote a certain way). A well-written voter ID law - one that truly guarantees the right to vote for every citizen eligible to do so - might well get enough bipartisan support; I'm just not aware of anyone ever trying such a thing.
      • mulmen 8y ago
        Voter ID laws solve a problem that does not exist. I do not support pointless laws that open us up to further abuse by partisans. Voter ID laws have been written in a way that they can be systematically (and I believe deliberately) abused to disenfranchise minorities. This is done by setting unreasonable office hours or locations to obtain voter IDs among other methods. There is no need for voter ID laws and so there will be no bipartisan support for them unless both sides are interested in vote suppression.
        • int_19h 8y ago
          Can you explain why the vast majority of other countries do have voter ID laws then? As far as voter suppression, the whole point of what I wrote is that it's not inherent in voter ID. It only happens if the laws are deliberately designed that way. Again, look into how people vote in most European countries to see that it's not what these kinds of laws are actually about, when they're done right. BTW, my perspective is that of a non-citizen on a track to citizenship. I think that even if real-world voter fraud is very low, there's also the question of symbolism at play. Voting is one of the few rights that are citizen-exclusive, so it is important to protect, even if only as a symbolic gesture. This goes both ways, of course - the right to vote shall not be denied to anyone who has it (and that part has priority for the same reason as presumption of innocence) - but conversely, if it is to be treasured, it needs to be secured to highlight its worth.
          • fzeroracer 8y ago
            First, comparing America to other countries in this case is a poor point. Relative to European countries Americans are spread incredibly far apart with a culture designed around driving. Keep this in mind for the rest of my argument. In many areas in America the hours for polling stations coincide with the typical workday. It can also take quite literally hours to reach your proper polling station to vote where taking any time off from work for many of the lower-class citizens is impossible. Proper ID for voting can also be harder to come across than you might think especially when access to them in minority or poor neighborhoods is deliberately limited. That's just to reach the location; never mind it potentially taking hours to just vote [1]. When you look at voter ID laws in a vacuum there isn't that much of an issue. However European countries have a far lower barrier to entry both for the act of voting and for getting a proper ID. When people talk about implementing voter ID in various areas; they're putting the cart before the horse, often intentionally because they know it benefits their voter base. And as I've mentioned before voter ID solves very little. If you make it hard to vote just for a symbolic measure you're essentially admitting that you want to discriminate against minorities and the poor just for the sake of it. [1] http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-day-long-lines-resource-allocation http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-day-long-l...
    • mulmen 8y ago
      It does not. The question you should be asking is what party advocates for voter ID laws in the absence of any evidence to their necessity. Voter ID laws are a solution to a problem that does not exist to allow political parties that advocate them to suppress votes at will. There is no existing need for voter ID laws and voter ID would not prevent tampering with voting machines. It may be a worthwhile exercise to see what states advocate insecure voting methods (machines) and voter ID laws.
• explainplease 8y ago
  Elections are not national defense. State and local governments have been handling their own elections since before the country was founded. This is a good thing, because it keeps elections close to the people, accountable to the people. The last thing we need is nationalized elections. That would make all of our elections vulnerable together. And that includes federal funding for state and local elections, because federal funding always comes with extensive rules and regulations, which would effectively put elections under federal control. We need to move more government and accountability closer to the people, not to Washington, D.C.
  • kadendogthing 8y ago
    >That would make all of our elections vulnerable together. They're already vulnerable, all together. > which would effectively put elections under federal control. They are already under numerous federal laws. Strangely enough, counter to your point, federal laws have been the #1 driving force for allowing more people to vote ("closer to the people"). See: https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws
  • jorblumesea 8y ago
    All it means is a foreign entity like Russia just attacks each state differently. It won't stop them. Clearly, we are doing literally what you're saying, and it hasn't worked. Elections, in the 21st century, should fall within the range of national defense. Power grids and other types of infrastructure are, why not the democratic infrastructure like elections and voting? > The last thing we need is nationalized elections. That would make all of our elections vulnerable together. Or you know, the ability for elections to actually be fixed in a systemic fashion. It's really the only way. I really don't understand this attitude. To take an example from the software industry, would you rather have your users on one OS, for you to secure, or 20+ different ones, where you need to plug holes independently? Fix one issue with a voting machine, fix them all, as opposed to just fixing Florida's specific homegrown crap.
    • explainplease 8y ago
      > All it means is a foreign entity like Russia just attacks each state differently. It won't stop them. Clearly, we are doing literally what you're saying, and it hasn't worked. This country has been around for over 200 years. Our elections have worked well, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. > Elections, in the 21st century, should fall within the range of national defense. Power grids and other types of infrastructure are, why not the democratic infrastructure like elections and voting? No, they shouldn't. I want my city, county, and state elections run by my city, county, and state, so that when something goes wrong, I can go to the city, county, or state to see about making it right, and even run for office locally to fix it myself, or go to the state capital at worst--not have to go to Washington, D.C. and complain to some bureaucrat that hasn't even heard of my city and couldn't care less about my state. > Or you know, the ability for elections to actually be fixed in a systemic fashion. It's really the only way. Bald assertion. > I really don't understand this attitude. To take an example from the software industry, would you rather have your users on one OS, for you to secure, or 20+ different ones, where you need to plug holes independently? You're looking at it the wrong way. What is easier to attack: a homogeneous network in which every machine has the same, known vulnerabilities, or a heterogeneous network in which only subsets of machines have certain vulnerabilities? What is easier to destroy: a forest comprised of a single species with the same vulnerabilities to certain pathogens, or a forest with a variety of species? Recent history shows the inherent risk of homogeneous networks, e.g. the NotPetya worm that took down global IT infrastructure for the biggest companies in the world in a matter of seconds: https://www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-russia-code-crashed-the-world/ https://www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-rus... This country was designed around compartmentalization. If one state enacts bad policies, has corrupt government, etc, it doesn't necessarily affect every other state. But when the federal government makes bad decisions and becomes corrupt, it does affect every state. You want our elections to be more easily compromised, more easily controlled by third parties? Nationalize them. Use the same systems and rules and policies everywhere. Make every election, everywhere, have the same, known flaws and vulnerabilities. Make every election, everywhere, reliant on the slow-moving federal government to fix problems that states and localities could fix independently and quickly. > Fix one issue with a voting machine, fix them all, as opposed to just fixing Florida's specific homegrown crap. How about letting Florida worry about fixing Florida's elections, and you fix yours. I don't think you'd like Florida telling you how to run your elections, but that's exactly what you propose in reverse. It's antithetical to liberty.