9 ms·

Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

111 points by Ours90 8y ago

save_ferris 8y ago
Regardless of one's political leanings, it's frightening that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it somehow continues to be.
- lisper 8y ago
  That's because one of the two political parties has only minority support and thus depends on a long list of dirty tricks to remain in power.
  - burlesona 8y ago
    That's a gross misunderstanding of the electorate. The Republicans didn't have the national majority vote this presidential election, but in Congress that's irrelevant. Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? They have overwhelming majority support. One of the worst problems in the country right now is that things have become so geographically polarized. Many people live so deep in their (red|blue) bubble that they don't even know anyone who votes for the other side.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Yes and no. I live next door to a couple (who have become our friends) that are ideologically opposed to us. Despite our houses being physically next to each other, we might as well inhabit a different world when it comes to politics. It would not be accurate to say they disagree with us on the issues, because to get to disagreement we would at least need to agree on the underlying facts. Without that structure, any discussion stalls immediately. It's like living in a different country.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        Show them lots of love. :)
    - lisper 8y ago
      > Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? Yes. I grew up in Kentucky and Tennessee, and went to college in Virginia. The first time I moved to a town of more than 30,000 (Los Angeles) I was 24. So I am very familiar with the culture of "middle America". Yes, Republicans have overwhelming majority support in many districts, but they would not hold a majority in the House without gerrymandering [1] and they would not hold a majority in the Senate without the inherent bias towards small states built into the two-senators-per-state system. (I guess it's not fair to call that a "dirty trick", but I do think it's fair to apply that label to a lot of the things that Mitch McConnell has done as Senate majority leader.) Also, without that bias, no Republican would have been elected president such George H.W. Bush. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrymandering-kept-democrats-winning-even-more-seats-tuesday/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrym...
    - LorenPechtel 8y ago
      Their support in the heartland wasn't enough to elect Trump. That took voter suppression. (The number of poor minorities blocked from voting is greater than the Republican victory margin in multiple states. Flip those and we would have President Clinton.)
    - specialist 8y ago
      The apparent increased partisanship is the result of FPTP & gerrymandering coupled with engagement driven corporate media. I've served as the captain in the largest precinct in the most "liberal" legislative district (LD) in one of the most "liberal" states. I've been doorbelling my precinct for 10 years. My LD's GOTV efforts is specifically credited for winning multiple statewide offices and initiatives. The people (voters) aren't any where nearly as partisan as the election results. But if you went by media accounts, we're all treehugging socialists. The truth on the ground is there's a HUGE variety of opinions, positions.
  - samfriedman 8y ago
    I think it'd be disingenuous to call either party's support a "minority" when they collectively represent 55% of voters as of 2014. https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/ https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/
    - lisper 8y ago
      One of the many dirty tricks that the Republicans use to remain in power is to pass laws that selectively disenfranchise minorities and other likely Democratic voters. So I don't think this is disingenuous at all. The fact that fewer people vote is in no small measure because of Republican dirty tricks [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppression-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppre...
      - samfriedman 8y ago
        Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.
        rootusrootus 8y ago
        I think it is a valid observation that statistically, the Republican Party represents fewer citizens per politician than the Democratic Party. This is partly due to geography and the deliberate choices of Senate representation, and partly due to the skillful manipulation of state politics by the Republican Party. The Democrats collectively forgot for a while that politics starts at the local level, unsexy as it seems compared to, say, POTUS, and the Republicans cleaned their clock. Of course, currently the Democratic Party relies heavily on actual racial/gender minorities, but if they are smart they understand how fleeting that association can be, there is no guarantee it will remain durable over time. Especially as the number of older white male voters dwindles through natural attrition, it is pretty likely that the demographics of the parties are going to evolve.
        8y ago
- duxup 8y ago
  In the US voting machine decisions are also a very local decision. So even if it was a party decision... it really would have to be very local party decisions. Often times national party decisions in the US do not translate into local action even by folks in the same part as obviously things change on the ground.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    The federal government could set certain minimum standards for voting machines used in federal elections. That would effectively set the standard for all elections since I can't imagine any local governments could justify a set of machines for federal elections and a different set for local.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I wouldn't mind that.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - brandonmenc 8y ago
      Better yet, why doesn't DARPA design them and then the federal gov't outlaw any other voting machine, for any election.
      - AaronM 8y ago
        They recently started a contest to design an election machine.
- coldcode 8y ago
  If the ability to alter an election in your favor can be done invisibly, and you value being reelected over transparency, then buying these products make perfect sense. It's not an American thing, rigging elections is probably as old as having them.
- cdoxsey 8y ago
  This isn't true. The Secure Elections Act was introduced by a Republican: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2261 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/226....
  - raquo 8y ago
    It also went nowhere, stalled in a republican controlled senate by a republican controlled committee.
  - save_ferris 8y ago
    This is absolutely true. As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate. This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.
    - cdoxsey 8y ago
      Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system". Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill. Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena. And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequences. Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID.
      - save_ferris 8y ago
        It's not that complicated: one party is committed to fixing this problem and has influential leaders backing such an initiative. Another party isn't even seriously trying. One GOP senator is interested in solving this problem? Good for that guy, but shame on the other 52 GOP senators that aren't. > And bills don't represent ideology anyway. Yes they do, that's why we vote for one party or another. Think taxes are too high? Want to expand social programs? Legislation is how all of that is executed. Bills absolutely represent party ideology. Take the green new deal, for example. How was that bill not an example of party ideology? > Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID. Voter ID laws were designed explicitly to suppress minority votes and have been struck down time and again by the courts. They were not designed to solve a legitimate issue, because there is no evidence that rampant voter fraud exists in the US[0]. What does exist, however, are coordinated ballot-harvesting efforts designed to unduly influence the outcome of elections, as was witnessed in NC-9 in this past election. But again, the GOP doesn't seem to be very concerned about this specific issue. [0]: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...
bshipp 8y ago
Criticisms of the underlying hardware/software aside, my intuitive answer to the headline question is "because governments are buying them." Perhaps the esteemed Senators should undertake a short naval-gazing exercise and ask "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" I'm going to go out on a limb and guess at the answer to that question, and it likely shows those three companies as being the only ones with the patience and tenacity to get those models approved. So Mr./Ms. Senator(s), I suggest you rephrase your question as follows: "how can we simplify the procurement process to make sure we, the government, are receiving the greatest value for our expenditures?"
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "because governments are buying them." The main problem in american politics is that a lot of decisions are made either to damage the "other" party or to accommodate some donor. When you look at Congress they barely think about doing something right.
  - tru3_power 8y ago
    Off topic question- but this is always something that interested me: do you have any blatant examples of a high level politician solely choosing a product to accommodate a donor?
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      There is a lot of more or less blatant bribery going on in state and local governments. My girlfriend does investigations in that area and she has a ton of examples (which I can't publish). As far as I know pretty much every state and country manages their own election system so they are very vulnerable to local politicians who often don't even understand what they are dealing with.
    - stevehawk 8y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer has often been considered one of those items, given that there was seemingly very little to gain by bringing up a ship twenty years after it sank. But there are also some conspiracies about why the sub had fifteen extra people onboard and that Kissinger was looking for more information on that.
Macross8299 8y ago
I suppose it's more politically expedient to blame the companies trying to rationally minimize cost rather than risk reprimanding and alienating state and local officials who sign contracts for voting machines without any sort of serious security, auditing or compliance provisions. This sure does seem like grandstanding from these senators. Probably not unrelated to fallout from the Mueller report.
- munificent 8y ago
  > reprimanding and alienating state and local officials who sign contracts for voting machines without any sort of serious security, auditing or compliance provisions. What other options do these officials have? The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins. Whenever you're deciding who to point the finger at, one simple rule is "Can this person actually effect change?" If the answer is "no", then blaming them isn't helpful.
  - Macross8299 8y ago
    >What other options do these officials have? Paper voting, for one. If no system is offered that is secure enough, then the default should be no electronic voting system at all and just paper voting. It's scaled fine for hundreds of years and has clear processes in place for custody of ballots. >The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins. You can't expect companies to just "make a choice" to lower profit margins without some sort of (dis)incentive or external pressure like regulation. It's unrealistic. Companies exist to make their principals money. It's the government's job to check that and make sure that the companies are acting in public interest while they pursue profit. Local and state officials definitely can effect change on this level since they are often the ones in charge of the procurement process.
    - munificent 8y ago
      > Paper voting, for one. The election official's budget may simply not be able to afford that.
BenMorganIO 8y ago
Note: this article is of the United States.
jefe_ 8y ago
Concerned about election security, oppose requiring photo ID to vote, got it.
ddingus 8y ago
They ALL have a known vulnerability. Works like this: Pretend the machine is a person in a secure room only they are in, and only they know the contents of. You approach a window, tell them your vote. They say it back and optionally hand you a piece of paper. Then, in that room, they do whatever they want, and the final tally, winner of the election is determined by whatever they did in the room. Voters have no chain of trust between their expression of intent, and the record used for the final tally. When voters make physical expressions, and those expressions are counted, voters know the election, on a basic level, can be trusted to reflect the collective intent of the people. When they use electronics, they have no idea. They push a button, or mash a screen, and the display will tell them something and that something could be anything. They cannot know. None of us can without forensic level examination of the machine. Even then, we can only verify function and infer a voter intent was correctly recorded and or used for the tally. Secondly, should there be error, or controversy, the enduring record of voter intent both walked out of the building and or is a collection of grease smears on input devices. Useless in a court of law. The only way around this is to make vote records personally identifiable and basically use the systems for banking. (Who gets around this problem with multiple, redundant records created at the time of transaction)
- misterprime 8y ago
  The problem with public vote records is that people may be incentivized financially or coerced via threat to vote a certain way. The bad actor in this situation can verify with public record if the victim followed through. Somehow I think this is less of a threat than our "black box" vote tallies, but it is valid.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    Precisely! I think electronic voting records are wrong. We should use paper ballots, and Counting them electronically with something simple and robust like Optical scan works really well. Let the statisticians run some Audits and we can be really confident. My state does that. Oregon.
    - 8y ago
gumby 8y ago
I think it's pretty straightforward to understand: the buyer likely has little to no expertise in the important issues. This is not in any way a slur on election officials, simply the recognition of the (statistically) likely experience of someone who is a local election official. In addition the way the question is structured by the senators isn't really fair either: if you have n bugs to fix before the ship date, you'll prioritize them and then ship (presumably) the best product you can by the immovable target date. That is also reality. Though voting is a local matter the Federal Government has a constitutional interest (Article 1, Sections 4 and 5) in the elections to Congress and can mandate minimal standards for voting just as the DoT mandates minimum standards for automobiles. So they could require that whatever machines used are verifiable and non-repudiatable. They could also mandate procedures although those are harder to enforce. If States need to buy equipment suitable for congressional elections they'll presumably use the same equipment for all other elections too.
- specialist 8y ago
  In my experience, the buyers (election administrators) at the state and local levels know exactly what's going on. Like every where else, there's a revolving door between govt election administrators and the private vendors & consultants.
  - fdjlasdfjl 8y ago
    Bingo. The space is so corrupt that several states have exclusivity contracts with one of the major suppliers. Although, I would point at the politicians in addition to the election administrators. They're absolutely in on the take as well.
  - gumby 8y ago
    Hmm, perhaps I was thinking too fine-grained.
    - specialist 8y ago
      Feel compelled to add: I think we want the same thing, eg informed legislators. But from what I've seen, administrators run circles around legislators and their staff. Which is why I flipped on term limits (now oppose) and think legislators need a lot more staff.
gafferongames 8y ago
The better question is, why do they keep buying them?
OrgNet 8y ago
Voting machines are not a good idea until theey are as safe as a piece of paper overwatched by members of all political parties.

111 points by Ours90 8y ago

Regardless of one's political leanings, it's frightening that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it somehow continues to be.

lisper 8y ago
That's because one of the two political parties has only minority support and thus depends on a long list of dirty tricks to remain in power.
- burlesona 8y ago
  That's a gross misunderstanding of the electorate. The Republicans didn't have the national majority vote this presidential election, but in Congress that's irrelevant. Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? They have overwhelming majority support. One of the worst problems in the country right now is that things have become so geographically polarized. Many people live so deep in their (red|blue) bubble that they don't even know anyone who votes for the other side.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Yes and no. I live next door to a couple (who have become our friends) that are ideologically opposed to us. Despite our houses being physically next to each other, we might as well inhabit a different world when it comes to politics. It would not be accurate to say they disagree with us on the issues, because to get to disagreement we would at least need to agree on the underlying facts. Without that structure, any discussion stalls immediately. It's like living in a different country.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Show them lots of love. :)
  - lisper 8y ago
    > Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? Yes. I grew up in Kentucky and Tennessee, and went to college in Virginia. The first time I moved to a town of more than 30,000 (Los Angeles) I was 24. So I am very familiar with the culture of "middle America". Yes, Republicans have overwhelming majority support in many districts, but they would not hold a majority in the House without gerrymandering [1] and they would not hold a majority in the Senate without the inherent bias towards small states built into the two-senators-per-state system. (I guess it's not fair to call that a "dirty trick", but I do think it's fair to apply that label to a lot of the things that Mitch McConnell has done as Senate majority leader.) Also, without that bias, no Republican would have been elected president such George H.W. Bush. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrymandering-kept-democrats-winning-even-more-seats-tuesday/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrym...
  - LorenPechtel 8y ago
    Their support in the heartland wasn't enough to elect Trump. That took voter suppression. (The number of poor minorities blocked from voting is greater than the Republican victory margin in multiple states. Flip those and we would have President Clinton.)
  - specialist 8y ago
    The apparent increased partisanship is the result of FPTP & gerrymandering coupled with engagement driven corporate media. I've served as the captain in the largest precinct in the most "liberal" legislative district (LD) in one of the most "liberal" states. I've been doorbelling my precinct for 10 years. My LD's GOTV efforts is specifically credited for winning multiple statewide offices and initiatives. The people (voters) aren't any where nearly as partisan as the election results. But if you went by media accounts, we're all treehugging socialists. The truth on the ground is there's a HUGE variety of opinions, positions.
- samfriedman 8y ago
  I think it'd be disingenuous to call either party's support a "minority" when they collectively represent 55% of voters as of 2014. https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/ https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/
  - lisper 8y ago
    One of the many dirty tricks that the Republicans use to remain in power is to pass laws that selectively disenfranchise minorities and other likely Democratic voters. So I don't think this is disingenuous at all. The fact that fewer people vote is in no small measure because of Republican dirty tricks [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppression-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppre...
    - samfriedman 8y ago
      Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        I think it is a valid observation that statistically, the Republican Party represents fewer citizens per politician than the Democratic Party. This is partly due to geography and the deliberate choices of Senate representation, and partly due to the skillful manipulation of state politics by the Republican Party. The Democrats collectively forgot for a while that politics starts at the local level, unsexy as it seems compared to, say, POTUS, and the Republicans cleaned their clock. Of course, currently the Democratic Party relies heavily on actual racial/gender minorities, but if they are smart they understand how fleeting that association can be, there is no guarantee it will remain durable over time. Especially as the number of older white male voters dwindles through natural attrition, it is pretty likely that the demographics of the parties are going to evolve.
        8y ago
duxup 8y ago
In the US voting machine decisions are also a very local decision. So even if it was a party decision... it really would have to be very local party decisions. Often times national party decisions in the US do not translate into local action even by folks in the same part as obviously things change on the ground.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  The federal government could set certain minimum standards for voting machines used in federal elections. That would effectively set the standard for all elections since I can't imagine any local governments could justify a set of machines for federal elections and a different set for local.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I wouldn't mind that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - brandonmenc 8y ago
    Better yet, why doesn't DARPA design them and then the federal gov't outlaw any other voting machine, for any election.
    - AaronM 8y ago
      They recently started a contest to design an election machine.
coldcode 8y ago
If the ability to alter an election in your favor can be done invisibly, and you value being reelected over transparency, then buying these products make perfect sense. It's not an American thing, rigging elections is probably as old as having them.
cdoxsey 8y ago
This isn't true. The Secure Elections Act was introduced by a Republican: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2261 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/226....
- raquo 8y ago
  It also went nowhere, stalled in a republican controlled senate by a republican controlled committee.
- save_ferris 8y ago
  This is absolutely true. As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate. This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.
  - cdoxsey 8y ago
    Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system". Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill. Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena. And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequences. Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID.
    - save_ferris 8y ago
      It's not that complicated: one party is committed to fixing this problem and has influential leaders backing such an initiative. Another party isn't even seriously trying. One GOP senator is interested in solving this problem? Good for that guy, but shame on the other 52 GOP senators that aren't. > And bills don't represent ideology anyway. Yes they do, that's why we vote for one party or another. Think taxes are too high? Want to expand social programs? Legislation is how all of that is executed. Bills absolutely represent party ideology. Take the green new deal, for example. How was that bill not an example of party ideology? > Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID. Voter ID laws were designed explicitly to suppress minority votes and have been struck down time and again by the courts. They were not designed to solve a legitimate issue, because there is no evidence that rampant voter fraud exists in the US[0]. What does exist, however, are coordinated ballot-harvesting efforts designed to unduly influence the outcome of elections, as was witnessed in NC-9 in this past election. But again, the GOP doesn't seem to be very concerned about this specific issue. [0]: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...

bshipp 8y ago

Criticisms of the underlying hardware/software aside, my intuitive answer to the headline question is "because governments are buying them." Perhaps the esteemed Senators should undertake a short naval-gazing exercise and ask "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" I'm going to go out on a limb and guess at the answer to that question, and it likely shows those three companies as being the only ones with the patience and tenacity to get those models approved. So Mr./Ms. Senator(s), I suggest you rephrase your question as follows: "how can we simplify the procurement process to make sure we, the government, are receiving the greatest value for our expenditures?"

maxxxxx 8y ago
"because governments are buying them." The main problem in american politics is that a lot of decisions are made either to damage the "other" party or to accommodate some donor. When you look at Congress they barely think about doing something right.
- tru3_power 8y ago
  Off topic question- but this is always something that interested me: do you have any blatant examples of a high level politician solely choosing a product to accommodate a donor?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    There is a lot of more or less blatant bribery going on in state and local governments. My girlfriend does investigations in that area and she has a ton of examples (which I can't publish). As far as I know pretty much every state and country manages their own election system so they are very vulnerable to local politicians who often don't even understand what they are dealing with.
  - stevehawk 8y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer has often been considered one of those items, given that there was seemingly very little to gain by bringing up a ship twenty years after it sank. But there are also some conspiracies about why the sub had fifteen extra people onboard and that Kissinger was looking for more information on that.

Macross8299 8y ago

I suppose it's more politically expedient to blame the companies trying to rationally minimize cost rather than risk reprimanding and alienating state and local officials who sign contracts for voting machines without any sort of serious security, auditing or compliance provisions. This sure does seem like grandstanding from these senators. Probably not unrelated to fallout from the Mueller report.

munificent 8y ago
> reprimanding and alienating state and local officials who sign contracts for voting machines without any sort of serious security, auditing or compliance provisions. What other options do these officials have? The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins. Whenever you're deciding who to point the finger at, one simple rule is "Can this person actually effect change?" If the answer is "no", then blaming them isn't helpful.
- Macross8299 8y ago
  >What other options do these officials have? Paper voting, for one. If no system is offered that is secure enough, then the default should be no electronic voting system at all and just paper voting. It's scaled fine for hundreds of years and has clear processes in place for custody of ballots. >The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins. You can't expect companies to just "make a choice" to lower profit margins without some sort of (dis)incentive or external pressure like regulation. It's unrealistic. Companies exist to make their principals money. It's the government's job to check that and make sure that the companies are acting in public interest while they pursue profit. Local and state officials definitely can effect change on this level since they are often the ones in charge of the procurement process.
  - munificent 8y ago
    > Paper voting, for one. The election official's budget may simply not be able to afford that.

BenMorganIO 8y ago

Note: this article is of the United States.

jefe_ 8y ago

Concerned about election security, oppose requiring photo ID to vote, got it.

ddingus 8y ago

They ALL have a known vulnerability. Works like this: Pretend the machine is a person in a secure room only they are in, and only they know the contents of. You approach a window, tell them your vote. They say it back and optionally hand you a piece of paper. Then, in that room, they do whatever they want, and the final tally, winner of the election is determined by whatever they did in the room. Voters have no chain of trust between their expression of intent, and the record used for the final tally. When voters make physical expressions, and those expressions are counted, voters know the election, on a basic level, can be trusted to reflect the collective intent of the people. When they use electronics, they have no idea. They push a button, or mash a screen, and the display will tell them something and that something could be anything. They cannot know. None of us can without forensic level examination of the machine. Even then, we can only verify function and infer a voter intent was correctly recorded and or used for the tally. Secondly, should there be error, or controversy, the enduring record of voter intent both walked out of the building and or is a collection of grease smears on input devices. Useless in a court of law. The only way around this is to make vote records personally identifiable and basically use the systems for banking. (Who gets around this problem with multiple, redundant records created at the time of transaction)

misterprime 8y ago
The problem with public vote records is that people may be incentivized financially or coerced via threat to vote a certain way. The bad actor in this situation can verify with public record if the victim followed through. Somehow I think this is less of a threat than our "black box" vote tallies, but it is valid.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Precisely! I think electronic voting records are wrong. We should use paper ballots, and Counting them electronically with something simple and robust like Optical scan works really well. Let the statisticians run some Audits and we can be really confident. My state does that. Oregon.
  - 8y ago

gumby 8y ago

I think it's pretty straightforward to understand: the buyer likely has little to no expertise in the important issues. This is not in any way a slur on election officials, simply the recognition of the (statistically) likely experience of someone who is a local election official. In addition the way the question is structured by the senators isn't really fair either: if you have n bugs to fix before the ship date, you'll prioritize them and then ship (presumably) the best product you can by the immovable target date. That is also reality. Though voting is a local matter the Federal Government has a constitutional interest (Article 1, Sections 4 and 5) in the elections to Congress and can mandate minimal standards for voting just as the DoT mandates minimum standards for automobiles. So they could require that whatever machines used are verifiable and non-repudiatable. They could also mandate procedures although those are harder to enforce. If States need to buy equipment suitable for congressional elections they'll presumably use the same equipment for all other elections too.

specialist 8y ago
In my experience, the buyers (election administrators) at the state and local levels know exactly what's going on. Like every where else, there's a revolving door between govt election administrators and the private vendors & consultants.
- fdjlasdfjl 8y ago
  Bingo. The space is so corrupt that several states have exclusivity contracts with one of the major suppliers. Although, I would point at the politicians in addition to the election administrators. They're absolutely in on the take as well.
- gumby 8y ago
  Hmm, perhaps I was thinking too fine-grained.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Feel compelled to add: I think we want the same thing, eg informed legislators. But from what I've seen, administrators run circles around legislators and their staff. Which is why I flipped on term limits (now oppose) and think legislators need a lot more staff.

gafferongames 8y ago

The better question is, why do they keep buying them?

OrgNet 8y ago

Voting machines are not a good idea until theey are as safe as a piece of paper overwatched by members of all political parties.