5 ms·

Are they really both significant issues? A successful cyber attack could enable a single individual to decide multiple elections. A voter id attack could enable

Are they really both significant issues? A successful cyber attack could enable a single individual to decide multiple elections. A voter id attack could enable at most, what, 10 votes per conspirator? An undetected voter id fraud changing the outcome of an election seems absurd.

TechBro8615 6y ago
Lack of voter ID, combined with mail-in voting, can lead to fraudulent “ballot harvesting,” where boxes of votes are “found” at the last minute, for example. Also, many people aren’t aware that ballot harvesting is actually legal in some jurisdictions including California. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_harvesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_harvesting
- busymom0 6y ago
  28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_million_mail-in_ballots_went_missing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_mil... https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...
  - tarlinian 6y ago
    "Went missing" makes this sound way more nefarious than it is. It just means that the ballot wasn't returned (e.g., the person didn't vote. I vote by mail and there are elections where my ballot would have gone missing because I didn't have the time to make myself well informed enough about the candidates to place an informed vote.) I don't exactly see what's so implausible about this.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Hard to do without getting caught, though. Still one ballot per person, so if you submit a ballot on behalf of someone who also tries to vote for themselves, the double vote will get flagged.
  - pochamago 6y ago
    It takes years for people who have died or moved out of state to be removed from the voter list, you could use those names without much concern
    - learc83 6y ago
      Even assuming 1 person could make it through 10-20 precincts per day, you're going to need thousands of attackers to change even a close national election. Coordination on that scale is completely impossible to pull off without detection. This just isn't a feasible attack.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      That's a problem for the registration system to handle, it doesn't need to be solved at the ballot box.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Say a lot of flags are raised, now what do you do? Do-over?
    - learc83 6y ago
      If there are enough double votes that throwing them all out changes the election. Then yes, do-over. The possibility of that happening is basically non-existent though because it would require a coordinated attack by thousands of people to change a national election (even assuming they strategically attack swing states). There's a virtually zero chance that a group effort involving thousands of people isn't uncovered before the attack happens.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      You invalidate duplicates and notify the real voter they need to re-cast their ballot. You then hand off the evidence to the police for prosecution. But that is getting ahead of ourselves. The problem isn't how do you solve duplicate voting, it is how do you detect it. That is a solved problem, already, and the answer is that there are very few attempts at voter fraud in a vote-by-mail system. Now, the electronic machines are a whole 'nother matter. I would fight hard against my state implementing such a disaster. Vote by mail is great.
- sixothree 6y ago
  If I vote by mail, I darn well expect my vote to be “found”.
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    Obviously. The issue is when you don’t vote by mail and your vote is still “found.”
    - sixothree 6y ago
      Or even proving that has happened on any level.
justapassenger 6y ago
Given that last election was actually decided in just a few states, by a low margin, voter ID attack sounds feasible, given well founded and determined adversary. Of course cyber hacking is likely easier, but it’s not fair to fully dismiss even possibility of other attacks.
- zapita 6y ago
  It’s not about dismissing but prioritizing. Election hacking is an actual, imminent national security threat. Intelligence agencies are scrambling to prevent or mitigate it right now. In-person voting fraud on the other hand, as a meaningful threat, is entirely hypothetical. Imagine if, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, someone said “ok Soviet missiles within reach of the east coast is a threat; but what if vegan extremists blew up the white house tomorrow? Theoretically it could happen, so let’s not dismiss the threat!” That’s how different those two threat profiles actually are.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    I do think majority of the effort should be spent on protection from hacking, but dismissing other very real attack vector as entirely hypothetical is just naive. Last elections were decided by 80k votes, in a country with 250M eligible voters. With such a tight margins we have a lot of valid attack vectors, not only most obvious hacking ones. Effective organizations are (and should be) able to deal with many risks at once. Do you think that during Cuban missiles crisis all other investigations stopped, and 100% of CIA, FBI, Police, Army etc focused on Cuba?
    - learc83 6y ago
      >With such a tight margins we have a lot of valid attack vectors In person voter fraud--the kind stopped by requiring poll workers to check ID--isn't one of them. You would need thousands of coordinated attackers to change 80k votes. It's just not a feasible attack.

TechBro8615 6y ago

Lack of voter ID, combined with mail-in voting, can lead to fraudulent “ballot harvesting,” where boxes of votes are “found” at the last minute, for example. Also, many people aren’t aware that ballot harvesting is actually legal in some jurisdictions including California. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_harvesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_harvesting

busymom0 6y ago
28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_million_mail-in_ballots_went_missing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_mil... https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...
- tarlinian 6y ago
  "Went missing" makes this sound way more nefarious than it is. It just means that the ballot wasn't returned (e.g., the person didn't vote. I vote by mail and there are elections where my ballot would have gone missing because I didn't have the time to make myself well informed enough about the candidates to place an informed vote.) I don't exactly see what's so implausible about this.
rootusrootus 6y ago
Hard to do without getting caught, though. Still one ballot per person, so if you submit a ballot on behalf of someone who also tries to vote for themselves, the double vote will get flagged.
- pochamago 6y ago
  It takes years for people who have died or moved out of state to be removed from the voter list, you could use those names without much concern
  - learc83 6y ago
    Even assuming 1 person could make it through 10-20 precincts per day, you're going to need thousands of attackers to change even a close national election. Coordination on that scale is completely impossible to pull off without detection. This just isn't a feasible attack.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    That's a problem for the registration system to handle, it doesn't need to be solved at the ballot box.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Say a lot of flags are raised, now what do you do? Do-over?
  - learc83 6y ago
    If there are enough double votes that throwing them all out changes the election. Then yes, do-over. The possibility of that happening is basically non-existent though because it would require a coordinated attack by thousands of people to change a national election (even assuming they strategically attack swing states). There's a virtually zero chance that a group effort involving thousands of people isn't uncovered before the attack happens.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    You invalidate duplicates and notify the real voter they need to re-cast their ballot. You then hand off the evidence to the police for prosecution. But that is getting ahead of ourselves. The problem isn't how do you solve duplicate voting, it is how do you detect it. That is a solved problem, already, and the answer is that there are very few attempts at voter fraud in a vote-by-mail system. Now, the electronic machines are a whole 'nother matter. I would fight hard against my state implementing such a disaster. Vote by mail is great.
sixothree 6y ago
If I vote by mail, I darn well expect my vote to be “found”.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  Obviously. The issue is when you don’t vote by mail and your vote is still “found.”
  - sixothree 6y ago
    Or even proving that has happened on any level.

justapassenger 6y ago

Given that last election was actually decided in just a few states, by a low margin, voter ID attack sounds feasible, given well founded and determined adversary. Of course cyber hacking is likely easier, but it’s not fair to fully dismiss even possibility of other attacks.

zapita 6y ago
It’s not about dismissing but prioritizing. Election hacking is an actual, imminent national security threat. Intelligence agencies are scrambling to prevent or mitigate it right now. In-person voting fraud on the other hand, as a meaningful threat, is entirely hypothetical. Imagine if, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, someone said “ok Soviet missiles within reach of the east coast is a threat; but what if vegan extremists blew up the white house tomorrow? Theoretically it could happen, so let’s not dismiss the threat!” That’s how different those two threat profiles actually are.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  I do think majority of the effort should be spent on protection from hacking, but dismissing other very real attack vector as entirely hypothetical is just naive. Last elections were decided by 80k votes, in a country with 250M eligible voters. With such a tight margins we have a lot of valid attack vectors, not only most obvious hacking ones. Effective organizations are (and should be) able to deal with many risks at once. Do you think that during Cuban missiles crisis all other investigations stopped, and 100% of CIA, FBI, Police, Army etc focused on Cuba?
  - learc83 6y ago
    >With such a tight margins we have a lot of valid attack vectors In person voter fraud--the kind stopped by requiring poll workers to check ID--isn't one of them. You would need thousands of coordinated attackers to change 80k votes. It's just not a feasible attack.