4 ms·

One very important point to consider in all of this is that the states administer their own elections and election processes directly. While this makes unifying

One very important point to consider in all of this is that the states administer their own elections and election processes directly. While this makes unifying the voting system practically impossible, it prevents a singular federal authority from directly interfering in the electoral process. I don't think we can safely assume that a president or any other federal authority should have the power to oversee any aspect of the voting process, regardless of party affiliation. We discovered the value of that power check during this election cycle.

TechBro8615 6y ago
Sure, but 25+ states are using the same hardware/software from a single vendor (Dominion).
zo1 6y ago
Just because it's distributed or handled individually by each state doesn't necessarily mean it can't be compromised or interfered with. If anything, I would argue that because it's distributed and handled by individual smaller units, each individual one is susceptible to interference within its own area. On a side note: There is a reason why people recommend "don't roll your own encryption". Some things such as security are hard problems, and just because you want to be "independent" doesn't mean you should come up with your own half-baked solution to the problem instead of using a secure and standardized one.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  I'm not saying that state-run election systems can't be interfered with, there's just no way for a single actor to compromise all systems simultaneously from a single point, legislatively or otherwise. Of course those systems can and should be hardened, but arguing that it should be done in a standard way completely ignores the reality of the political system that we're in. That's like going to your boss and suggesting to completely rewrite your company codebase in X language because it's more secure. Theoretically, it's not a bad idea, but the reality is that it doesn't work that way.

TechBro8615 6y ago

Sure, but 25+ states are using the same hardware/software from a single vendor (Dominion).

zo1 6y ago

Just because it's distributed or handled individually by each state doesn't necessarily mean it can't be compromised or interfered with. If anything, I would argue that because it's distributed and handled by individual smaller units, each individual one is susceptible to interference within its own area. On a side note: There is a reason why people recommend "don't roll your own encryption". Some things such as security are hard problems, and just because you want to be "independent" doesn't mean you should come up with your own half-baked solution to the problem instead of using a secure and standardized one.

save_ferris 6y ago
I'm not saying that state-run election systems can't be interfered with, there's just no way for a single actor to compromise all systems simultaneously from a single point, legislatively or otherwise. Of course those systems can and should be hardened, but arguing that it should be done in a standard way completely ignores the reality of the political system that we're in. That's like going to your boss and suggesting to completely rewrite your company codebase in X language because it's more secure. Theoretically, it's not a bad idea, but the reality is that it doesn't work that way.