Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 200 posts

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#71

Post by davidw »

neilv wrote: post #62
davidw wrote: post #57

Happy with my Senator Ron Wyden's take on this: paper ballots. He's also mentioned in the article. Our system here in Oregon works pretty well: you vote by mail with paper ballots and there's automatic voter registration.

One of the downsides of vote-by-mail is that it makes some ways of buying votes easier. But it does have the upside of making participation easier (especially for people overburdened with work or other responsibilities). And the physical paper auditing trail makes it immensely better than all the electronic systems without that record.

It's not perfect - another potential flaw is late breaking information that might lead some people to change their votes. Still, compared to the mess where people don't vote because of long lines and taking time off work (most western countries vote on weekends) and so on... I think it's good.

Now we just need more ranked choice voting.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#72

Post by paulgb »

terryschiavo22 wrote: post #2

This isn't a complicated problem. State election agencies are underfunded and have to cut corners in order to survive. A simple federal cash infusion would solve 70% of this problem. The other 30% is coming up with sufficient election machine standards.

It's bizarre to me that elections are not considered a central component of natural security. It doesn't matter how many nuclear submarines you have if the very means of government are vulnerable to cyber espionage because of severe underfunding.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#73

Post by [deleted] »

paulgb wrote: post #67
the_snooze wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people might interpret this as gatekeeping, but it really is true. If you're serious about election security, you'll learn a lot very quickly by immersing yourself in the process and the people who do it. For example, one often-overlooked advantage of traditional in-person paper voting is that you're entitled to spoil your ballot and request a fresh one. This protects voters from being coerced into voting a cert…

> This protects voters from being coerced into voting a certain way and taking a photo of their ballot as proof I like that, and I think it's an important property of voting systems that people who want to implement online voting overlook. But isn't it undermined by absentee voting, or is there a similar mechanism for that?

[deleted]

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#75

Post by throwaway2048 »

paulgb wrote: post #72
terryschiavo22 wrote: post #2

This isn't a complicated problem. State election agencies are underfunded and have to cut corners in order to survive. A simple federal cash infusion would solve 70% of this problem. The other 30% is coming up with sufficient election machine standards.

It's bizarre to me that elections are not considered a central component of natural security. It doesn't matter how many nuclear submarines you have if the very means of government are vulnerable to cyber espionage because of severe underfunding.

it isn't an accident

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#76

Post by donarb »

joshfraser wrote: post #47
joshfraser wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if our elections are rigged and we don't know it? Is it worth risking a faked election as long as we all feel good about it?

The problem with paper is that it's too easy to remove and replace the ballots you don't like.

In Washington State, photographs of each ballot are taken as the ballot is removed from the envelope and after it has been electronically tabulated. This prevents someone from replacing a paper ballot along the way.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#77

Post by orev »

gcb0 wrote: post #30
orev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The votes can be public but that doesn’t mean the data needs to include information that identifies the voter.

then what's the point? can you list a single use case that would make sense with this idea?

Yes. Voting. That’s how voting works. You go to the polling place, you confirm your identity with one person, then you go to another person to get the ballot. There is no linkage between your ballot and your identity, as they are done in separate and independent steps.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#78

Post by amenghra »

paulgb wrote: post #67
the_snooze wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people might interpret this as gatekeeping, but it really is true. If you're serious about election security, you'll learn a lot very quickly by immersing yourself in the process and the people who do it. For example, one often-overlooked advantage of traditional in-person paper voting is that you're entitled to spoil your ballot and request a fresh one. This protects voters from being coerced into voting a cert…

> This protects voters from being coerced into voting a certain way and taking a photo of their ballot as proof I like that, and I think it's an important property of voting systems that people who want to implement online voting overlook. But isn't it undermined by absentee voting, or is there a similar mechanism for that?

Once you go online (not to be confused with electronic-in-person), you cant really hide your vote. Whoever is buying your vote can instead buy your credentials to vote.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#79

Post by the_snooze »

paulgb wrote: post #67
the_snooze wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people might interpret this as gatekeeping, but it really is true. If you're serious about election security, you'll learn a lot very quickly by immersing yourself in the process and the people who do it. For example, one often-overlooked advantage of traditional in-person paper voting is that you're entitled to spoil your ballot and request a fresh one. This protects voters from being coerced into voting a cert…

> This protects voters from being coerced into voting a certain way and taking a photo of their ballot as proof I like that, and I think it's an important property of voting systems that people who want to implement online voting overlook. But isn't it undermined by absentee voting, or is there a similar mechanism for that?

It absolutely is undermined by any sort of voting outside a polling station. If we’re being intellectually honest, all election systems present trade-offs. Polling stations have nice security benefits, but remote voting increase accessibility. That’s basically what you come to appreciate if you immerse yourself in these systems (and build a healthy skepticism for anyone who proposes seemingly simple solutions).

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#80

Post by maxxxxx »

rectang wrote: post #6
terryschiavo22 wrote: post #2

This isn't a complicated problem. State election agencies are underfunded and have to cut corners in order to survive. A simple federal cash infusion would solve 70% of this problem. The other 30% is coming up with sufficient election machine standards.

It isn't technically complicated, but it is politically complicated: free and fair elections are not in everyone's interest. The technical problem will continue to persist (or will be reintroduced!) so long as it benefits someone in power to have a broken system in place.

I think that's an important point. For a lot of people in US politics it's more important to "win" than to have fair elections.
Post reply on HN