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

CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

cisa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 211 posts

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#201

Post by pstrateman »

zepto wrote: post #194
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mail-in ballots are secret ballots I’ve knocked on doors in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Many registered Democrats (usually the wife) denied being Democrats when their partners were around. I thought this was an error in our data until I revisited the neighbourhood. Husband wasn’t home. Wife scolded us. He is an ardent Republican and wouldn’t appreciate how she votes. Mail-in ballots let voters verify their vote to…

How exactly do mail in ballots let voters verify their vote to third parties?

They fill-in the ballot in front of them and seal the envelope.

Or worse the voter gives the other person the empty ballot with a signed envelope.

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#202

Post by Thorentis »

rsynnott wrote: post #189
Thorentis wrote: post #27

On what basis? Because there aren't any rumors of Russian meddling being sowed by the opposition this time? There are multiple states with no paper audit trail, closed source electronic voting machines, multiple dubious last-minute decisions made around postal ballots due to COVID, no easy way to verify the voter roll. Making a claim like this reeks of partisanship.

> Making a claim like this reeks of partisanship. Ah, yes, CISA, that noted partisan Democrat-loving group: > The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was established on November 16, 2018 when President Donald Trump signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018 [..] > On November 13, the United States House of Representatives voted unanimously to pass legislation…

Just because a department was created under one administration, doesn't mean the people that work there care for the people in that administration, or owe any loyalty to them. I assess actions and claims on their own basis.

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#203

Post by shripadk »

tylerhou wrote: post #106
shripadk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10,000 votes were discarded by a Court in Pennsylvania [1]. At least someone in US is bothered about making sure the elections were held in a legit manner rather than some Hacker News rando's blanket dismissal of allegations of voter irregularities! [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/11/12/pennsyl...

These dismissed ballots weren’t even electronic; they were mail-in ballots that were cured during an extended deadline. While I disagree with throwing out any vote, the ballots were thrown out because they didn’t comply with the law, not because a third party interfered or hacked the election system. You can disagree with the law (and disagreeing in this case is reasonable!), but that doesn’t mean our elections are i…

> While I disagree with throwing out any vote, the ballots were thrown out because they didn’t comply with the law, not because a third party interfered or hacked the election system.

I am sorry but I never said or implied anywhere that a secure electoral system means it cannot be interfered/hacked. You don't need to hack if you have insiders do the bidding for you. But let us keep conspiracies aside for a minute. The issue is not even someone attacking the system. The system is weak in and itself. Why? There have been many "software glitches" that switch votes from one candidate to another literally overturning the election result. Be it Antrim County or Oakland County. These "glitches" or in some cases "human errors" show the elections are not secure. How can you call something "secure" when you have 6000 votes switching from one candidate to another? You don't even need a foreign actor to destabilize the elections when the system is so poorly designed that it can screw up on its own!

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020...

Quoting:

“Apparently, there was a technical glitch in Rochester Hills. And so I actually ended up winning by a little over 1,100 votes,” said a chuckling Kochenderfer.

The margin was 1,127 votes, to be exact. That gave him a 51.67% share of the total (with 48.23% going to his opponent, Hartman).

The fresh result buoyed the incumbent’s spirits but also had him worried about how to prevent future election errors, he said.

“I’m very grateful to the officials who caught the error, but we need to ensure that we catch these issues, or prevent them entirely,” Kochenderfer said.

"People are acting like fixing our elections is a partisan thing when it shouldn't be partisan," he said, adding, "we do have a very, very good clerk in Rochester Hills."

“A computer issue in Rochester Hills caused them to send us results for seven precincts as both precinct votes and absentee votes. They should only have been sent to us as absentee votes,” Rozell said in a text message.

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#204

Post by 01100011 »

aw1621107 wrote: post #191
01100011 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If each ballot has a unique ID and there is no association between the person voting and the ID, then the voter can retain that number, possibly by tearing off a section of the ballot as is done in CA, and check that number online to verify their vote was tallied as expected.

> there is no association between the person voting and the ID, then the voter can retain that number This seems somewhat contradictory. The voter retaining possession of the ID creates a link between the ballot and the voter, doesn't it? Then again, it does open the door to plausible deniability, though correctly pulling that off could introduce new complications and/or avenues of attack. > and check that number onl…

> The voter retaining possession of the ID creates a link between the ballot and the voter, doesn't it?

Yes, but it's only known to the voter. If they choose to dispute the results, then they give up that anonymity, but I think that's worth it. What other option do you have? As a voter, I should be able to verify that my vote was recorded correctly.

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#205

Post by aw1621107 »

01100011 wrote: post #204
aw1621107 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no association between the person voting and the ID, then the voter can retain that number This seems somewhat contradictory. The voter retaining possession of the ID creates a link between the ballot and the voter, doesn't it? Then again, it does open the door to plausible deniability, though correctly pulling that off could introduce new complications and/or avenues of attack. > and check that number onl…

> The voter retaining possession of the ID creates a link between the ballot and the voter, doesn't it? Yes, but it's only known to the voter. If they choose to dispute the results, then they give up that anonymity, but I think that's worth it. What other option do you have? As a voter, I should be able to verify that my vote was recorded correctly.

> Yes, but it's only known to the voter.

One of the more common complaints I've seen with similar schemes is that it opens the door to vote selling and/or voter intimidation.

> As a voter, I should be able to verify that my vote was recorded correctly.

I agree that this can be a desirable property for a voting system to have. Unfortunately, it has to coexist with other desirable properties (e.g., a secret ballot), and at least from what I can tell it appears that some of those properties can be mutually exclusive [0, 1, 2 with 1 being the PDF of 0].

(Fair warning, the literature is well over my head for the most part, so I wouldn't be surprised if I misinterpreted something.)

> What other option do you have?

I honestly don't know, off the top of my head. Presumably there's continuing research into different voting systems, but in the end it'll come down to what combination of desirable properties and ease of implementation people will be willing to live with.

[0]: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-12980-3_...

[1]: https://www.lsv.fr/Projects/anr-avote/PUBLIS/CFPST-08.pdf

[2]: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/40575

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#206

Post by rsynnott »

Thorentis wrote: post #202
rsynnott wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making a claim like this reeks of partisanship. Ah, yes, CISA, that noted partisan Democrat-loving group: > The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was established on November 16, 2018 when President Donald Trump signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018 [..] > On November 13, the United States House of Representatives voted unanimously to pass legislation…

Just because a department was created under one administration, doesn't mean the people that work there care for the people in that administration, or owe any loyalty to them. I assess actions and claims on their own basis.

Obviously not, and they _shouldn't_ owe any loyalty to the administration. But it's quite peculiar to assume that they _do_ owe loyalty to the other side.

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#207

Post by noxer »

jariel wrote: post #148
motohagiography wrote: post #41

Was there a reason CISA needed to release a statement? I haven't seen anything controversial in the news. As they say, if you have to say it... I have a few comments going back a couple of years predicting how electronic voting will cause civil unrest because it is so vulnerable to being discredited. Edward Snowden even recently tweeted a prof's video about the same thing. Everybody who had given the issue any seriou…

"I haven't seen anything controversial in the news" It's literally on every page of the news. The Trump campaign is trying to discredit the results of the election by any means possible. The issue of 'electronic voting' is only a concern were there to be an election among regular people, interested in determining the actual truth. It's much worse when people in positions of power just make up the truth 'because they…

>because it's the job of journos to determine the truth

You got that wrong, that absolutely not their job.

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#208

Post by 01100011 »

aw1621107 wrote: post #205
01100011 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The voter retaining possession of the ID creates a link between the ballot and the voter, doesn't it? Yes, but it's only known to the voter. If they choose to dispute the results, then they give up that anonymity, but I think that's worth it. What other option do you have? As a voter, I should be able to verify that my vote was recorded correctly.

> Yes, but it's only known to the voter. One of the more common complaints I've seen with similar schemes is that it opens the door to vote selling and/or voter intimidation. > As a voter, I should be able to verify that my vote was recorded correctly. I agree that this can be a desirable property for a voting system to have. Unfortunately, it has to coexist with other desirable properties (e.g., a secret ballot), an…

What's wrong with selling your vote? Politicians get to do it. Why can't I do it?

How does it open the door to voter intimidation? Someone steals my ballot receipt and checks who I voted for?

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#209

Post by bobthepanda »

garyrichardson wrote: post #197
bobthepanda wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument against this is that generally speaking, US presidential elections are considered the most important, so turnout on any election on “off” years, or even “off” days, is considered a sure way to get less voter turnout. Is this not a pattern observed in Canadian elections?

I'm not sure I follow. Assuming I have this right, there are no "off year" elections in a parliamentary system like in Canada. Elections occur when the government in power receives a vote of no confidence. In a minority government situation this could be the first session after an election. In the rare occasion that a government makes its 5 year term limit, the PM will "drop the writ" at a strategic point to queue up…

American elections for president are every 4 years, as are most other offices.

Pretty much without fail, any election that isn't a presidential one has lower turnout if not also scheduled with the presidential one, since many Americans will only show up for the presidential elections. Which is why the ballots tend to be long.

Granted, I don't think this makes them very complicated; my ballot had plenty of offices this year, and it was essentially a one-page double sided bubble sheet, with accompanying voter guides sent in the mail. It's not very hard.

Re: CISA: The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history

#210

Post by aw1621107 »

01100011 wrote: post #208
aw1621107 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, but it's only known to the voter. One of the more common complaints I've seen with similar schemes is that it opens the door to vote selling and/or voter intimidation. > As a voter, I should be able to verify that my vote was recorded correctly. I agree that this can be a desirable property for a voting system to have. Unfortunately, it has to coexist with other desirable properties (e.g., a secret ballot), an…

What's wrong with selling your vote? Politicians get to do it. Why can't I do it? How does it open the door to voter intimidation? Someone steals my ballot receipt and checks who I voted for?

> What's wrong with selling your vote?

Depends on your point of view, I suppose. Some might argue that it distorts the democratic process, some others could argue that it's merely an extension of exchanging promises for votes.

Unfortunately, this is not an area I'm very familiar with, so you'll probably have to look elsewhere for well-reasoned analyses.

> Politicians get to do it. Why can't I do it?

Someone else doing something wrong is rather poor justification for you being able to do something wrong.

Of course, this is contingent upon you believing vote selling is wrong; if you think it is acceptable, then the unequal treatment can be something worth addressing.

> How does it open the door to voter intimidation? Someone steals my ballot receipt and checks who I voted for?

It basically boils down to someone with power over you sitting you down in front of a computer and asking you to prove who/what you voted for, with some kind of negative consequence if you refuse or picked the "wrong" candidate/issues.

Stealing a ballot receipt in lieu of asking you to show the result yourself is another way to go about it.

Post reply on HN