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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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|blu…
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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/
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].
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 th…
> "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?"
Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it?
Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every category? Why does Nestle have more annual revenue than the GDP of Sri Lanka?
"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.
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?
Maybe one example: NASA is developing the SLS mainly to keep jobs in some districts. so billions are spent on something that's really not the right thing from a technical point of view.
Same for voting machines: They are often either bought to keep jobs somewhere or because there is some connection between the vendor and decisions maker.
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 th…
> 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?"
Hey guys, let's drop this important task we are working on and go look for the holy grail!