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

Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#21

Post by lisper »

burlesona wrote: post #8
lisper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states?

Yes. I grew up in Kentucky and Tennessee, and went to college in Virginia. The first time I moved to a town of more than 30,000 (Los Angeles) I was 24. So I am very familiar with the culture of "middle America".

Yes, Republicans have overwhelming majority support in many districts, but they would not hold a majority in the House without gerrymandering [1] and they would not hold a majority in the Senate without the inherent bias towards small states built into the two-senators-per-state system. (I guess it's not fair to call that a "dirty trick", but I do think it's fair to apply that label to a lot of the things that Mitch McConnell has done as Senate majority leader.) Also, without that bias, no Republican would have been elected president such George H.W. Bush.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrym...

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#22

Post by elliekelly »

duxup wrote: post #11
save_ferris wrote: post #2

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.

The federal government could set certain minimum standards for voting machines used in federal elections. That would effectively set the standard for all elections since I can't imagine any local governments could justify a set of machines for federal elections and a different set for local.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#23

Post by LorenPechtel »

burlesona wrote: post #8
lisper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#24

Post by duxup »

elliekelly wrote: post #22
duxup wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The federal government could set certain minimum standards for voting machines used in federal elections. That would effectively set the standard for all elections since I can't imagine any local governments could justify a set of machines for federal elections and a different set for local.

I wouldn't mind that.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#25

Post by samfriedman »

lisper wrote: post #17
samfriedman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppre...

Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#26

Post by Macross8299 »

munificent wrote: post #16
Macross8299 wrote: post #6

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…

>What other options do these officials have?

Paper voting, for one. If no system is offered that is secure enough, then the default should be no electronic voting system at all and just paper voting. It's scaled fine for hundreds of years and has clear processes in place for custody of ballots.

>The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins.

You can't expect companies to just "make a choice" to lower profit margins without some sort of (dis)incentive or external pressure like regulation. It's unrealistic. Companies exist to make their principals money. It's the government's job to check that and make sure that the companies are acting in public interest while they pursue profit.

Local and state officials definitely can effect change on this level since they are often the ones in charge of the procurement process.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#27

Post by Bluestrike2 »

bshipp wrote: post #3

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…

They don't actually have any influence in the purchase decisions, as it's a state matter. Machines are bought by local governments, with varying state regulations on what can be purchased depending on the state in question. Most machines were paid for by local jurisdictions with a mix of federal funding (HAVA), and in some cases, state funds for part of the cost. Some states have uniform systems; others do not.[0] On election day, there isn't just "one" election but thousands taking place.

There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere.

To make matters worse, each jurisdiction and the states are fiercely protective of their power in this matter. A federally uniform system, or even just something beyond the very basic requirements set by the Help America Vote Act in 2002, is right now very unlikely and would be a massive political and legal mess. Or, more accurately, a series of messes.

0. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-can...

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#28

Post by rootusrootus »

samfriedman wrote: post #25
lisper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppre...

Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.

I think it is a valid observation that statistically, the Republican Party represents fewer citizens per politician than the Democratic Party. This is partly due to geography and the deliberate choices of Senate representation, and partly due to the skillful manipulation of state politics by the Republican Party. The Democrats collectively forgot for a while that politics starts at the local level, unsexy as it seems compared to, say, POTUS, and the Republicans cleaned their clock.

Of course, currently the Democratic Party relies heavily on actual racial/gender minorities, but if they are smart they understand how fleeting that association can be, there is no guarantee it will remain durable over time. Especially as the number of older white male voters dwindles through natural attrition, it is pretty likely that the demographics of the parties are going to evolve.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#29

Post by jtuente »

tru3_power wrote: post #7
maxxxxx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

From my perspective, it usually derives from some kind of 'think of the jobs' mentality.

https://pilotonline.com/opinion/editorial/article_947f55ff-3...

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#30

Post by dsfyu404ed »

rootusrootus wrote: post #28
samfriedman wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.

I think it is a valid observation that statistically, the Republican Party represents fewer citizens per politician than the Democratic Party. This is partly due to geography and the deliberate choices of Senate representation, and partly due to the skillful manipulation of state politics by the Republican Party. The Democrats collectively forgot for a while that politics starts at the local level, unsexy as it seems…

Eventually white people are going to figure out they want healthcare and black people are going to figure out they want guns and all hell will break loose.
Post reply on HN