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

61–70 of 76 posts

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

#61

Post by save_ferris »

cdoxsey wrote: post #52
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.

This isn't true. The Secure Elections Act was introduced by a Republican: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/226... .

This is absolutely true.

As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate.

This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.

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

#62

Post by Ajedi32 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #60
ddingus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely! I think electronic voting records are wrong. We should use paper ballots, and Counting them electronically with something simple and robust like Optical scan works really well. Let the statisticians run some Audits and we can be really confident. My state does that. Oregon.

Yes, also in Oregon. Our elections are also by mail, so you don't have to stand in line at your local voting station.

Which, when you think about it, kinda presents a similar problem to public vote records. (People can be incentivized financially or coerced via threat to vote a certain way.)

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

#63

Post by dubyah »

cdoxsey wrote: post #52
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.

This isn't true. The Secure Elections Act was introduced by a Republican: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/226... .

As a counterpoint: the FEC over the past decade.

The Republican voting bloc has stymied enforcement actions for much of that time.

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

#64

Post by AaronM »

brandonmenc wrote: post #59
elliekelly wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Better yet, why doesn't DARPA design them and then the federal gov't outlaw any other voting machine, for any election.

They recently started a contest to design an election machine.

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

#65

Post by fdjlasdfjl »

specialist wrote: post #47
gumby wrote: post #42

I think it's pretty straightforward to understand: the buyer likely has little to no expertise in the important issues. This is not in any way a slur on election officials, simply the recognition of the (statistically) likely experience of someone who is a local election official. In addition the way the question is structured by the senators isn't really fair either: if you have n bugs to fix before the ship date, y…

In my experience, the buyers (election administrators) at the state and local levels know exactly what's going on. Like every where else, there's a revolving door between govt election administrators and the private vendors & consultants.

Bingo. The space is so corrupt that several states have exclusivity contracts with one of the major suppliers.

Although, I would point at the politicians in addition to the election administrators. They're absolutely in on the take as well.

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

#66

Post by cdoxsey »

save_ferris wrote: post #61
cdoxsey wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true. The Secure Elections Act was introduced by a Republican: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/226... .

This is absolutely true. As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate. This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.

Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system".

Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill.

Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena.

And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequences. Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID.

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

#67

Post by ddingus »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #62
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, also in Oregon. Our elections are also by mail, so you don't have to stand in line at your local voting station.

Which, when you think about it, kinda presents a similar problem to public vote records. (People can be incentivized financially or coerced via threat to vote a certain way.)

So far, that has not been the experience in Oregon. First, doing that is a Felony with teeth.

Second, the system has a way for the voter to get around coersion. They can submit their vote, and fail to do a valid signature, or even just do it correctly.

Once they have voted, they can contact elections, have that vote invalidated, and or request another ballot to vote correctly. If they want to, they can do that in person, at the elections office, and or tell their story.

It's hard to coerce tons of people, which is needed to impact an election. And those who take part are all at real risk for hard time.

The actual is much different. People will gather to vote together. Our family does this, and will often have open door times. Young people have come to do it and learn about stuff. People tend to take it seriously. The votes differ, and that's OK. Democracy. (and the ones in the minority can totally gloat, should it turn out they made the right call. All good.)

So, we get the voter guides out, make sure people understand, and they, themselves cast their votes, whatever those votes are, we seal them all up and either mail, or take them to the drop box, or elections office.

Most people I know take a while to vote. They have the ballot, and work through it as they have time.

That is what I do personally.

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

#68

Post by gumby »

specialist wrote: post #47
gumby wrote: post #42

I think it's pretty straightforward to understand: the buyer likely has little to no expertise in the important issues. This is not in any way a slur on election officials, simply the recognition of the (statistically) likely experience of someone who is a local election official. In addition the way the question is structured by the senators isn't really fair either: if you have n bugs to fix before the ship date, y…

In my experience, the buyers (election administrators) at the state and local levels know exactly what's going on. Like every where else, there's a revolving door between govt election administrators and the private vendors & consultants.

Hmm, perhaps I was thinking too fine-grained.

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

#69

Post by specialist »

gumby wrote: post #68
specialist wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the buyers (election administrators) at the state and local levels know exactly what's going on. Like every where else, there's a revolving door between govt election administrators and the private vendors & consultants.

Hmm, perhaps I was thinking too fine-grained.

Feel compelled to add: I think we want the same thing, eg informed legislators. But from what I've seen, administrators run circles around legislators and their staff. Which is why I flipped on term limits (now oppose) and think legislators need a lot more staff.

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

#70

Post by save_ferris »

cdoxsey wrote: post #66
save_ferris wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely true. As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate. This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.

Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system". Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill. Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena. And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequence…

It's not that complicated: one party is committed to fixing this problem and has influential leaders backing such an initiative. Another party isn't even seriously trying. One GOP senator is interested in solving this problem? Good for that guy, but shame on the other 52 GOP senators that aren't.

> And bills don't represent ideology anyway.

Yes they do, that's why we vote for one party or another. Think taxes are too high? Want to expand social programs? Legislation is how all of that is executed. Bills absolutely represent party ideology. Take the green new deal, for example. How was that bill not an example of party ideology?

> Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID.

Voter ID laws were designed explicitly to suppress minority votes and have been struck down time and again by the courts. They were not designed to solve a legitimate issue, because there is no evidence that rampant voter fraud exists in the US[0].

What does exist, however, are coordinated ballot-harvesting efforts designed to unduly influence the outcome of elections, as was witnessed in NC-9 in this past election. But again, the GOP doesn't seem to be very concerned about this specific issue.

[0]: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...

Post reply on HN