voting hacks?

[Pam]

We may never know for certain, but there was more going on than hacking voter rolls

https://narativ.org/2017/05/30/the-fix-is-in/

[cbelt3]

One of the major advantages of a localized voting system with on site auditing from both parties is that the actual incidence of voting 'hacks' or fraud is vanishingly small. While this article is accurate in its portrayal of the risks, because we have a wide variety of decentralized reporting and voting systems, an overarching 'hack' is improbable.

The American People elected Trump. Yes, we ARE that stupid.

[Pam]

cbelt3 wrote:
One of the major advantages of a localized voting system with on site auditing from both parties is that the actual incidence of voting 'hacks' or fraud is vanishingly small. While this article is accurate in its portrayal of the risks, because we have a wide variety of decentralized reporting and voting systems, an overarching 'hack' is improbable.

The American People elected Trump. Yes, we ARE that stupid.

Re-read the article more carefully before you get comfortable.

[gabester]

Pam wrote:
[quote=cbelt3]
One of the major advantages of a localized voting system with on site auditing from both parties is that the actual incidence of voting 'hacks' or fraud is vanishingly small. While this article is accurate in its portrayal of the risks, because we have a wide variety of decentralized reporting and voting systems, an overarching 'hack' is improbable.

The American People elected Trump. Yes, we ARE that stupid.

Re-read the article more carefully before you get comfortable.
More importantly, we HAVE a check in place for this scenario. It's called the "Electoral College" and it failed at its primary mission. Since it's a relic that was established to preserve slaveholding states' rights to dehumanize a portion of their population when the nation was founded and the current system put in place, it's probably time it be abolished and something else be put in its place.

[cbelt3]

Pam,
Yes, I read it. I'm familiar with a lot of it. In fact my current VP used to work for Diebold in that business. I'm also familiar with corporate It security systems, code management systems, and whatnot. Security is a layered thing, much like Medieval castle security designs. Just because someone got over the moat doesn't mean they got into the castle, or into the keep, or into treasure room, and then got out with the treasure.

While the article is accurate, it's more a call to 'keep an eye on things' instead of "OMG THE ELECTION WUZ HAXORRED..".

IMHO, ANY call to "Centralize" our election process is a very bad idea. The decentralization is what makes it work.

[numbered]

I agree with cbelt3 about keeping things decentralized.

Paper is a nice addition

[Pam]

cbelt3 wrote:
Pam,
Yes, I read it. I'm familiar with a lot of it. In fact my current VP used to work for Diebold in that business. I'm also familiar with corporate It security systems, code management systems, and whatnot. Security is a layered thing, much like Medieval castle security designs. Just because someone got over the moat doesn't mean they got into the castle, or into the keep, or into treasure room, and then got out with the treasure.

While the article is accurate, it's more a call to 'keep an eye on things' instead of "OMG THE ELECTION WUZ HAXORRED..".

IMHO, ANY call to "Centralize" our election process is a very bad idea. The decentralization is what makes it work.

No one said "OMG THE ELECTION WUZ HAXORRED..". Don't bring unnecessary drama. Decentralized is not the comfort blanket most think it is. Any machine can be hacked and it's not necessary to hack all of them. Just need a few key areas in some races, like the last one.

Every state needs to fully move to paper ballots and scanners.

[deckeda]

Scanners? Sounds electronic. As in, it would go into a tabulating machine of some kind.

[Speedy]

Pam wrote:
Every state needs to fully move to paper ballots and scanners.

I agree.

I viewed every single contested paper ballot in the Franken Senate victory in 2008. The scans were accessible to me on the Minneapolis StarTribune website; I believe there were a bit over one thousand. I doubt if there were more than a handful where it was not obvious as to whom the voter cast their ballot.

[$tevie]

We had that lousy-ass machine in the first photo here in MD for a while. Thank goodness they ditched them and went to the ballot scanning process.

As for scanning, the advantage is that there are paper ballots so if there seems to be any error, or hanky-panky, folks can do a recount using the paper ballots.