DHS, FBI say election systems in all 50 states were targeted in 2016(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
DHS, FBI say election systems in all 50 states were targeted in 2016
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/dhs-fbi-say-election-systems-in-50-states-were-targeted-in-2016/
117 comments
> since electronic elections are not verifiable in any meaningful way
As I once saw someone point out here, the crucial thing is that they be verifiable by the average person.
Imagine a technically perfect electronic voting system, immune to tampering, preserving anonymity, etc. It's provably perfect - but only to the handful people who can understand the proof.
Average people could not have confidence in such a system, so it undermines democracy. (This may also be a barrier to using vote counting systems better but more complex than "first past the post" unless they can be explained clearly.)
"Put your paper ballot in that bin everyone can see and we'll all count them together at the end of the day" is a process that anyone can see is legitimate. So that's what we should do.
As I once saw someone point out here, the crucial thing is that they be verifiable by the average person.
Imagine a technically perfect electronic voting system, immune to tampering, preserving anonymity, etc. It's provably perfect - but only to the handful people who can understand the proof.
Average people could not have confidence in such a system, so it undermines democracy. (This may also be a barrier to using vote counting systems better but more complex than "first past the post" unless they can be explained clearly.)
"Put your paper ballot in that bin everyone can see and we'll all count them together at the end of the day" is a process that anyone can see is legitimate. So that's what we should do.
I think a lot of the verification problems for electronic voting could be solved by simplification and using old 'outdated' technology. You don't need a full fledged PC to tally votes, you need the computing power of a 30 year old calculator that could be built on a 2-foot wide board with large and simple traces. Something somebody at home with a multi-meter could probe around and test.
We need the equivalent of a moped to do what we need done, but are being sold on F1 racecars which end up being built by equivalent of rednecks in a scrapyard to line the pockets of the scrapyard owners.
We need the equivalent of a moped to do what we need done, but are being sold on F1 racecars which end up being built by equivalent of rednecks in a scrapyard to line the pockets of the scrapyard owners.
> I think a lot of the verification problems for electronic voting could be solved by simplification and using old 'outdated' technology. You don't need a full fledged PC to tally votes, you need the computing power of a 30 year old calculator that could be built on a 2-foot wide board with large and simple traces. Something somebody at home with a multi-meter could probe around and test.
Yeah, no thanks. We had that in The Netherlands. The NEDAP voting machines were running on m68k machines. With very weak cryptography. In mid '00s.
What we need to do, is keep this last part of technology out of our democratic process. When people count ballots, there are many eyes, and you do not know of each other which candidate or party you represent. Hence, the system works. It isn't broken. Why fix it with a worse solution? A solution not everyone understands? Yet everyone age ~5 and higher understands manual counting.
I've volunteered 3 times thus far (end of may is gonna be my 4th time) as ballot/vote counter in my country (NL). I can highly recommend to just try it once, to learn what it's like. Its also (mostly) fun to work in a diverse team with people of different backgrounds and ages. You never know who you're gonna get beforehand. One footnote: do not discuss politics while counting ballots. Its inappropriate (since you're supposed to be neutral and not know each other's preference) and pointless (won't affect the outcome anymore in any way).
Yeah, no thanks. We had that in The Netherlands. The NEDAP voting machines were running on m68k machines. With very weak cryptography. In mid '00s.
What we need to do, is keep this last part of technology out of our democratic process. When people count ballots, there are many eyes, and you do not know of each other which candidate or party you represent. Hence, the system works. It isn't broken. Why fix it with a worse solution? A solution not everyone understands? Yet everyone age ~5 and higher understands manual counting.
I've volunteered 3 times thus far (end of may is gonna be my 4th time) as ballot/vote counter in my country (NL). I can highly recommend to just try it once, to learn what it's like. Its also (mostly) fun to work in a diverse team with people of different backgrounds and ages. You never know who you're gonna get beforehand. One footnote: do not discuss politics while counting ballots. Its inappropriate (since you're supposed to be neutral and not know each other's preference) and pointless (won't affect the outcome anymore in any way).
> I think a lot of the verification problems for electronic voting could be solved by simplification and using old 'outdated' technology. You don't need a full fledged PC to tally votes, you need the computing power of a 30 year old calculator that could be built on a 2-foot wide board with large and simple traces. Something somebody at home with a multi-meter could probe around and test.
Even that's too complicated to be trustworthy. That's why I think optical scan ballots are the way to go: even a totally unskilled, untrained regular person would feel fairly confident that they could count them.
IMHO, all the technology investment should be put into processing and validating ballots after they've been filled out. Personally, I like the idea of a voter being able to feed their optical-scan ballot into a machine at the voting booth that will let them verify it will be read exactly as they intend. Then they carry it over to the ballot box to be tallied by a separate machine there.
Even that's too complicated to be trustworthy. That's why I think optical scan ballots are the way to go: even a totally unskilled, untrained regular person would feel fairly confident that they could count them.
IMHO, all the technology investment should be put into processing and validating ballots after they've been filled out. Personally, I like the idea of a voter being able to feed their optical-scan ballot into a machine at the voting booth that will let them verify it will be read exactly as they intend. Then they carry it over to the ballot box to be tallied by a separate machine there.
> IMHO, all the technology investment should be put into processing and validating ballots after they've been filled out
I think the opposite. When filling a ballot, the voter can use a machine with a touchscreen. The person with poor sight can use huge fonts, the blind can use a screen reader, etc. The output from this is a printed paper form, filled out with perfectly legibility. No hanging chads, ambiguous marks, etc.
At this point, the voter (or an assistant) can verify the form just as if a human had filled it out for them.
From there, these perfectly-filled forms can be counted the old-fashioned way with many witnesses.
I think the opposite. When filling a ballot, the voter can use a machine with a touchscreen. The person with poor sight can use huge fonts, the blind can use a screen reader, etc. The output from this is a printed paper form, filled out with perfectly legibility. No hanging chads, ambiguous marks, etc.
At this point, the voter (or an assistant) can verify the form just as if a human had filled it out for them.
From there, these perfectly-filled forms can be counted the old-fashioned way with many witnesses.
I think you're making quite the leap to state that average people could not have confidence in the system, people seem to have confidence in things that they can't prove all the time.
That's true. Fiat money is a good example. But in this case, losers have incentive to claim the system doesn't work. You want the average person to be able to refute that claim, or else suspicion will run rampant.
> As I once saw someone point out here, the crucial thing is that they be verifiable by the average person.
But that undermines the purpose of moving to a black-box system.
No, seriously. Every cash register can spit out a receipt; the idea behind audit trails has been around since Hammurabi. The fact that voting systems have none for something as important as the foundation of democracy betrays their purpose.
Every successive society insists on subjugating the plebes by imposing some new barrier to understanding the rules that govern them.
* You can't read the written word of God because you're illiterate. You have to come to church.
* Oh, but you learned to read? Well, only the priests can actually talk to him. You still have to come to church and talk to God through the priest.
* (Who the hell does this Martin Luther guy think he is?)
* Now we have complex tax and legal codes only accountants/lawyers can understand and negotiate. What started as a goat theft escalates to 20 other charges you don't understand the nuances of to successfully defend yourself in court.
* We have voting systems only the administrators have visibility into. Does your vote matter? Was it even recorded in the first place, or did it get wiped out by convenient Russian floating-point rounding errors?
* Our understanding of the world around us is no longer driven by dogma, but personalized algorithms administered by a handful of corporate gatekeepers hell-bent on driving engagement and consumption. If the Faceless Oracle of Google doesn't want you to see it, you'll never discover it organically.
* Freedom of movement is being replaced with self-driving cars, powered by math and code only its engineers (supposedly) understand.
* Soon our personal assets will be governed by the blockchain, another technology understood and exploited by its administrators (and their scammer buddies).
It's a classic hustler and cult-leader tactic. The less someone understands, the easier it is to fleece them.
But that undermines the purpose of moving to a black-box system.
No, seriously. Every cash register can spit out a receipt; the idea behind audit trails has been around since Hammurabi. The fact that voting systems have none for something as important as the foundation of democracy betrays their purpose.
Every successive society insists on subjugating the plebes by imposing some new barrier to understanding the rules that govern them.
* You can't read the written word of God because you're illiterate. You have to come to church.
* Oh, but you learned to read? Well, only the priests can actually talk to him. You still have to come to church and talk to God through the priest.
* (Who the hell does this Martin Luther guy think he is?)
* Now we have complex tax and legal codes only accountants/lawyers can understand and negotiate. What started as a goat theft escalates to 20 other charges you don't understand the nuances of to successfully defend yourself in court.
* We have voting systems only the administrators have visibility into. Does your vote matter? Was it even recorded in the first place, or did it get wiped out by convenient Russian floating-point rounding errors?
* Our understanding of the world around us is no longer driven by dogma, but personalized algorithms administered by a handful of corporate gatekeepers hell-bent on driving engagement and consumption. If the Faceless Oracle of Google doesn't want you to see it, you'll never discover it organically.
* Freedom of movement is being replaced with self-driving cars, powered by math and code only its engineers (supposedly) understand.
* Soon our personal assets will be governed by the blockchain, another technology understood and exploited by its administrators (and their scammer buddies).
It's a classic hustler and cult-leader tactic. The less someone understands, the easier it is to fleece them.
Mathematical proof is not same as "mathematical proof + implementation detail". Beware of side channel attacks.
The first line of your post is not necessary, and against HN guidelines. Your post doesn't need such either as it stands on its own. It only weakens your argument as an appeal to pity. Don't do that please.
It’s totally necessary because HN is predictable as clock work to downvote when you insinuate the liberal standard has flaws, the biggest of which is the inability to be critical of themselves without instinctively reacting to inflict pain (downvoting)
The post is about electronic voting, which the first line cleverly alludes to. You missed that in your rush to be the HN police.
[deleted]
With all due respect, that appeal to pity only weakens the argument of his post is read from a persuasive writing perspective. However, in viewing this post in an exchange of ideas, it carries necessary information. OP cites the unpopularity not as an appeal to pity but as an expression of ideas. To require all posts adhere to a framework of persuasion is unnecessary speech censorship.
The first time I remember people making comments of this nature on tech sites was close to 20 years ago, when in the aftermath of the 2000 elections, some said electronic voting was the answer, but the companies promoting such solutions seemed universally slimey and not security conscious.
I don't think anything has changed since those days.
I think part of the problem has got to be that non-experts cannot judge how good a security solution is, so local governments are ill equipped to view it with a skeptical eye. There might also be in some way a downside of federalism here - if the states pooled more resources perhaps they would be able to solve the problem once instead of 50 times.
I don't think anything has changed since those days.
I think part of the problem has got to be that non-experts cannot judge how good a security solution is, so local governments are ill equipped to view it with a skeptical eye. There might also be in some way a downside of federalism here - if the states pooled more resources perhaps they would be able to solve the problem once instead of 50 times.
It begs asking at which election would this matter spring to true light. The last election was so crowded with attention baiting headlines that the real conversation wasnt had.
Then again, in the bush election the judiciary decided floridas votes and not a peep was heard. American poltical machinery is far from perfect
Then again, in the bush election the judiciary decided floridas votes and not a peep was heard. American poltical machinery is far from perfect
I've been proud of my senator, Ron Wyden, for continuing to focus on this.
Oregon's voting system seems ideal to me. I highly recommend it to anybody in other states who would like to see how voting should be done.
Obligatory XCKD Cartoon: https://xkcd.com/2030/
This is incredible. Rules of engagement are in profound need of overhaul. This is nothing less than a military attack on the US, via computer. No sufficiently large nation state is innocent, but targeting voting systems (and potentially vote totals) should be a glaring red line that has consequences, taking into account that attribution is falsifiable and hard.
Sounds like what Nathaniel Fick has been saying about cyber warfare should also have a degree of proportionality. Mostly, due to the fact that security favors the attacker, deterrence should be based on fear of retaliation vs. a perfect virtual environment.
How do you feel about any foreign political intervention?
I'd guess that 50+% of 3rd world leaders are supported by some foreign government financially or militarily which keeps them in power.
But yes, it doesn't feel good when a foreign government tries to pick a winner in our elections.
I'd guess that 50+% of 3rd world leaders are supported by some foreign government financially or militarily which keeps them in power.
But yes, it doesn't feel good when a foreign government tries to pick a winner in our elections.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are asking me if I think changing voting results is equivalent to attempting to influence voters?
No, I do not think those are remotely equivalent.
No, I do not think those are remotely equivalent.
Sorry, I think the point I was trying to make was that most governments try to openly influence politics in other countries rather than protecting free elections.
I totally agree that vote rigging would be particularly egregious. However, I'm not sure that backing a regime with money / weapons / training, etc. that then goes ahead and rigs the vote is that much better.
I think it's more like one scenario is stealing money and the other is investing in a gang that steals money.
I just find it interesting that we openly try to pick political winners and losers in other countries.
I totally agree that vote rigging would be particularly egregious. However, I'm not sure that backing a regime with money / weapons / training, etc. that then goes ahead and rigs the vote is that much better.
I think it's more like one scenario is stealing money and the other is investing in a gang that steals money.
I just find it interesting that we openly try to pick political winners and losers in other countries.
Not picking winners is also a decision that impacts other countries. It's like a default option in a UI -- there are no neutral options.
Sure, but I guess by that same logic not rigging a foreign election would impact a country too.
Yeah, it's sort of like conflating asking for money with stealing... they may result in the same outcome, but result from extremely different actions.
But if it helps the political establishment that's in power then they can just not enforce the laws or change the laws to make it legal for them... everybody (that is them) wins!
One of the faculty at my university has conducted some detailed analysis on the practice of electronic voting in the US.
I believe this is the most up-to-date publication on the subject: https://cse.sc.edu/~buell/Public_Data/2019_VotingMachines.pd...
I would also recommend the documentary "I Voted" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4081950/).
These aren't about the 2016 election in particular, but it would seem that there is strong evidence that the security practices in place by many US states are inadequate, and there is often no "paper trail" to verify that results were tallied accurately after the fact if a recount is needed.
Considering the poor security, if the 2016 election was targeted, it is likely that the attacker(s) succeeded.
I believe this is the most up-to-date publication on the subject: https://cse.sc.edu/~buell/Public_Data/2019_VotingMachines.pd...
I would also recommend the documentary "I Voted" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4081950/).
These aren't about the 2016 election in particular, but it would seem that there is strong evidence that the security practices in place by many US states are inadequate, and there is often no "paper trail" to verify that results were tallied accurately after the fact if a recount is needed.
Considering the poor security, if the 2016 election was targeted, it is likely that the attacker(s) succeeded.
> Between June and October of 2016, the group associated with the election hacking "researched websites and information related to elections in at least 39 states and territories, according to newly available FBI information," the bulletin states. "The same actors also directly visited websites in at least 30 states, mostly election-related government sites at both the state and local level—some of which overlap with the 39 researched states."
> The "actors" performed their research "in alphabetical order by state name," the bulletin states, "suggesting that at least the initial research was not targeted at specific states." The research focused on Secretary of State voter registration and election results sites, but it also drilled down on some local election officials' webpages. As they accessed sites, actors "regularly attempted to identify and exploit SQL database vulnerabilities in webservers and databases."
Voter registration information is public (although not technically to Russian citizens!).
Visiting the front end websites of the state election authorities and attempting SQL injection on the web forms is not what some downthread are calling a military attack.
However, I think it’s great to be sent such a wake up call in the form of a “tap on the shoulder” because these systems should be heavily monitored and better protected.
The true election systems should require feet on the ground to compromise in any form. And they should not be electronic without a proper auditable paper record.
> The "actors" performed their research "in alphabetical order by state name," the bulletin states, "suggesting that at least the initial research was not targeted at specific states." The research focused on Secretary of State voter registration and election results sites, but it also drilled down on some local election officials' webpages. As they accessed sites, actors "regularly attempted to identify and exploit SQL database vulnerabilities in webservers and databases."
Voter registration information is public (although not technically to Russian citizens!).
Visiting the front end websites of the state election authorities and attempting SQL injection on the web forms is not what some downthread are calling a military attack.
However, I think it’s great to be sent such a wake up call in the form of a “tap on the shoulder” because these systems should be heavily monitored and better protected.
The true election systems should require feet on the ground to compromise in any form. And they should not be electronic without a proper auditable paper record.
But what will they do about it? Absolutely nothing. Republican politicians don't care and I honestly don't understand why not. Election security should be a truly non-partisan issue, yet whenever they talk about election security it's not this it's about disenfranchising certain voting blocks.
“Republican politicians don't care and I honestly don't understand why not.”
If your party is the minority (in votes, not representatives), but you need votes to win, gerrymandering, vote suppression, unaccountability, and fraud are all welcome tactics. Majority party does it too, but doesn’t rely on it quite as much
If your party is the minority (in votes, not representatives), but you need votes to win, gerrymandering, vote suppression, unaccountability, and fraud are all welcome tactics. Majority party does it too, but doesn’t rely on it quite as much
Gerrymandering can be used to unseat an incumbent, but often it creates a safe district for one. The candidate can then loan out their warchest to members of their caucus running in closer elections. Ending the practice may end the horse trading that takes place behind closed doors. Maybe then GOP senators can spend July 4th at home rather than in Moscow presumably as some kind of a low man on the totem pole cleanup crew.
Then why are Democrats against showing an ID to prove you are who you say you are? Why are Democrats OK with allowing ballot harvesting in California when the election in North Carolina was invalidated for the same reason?
For the record, showing an ID would __not__ help with the sort of absentee ballot shenanigans that took place in NC9 (which was election fraud not voter fraud). If anything, it doesn't do anything at all - it's elections security theater.
Because there’s no significant amount of fraud occurring that ID requirements would fix, and ID requirements are often made to unfairly disenfranchise certain groups.
>ID requirements are often made to unfairly disenfranchise certain groups
It's interesting to hear what those "certain groups" think about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE
It's interesting to hear what those "certain groups" think about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE
A video with anecdotes, this is sure to be worth my time!
Saying that the thoughts of people affected by policies you claim to support isn't "worth your time" really undermines the idea that you have their best interests in mind.
I don’t have the time or resources to interview all 235 million eligible voters in the US. I’ll have to rely on others to sample them. Any sample comes with the potential for bias or error so it needs to be done well. I see no reason to think that this four-minute video, whose description says it has interviews with people from Harlem, comes even remotely close. Am I wrong?
>Am I wrong?
You're conflating a scientific study on who does and does not have a valid ID with what people think about people assuming they have no ID because of their skin color. They're orthogonal concepts.
All of the black people interviewed in that video found it ignorant and offensive that people assume that because they're black, they likely don't have ID or know how to get ID, and the white liberals had no problem making broad, negative assumptions about black people, if it supported their political views. That's the point I'm trying to make.
You're conflating a scientific study on who does and does not have a valid ID with what people think about people assuming they have no ID because of their skin color. They're orthogonal concepts.
All of the black people interviewed in that video found it ignorant and offensive that people assume that because they're black, they likely don't have ID or know how to get ID, and the white liberals had no problem making broad, negative assumptions about black people, if it supported their political views. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Were those people a representative sample? What was the sample size?
You start off speaking for a group and end saying you’re only speaking for a percentage of that group. You just totally invalidated the basis of your argument from earlier
Where was I speaking for a group?
I'll play along and pretend that you're a very unique individual who only considers peoples opinions as relevant when you know the exact statistical figures of how much to weigh them:
11/11 black people thought it was offensive, of a pop size of 37M, at a confidence level of 95% that gives a MOE of 30%, so as few as 70% of black people also think it's offensive at a 95% confidence.
11/11 black people thought it was offensive, of a pop size of 37M, at a confidence level of 95% that gives a MOE of 30%, so as few as 70% of black people also think it's offensive at a 95% confidence.
Only if those 11 people were randomly selected. Was that the case?
I’ll go ahead and answer that one for you: no, it was not the case. The odds of selecting 11 black Americans at random and ending up with all 11 living in Harlem are infinitesimally small.
I’ll go ahead and answer that one for you: no, it was not the case. The odds of selecting 11 black Americans at random and ending up with all 11 living in Harlem are infinitesimally small.
I think you're forgetting what we're talking about here. We're not talking about the distribution of people with valid IDs, we're talking about the distribution of opinions that making a racist assertion is offensive to the people it is targeting. Common sense will tell you that there is very likely an even geographic distribution in the US. But I think you're being deliberately petty and contrarian because you don't like the content of the video.
TL;DR; this 5-minute video polls each individual in those groups to get their opinion. It therefore presents a comprehensive survey of voter attitudes in the affected populations.
It definitely does not ridiculously poll a handful of able-bodied people on the street to get their opinions.
It definitely does not ridiculously poll a handful of able-bodied people on the street to get their opinions.
Your comment makes no sense in context with the original article. Why would someone spend all the time and effort to hack voting machines when they can just walk up look at the list and pick a name without a signature and say yup thats me. Ive worked at a poll it just a list with peoples names sitting on a table
Those attacks don't scale at all and could only be a concern for local elections in small towns and the like.
Neither does machine tampering because they are not networked.
One person with a USB key can change many votes on a single machine.
Because you have to be physically present in order to do that, and nobody wants to risk getting thrown in jail if they pick a name that’s already voted, or that the poll worker happens to know.
How else would you do it on a machine not connected to the internet?
You could pull a Stuxnet and create malware that would spread over whatever devices are used to program the voting machines. I believe they typically just use standard USB thumb drives, and are notoriously insecure.
However, the article talks about "election systems" which encompasses much more than just voting machines. Voter registration records are a prime target and those are usually (always?) connected to the internet. You don't need to actually alter any votes to swing an election. Just delete or alter the registrations of some people who you know will tend to vote the other way.
However, the article talks about "election systems" which encompasses much more than just voting machines. Voter registration records are a prime target and those are usually (always?) connected to the internet. You don't need to actually alter any votes to swing an election. Just delete or alter the registrations of some people who you know will tend to vote the other way.
Can you cite something to support that?
It sounds like a just-so claim: it’s not really a problem, and the people complaining are just bad people!
As far as I’m aware, not only is there not accurate study — jurisdictions like Washington intentionally make it difficult to track whether non-citizens are voting by issuing them IDs and offering to register them to vote sans additional proof of citizenship. This is why WA has to have enhanced ID — they don’t meet the federal standards of ensuring people they issue ID to are here legally.
It seems strange that people refuse to even talk about it and resort to nasty ad hominems if there genuinely is no issue.
By contrast, insulting the motivations of people genuinely trying to stand up for the law and act with integrity because you decided to employ force and just override them is deeply, unrecoverably immoral.
It sounds like a just-so claim: it’s not really a problem, and the people complaining are just bad people!
As far as I’m aware, not only is there not accurate study — jurisdictions like Washington intentionally make it difficult to track whether non-citizens are voting by issuing them IDs and offering to register them to vote sans additional proof of citizenship. This is why WA has to have enhanced ID — they don’t meet the federal standards of ensuring people they issue ID to are here legally.
It seems strange that people refuse to even talk about it and resort to nasty ad hominems if there genuinely is no issue.
By contrast, insulting the motivations of people genuinely trying to stand up for the law and act with integrity because you decided to employ force and just override them is deeply, unrecoverably immoral.
Go look for citations to support your claim that voter ID is needed and identity fraud is pervasive in elections. It'll be hard to find some, because historically it just doesn't happen.
It'd be one thing to put those laws in place in response to pervasive fraud, but historically we just have lawmakers explicitly saying they did it to reduce voter turnout which is... kind of a mistake.
Whether or not ID is issued to non-citizens is a massively different issue. People need ID for all sorts of stuff - that doesn't mean everyone with ID is automatically going out there and skipping work to stand in line to vote.
It'd be one thing to put those laws in place in response to pervasive fraud, but historically we just have lawmakers explicitly saying they did it to reduce voter turnout which is... kind of a mistake.
Whether or not ID is issued to non-citizens is a massively different issue. People need ID for all sorts of stuff - that doesn't mean everyone with ID is automatically going out there and skipping work to stand in line to vote.
> because historically it just doesn't happen
I understand the objections to voter ID based on unequal access to acceptable identification.
But I don't understand the "it just doesn't happen" argument. This kind of voter fraud seems like it would be nearly impossible to detect. I guess you could look at how often ballots are spoiled because of signature mismatches or incidences of "the registry shows that you already voted".
It seems like once voter id laws are passed, any laws or regulations limiting access to ID are de facto challengeable under the Equal Protection principle.
I understand the objections to voter ID based on unequal access to acceptable identification.
But I don't understand the "it just doesn't happen" argument. This kind of voter fraud seems like it would be nearly impossible to detect. I guess you could look at how often ballots are spoiled because of signature mismatches or incidences of "the registry shows that you already voted".
It seems like once voter id laws are passed, any laws or regulations limiting access to ID are de facto challengeable under the Equal Protection principle.
Many crimes are impossible to detect. That isn't a valid argument for going after crimes in a way that has a proven negative impact on democracy.
The ID laws are already challenged, but the nature of our courts means they remain in place for years while the gears of justice turn.
The ID laws are already challenged, but the nature of our courts means they remain in place for years while the gears of justice turn.
The proven negative impact of the voter id laws, as far as I know, is very small. Michigan had .3% non-id voters, and Texas had ~.01% non-id voters. Both states allow voters to fill out an affidavit. These stats were just found offhand, I'm not sure if there's a comprehensive review.
So we have a small proven negative impact on democracy from voter id laws, and a small unproven negative impact from their absence; I don't think it's unreasonable to prevent a crime that is easily preventable under those circumstances.
So we have a small proven negative impact on democracy from voter id laws, and a small unproven negative impact from their absence; I don't think it's unreasonable to prevent a crime that is easily preventable under those circumstances.
The incidence of voter fraud in the 2016 election was approximately 0.000003%.
Why do your numbers get labeled as "proven" and mine as "unproven"? You're eager to declare it to be impossible to figure out how pervasive voter fraud is based on imagined hypothetical difficulties, but you're eager to pull out numbers saying that ID requirements don't discourage people, despite obvious holes in the measurement (such as people who decided not to vote because they don't know about the affidavit).
Why do your numbers get labeled as "proven" and mine as "unproven"? You're eager to declare it to be impossible to figure out how pervasive voter fraud is based on imagined hypothetical difficulties, but you're eager to pull out numbers saying that ID requirements don't discourage people, despite obvious holes in the measurement (such as people who decided not to vote because they don't know about the affidavit).
The whole point of this article is to make elections more secure not be complacent with the status quo. Not having an ID and needing an ID to vote are 2 different issues that democrats insist on making the same. Just give every citizen a free ID. It would cost less than 1 days interest on the national debt. The real reason is because democrats want to turn texas blue like they did to new mexico and dominate elections with just 3 states
The whole point of the article is that there’s an actual threat to respond to. We should focus on real threats and not imaginary ones.
I’d be happy with requiring ID as long as it’s free and easy for all eligible voters to obtain. That has not been the case with these laws so far.
I’d be happy with requiring ID as long as it’s free and easy for all eligible voters to obtain. That has not been the case with these laws so far.
It's trivial to find if you look for it. It's difficult to do with 100% accuracy on election day, but it's easy to find large-scale instances of it afterwards. Consider the various scenarios for the sort of voter fraud that ID requirements would prevent:
1. A person votes using the name of another registered voter. This will be detected any time the registered voter in question also casts a vote. Typically, the second person voting with the same registration will immediately be flagged and told they can't vote because they already voted. Worst case, you find it afterwards by seeing that they "voted twice." This can also be detected in cases where the registered voter didn't cast a vote by asking them whether they actually voted, and seeing who says "no" when the records say "yes."
2. A person votes using the name of a stale registration for a voter who moved away. This can be detected by seeing if the person still actually lives in the area.
3. A person votes using the name of a dead person. Detected by comparing with death records.
4. A non-citizen registers and votes using their own name. You can see who voted and check to see if they really are citizens.
Despite this, there is no evidence of any large-scale voter fraud. Known instances number in the single or at most double digits per year, nationwide. If it's happening, then it must be because nobody has ever gone looking for it. Note that the necessary evidence is all public information, so it's not just a matter of governments not looking for what they don't want to see. You'd have to propose that no university political science research group, no think tank, no public policy center, no lobbyist group, and no political party has ever gone looking for it either. And even if somehow that were true, that voter fraud is a major issue that nobody has ever gone searching for, then the best thing you can say is that these onerous and often discriminatory laws are being passed on the basis of no data, when data could be readily obtained!
1. A person votes using the name of another registered voter. This will be detected any time the registered voter in question also casts a vote. Typically, the second person voting with the same registration will immediately be flagged and told they can't vote because they already voted. Worst case, you find it afterwards by seeing that they "voted twice." This can also be detected in cases where the registered voter didn't cast a vote by asking them whether they actually voted, and seeing who says "no" when the records say "yes."
2. A person votes using the name of a stale registration for a voter who moved away. This can be detected by seeing if the person still actually lives in the area.
3. A person votes using the name of a dead person. Detected by comparing with death records.
4. A non-citizen registers and votes using their own name. You can see who voted and check to see if they really are citizens.
Despite this, there is no evidence of any large-scale voter fraud. Known instances number in the single or at most double digits per year, nationwide. If it's happening, then it must be because nobody has ever gone looking for it. Note that the necessary evidence is all public information, so it's not just a matter of governments not looking for what they don't want to see. You'd have to propose that no university political science research group, no think tank, no public policy center, no lobbyist group, and no political party has ever gone looking for it either. And even if somehow that were true, that voter fraud is a major issue that nobody has ever gone searching for, then the best thing you can say is that these onerous and often discriminatory laws are being passed on the basis of no data, when data could be readily obtained!
I apologize for being inaccurate, your final point is the argument I was trying to make. There are examples, but they are double digits. Effectively a rounding error.
I'm not so sure that gathering this data is as easy as you're making it out to be.
> 1. A person votes using the name of another registered voter
I'm not aware of any comprehensive analysis of how common this is. Ballots are frequently rejected or require provisional ballot (I had to fill out a provisional ballot once in NYC because someone had voted my ballot; no fraud in this case (probably) since the signature in my box was one of the neighboring lines in the book) but I can't find anything definitive saying how often this particular event happens.
> 2. A person votes using the name of a stale registration for a voter who moved away. This can be detected by seeing if the person still actually lives in the area.
This analysis I think is never done; analyses of voter registration routinely show huge numbers of voters who are no longer at the registered address. Once again, no proof here that anything is problematic with this, but I'm not aware of any comprehensive analyses of the scope of the problem (that is, some notion of how often these voted or had a second registration that voted, effectively voting twice. This could theoretically be targeted since voter rolls are semi-public-ish.
> 3. A person votes using the name of a dead person. Detected by comparing with death records.
This is harder than it sounds because people often share names with deceased people, and even addresses for familiar relations. Death records are not always comprehensive, especially if the individual has been deceased for a while. I've seen a couple of one-off analyses on these [1] but nothing that makes me confident that we have a grasp on the scope of the issue.
> 4. A non-citizen registers and votes using their own name
I'm not sure how you'd measure this one at all - in some ways this is the least significant because there are plenty of circumstances where aliens are permitted to vote in local, municipal, or state elections.
We have plenty of laws around preventing electioneering, voter intimidation, vote selling, etc., a voter id law does not seem substantially worse than these for identifying specific voting problems that are difficult to otherwise detect. Motor voter laws ensure that almost every licensed driver is a registered voter. I've seen estimates as low as .3-.6% of registered voters lack a photo id (in states that have instituted an affidavit-based exception to voter id laws); this seems like a small enough number to make me comfortable with voter id laws.
[1] https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chic...
> 1. A person votes using the name of another registered voter
I'm not aware of any comprehensive analysis of how common this is. Ballots are frequently rejected or require provisional ballot (I had to fill out a provisional ballot once in NYC because someone had voted my ballot; no fraud in this case (probably) since the signature in my box was one of the neighboring lines in the book) but I can't find anything definitive saying how often this particular event happens.
> 2. A person votes using the name of a stale registration for a voter who moved away. This can be detected by seeing if the person still actually lives in the area.
This analysis I think is never done; analyses of voter registration routinely show huge numbers of voters who are no longer at the registered address. Once again, no proof here that anything is problematic with this, but I'm not aware of any comprehensive analyses of the scope of the problem (that is, some notion of how often these voted or had a second registration that voted, effectively voting twice. This could theoretically be targeted since voter rolls are semi-public-ish.
> 3. A person votes using the name of a dead person. Detected by comparing with death records.
This is harder than it sounds because people often share names with deceased people, and even addresses for familiar relations. Death records are not always comprehensive, especially if the individual has been deceased for a while. I've seen a couple of one-off analyses on these [1] but nothing that makes me confident that we have a grasp on the scope of the issue.
> 4. A non-citizen registers and votes using their own name
I'm not sure how you'd measure this one at all - in some ways this is the least significant because there are plenty of circumstances where aliens are permitted to vote in local, municipal, or state elections.
We have plenty of laws around preventing electioneering, voter intimidation, vote selling, etc., a voter id law does not seem substantially worse than these for identifying specific voting problems that are difficult to otherwise detect. Motor voter laws ensure that almost every licensed driver is a registered voter. I've seen estimates as low as .3-.6% of registered voters lack a photo id (in states that have instituted an affidavit-based exception to voter id laws); this seems like a small enough number to make me comfortable with voter id laws.
[1] https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chic...
I'm sure it is as easy as I'm making it out to be. I don't mean that it's trivial in the sense that some random person like you or I could go out and figure this out for ourselves. But a research team with decent resources absolutely could. Pick 1,000 voter registrations at random. Check each one for all the things I listed. Come up with a good estimate for how pervasive voter fraud actually is. How much do you suppose such a study would cost?
I can't help but notice that you completely ignored my last paragraph. Do you really believe that nobody has ever attempted what I describe above? And if so, do you really believe it's wise to be passing these laws without doing the research first?
I can't help but notice that you completely ignored my last paragraph. Do you really believe that nobody has ever attempted what I describe above? And if so, do you really believe it's wise to be passing these laws without doing the research first?
If you selected a thousand voters at random from Texas, there's a good chance you would not find a single one that doesn't have ID, since only 16,000 of the 9 million voters didn't have ID. I think that's pretty compelling evidence that voter ID laws don't result in widespread voter disenfranchisement.
If you're aware of any research, I'd love to see it. I've seen lots of research into the rate of convictions and prosecutions for detected voter fraud, but never anything as comprehensive as what you are suggesting. If had I had to guess, selecting 1,000 voters from the rolls would result in 900 solid "yes I voted", and 100 failures to validate, everything from not answering the phone to refusing to participate to incorrect records to faulty memory to they've moved away since the election, thus making the resultant study kind of worthless because the error bars are so large.
Trying to track a cohort with a good response rate is hard in any sort of study, but if your cohort is not selected by your team based on initial response (where you have some prior belief that they are not utterly opposed to participation) then I suspect that the response rates are so terrible as to make the research useless.
(As a note, my failure to reply to your last paragraph is not through any desire to avoid the question, but just because my post had already gotten too long)
If you're aware of any research, I'd love to see it. I've seen lots of research into the rate of convictions and prosecutions for detected voter fraud, but never anything as comprehensive as what you are suggesting. If had I had to guess, selecting 1,000 voters from the rolls would result in 900 solid "yes I voted", and 100 failures to validate, everything from not answering the phone to refusing to participate to incorrect records to faulty memory to they've moved away since the election, thus making the resultant study kind of worthless because the error bars are so large.
Trying to track a cohort with a good response rate is hard in any sort of study, but if your cohort is not selected by your team based on initial response (where you have some prior belief that they are not utterly opposed to participation) then I suspect that the response rates are so terrible as to make the research useless.
(As a note, my failure to reply to your last paragraph is not through any desire to avoid the question, but just because my post had already gotten too long)
Why would you give up and say "failure to validate" just because someone didn't answer the phone or had moved away?
I'm proposing to actually put some real effort into this. If they no longer live in the area, find out when they moved. If they don't answer the phone, track them down. If they're dead, find out when and where they died. For the difficult cases, get some boots on the ground and figure it out. Let's take your numbers and say that 900 of the cases are easy, and 100 are tough. If you dedicate $10 million to the study, then you can spend almost $100,000 to figure out each of the tough cases.
This is well within the resources of a university research team or a lobbying group. If a major political party is convinced that voter fraud is a big problem and needs to be addressed, they could easily front the money needed to come to a definitive conclusion. An electoral commission could do it on a non-partisan basis.
I'm not aware of any such research either. If it's been done, the result has been too boring to report on. If it hasn't been done, then my question remains: why do you want to enact such a major law without doing the research first?
I'm proposing to actually put some real effort into this. If they no longer live in the area, find out when they moved. If they don't answer the phone, track them down. If they're dead, find out when and where they died. For the difficult cases, get some boots on the ground and figure it out. Let's take your numbers and say that 900 of the cases are easy, and 100 are tough. If you dedicate $10 million to the study, then you can spend almost $100,000 to figure out each of the tough cases.
This is well within the resources of a university research team or a lobbying group. If a major political party is convinced that voter fraud is a big problem and needs to be addressed, they could easily front the money needed to come to a definitive conclusion. An electoral commission could do it on a non-partisan basis.
I'm not aware of any such research either. If it's been done, the result has been too boring to report on. If it hasn't been done, then my question remains: why do you want to enact such a major law without doing the research first?
Purely from a logistical standpoint, it would be difficult to commit voter fraud in large enough numbers to make a difference in most elections, and get away with it.
An individual here or there might manage to vote more than once by, say, impersonating someone they know won't vote (deceased, moved away, etc), but that's unlikely to make a difference.
To make a difference, it would need to be coordinated and large scale. So how do you round up a sufficient number of people, convince them all to vote illegally, and then keep quiet about it? How do you get them to all the different polling places? How do you ensure that whomever they are voting in place of on the voter rolls is both eligible to vote and hasn't already voted?
Now I'm only going by my voting district. Here, you either absentee vote, early vote, or vote in your precinct. Regardless, you have to give your name, address and signature. They then check you against the voter rolls and record that you've voted. Presumably if I tried to vote again, they'd know I'd already recorded a vote, when and where.
To prevent conflicts, you'd have to in addition commit large scale registration fraud.
Maybe I'm just not sufficiently clever, but whenever I've thought through this, I haven't figure out how it could work.
An individual here or there might manage to vote more than once by, say, impersonating someone they know won't vote (deceased, moved away, etc), but that's unlikely to make a difference.
To make a difference, it would need to be coordinated and large scale. So how do you round up a sufficient number of people, convince them all to vote illegally, and then keep quiet about it? How do you get them to all the different polling places? How do you ensure that whomever they are voting in place of on the voter rolls is both eligible to vote and hasn't already voted?
Now I'm only going by my voting district. Here, you either absentee vote, early vote, or vote in your precinct. Regardless, you have to give your name, address and signature. They then check you against the voter rolls and record that you've voted. Presumably if I tried to vote again, they'd know I'd already recorded a vote, when and where.
To prevent conflicts, you'd have to in addition commit large scale registration fraud.
Maybe I'm just not sufficiently clever, but whenever I've thought through this, I haven't figure out how it could work.
It seems unlikely to be able to get the scale required without someone spilling the beans or accidentally getting caught. But things like voter intimidation and vote buying are illegal and we have structural remedies to (attempt to) prevent those. Of 9 million voters in Texas, only 16,000 did not present ID [1] and had to fill out affidavits. I'm unconvinced that the harm of voter id laws is sufficient to balance the peace of mind that we would get by closing up a potential form of voter fraud.
[1] http://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/fraga...
[1] http://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/fraga...
So election security theatre? Color me not convinced. We should be doing everything possible to increase voter turnout in the U.S.
I'll make you a deal. Let's do away with voting machines that don't produce a physical receipt, make voting day a national holiday, and setup automatic voter registration. As part of all that, I'm willing to concede a feel good voter ID measure.
I'll make you a deal. Let's do away with voting machines that don't produce a physical receipt, make voting day a national holiday, and setup automatic voter registration. As part of all that, I'm willing to concede a feel good voter ID measure.
Hey, if you and I were in charge of things, we'd get stuff done.
Voting machines and physical receipt, times a million.
Voting day a national holiday -- I think it's a mixed blessing given that this is a burden on families, and I'm not sure what exactly a nation holiday entails (restaurants and stores are open on various national holidays, for example, so I'm not sure that all voters would benefit). I'd be willing to give it a try and measure the effects. Weekend voting seems a little easier to manage for a similar effect.
Automatic voter registration I'm not as familiar with; it looks like it's an expansion of motor voter laws, which seems pretty reasonable. If you're a living person eligible to vote you should not really have to do anything except show up. I guess you have to specify a party for states that have party affiliated primaries, but I'd be in favor of making primaries a private function of political parties rather than making them government run.
I'd also be in favor of mandating simplified ballots (the ballots in New York are organized by party rather than candidate, which makes them a mess) and requiring that states distribute a voters guide that enumerates all the ballot options, with statements and candidate information and full text of ballot measures if applicable (Washington state had this when I lived there, and living in New York it's like trying to pull teeth to figure out what they hell your ballot is even going to look like, and ballot measures, forget it -- even getting the full text is often nearly impossible, all you get is the executive summary, no statements for or against or the full text).
Voting machines and physical receipt, times a million.
Voting day a national holiday -- I think it's a mixed blessing given that this is a burden on families, and I'm not sure what exactly a nation holiday entails (restaurants and stores are open on various national holidays, for example, so I'm not sure that all voters would benefit). I'd be willing to give it a try and measure the effects. Weekend voting seems a little easier to manage for a similar effect.
Automatic voter registration I'm not as familiar with; it looks like it's an expansion of motor voter laws, which seems pretty reasonable. If you're a living person eligible to vote you should not really have to do anything except show up. I guess you have to specify a party for states that have party affiliated primaries, but I'd be in favor of making primaries a private function of political parties rather than making them government run.
I'd also be in favor of mandating simplified ballots (the ballots in New York are organized by party rather than candidate, which makes them a mess) and requiring that states distribute a voters guide that enumerates all the ballot options, with statements and candidate information and full text of ballot measures if applicable (Washington state had this when I lived there, and living in New York it's like trying to pull teeth to figure out what they hell your ballot is even going to look like, and ballot measures, forget it -- even getting the full text is often nearly impossible, all you get is the executive summary, no statements for or against or the full text).
So we agree on the goals. I like your evidence-based approach to policy making and additional suggestions. I may have been a bit rash with some of my suggestions and appreciate your counter points.
How do we get this done?
How do we get this done?
Go look for Russian collusion, “it’ll be hard to find some, because historically it just doesn't happen”
Still satisfied with your argument?
Still satisfied with your argument?
> jurisdictions like Washington intentionally make it difficult to track whether non-citizens are voting by issuing them IDs and offering to register them to vote sans additional proof of citizenship. This is why WA has to have enhanced ID — they don’t meet the federal standards of ensuring people they issue ID to are here legally.
You are not automatically registered to vote just because you have a WA driver license. I moved here from Australia, got my DL, doesn't mean in any way shape or form that I can vote as a permanent resident, nor can I register.
You are not automatically registered to vote just because you have a WA driver license. I moved here from Australia, got my DL, doesn't mean in any way shape or form that I can vote as a permanent resident, nor can I register.
> > offering to register them to vote sans additional proof of citizenship
> You are not automatically registered to vote just because you have a WA driver license.
I find it interesting you didn’t actually critique what I said.
In my experience, that’s common with people who hold your position.
There was also no attempt to reply with actual facts: just more fallacious arguments when they were called out about making an unsupported claim and ad hominem —
> Because there’s no significant amount of fraud occurring that ID requirements would fix, and ID requirements are often made to unfairly disenfranchise certain groups.
That’s what HN groupthink is: unsupported facts and ad hominems in support, downvotes and strawman responses to people who disagree.
> You are not automatically registered to vote just because you have a WA driver license.
I find it interesting you didn’t actually critique what I said.
In my experience, that’s common with people who hold your position.
There was also no attempt to reply with actual facts: just more fallacious arguments when they were called out about making an unsupported claim and ad hominem —
> Because there’s no significant amount of fraud occurring that ID requirements would fix, and ID requirements are often made to unfairly disenfranchise certain groups.
That’s what HN groupthink is: unsupported facts and ad hominems in support, downvotes and strawman responses to people who disagree.
You said:
> issuing them IDs and offering to register them to vote sans additional proof of citizenship
Washington state doesn't "offer to register you to vote based on you getting a Washington Driver's License". WA DOL on Voter Registration:
"You will be required to show that you are:
- A citizen of the United States.
- A legal resident of Washington State and have lived at your address for at least 30 days before the election.
- At least 18 years old when you vote.
- Not under Department of Corrections supervision for a Washington felony conviction.
and
- Not disqualified from voting due to a court order."
So your statement that Washington is "offering to register people to vote "sans additional proof of citizenship" is factually false.
So, absolutely did I critique what you said. It's wrong.
Washington's Drivers License does not meet federal standards because it doesn't require citizenship or residency _to be issued_, not because they're registering or offering to register non-citizens to vote (because the Fed governments solution to that would be to ignore that actual issue, and just say it doesn't meet Fed ID requirements, sure).
"Fallacious arguments" - I quoted the WA DOL. Where is your source that the refusal to accept the state DL federally is due to "voter registration of non-citizens"? As it is, Washington ALSO offers the Enhanced Drivers License which _does_ meet federal requirements, showing citizenship proof, primarily used for land travel to Canada.
> issuing them IDs and offering to register them to vote sans additional proof of citizenship
Washington state doesn't "offer to register you to vote based on you getting a Washington Driver's License". WA DOL on Voter Registration:
"You will be required to show that you are:
- A citizen of the United States.
- A legal resident of Washington State and have lived at your address for at least 30 days before the election.
- At least 18 years old when you vote.
- Not under Department of Corrections supervision for a Washington felony conviction.
and
- Not disqualified from voting due to a court order."
So your statement that Washington is "offering to register people to vote "sans additional proof of citizenship" is factually false.
So, absolutely did I critique what you said. It's wrong.
Washington's Drivers License does not meet federal standards because it doesn't require citizenship or residency _to be issued_, not because they're registering or offering to register non-citizens to vote (because the Fed governments solution to that would be to ignore that actual issue, and just say it doesn't meet Fed ID requirements, sure).
"Fallacious arguments" - I quoted the WA DOL. Where is your source that the refusal to accept the state DL federally is due to "voter registration of non-citizens"? As it is, Washington ALSO offers the Enhanced Drivers License which _does_ meet federal requirements, showing citizenship proof, primarily used for land travel to Canada.
Ballot harvesting is not de facto bad. It can help increase turnout with indigent, disabled, and elderly.
However, what happen in North Carolina was 1) ballot harvesting 2) alteration of the harvested ballots. They picked up the ballots and then changed the ballots they collected
Did that happen in California?
However, what happen in North Carolina was 1) ballot harvesting 2) alteration of the harvested ballots. They picked up the ballots and then changed the ballots they collected
Did that happen in California?
(It didn't!)
The results in NC-9 are also incredibly suspicious even back down to the Republican primary.
The results in NC-9 are also incredibly suspicious even back down to the Republican primary.
"(It didn't!)"
How do you know?
And moreover, why should I know that?
Elections have no purpose if nobody trusts the results afterwards. That dominates all other concerns about elections, because if you don't have that, your election with all the other desirable characteristics is still just so much wasted time.
How do you know?
And moreover, why should I know that?
Elections have no purpose if nobody trusts the results afterwards. That dominates all other concerns about elections, because if you don't have that, your election with all the other desirable characteristics is still just so much wasted time.
Assuming ballots were modified is kind of a weird stance to take, isn't it? I mean, you're welcome to assume it, but we don't have many historical cases of it happening until recently. It'd be one thing to assume it by default in every state if we knew there was a long history of it happening everywhere... instead we seem to be treating the possibility as an excuse for making it harder for citizens to vote. Weird how that works.
We could always verify the ballots after the fact if you're really concerned that every absentee ballot is being forged.
We could always verify the ballots after the fact if you're really concerned that every absentee ballot is being forged.
"Assuming ballots were modified is kind of a weird stance to take, isn't it?"
No, it's perfectly sensible stance to take. The stakes are enormous and the idea that everyone's just so peachy-keen on fair play that we don't have to structure the system to be robust against hostile modification is refuted merely by stating the case. Just bring up whoever are your political bogeymen and ask yourself if they're that moral. The answer is no, obviously. They're the bad guys.
(Besides, didn't we just spend two years agreeing that the Russians were deeply involved with our elections in all sorts of nefarious ways? Now suddenly elections are all totally safe and anyone who questions it is obviously racist and just wants to keep the brown people from voting. You'll pardon me if I can't keep up with all the shifts in the Official Opinions. I'm sure no Russians have looked at our remote ballots and thought about what they could do with it. Or whomever else you like.)
In addition to the first-order security concerns around getting a fair ballot count, there's also the second-order concerns that elections must not just be fair, but have all the appearance of being fair. They don't appear fair when the ballots are filled in, and then disappear from the pipeline for arbitrary periods of time, only to re-appear somewhere else. Even if the system is stipulated to be entirely fair, when the loser (who could be the Good Guys, you know, because obviously the Bad Guys are waaay more likely to cheat than the Good Guys) says "Hey, the vote may have been manipulated!", how do you prove them right or wrong?
Personally, I have my own conspiracy theory which is that it rather suits our Powers that Be that the increasing number of absentee ballots and similar voting "options" makes the elections easier to forge, and citing "oh, what if poor suffering people don't get to vote?" is a rather convenient cudgel for them to pick up and hit anyone who wants to ensure security in voting with.
No, it's perfectly sensible stance to take. The stakes are enormous and the idea that everyone's just so peachy-keen on fair play that we don't have to structure the system to be robust against hostile modification is refuted merely by stating the case. Just bring up whoever are your political bogeymen and ask yourself if they're that moral. The answer is no, obviously. They're the bad guys.
(Besides, didn't we just spend two years agreeing that the Russians were deeply involved with our elections in all sorts of nefarious ways? Now suddenly elections are all totally safe and anyone who questions it is obviously racist and just wants to keep the brown people from voting. You'll pardon me if I can't keep up with all the shifts in the Official Opinions. I'm sure no Russians have looked at our remote ballots and thought about what they could do with it. Or whomever else you like.)
In addition to the first-order security concerns around getting a fair ballot count, there's also the second-order concerns that elections must not just be fair, but have all the appearance of being fair. They don't appear fair when the ballots are filled in, and then disappear from the pipeline for arbitrary periods of time, only to re-appear somewhere else. Even if the system is stipulated to be entirely fair, when the loser (who could be the Good Guys, you know, because obviously the Bad Guys are waaay more likely to cheat than the Good Guys) says "Hey, the vote may have been manipulated!", how do you prove them right or wrong?
Personally, I have my own conspiracy theory which is that it rather suits our Powers that Be that the increasing number of absentee ballots and similar voting "options" makes the elections easier to forge, and citing "oh, what if poor suffering people don't get to vote?" is a rather convenient cudgel for them to pick up and hit anyone who wants to ensure security in voting with.
The fact that these necessary options for making the vote accessible might be exploited does not justify getting rid of them. Many, many people cannot or will not get to a polling booth, especially given how many unreasonable constraints our government puts on voting.
It's simply not acceptable to sacrifice accessibility on the altar of 'election integrity', especially when we don't have enough evidence to prove it's necessary.
I agree that making elections not only fair but visibly fair is important. If anything, lowering accessibility like this might reduce faith in elections.
I'm not arguing in favor of e-voting or un-validated ballots here. It's simply unreasonable to disenfranchise that many people on what is basically a (in all fairness to you, very plausible) conspiracy theory. We have too much of that going on in 2019 as-is.
It's simply not acceptable to sacrifice accessibility on the altar of 'election integrity', especially when we don't have enough evidence to prove it's necessary.
I agree that making elections not only fair but visibly fair is important. If anything, lowering accessibility like this might reduce faith in elections.
I'm not arguing in favor of e-voting or un-validated ballots here. It's simply unreasonable to disenfranchise that many people on what is basically a (in all fairness to you, very plausible) conspiracy theory. We have too much of that going on in 2019 as-is.
The entire point is that identity fraud is hardly any issue in elections. That's why, to use your own terms, 'the powers that be' usually are in favor of stringent voter ID requirements. They can disenfranchise entire groups of people without being afraid of having to do more unsavory things which could potentially get them caught committing fraud like in say...North Carolina.
After all, it's not fraud if it's law. How convenient if the law only affects people that vote for the opposite party, too. Security is in many ways used as a buzzword. Not in attempt to actually improve election security, but to appeal to people's fears of illegal immigrants somehow showing up in the millions to vote illegally and what not.
After all, it's not fraud if it's law. How convenient if the law only affects people that vote for the opposite party, too. Security is in many ways used as a buzzword. Not in attempt to actually improve election security, but to appeal to people's fears of illegal immigrants somehow showing up in the millions to vote illegally and what not.
Identity fraud when voting basically doesn't happen. We're talking dozens of cases in a given election, even when people investigate it.
There are other kinds of fraud that are pervasive (like harvesting absentee ballots and modifying/discarding them) and those should be policed, but voter ID laws historically do literally nothing except punish people who don't have access to ID - like people whose birth certificates burned up in a fire, or people whose nearest DMV office is hours away.
We have decades of evidence that voter ID is a waste of time and money. It has one very obvious reason. It also seems to be pretty close to illegal, if not illegal.
There are other kinds of fraud that are pervasive (like harvesting absentee ballots and modifying/discarding them) and those should be policed, but voter ID laws historically do literally nothing except punish people who don't have access to ID - like people whose birth certificates burned up in a fire, or people whose nearest DMV office is hours away.
We have decades of evidence that voter ID is a waste of time and money. It has one very obvious reason. It also seems to be pretty close to illegal, if not illegal.
Wild guess -- Rep. & Dem. political parties are more motivated by self-serving interests than guided by any sustained principles.
Both will easily flip on war, justice, tax reform, voting, etc. as needed.
Part of the problem is it's easy to complain and spitball ideas when you're out of power, it's a lot more complex to gain consensus and implement policy when you're in power.
Both will easily flip on war, justice, tax reform, voting, etc. as needed.
Part of the problem is it's easy to complain and spitball ideas when you're out of power, it's a lot more complex to gain consensus and implement policy when you're in power.
Republicans are definitely not interested in enfranchising eligible voters, especially demographics they think will vote against them, and it shows:
Whether it's removing polling places where demographics work against them [0], purging voter rolls with a heavy bias against black voters [1], placing polling places in gated communities [2], cutting down polling places in cities, onerous requirements to obtain a voter ID [4](essentially becoming a poll tax), or refusing to renew and update the Voting Rights act, it's clear the Republican party is not interested in allowing every legal citizen the right to vote.
[0] https://lawandcrime.com/civil-rights/gop-removes-sole-pollin...,
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-black-voter-regist...
[2]https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/politics/elections/south-f...
[3] https://www.texasobserver.org/election-identification-certif...
[4] https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Amendment-4-Former-Felon...
[5] https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-have-a-secret-weap...
Whether it's removing polling places where demographics work against them [0], purging voter rolls with a heavy bias against black voters [1], placing polling places in gated communities [2], cutting down polling places in cities, onerous requirements to obtain a voter ID [4](essentially becoming a poll tax), or refusing to renew and update the Voting Rights act, it's clear the Republican party is not interested in allowing every legal citizen the right to vote.
[0] https://lawandcrime.com/civil-rights/gop-removes-sole-pollin...,
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-black-voter-regist...
[2]https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/politics/elections/south-f...
[3] https://www.texasobserver.org/election-identification-certif...
[4] https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Amendment-4-Former-Felon...
[5] https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-have-a-secret-weap...
This is just anecdotal, but the individuals I've talked to seem to mirror this. I'm imprinting my own perceptions of this, but it's often an elitism that populism (following the will of the majority) is self destructive and there's this privileged class that knows better--whether that's a certain class of voters (people responsible enough to hold an ID) or a political class.
When I try and dig in, their opinions seem very shallow and self serving. I don't think their idea, in concept, is entirely without merit. Senators used to be elected by the state legislature because the intention was they represent the state's interest, not necessarily the voter's. Things like capping the House has really skewed representation and the Electoral College...which has undermined any "genius" that might have been intended by the EC. These otherwise well-read people don't seem interested in these problems, they're just supportive of the approaches you describe.
When I try and dig in, their opinions seem very shallow and self serving. I don't think their idea, in concept, is entirely without merit. Senators used to be elected by the state legislature because the intention was they represent the state's interest, not necessarily the voter's. Things like capping the House has really skewed representation and the Electoral College...which has undermined any "genius" that might have been intended by the EC. These otherwise well-read people don't seem interested in these problems, they're just supportive of the approaches you describe.
Most democrats are fine with an ID if it's given free of charge and the transportation and loss of wages for the day are covered.
Speaking for myself, I'm not. There's no evidence that they're necessary, and in many states where they are mandated including my home state they were biased against individuals that usually don't vote for Republicans - in the case of NC the law was designed to "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision" [0] according to the courts.
[0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693...
[0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693...
Which is my point of remove the bias of getting an ID and then it's fine.
In its current state it's not fine and shouldn't be pushed.
In its current state it's not fine and shouldn't be pushed.
It's absolutely important to separate the concept of 'requiring ID to vote' and the concept of 'encouraging everyone to have ID', as you point out. ID is useful for many different things. Voter ID laws have an obvious historical impact and can be assumed bad at this point, but we shouldn't allow that to turn us negative on IDs in general. They're too essential in modern society.
How would you design an unbiased ID system?
Some ideas for a baseline:
0) Many states that require ID to vote are moving in the direction of permit less carry for firearms. (I think GA, where I live, has the condition that a permit is required but officials are not allowed to request it.)
An unbiased system would recognize that if permitless is sufficient for carrying firearms, it should be sufficient for voting.
0') Recognize that filing other official documents does not require ID. Notably, tax filings do not require any kind of ID, yet the information contained in them is considered extremely sensitive (e.g. knowing the AGI from a form is considered sufficient authentication in some government interactions).
Recognize that many citizens of voting age simply do not need an ID. If you don't buy alcohol, fly on a plane, or drive, your need for ID becomes vanishingly low. If you just do basic stuff like go to the grocery store, physician, and park, you may find that you never need an ID.
So again, do not require ID for this fundamental exercise of participation in government.
1) Accept all federal and state-issued IDs. States have a habit of cherry-picking, for example by accepting firearms licenses and not student IDs. That means accepting student IDs from public universities, among other things.
2) Make the provision of ID the responsibility of the government. That is: IDs should be free to acquire and free to replace. Acquisition of IDs should not be biased against the homebound by e.g. requiring a citizen to present herself in a government office at any time to obtain one. Social Security cards function according to these rules, so our government has known how to do this for generations.
3) Grandfather existing citizens. The last slave in the US died barely 40 years ago; there are likely millions of people born in situations where birth certificates may not have been issued. Pre-computer records were destroyed from time to time. The onus is on the government to track citizens, not the other way around (ref: US Constitution). So there needs to be a way to (transparently, without effort on the citizen's part) get ID to people like my uncle, who has lived in the same place for ~70 years no matter whether he can produce his birth certificate.
The basic problem is once you do all that, you defeat the goals of the modern voter ID project. So there's no reason to aim for an unbiased ID system here. Either aim for the real goals (which require bias) or don't implement voter ID.
0) Many states that require ID to vote are moving in the direction of permit less carry for firearms. (I think GA, where I live, has the condition that a permit is required but officials are not allowed to request it.)
An unbiased system would recognize that if permitless is sufficient for carrying firearms, it should be sufficient for voting.
0') Recognize that filing other official documents does not require ID. Notably, tax filings do not require any kind of ID, yet the information contained in them is considered extremely sensitive (e.g. knowing the AGI from a form is considered sufficient authentication in some government interactions).
Recognize that many citizens of voting age simply do not need an ID. If you don't buy alcohol, fly on a plane, or drive, your need for ID becomes vanishingly low. If you just do basic stuff like go to the grocery store, physician, and park, you may find that you never need an ID.
So again, do not require ID for this fundamental exercise of participation in government.
1) Accept all federal and state-issued IDs. States have a habit of cherry-picking, for example by accepting firearms licenses and not student IDs. That means accepting student IDs from public universities, among other things.
2) Make the provision of ID the responsibility of the government. That is: IDs should be free to acquire and free to replace. Acquisition of IDs should not be biased against the homebound by e.g. requiring a citizen to present herself in a government office at any time to obtain one. Social Security cards function according to these rules, so our government has known how to do this for generations.
3) Grandfather existing citizens. The last slave in the US died barely 40 years ago; there are likely millions of people born in situations where birth certificates may not have been issued. Pre-computer records were destroyed from time to time. The onus is on the government to track citizens, not the other way around (ref: US Constitution). So there needs to be a way to (transparently, without effort on the citizen's part) get ID to people like my uncle, who has lived in the same place for ~70 years no matter whether he can produce his birth certificate.
The basic problem is once you do all that, you defeat the goals of the modern voter ID project. So there's no reason to aim for an unbiased ID system here. Either aim for the real goals (which require bias) or don't implement voter ID.
If someone is in the US, I want them to have effective tools to defend life.
If they are not eligible to vote, then obviously we do not them voting. It's one of the few situations where identity really matters.
If they are not eligible to vote, then obviously we do not them voting. It's one of the few situations where identity really matters.
> If someone is in the US, I want them to have effective tools to defend life.
Historically, representative government has been one of the most effective tools to defend life in the US.
> If they are not eligible to vote
ID checks do not verify eligibility at the time of voting. I can show up with a perfectly valid driver's license and be ineligible to vote for any number of reasons (I am a convicted felon, I am not eligible to vote in this county because I moved and my new license is still being processed, I renounced my citizenship this morning, etc.)
Going the other way -- a person who becomes eligible to vote just in time to cast a legitimate ballot may have trouble producing a valid picture ID confirming this status in time for the election.
Historically, representative government has been one of the most effective tools to defend life in the US.
> If they are not eligible to vote
ID checks do not verify eligibility at the time of voting. I can show up with a perfectly valid driver's license and be ineligible to vote for any number of reasons (I am a convicted felon, I am not eligible to vote in this county because I moved and my new license is still being processed, I renounced my citizenship this morning, etc.)
Going the other way -- a person who becomes eligible to vote just in time to cast a legitimate ballot may have trouble producing a valid picture ID confirming this status in time for the election.
We agree, identity is a basic requirement to see if someones vote should count, and to insure it's only counted once.
> to insure it's only counted once
This is a really important goal.
Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier, and more effective to enforce this at the schema level of the vote database?
Building 50 (different, incompatible) state-level infrastructures to fairly distribute IDs according to principles like those above seems like the one of the harder of all possible ways to accomplish this goal.
This is a really important goal.
Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier, and more effective to enforce this at the schema level of the vote database?
Building 50 (different, incompatible) state-level infrastructures to fairly distribute IDs according to principles like those above seems like the one of the harder of all possible ways to accomplish this goal.
Electronic voting is a awful idea, and will never make voting more reliable or more verifiable. But that's a side issue to this discussion about ID.
You could not enforce anything at a schema level without having a way to authenticate who is who, which is accomplished by a human verifying their IDentity.
We already have a 50-state ID system, and it works well. Anyone can get a ID. Centralizing it would make it less reliable because it's easier to attack one system than 50.
You could not enforce anything at a schema level without having a way to authenticate who is who, which is accomplished by a human verifying their IDentity.
We already have a 50-state ID system, and it works well. Anyone can get a ID. Centralizing it would make it less reliable because it's easier to attack one system than 50.
> You could not enforce anything at a schema level without having a way to authenticate who is who
You could enforce precisely the goal of only one vote per registered voter.
> We already have a 50-state ID system
That's the point -- we don't, and we don't use what we have very well. The closest thing we have to universal ID cards is the Social Security card, and advocates of voter ID don't want to use it. (In fact, no combination of the source documents used to prove identity for official US business are valid for voting in many states.)
But we definitely do not have a 100% free 50-state ID system that makes it anywhere near as easy to get an ID as is the case for e.g. a Social Security card or passport.
And that's basically the entire sticking point: is it okay for it to be easy for 80% of the populace? 90%? Or does it need to be 100%?
You could enforce precisely the goal of only one vote per registered voter.
> We already have a 50-state ID system
That's the point -- we don't, and we don't use what we have very well. The closest thing we have to universal ID cards is the Social Security card, and advocates of voter ID don't want to use it. (In fact, no combination of the source documents used to prove identity for official US business are valid for voting in many states.)
But we definitely do not have a 100% free 50-state ID system that makes it anywhere near as easy to get an ID as is the case for e.g. a Social Security card or passport.
And that's basically the entire sticking point: is it okay for it to be easy for 80% of the populace? 90%? Or does it need to be 100%?
Fully in favor of universal voter ID. It should be issued by the federal government to all US citizens of voting age. It's letting individual states decide what ID they will accept that's the problem.
Unfortunately there is no way that Republicans would agree to it. I don't know if Democrats would or not.
Unfortunately there is no way that Republicans would agree to it. I don't know if Democrats would or not.
democrats are against ID laws because the government and employers together have made it too difficult to get an ID for the working class
Does anyone know the details of these "election systems"?
> Russian cyber actors in the summer of 2016 conducted online research and reconnaissance to identify vulnerable databases, usernames, and passwords in webpages of a broader number of state and local websites than previously identified
This makes it sound like just election-related state websites.
> a Russian campaign seeking vulnerabilities and access to election infrastructure
For me, the term "Election infrastructure" sounds like it would include voting machines, voter registries, vote counts, etc.
> Russian cyber actors in the summer of 2016 conducted online research and reconnaissance to identify vulnerable databases, usernames, and passwords in webpages of a broader number of state and local websites than previously identified
This makes it sound like just election-related state websites.
> a Russian campaign seeking vulnerabilities and access to election infrastructure
For me, the term "Election infrastructure" sounds like it would include voting machines, voter registries, vote counts, etc.
Until now this has all been bullshit accusations. The "false positives" are very common in these security reports, because they want a warning when there might be an attack.
They do not list the numerous internal attacks that were reported too. These actually modified the votes. These votes can only be changed via physical access. But this is probably not politically interesting, and it involves corrupt staff members and such.
I have been following a lot of this kind of security news. But let's follow the money. Homeland security has already prepared a plan to take over the election system in all states (from before 2016). It seems to me that these accusations are used to push to take over the voting system.
Such a change would theoretically be good, but who watches the watchers? And why does DHS not report on the internal problems that actually changed votes?
They do not list the numerous internal attacks that were reported too. These actually modified the votes. These votes can only be changed via physical access. But this is probably not politically interesting, and it involves corrupt staff members and such.
I have been following a lot of this kind of security news. But let's follow the money. Homeland security has already prepared a plan to take over the election system in all states (from before 2016). It seems to me that these accusations are used to push to take over the voting system.
Such a change would theoretically be good, but who watches the watchers? And why does DHS not report on the internal problems that actually changed votes?
Do we know anything about what these hackers accomplished / what effect they had on the election?
The idea that our election infrastructure is "targeted" is scary but not very surprising. Every web server on the internet is "targeted", so why wouldn't something as valuable as election infrastructure?
The idea that our election infrastructure is "targeted" is scary but not very surprising. Every web server on the internet is "targeted", so why wouldn't something as valuable as election infrastructure?
That's what I was wondering too. I mean, I'd expect all major Nation States to "research" each other's voting systems and "direct visits to—election websites". Duh why wouldn't you?
Like, okay? Here's my state's website. Have fun?
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633-49313--,00.ht...
Like, okay? Here's my state's website. Have fun?
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633-49313--,00.ht...
> Do we know anything about what these hackers accomplished / what effect they had on the election?
Reports of attacks that aren't repelled corrodes trust in the integrity of elections. http://time.com/5510100/risk-limiting-audit-election-securit...
Reports of attacks that aren't repelled corrodes trust in the integrity of elections. http://time.com/5510100/risk-limiting-audit-election-securit...
>.. attacks that aren't repelled...
I guess this is what I'm asking. Were the attacks repelled, or did the hackers actually hack/break/change something? What was that thing? I'm genuinely asking.
I guess this is what I'm asking. Were the attacks repelled, or did the hackers actually hack/break/change something? What was that thing? I'm genuinely asking.
Does anyone know if there is a statistically significant difference between the electronic and paper machines in the swing states? I seem to remember hearing that Wisconsin had a very skewed correlation based upon county machine type, but would love to see the actual breakdown.
Yeah not surprising. Used to work for the Texas Gov Storage IT. Those guys left the single file server for all of Secretary of State (department that manages elections) up on the internet for months to make remote access / working from home possible. SSL certs, keebase backups, it was all there.
Behind a single user/pass form with a 12 char pass. Would be stupid to not target these states.
This was in September 2018.
Behind a single user/pass form with a 12 char pass. Would be stupid to not target these states.
This was in September 2018.
Not sure why you posted something so specific and fairly recent, it was easy to find more data. They could put you in prison for this dox.
Is there really proof of much of anything in here? Seems like more Russia hysteria.
Lots of use of the word "probably" and "likely" in this article.
Lots of use of the word "probably" and "likely" in this article.
[deleted]
Everybody knows this now and the effects are so predictable it brings into question the motives of people who have an interest in both undermining and discrediting the democratic process by using these machines.