The ProPublica piece is kind of a mess - it doesn't even mention CISA by name - but some of the issues are concerning.
-
One gets the impression from the article that the current CISA leadership is focused more on re-litigating 2020 than in meaningfully helping states improve their election security, but hopefully they can be nudged toward advocating practical, proven, high-impact reforms, like default use of hand-marked paper ballots and routine post-election risk-limiting audits.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
Once again:
- There are security weaknesses in parts of US election systems, particularly those that use paperless touchscreen voting machines, and we should absolutely address them.
- Fortunately, there is no evidence to date that these technical weaknesses have ever been exploited to alter a US election outcome.
- We know how to secure elections! Paper ballots, optical scanners, post-election risk-limiting audits.
- There's been a great deal of progress, but there's still work to do.
@mattblaze Isn’t it a concern that mail-in ballots will be rejected and what happened in Texas will be more widespread?
-
@mattblaze Isn’t it a concern that mail-in ballots will be rejected and what happened in Texas will be more widespread?
@CStamp Rejected by who? The federal government doesn't accept or reject ballots.
-
@CStamp Rejected by who? The federal government doesn't accept or reject ballots.
@mattblaze by the states who do receive them?
-
@mattblaze by the states who do receive them?
@CStamp They can do that now.
-
@CStamp They can do that now.
@mattblaze GOP states seem more emboldened.
-
@CStamp They can do that now.
@CStamp The remedy for that is what campaigns do, and it isn't easy or cheap. Election protection operations on the ground, litigation, etc.
-
Also, it's simply too late to make any major changes to election systems this year. Primaries have already started, and the general election is in eight months.
I think it's reasonable to suspect that the play here is simply to set the stage for casting doubt on election outcomes that they regard as unfavorable.
@mattblaze
I think the idea is to block people from voting.
All of us, blocked.
No matter if we vote Republican or Democrat. -
Once again:
- There are security weaknesses in parts of US election systems, particularly those that use paperless touchscreen voting machines, and we should absolutely address them.
- Fortunately, there is no evidence to date that these technical weaknesses have ever been exploited to alter a US election outcome.
- We know how to secure elections! Paper ballots, optical scanners, post-election risk-limiting audits.
- There's been a great deal of progress, but there's still work to do.
@mattblaze Are there really voting machines in use out there that do not at least print out paper copies of the voter's inputs? That seems like malpractice. It seems like the most obvious thing that they should either modify or print out a paper ballot for the sake of stuff like hand recounts and record keeping.
-
Once again:
- There are security weaknesses in parts of US election systems, particularly those that use paperless touchscreen voting machines, and we should absolutely address them.
- Fortunately, there is no evidence to date that these technical weaknesses have ever been exploited to alter a US election outcome.
- We know how to secure elections! Paper ballots, optical scanners, post-election risk-limiting audits.
- There's been a great deal of progress, but there's still work to do.
@mattblaze You cannot give these anti-democratic creeps any credence.
Actually responding to them as if their bullshit had any merit is bad.
If you say things like “there are security weaknesses” in response to them flinging propaganda shit, they have won already. You’re doing their propaganda for them.
Please don’t.
-
@mattblaze You cannot give these anti-democratic creeps any credence.
Actually responding to them as if their bullshit had any merit is bad.
If you say things like “there are security weaknesses” in response to them flinging propaganda shit, they have won already. You’re doing their propaganda for them.
Please don’t.
@thomasfuchs Except that there *are* security weaknesses in elections. We can't run away from that, and we don't do anyone any favors by pretending there aren't. The truth matters, even in 2026.
But as an election security expert, I try hard to put things in context. If you actually read the post you responded to, I think you'll see that.
-
@mattblaze Are there really voting machines in use out there that do not at least print out paper copies of the voter's inputs? That seems like malpractice. It seems like the most obvious thing that they should either modify or print out a paper ballot for the sake of stuff like hand recounts and record keeping.
@dutch_connection_uk There are, though they are falling out of favor in most of the US.
-
@mattblaze You cannot give these anti-democratic creeps any credence.
Actually responding to them as if their bullshit had any merit is bad.
If you say things like “there are security weaknesses” in response to them flinging propaganda shit, they have won already. You’re doing their propaganda for them.
Please don’t.
@thomasfuchs @mattblaze
> Actually responding to them as if their bullshit had any merit is bad.Their being lawless is orthogonal to the election security. And addressing real weakness works for the most important in any elections thing: voter's trust in the outcome. In my very humble opinion their projection✸
will work against them. Yelling that clerks all over the percint conspired against the king is harder to push than having a single "expert" influencer calling the mysterious electronics "rigged".✸("they" know thoso machines can be rigged, they tested them thoroughly and massively)
-
Once again:
- There are security weaknesses in parts of US election systems, particularly those that use paperless touchscreen voting machines, and we should absolutely address them.
- Fortunately, there is no evidence to date that these technical weaknesses have ever been exploited to alter a US election outcome.
- We know how to secure elections! Paper ballots, optical scanners, post-election risk-limiting audits.
- There's been a great deal of progress, but there's still work to do.
@mattblaze
There are people in TX who recorded the touchscreen voting machines recording votes to candidates they didn't touch the buttons for. -
@mattblaze
There are people in TX who recorded the touchscreen voting machines recording votes to candidates they didn't touch the buttons for.@Eka_FOOF_A I've seen lots of claims like that, but they never seem to be replicable.
It's certainly *possible*, which is why such machines shouldn't be used.
-
RE: https://esq.social/@SuffolkLITLab/116229521620498862
The ProPublica piece is kind of a mess - it doesn't even mention CISA by name - but some of the issues are concerning. In particular, the proposals are extremely vague.
They want to ban "voting machines" (under what authority?). Does that mean touchscreen DREs? Fine, that's what virtually all technical experts have recommended for a while. Or do they mean any electronic tabulation, including optical scan paper ballots (widely used and amenable to reliable post-election audits)?
well, considering Musk had people monkey with the voting machines a month or so b4 the 2024 election, I'd love to see us all vote on paper ballots that are hand counted 10 times if that's what it takes to have a fair election.
-
well, considering Musk had people monkey with the voting machines a month or so b4 the 2024 election, I'd love to see us all vote on paper ballots that are hand counted 10 times if that's what it takes to have a fair election.
@BillMcGuire Sorry, that “Musk rigged the voting machines” story is a fantasy, supported by neither evidence nor even a theory for how it would have worked.
Please don’t spread bullshit about elections. It doesn’t help anyone.
-
RE: https://esq.social/@SuffolkLITLab/116229521620498862
The ProPublica piece is kind of a mess - it doesn't even mention CISA by name - but some of the issues are concerning. In particular, the proposals are extremely vague.
They want to ban "voting machines" (under what authority?). Does that mean touchscreen DREs? Fine, that's what virtually all technical experts have recommended for a while. Or do they mean any electronic tabulation, including optical scan paper ballots (widely used and amenable to reliable post-election audits)?
@mattblaze tbf, I am shocked that CISA has still enough resources to put out anything at all. They took a really heavy hit
-
RE: https://esq.social/@SuffolkLITLab/116229521620498862
The ProPublica piece is kind of a mess - it doesn't even mention CISA by name - but some of the issues are concerning. In particular, the proposals are extremely vague.
They want to ban "voting machines" (under what authority?). Does that mean touchscreen DREs? Fine, that's what virtually all technical experts have recommended for a while. Or do they mean any electronic tabulation, including optical scan paper ballots (widely used and amenable to reliable post-election audits)?
@mattblaze The GOP, through it's many surrogates, does whatever it can to make voting more difficult for everyone. That way, it's easier for them to CHEAT.
-
Finally, "whether your candidate won" is not a meaningful test for election fraud.
@mattblaze It reminds me of the changing room talk when I was eight years old after gym class where "you cheated" was always the talking point. Unfortunately when it comes to elections it's deadly serious.
