In case you had any doubts about how far this administration is willing to go to interfere with state elections...From Reuters:
-
@briankrebs
fyi link now redirects to msn main page.@FritzAdalis @briankrebs
Not for me?
-
@FritzAdalis @briankrebs
Not for me?@wdormann @briankrebs
Huh, works in Chrome, not in Firefox mobile. Sorry for the noise. -
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topicR relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
-
In case you had any doubts about how far this administration is willing to go to interfere with state elections...From Reuters:
"WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s election-security czar last year sought to ban voting machines used in more than half of U.S. states by asking whether the Commerce Department could declare their components national-security risks, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter."
"White House adviser Kurt Olsen, a lawyer Trump has tasked with proving widely debunked election-rigging conspiracy theories, pushed the plan to target Dominion Voting Systems machines. The idea emerged, the sources said, as Olsen and other officials brainstormed about how the federal government could take control over elections from U.S. states, an idea publicly aired by Trump."
"Olsen wanted a national system of hand-counted paper ballots, the sources said, a frequent Trump demand some election-security experts say would be less accurate and potentially riskier than the current system of machines with auditable paper trails that almost all cities and states use."
"The plan to exclude the machines, reported here first, got far enough that in September, Commerce Department officials began exploring what grounds could be invoked to execute it, three additional sources said. It eventually collapsed, however, because Olsen and other administration staffers working with him failed to provide evidence to justify such a move, two of the sources said."
It feels like this is kind of comorbid with the 'popular' push for getting rid of the electoral college - election by raw popular vote means that cheating anywhere is as good as cheating EVERYWHERE is now.
-
@jordan @briankrebs There absolutely is tech which does this already. In my area, we vote with two machines.
The first accepts a blank ballot, shows the races on a big touchscreen (and headphone jack for the blind), then prints your selections on the ballot. The printing is human-readable, so sighted people can verify selections. Not sure how blind voters are expected to be able to verify.
The printed ballot is then fed into the second machine over the ballot box. It uses OCR to recognize the printing and tally votes.
When polls close, the ballots are hand-counted once. If the results agree with the second machine, they’re done. If they disagree, there are hand recounts.
@bob_zim @jordan @briankrebs How is this voter verifiable? You see that your ballot was filled out the way you want (which almost every voting system allows), but you still can't be sure it was recorded by the second machine that way.
After the final count you learn that Joe Smith received 6482 votes but how would you ever know if your vote was included in that number?
I don't see how you can have auditable, voter verifiable, AND anonymous elections. You can know that the votes were recorded accurately in aggregate, but verifying an individual vote is going to break anonymity. -
@bob_zim @jordan @briankrebs How is this voter verifiable? You see that your ballot was filled out the way you want (which almost every voting system allows), but you still can't be sure it was recorded by the second machine that way.
After the final count you learn that Joe Smith received 6482 votes but how would you ever know if your vote was included in that number?
I don't see how you can have auditable, voter verifiable, AND anonymous elections. You can know that the votes were recorded accurately in aggregate, but verifying an individual vote is going to break anonymity.@ithoughtisawa2 @jordan @briankrebs As long as I can verify my vote while it’s still non-anonymous (because it’s in my hand), what are the attacks?
Ballot box stuffing? That would take collusion of like eight poll workers and any voters who happen to be in the polling place at the time.
Discarding votes from the ballot boxes? That would take even more, since extra people show up to help with the count.
Altering ballots? Impractical with machine-printed ballots.
-
@ithoughtisawa2 @jordan @briankrebs As long as I can verify my vote while it’s still non-anonymous (because it’s in my hand), what are the attacks?
Ballot box stuffing? That would take collusion of like eight poll workers and any voters who happen to be in the polling place at the time.
Discarding votes from the ballot boxes? That would take even more, since extra people show up to help with the count.
Altering ballots? Impractical with machine-printed ballots.
@bob_zim
Maybe Helios Voting is the solution you're looking for?
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
@ithoughtisawa2 @jordan @briankrebs -
@bob_zim
Maybe Helios Voting is the solution you're looking for?
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
@ithoughtisawa2 @jordan @briankrebs@nunesgh I’m not looking for any solution. The way my area handles voting is reliable, produces auditable paper records, and it has strong anonymity. It’s composed of simple parts which interact in simple ways, making the whole system easy to reason about. It’s not perfect, but it’s not even in the top thirty problems related to voting in the US.
Any system which allows an individual ballot to be checked after it enters the ballot box is inherently *not anonymous*. It is pseudonymous at best.
-
@bob_zim @jordan @briankrebs How is this voter verifiable? You see that your ballot was filled out the way you want (which almost every voting system allows), but you still can't be sure it was recorded by the second machine that way.
After the final count you learn that Joe Smith received 6482 votes but how would you ever know if your vote was included in that number?
I don't see how you can have auditable, voter verifiable, AND anonymous elections. You can know that the votes were recorded accurately in aggregate, but verifying an individual vote is going to break anonymity.@ithoughtisawa2 in the system that @bob_zim described, the human readable ballot is the actual ballot, the machine only provides a first tally. A hand count is still done to check. Again: The second machine only provides a provisional result. @jordan @briankrebs
-
In case you had any doubts about how far this administration is willing to go to interfere with state elections...From Reuters:
"WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s election-security czar last year sought to ban voting machines used in more than half of U.S. states by asking whether the Commerce Department could declare their components national-security risks, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter."
"White House adviser Kurt Olsen, a lawyer Trump has tasked with proving widely debunked election-rigging conspiracy theories, pushed the plan to target Dominion Voting Systems machines. The idea emerged, the sources said, as Olsen and other officials brainstormed about how the federal government could take control over elections from U.S. states, an idea publicly aired by Trump."
"Olsen wanted a national system of hand-counted paper ballots, the sources said, a frequent Trump demand some election-security experts say would be less accurate and potentially riskier than the current system of machines with auditable paper trails that almost all cities and states use."
"The plan to exclude the machines, reported here first, got far enough that in September, Commerce Department officials began exploring what grounds could be invoked to execute it, three additional sources said. It eventually collapsed, however, because Olsen and other administration staffers working with him failed to provide evidence to justify such a move, two of the sources said."
@briankrebs And this is the reason they want a hand-voting system
https://media.ccc.de/v/why2025-218-how-to-rig-elections -
In case you had any doubts about how far this administration is willing to go to interfere with state elections...From Reuters:
"WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s election-security czar last year sought to ban voting machines used in more than half of U.S. states by asking whether the Commerce Department could declare their components national-security risks, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter."
"White House adviser Kurt Olsen, a lawyer Trump has tasked with proving widely debunked election-rigging conspiracy theories, pushed the plan to target Dominion Voting Systems machines. The idea emerged, the sources said, as Olsen and other officials brainstormed about how the federal government could take control over elections from U.S. states, an idea publicly aired by Trump."
"Olsen wanted a national system of hand-counted paper ballots, the sources said, a frequent Trump demand some election-security experts say would be less accurate and potentially riskier than the current system of machines with auditable paper trails that almost all cities and states use."
"The plan to exclude the machines, reported here first, got far enough that in September, Commerce Department officials began exploring what grounds could be invoked to execute it, three additional sources said. It eventually collapsed, however, because Olsen and other administration staffers working with him failed to provide evidence to justify such a move, two of the sources said."
What I'm hearing is that Dominion is the actually secure brand of voting machine that can't be hacked, and they have back doors or hacks into all the others.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
