State election officials voiced doubt Saturday that adequate security measures can be adopted before 2018 elections to safeguard against the possibility of a foreign government interfering in U.S. elections.
Simple answer: Paper Ballots
Paper ballots would give us a fair election and the GOP canât have that.
Our president has it under control.
Illinois uses a combination of electronic voting with a paper back up. It seems hack proof, since voters see the paper back up when they finish voting. Perhaps this can be used in more states?
Posted without comment.
Is he saying election hacking will be guarded?
Why yes, I believe he did.
Given that the DHS isnât performing a deep investigation of the issue, what are the States supposed to do?
Without the Federal support, no one can do much of anything. The Feds hold all the cards.
Simple answer: Paper Ballots
Not so simple. What if names are removed from voter rolls? Then they wouldnât even be able to cast a paper ballot.
So impenetrable and guarded that even the U.S. intelligence community will not be able to discover it next time.
In another tweet this morning Trump says: âI strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently denied it. Iâve already given my opinion.â Thatâs it - and the opinion Trump has already given is that he doesnât really think so either, or doesnât want to admit it. Moreover itâs not a matter of opinion, itâs a matter of facts. So, end of storyâŚexcept his deflection tweets about why wouldnât the DNC turn over their SERVER to the CIA and FBI after being asked 13 times? And it was only 4 U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded there was Russian interference in the election, not 17, Fake News, yada yada yada.
Provisional ballot. Kept until investigation can be made as to when name was removed from roll.
What makes you so sure they would be able to identify what names, if any, were removed? They might not even know they were hacked.
Itâs not rocket science to electronically record a vote to one candidate but print out a receipt showing how the voter actually voted.
Whatâs needed, IMHO, is a 3rd check which is to print out TWO copies of the receipt, one of which is deposited at the polling site so that a valid recount can occur in real time. But even that has its flaws.
There are so many steps along the way where vote counts can be changed, including the tabulation of votes by precinct up to the county level and then to the state level.
I donât have a hack-proof answerâŚ
Assuming that said investigation would be nonpartisan which isnât likely in far too many of this countryâs counties.
@exspectator - I donât know about other regions but we get a hard-copy voter registration card so one could prove that she/he was, in fact, a valid registered voter as of a certain point in time. That could help identify someone who was âremovedâ from the voter roster.
Apparently the fix is to have the hacker and the hacked work together to guarantee that only the same âfairâ outcomes can happen again.
The world should be punishing Putin at this very moment while we in the states take care of our own.
Putin is a modern Napoleon, short in the britches, long in the ego and desperate for worlds to conquer.
But the world has seen this movie and read the novels. Putin could be sanctioned into oblivion and isnât near as strong as he pretends. His military is weak and his economy is equal to Southern Californiaâs, maybe.
Obviously Traitor Trumpp wonât penalize him but the rest have to or they are giving up their sovereignty and nationality to an international pipsqueak.
Poots has already committed the crimes, its time for the punishment phase.
Maybe the only solution is to hack the Russian vote to ensure Putin loses or at least barely wins? That would be a huge blow to his image.
Paper ballots, paper ballots, paper ballots. It canât be said too many times. Then, the other concerns are hacked voter rolls and voter suppression.
Even simpler - voters fill in ovals on an optical scan ballot, which is then run through a scanner and simultaneously stored in the locked cabinet of the scanning/storage device. (All precincts in MA I have voted in over the past 20 years have used this system.)
Having an electronic device do the printing just adds another point at which votes can be altered.
Do the precincts then compare the paper bubble forms to the vote count recorded by the scanners? If not, itâs another possible point of software failure, or success, depending on whether or not the hackersâ preferred candidate gets the âforgedâ vote.
At least your method allows for a recount. PA is screwed in many precincts because we use an electronic machine that can only be audited to prove that the machine tabulation matches the very same machine tabulation. In other words, not audit is possible.
Great. While weâre at it, letâs form a nuclear nonproliferation âunitâ with North Korea.