Skip to main content

View Diary: Internet voting SHOULD terrify Republicans (374 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I run an electronic touch screen voting machine , (24+ / 0-)

    voting on a computer is being done now in California ,
    its just a small step away from voting on a lap top or desk top computer .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 08:49:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is ridiculous (10+ / 0-)

      In-person authentication and online auth are whole separate things.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:22:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously, and let's not forget (10+ / 0-)

        that banks have shown again and again that they can't protect our money. Identity fraud is extremely common.

        No War but Class War

        by AoT on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:38:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they can't always but everyone will still move to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cocinero

          online banking.  are you proposing that the world end online banking and go back to the abacus?

          •  No, I'm pointing out that the premise (8+ / 0-)

            that our online banking and financial system is secure is false. Target just had millions of cards stolen, what if something like that happened in an election? Online voting makes that possible, and given the amount of power one could gain from gaming the system like that you can be guaranteed that people will do their best to alter the results of these votes.

            I'm not categorically against online voting, but I've yet to see a foolproof system, and that's what we'll need. Or at least something that if proof against mass fraud. Given that we can't do that with banking, and that we don't have secure electronic voting at this point, at least not implemented, I think that online voting is a fool idea.

            And really, the GOP would love online voting, yet another way to implement fraud and disenfranchise people.

            I use online banking, but how we chose our government is far, far more important than how we deal with our personal money. And if something happens to my bank account I can call up or go in and deal with it. That's not something you can, or want to, deal with in an election.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:27:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  What in-person authentication (5+ / 0-)

        do you think happens at the polling place where I work ?

        I bank by computer .
        I trust that my banking is safe because of on line "authentication" .

        As a poll worker , I can tell you the flaws with walk in voting . I know how to vote more than once with paper ballots .

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

        by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:39:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Banking and voting are VERY different (12+ / 0-)

          IF...

          we decide to give up the idea of the secret ballot

          THEN...

          we can secure online voting... mostly but not completely

          IF...

          we want to keep a secret ballot

          THEN...

          internet voting CANNOT be secured. Period. End of sentence. Paragraph. Chapter. Manual.

          This from Markos..

          "It shouldn't be so controversial. Indeed, the entire financial sector operates online, and if banks and brokerages and services like PayPal can safeguard your money—the juiciest, most tempting target for nefarious hackers—then we could hold elections online. "

          Is crap. He should know better.

          The reason online financial transactions can be secured, the reason ATM transactions can be secured, is that they have multiple tracking numbers such as account numbers, SSN, etc that tie the transaction to the person and allow complete auditing of transaction from start to finish and back again.

          This eliminates the secret ballot.

          So... if you want a secret ballot then cannot be done. If we want to eliminate the secret ballot then it can definitely be done... to the degree that anything on the internet is secure.

          "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:44:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So when people vote on the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cocinero, sebastianguy99

            electronic touch screen machine that I run ,
            do they give up their "secret ballot" ?
            Or is it still a secret ballot ?

            So... if you want a secret ballot then cannot be done. If we want to eliminate the secret ballot then it can definitely be done... to the degree that anything on the internet is secure.
            And if I disagree ?
            Are mail in ballots "secret" ?

            "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

            by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:52:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The auth is done by paper before you vote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deltadoc

              The voting machine doesn't handle authentication at that point, only guaranteeing the one-use session card you got from the kindly volunteers is valid (based on my experiences).

              indycam, if internet voting were easily secured, we'd already be doing it.

              --
              Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

              by sacrelicious on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:04:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Tell me: do you have a spycam to detect whether (3+ / 0-)

              the voter is being supervised by a ward heeler?

              There's no such thing as a free market!

              by Albanius on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:30:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you ever vote by mail ? (4+ / 0-)

                Would you say that vote by mail will never work because there is no "spycam to detect whether the voter is being supervised by a ward heeler?"

                "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

                by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:06:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Vote by mail is inconsistent w/secret ballot too (6+ / 0-)

                  which is obviously true.

                  That is a separate question from whether it will "work."

                  There is a long history of ward heeler intervention in voting:
                  in Albany NY just a few years ago a political operative I knew slightly was caught forging votes on absentee ballots from nursing homes.

                  Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is worth trading off ballot secrecy for greater accessibility and broader participation, but an honest debate must be based on the recognition that there is a tradeoff.

                  That contrasts with the Voter ID debate, in which there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud actually occurs, but solid evidence that strict voter ID requirements discourage many eligible citizens from voting.

                  There's no such thing as a free market!

                  by Albanius on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:35:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Agreed, though I would just add... (0+ / 0-)

                    Vote by mail has been around for awhile, and election folks have spent decades figuring out ways to preserve secrecy for it. There are some reasonable ones -- like making sure there aren't names on the ballots.


                    A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

                    by kestrel sparhawk on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:23:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Unless the NSA becomes a lot more intrusive... (0+ / 0-)

                      it will be IMPOSSIBLE to detect whether someone other than the voter fills out a mail-in ballot, or supervises the voter.
                      But it that case, the voting won't be secret from the NSA: Catch-22.

                      There's no such thing as a free market!

                      by Albanius on Mon May 12, 2014 at 04:20:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  If someone can supervise your vote... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lost and Found, deltadoc, Wee Mama

              ...then it isn’t secret.

              See also:
              * Spouse-pressure v. the gender gap
              * Bosses encouraging voting at work
              * Apps for voting with cash rewards
              * and best of all: Here, let me help you vote

            •  The answer to the touch screen is (0+ / 0-)

              ... it depends.

              It depends on how the software is coded but yes, it is possible to retain a secret ballot with a touchscreen.

              Mail in ballots also maintain a secret ballot the same way that absentee ballots do in other states... that however is not where mail in ballots are at risk. I have no idea at all how you guarantee that a mailed in ballot actually came from the intended voter.

              "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

              by Andrew C White on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:01:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  If stockholders can vote online securely, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indres, Janet 707

            why not political voters?

            My Karma just ran over your Dogma

            by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:53:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Eh ? (0+ / 0-)
            THEN...
            internet voting CANNOT be secured. Period. End of sentence. Paragraph. Chapter. Manual.
            Sure ...

            "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

            by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:54:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you for rejecting wishful thinking (6+ / 0-)

            I lived with the Director of Elections (for Iowa, as it happens) for 12 years, and acquired quite a bit of knowledge about the safety of internet voting because it was a hot topic then. It wouldn't happen in Iowa under her watch (she's quit now, owing to a combination of being fed up with corruption and being overridden by politicians on both sides of the aisle) because, as almost all election directors agreed after serious investigation, it was too vulnerable. I haven't heard of any innovations since which would guarantee security to at least 95%, much less certain.

            Yes, there are all sorts of machinations with in-person and machine voting, but there are solid systems to double check them. This would not be the case with internet voting at this time. (For example, one votes by machine now, but the paper ballots are retained for rechecking during challenges. At least in Iowa and Minnesota.)

            I think primaries and caucuses are a whole different kettle of fish -- they're actually technically private partisan voting events overseen by states just to avoid rampant corruption. I always thought the state should CHARGE Republicans and Democrats for the cost. If the parties want to be vulnerable to candidate theft, well, that's their look out. I don't recommend it, but then, I'm not a pol.

            While  I love the idea of internet voting, and agree that (if noncorrupted) it would highly improve Democratic chances, I do think those who advocate it should do serious research on its potential drawbacks. (and, btw, no, banks aren't secure either. Nor retail outlets. Read the news.)


            A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

            by kestrel sparhawk on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:38:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Wishful thinking" ? (0+ / 0-)

              I can do it now . Its not "wishful" .

              Because someone else failed to understand how it can be done doesn't mean its undoable .

              "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

              by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:11:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, for heavens' sake (4+ / 0-)

                Here are a few articles which suggest arguments proponents of internet voting have to answer.  The commentary here makes me wonder if the left is any smarter than the right about thinking science is just another point of view.

                I'm disabled and find it hard to get places, and ADHD and find it hard to mail ballots. I would LOVE internet voting. But then, I want a magic wand too.

                ATT corporate employee (ATT wants in)

                National Democratic Institute -- doesn't say impossible, but recommended solutions not in place.

                A tech study on problems with overseas military voting

                The problem is that most people who want internet voting are either salespeople for internet systems or know very little about the technical problems. And the problem with discussions like this is that they appear not to want to know. I don't think ignorance should determine policy even for Democrats.


                A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

                by kestrel sparhawk on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:05:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You sure do think you have it all figured out (0+ / 0-)

                  don't you .

                  The problem is that most people who want internet voting are either salespeople for internet systems or know very little about the technical problems.
                  I am a technician who is called an electronic voting system specialist by the election officials here .
                  The commentary here makes me wonder if the left is any smarter than the right about thinking science is just another point of view.
                  I've made my living by making things work , I've fixed very complex things . When things that no one else could get to work they brought them to me , when things on other islands needed fixing they flew me in .
                  Insult me some more , its really working for you .
                  Your whole man will never fly is so very interesting , do keep on with it .

                  "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

                  by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:55:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sorry if you felt insulted (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    deltadoc

                    I was getting very frustrated because I didn't see you even acknowledging what some of the problems might be.

                    If you are a technician -- seriously, how do you see the concerns might be resolved? I don't mean "because tech will work and women will fly" -- I mean recs the way the ones who actually developed flight looked at things.


                    A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

                    by kestrel sparhawk on Mon May 12, 2014 at 04:31:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  15 Reasons Why Internet Voting Must Be Opposed (7+ / 0-)

                      Internet voting conceals ALL FOUR essential steps of transparent elections from the public (Who can vote, Who voted, Whether ballots counted are same ones as were cast, Whether the count was accurate), and therefore alters our form of government, violating our inalienable rights and transferring power to insiders (government and vendors).

                      Internet voting “security” cannot possibly be assured to the public, since it conceals all the essential steps listed above, including who’s voting remotely.

                      Whoever controls the servers controls the election results. Voters will never know whether the tally is accurate.

                      Internet voting violates voter privacy and the secret ballot. Voters no longer have the security of the polling booth and may be pressured and intimidated by bosses, spouses, or others to vote in particular direction. It is also possible for whoever gains access to the system to see how voters have cast their ballot, thereby violating the secret ballot.

                      Internet voting is not transparent. Looking at a report created by an administrator is NOT the same thing as scrutinizing the original input. Internet voting creates a funnel -- lots of people input information, one person or a very few people control the output.

                      No security from hackers. Whether they be the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans or the kid down the street, with hacks done successfully on such powerfully protected entities as the Pentagon, the White House, the Defense Department and Google, why would anyone believe that Internet voting could be successfully defended from hackers, who could change the outcome of ANY election, at ANY time, without ANY evidence of the hack? Or, the opposition candidate could hack the election with no trace.

                      Internet voting companies controlled by foreign corporations. The main company currently doing Internet voting for U.S. jurisdictions, Scytl, houses its server in Spain. No one has any idea who the administrator is for any given election. There is no way for the public to authenticate who put the votes into the system; there is no way for the public to authenticate that the announced result is in any way the real result.

                      Internet voting destroys the paper ballot and therefore cannot be recounted. In the case of errors or contested results, there is no capacity to recount the ballots. Elimination of the paper ballot means a loss of the official record of the vote. The United Nations considers the paper ballot to be the international "Gold Standard" for election integrity.

                      Internet voting is immune to democratic checks and balances; voting is anonymous, and the vote inauditable by the voter, once cast. There is no paper record. Any paper record created remotely is the product of digital flow passed through easily-compromised servers.

                      Internet voting is NOT the same as online banking. Internet banking is not impervious to manipulation; banks reimburse customers for fraudulent transactions, which happen fairly regularly. However, because the vote is private, you cannot be "reimbursed" for a vote that was stolen, because ballots are anonymous and there is no way to know whose vote is whose. Bank account owners remain connected to their account; Internet voters are severed from their vote. The only way to rectify that is to remove political privacy, which would re-introduce threats of coercion and vote selling.

                      Internet voting technology is worth big money, and is being pushed by a small handful of private corporations, some already given “preferred status” by the Department of Defense. If allowed to overtake our elections, these private businesses will have the capacity to manipulate election results, with little or no possibility for detection, by either hacking or controlling the servers.

                      Global financial and political interests would be very keen to hack into our Internet elections or own the servers. This would be much easier and less expensive than waging war to increase power, or hacking into the Pentagon.

                      Internet elections would become centralized (globally), so no local operation would be needed. The civic engagement would diminish, and then disappear. Voters would be subject to whatever results were reported with no alternative to challenge the results of the tally. Election Day would likely vanish, creating a far more challenging and expensive campaign environment, especially for the grassroots. Thousands of poll workers would lose their positions, and all community oversight would disappear entirely.

                      No guarantee of increased turn-out. Internet voting is touted as increasing the youth vote, but elections have taken place in the USA, and have resulted in lower than normal turnout. For example, a 2009 Internet election in Hawaii, for an election type that typically was drawing a 25% participation rate, dropped to just 7% participation.

                      Hacking is already underway. The irony of Internet voting is that it comes at a time when large institutions such as the Pentagon, the Federal Reserve, large multinational banks and other high security institutions are being consistently hacked. The Department of Homeland Security has warned of the extreme likelihood of intervention in our elections by foreign nations via computer hacking.

                      http://www.electionintegritycoalition.org/...

                      •  Very good analysis. You have changed my mind (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sacrelicious

                        Also more mudane problems might be too many people voting at one time, server crashes, etc. Look at all the problems with the ACA website.

                        It sure would be nice to have something more convenient but it does not sound feasible at this time.

                        If billionaires can afford to spend millions of dollars so that they can avoid paying taxes and fair wages, then they *can afford* to pay taxes and fair wages!

                        by Pixie5 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:10:25 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  One thing you haven't done though (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    brainburst

                    is explain how you get around the difficulties. I too work with very complex systems. I am a z/OS Mainframe operating systems programmer. I am intimately familiar with how transaction processing works. If you give up privacy like we do with banking transactions then it is easy to do and a tried and true process. But as I said above, with financial transactions we have id numbers that identify us as individuals, numbers that identify our specific account, numbers that identify the institutions involved in the transaction, numbers that track time, day and location and finally an individual number for the transaction itself. Similarly, if the transaction occurs at a bank or an atm machine then there are cameras taking pictures of us... oh, and there are numbers that track the teller, their workstation, or if done from home, our pc and the network locations involved. All of that secures the transaction quite well but completely eliminates secrecy. You can't have both. It is not possible.

                    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

                    by Andrew C White on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:18:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Director of Elections sounds like a luddite. (0+ / 0-)
              •  Actually no! (4+ / 0-)

                But I wish they were.

                Luddites were actually smart people who knew their jobs were being destroyed by the Industrial Revolution, and were among the forebears of unions. We've been taught to put them down because they were working class and opposed the ruling class. They didn't oppose "progress," but destruction of jobs and lives. As I think those of us who find internet voting to be risky agree.
                A bit about Luddite reality


                A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

                by kestrel sparhawk on Mon May 12, 2014 at 03:06:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Could the secret ballot be preserved (0+ / 0-)

            by using the Captcha words used to be sure it is a human accessing a site?  One should be required first to establish registration. Could another be generated once the ballot is cast to give the voter a ballot ID to check it was counted - without tying it to the person? The voter could print their own voted ballot for backup.

            I would be interested in whether the individual ballot votes could be published using that ID so any corruption of the counting computers could be identified by voters.

            As someone who would prefer human counting of ballots, it could be done both ways. The humans could count using computer screens rather than printing all ballots. Since the computer should take care of paper ballot marking errors, human interpretation should not be necessary. To catch computer program interference in the count, human counting could be done randomly, rather than all votes.

            Significant mismatch in votes counted with exit polls, and/or voter reports of counting errors if they can verify their ballots through the ID only they have, would trigger full human counting.

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:50:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  “Here, let me help you vote...” (0+ / 0-)

              No one can supervise what I do in a voting booth or pull the lever for me.

              Secure voting isn’t the same as secret voting.

              •  ??? How does that apply to my comment? (0+ / 0-)

                BTW, as an election judge, I have supervised what some voters did in the booth. Those that asked questions and the disabled (which you sometimes actually 'pull the levers' for).

                Isn't the whole point of this discussion how to maintain BOTH with PCs?

                "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                by Ginny in CO on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:23:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  So I have had couples come in together (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wee Mama

                and vote together , same booth , same time .
                I have asked them if they would please use separate booths , if they say no and I see no proof that one is forcing the other there is nothing I can do .

                Secure voting isn’t the same as secret voting.
                I have helped people fill out their ballots . When their ballots will not scan and gets rejected by the optical scanner , I have asked if they want some help . A few have asked me to mark the ballot for them . I asked them to tell me , do you want to vote for A or B and then I make the make , and so on .

                "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

                by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 03:05:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Completely separate issue (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  voters can choose not to hide their ballot or share it with a spouse or ask for assistance in marking it... though ballot marking devices should be available so that getting you as the polling inspector are not necessarily involved. But the bottom line is I have the right to announce to the world who I vote for. But I also have the right for no one to know who I vote for.

                  "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

                  by Andrew C White on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:26:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Internet voting will be solved unless progressives (0+ / 0-)

            keep their heads in the sand and join with anti-franchise republicans to block it.

            •  This has nothing to do with being progressive (0+ / 0-)

              or conservative. It has to do with the technology involved. As of today the technology available to us cannot secure internet voting while also maintaining a secret ballot. It is a technical impossibility. And that is all there is to it.

              "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

              by Andrew C White on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:27:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  same as walk in voting... (0+ / 0-)

            Your identity would be authenticated before you entered the portal for actual voting.  This is no different than what they do now.  They already know whether or not you vote even by you physically signing the voting register. There is no real privacy on that issue right now.

            "Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine. "It's a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent." - Miss Gayle

            by MissGayle on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:41:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Right ... (5+ / 0-)

        It is, however, quite good enough for the IRS.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:40:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What part of secret ballot requirement (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Doug in SF, deltadoc

          do you not understand?

          The IRS folks need to know who you are, where you live, etc to validate you are you.

          The voting machine can't store this if the secret ballot requirement is to be preserved.

          https://www.verifiedvoting.org/...

          --
          Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

          by sacrelicious on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:07:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the "secrecy" issue (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ginny in CO, mdetrano, Sir Roderick

            is the problem, rather than fraud ... double-blind authentication would deal with that.

            Besides, it would be optional, what's wrong with offering it as an option to folk who really don't care who knows which way they voted?

            What part of "courteous discussion" do YOU not understand?

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:38:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's be courteous (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jrooth

              First off, if you're referencing terminology that I can't google, I'd appreciate if you back it up with a reference.  What is a double-blind authentication?  Can you back up your assertion?

              Secondly let's discuss the optional secret ballot - if that if the secret ballot is optional, it will still be a problem.

              Scenario: mob boss  asks a "customer" to vote a way so his crony gets voted into office.  If the customer has any way to provide an accurate receipt of his voting, then this scenario can lead to coerced votes.

              Similar scenarios for bullying spouse, or employer.

              Right now, because it's not even optional, the "customer" only has to say (s)he voted one way, while actually voting another.

              If you're still listening, lets talk substantive details here.

              --
              Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

              by sacrelicious on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:00:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The authentication is really simple. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sir Roderick

                Voter registers for online voting.

                When it is time to vote, voter logs in with normal security questions. Separate server authenticates the log-in.

                Computer sends a one-time random code to voter.

                Voter enters code, and is re-directed to voting form and votes.

                Code is only held on a second system, and is wiped once used. Voter is marked as having voted.

                Vote is tallied, but it is not associated with the code because that only grants access to the voter form, and it is not stored.

                The only requirement is that the software is not proprietary, and that the code can be inspected.

                Technically this is not a hard thing to do.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:37:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  every technical issue is solvable unless (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, Sir Roderick

            progressives and republicans join together to block the use of new technology.

            •  No it is not (0+ / 0-)

              "every technical issue is solvable"

              This is not a "TECHNICAL ISSUE", IT IS A SECURITY ISSUE
              It is not solvable, because state and local governments are not interested in spending the amount of money needed to do this. This will come down to which parties hackers are the most effective.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site