The point is you wouldn’t know what the special stamp was as you wouldn’t see it until the day of the election.
Nothing is 100% foolproof but you can make paper pretty difficult to forge.
Yes this is another thing you could do. And the machines that did that would be isolated from the web and difficult to hack.
The machines are already Isolated from the Web.
At least the ones in my district were.
Machines with no external ports would be nice as well.
Yes but the problems being discussed here are lack of a paper trail when Internet-posted results differ from the count at the individual polling stations.
This is a source of error/potential fraud that the bill in question sought to minimize and is much more difficult to do without some kind of paper trail.
And it doesn’t have to be paper ballots…just a paper audit trail for electronic voting machines which many polling stations who went all electronic don’t have.
In any case, there’s so much confusion on this story in an area where there should be absolute clarity.
Nice that the DHS has “all the statutory authority it needs”. What do they actually DO to ensure against cyberfraud attempts or even any other fraud attempts? What (without revealing TOO much so as not to compromise their methods) are their actual capabilities?
There is a paper trail.
You feed the paper into the machine that digitally reads the paper.
The machine doesn’t shred the paper ballots not in my district.
You don’t want fed control of elections… Look what do with the IRS and justice departments…
Um…you do realize that not all voting machines are the same, don’t you?
This bill is specifically addressing the vulnerabilites of the push towards all elecetronic voting machines that was incentivized with the 2002 Help America Vote Act.
Nothing in the bill suggested federal control of elections.
Where there is legitimate debate is over the mandate in the bill that states must conduct a statistically significant paper audit.
While that is probably a good idea, it is legitimate to bring up state/local concerns about what the feds can mandate, if anything.
But the bill does not seek federal control of elections.
Yes i do know that.
You all seem to not with your statements.
As people have pointed out the DHS is already in charge of protecting.
again what machines were hacked into and had votes changed because of a hack in the 2016 election.
Of course I was aware of that. Not sure how you were confused, as those were not the machines I was talking about that needed any additional protection.
Your points, in order:
All that was said is that DHS has the statutory authority to help safeguard elections. NOTHING was said about they’re actually doing that would be duplicated in this bill.
In 2016, there were attempts to hack voter rolls (somewhat easy), attempts to hack into actual machine (more difficult) and several cases of discrepancies between poll counts and Internet reporting of the vote (which usually showed up as cases where more people who live in a district that can vote actually voted).
This bill was an attempt to shore up these areas of vulnerability.
We can debate to what degree they needed to be shored up, but that would have come if the bill had actually made the floor.
But let’s not pretend there was no legitimate concern that sparked this bill to begin with.
They have an even more diabolical security system: apolitical old people.
Let me guess the bill didn’t provide funding for a border wall
If it has no ports…
How do you get the data?
(Assuming that because it has no ports you can’t download it, and because it has no ports you can’t connect a printer, and [assuming you are including WiFi & BluTooth in “having no ports”] you can’t connect to the OS or drive.)
.>>>>
No external ports. Basically would have to do some minor disassembly of the case to access the ports. Something that would be far more difficult than discreetly being able to pop a usb drive in or something.
