Part of me doesn't like the whole red scare deal, but also, electronic voting machines should be banned outright. You think that after the OPM scandal that those things have the highest security??
The whole concept of electronic voting machines seems ridiculous to me. Not only are they open to attacks at every level, there really isn't a significant benefit to implementing them, beyond possibly saving some trees.<p>The peace of mind in trusting election results seems well worth the hassle of paper.<p>The other big component that I think is missing from the debate over electronic voting is the cost to communities. I loved voting (on paper) in the 2012 election, then staying up a few hours to tally the ballots with the community. Voters came together to count the ballots together and deliver a final count, which has the dual benefit of getting as many eyes on the process as possible (less chance of fraud) and putting 'by the people' back into the election process.<p>I've seen complaints that that isn't scalable, but I don't buy it. Any community can be broken up into sub-groups that can cast their ballots locally and work together to tally them, even if a group just covers a city block.
" Even so, we have to accept that someone is attacking our nation’s computer systems in an apparent attempt to influence a presidential election. "<p>This is so comical. If the DNC was actually acting in an ethical, responsible and legal way, the email release would not influence the election one wit. Instead it makes it even more clear that their apparatus had already chosen the winner - and it wasn't Sanders.<p>On the other: Why even have computerized ballots? Back to paper. Not perfect, but hacking problem solved.
If voting machines are that insecure, then you should be worried about Chinese hackers, and Arab hackers and even American Republican hackers. Let's be frank, voting machines that are insecure can be exploited by ANYBODY who cares to influence an election and those with the most to gain/lose are members/supporters of the parties whose candidates are standing for election. In other words USA hackers should be your main worry. If you can secure the voting systems against them, then you have a chance at a fair election. Otherwise all bets are off and all the foreign hackers will be battling over who controls the vote.
We'll have 5 different organizations trying to rig the same election to further their own agendas. Which group is the smartest? Whose manipulations will carry the day? Find out next time on Who Wants to Screw a -19 Trillionaire!
That's preposterous, don't you know the cold war is over?<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg</a>
When does this sort of thing become an act of war? It seems like "cyber" stuff is taken much less seriously in that respect. Maybe it just gets more attention.