SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the rigged-in-not-the-peoples-favor dept.
With the U.S. presidential election just weeks away, questions about election security continue to dog the nation's voting system.
It's too late for election officials to make major improvements, "and there are no resources," said Joe Kiniry, a long-time election security researcher.
However, officials can take several steps for upcoming elections, security experts say.
"Nobody should ever imagine changing the voting technology used this close to a general election," said Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa. "The best time to buy new equipment would be in January after a general election, so you've got almost two years to learn how to use it."
- Stop using touchscreen electronic voting machines without printers
- Conduct more extensive pre-election voting machine tests
- Put better election auditing processes in place
- Hire hackers to test your systems
- Ensure that strong physical security is in place
Voters worried about vulnerable voting machines can rest easy--the fix is in!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @02:30AM
Secret ballot was designed to stop vote buying. Basically the idea is I pay you 10 bucks to vote a particular way. All you have to do is prove it.
So no cameras or other people in the booth with you.
Your code idea would allow vote buying to actually work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:02AM
New Hampshire law barring ballot selfies is unconstitutional, court rules [arstechnica.com]
2016/09/28
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:44AM
Only in UCC1 and specifically NH. The others district courts have not ruled on it as the supreme court has not. They may rule along similar lines. But that is not clear if they would (they probably would).
However the reasoning in that verdict is interesting. Basically 'doesnt happen anymore so we dont need a law'. Even though it happened extensively in the past and was basically ended because the police had a law in which to stop it. Seems like kind of an odd argument. It is almost 'there is no pollution going into the air so this company can do it because it has not happened anymore'.
That I think is a ruling that is 'ok' but for bad reasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @08:12PM
1. Take selfie of ballot marked as interested party would like.
2. Spoil ballot.
3. Vote as one would like.
4. Profit!
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday October 07 2016, @05:32AM
You are proposing to disrupt the free market !!!1! What are you, a communist? If someone has something to sell and some other wants to buy it, they should be able to do so!!!
</sarc> But seriously, this rule tries to solve the social problem - readiness to buy and sell votes - with a technical measure. In a better society it would be not necessary. Furthermore, those who want to sell their vote should not have it. But individual votes are pretty much worthless to a voter: one vote decides nothing. The value appears only at a large scale of manipulation. For that reason an individual has every practical reason to sell his vote - and a PAC with deep pockets has every reason to buy as many as they can. They have the money; some of their donors print it themselves.