SoylentNews

5 Ways to Improve Voting Security in the U.S.

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday October 06 2016, @10:41PM   
from the rigged-in-not-the-peoples-favor dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

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!

---

Original Submission

• ''no cameras [...] in the booth with you'' ''no cameras [...] in the booth with you'' (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:02AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:02AM (#411311)

  New Hampshire law barring ballot selfies is unconstitutional, court rules [arstechnica.com]
  2016/09/28

  -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  Parent

• Re:''no cameras [...] in the booth with you'' Re:''no cameras [...] in the booth with you'' (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:44AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:44AM (#411328)

  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.

  Parent

  • Re:''no cameras [...] in the booth with you'' (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @08:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @08:12PM (#411602)

    1. Take selfie of ballot marked as interested party would like.
    2. Spoil ballot.
    3. Vote as one would like.
    4. Profit!

    Parent