SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Russia's cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump's election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.
In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.
[...] The new details, buttressed by a classified National Security Agency document recently disclosed by The Intercept, show the scope of alleged hacking that federal investigators are scrutinizing as they look into whether Trump campaign officials may have colluded in the efforts. But they also paint a worrisome picture for future elections: The newest portrayal of potentially deep vulnerabilities in the U.S.'s patchwork of voting technologies comes less than a week after former FBI Director James Comey warned Congress that Moscow isn't done meddling.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Lester on Friday June 16 2017, @12:09PM (6 children)
Manual counting is the best. Ballot box results are public and published, the only aggregated data is the sum of votes of each box. So everyone can sum boxes results, (and political parties do). It's more tamper-proof than any automatic counting system, and the cost (in money and time) is not that different.
The only black box in manual counting election is then counting of the ballot box. So you must tamper with ballot box counting. Once they have written the results of a box, wrong or right, true of false, little can be done. But tampering with ballot box counting is not easy, there is too much random people, too many witnesses, so loose ends. And even if you mange to cheat, you have very little a few votes, statically not important. You should tamper with big number of Ballot boxes, so with . More over even if you manage to change many boxes, you would have hundreds or thousands of witnesses and so loose ends.
Automatic counting has two black boxes: The voting machine and the communication with the counting center. So it has toe weak points: Manipulate the voting machine (once you know how, you can manipulate a thousand in minutes), and nobody will be aware. Interfere communication with ballot centers (individual voting machine results are not published). So you can secretly change the final result of elections with only a few witnesses and loose ends: The people you hired to hack the system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @04:19PM (3 children)
I'm generally in support of manual counting. The problem is it does actually seem plausible that the median intelligence of the US people is so low that you might not be able to find enough manual counters who can actually count properly and impartially. You might have 10 counters producing 10 or more different results and more than 10 arguments and fights.
Not saying all are stupid. But seriously with the numbers of Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers etc around and the popularity and long tradition of anti-intellectualism: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america [psychologytoday.com] can you trust the counters to count properly and impartially?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @05:43PM
tally, don't count?
four lines crossed with a fifth line = 5 votes per group?
use a knife to put notches in sticks, line up the sticks for comparison?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2017, @05:44PM
Citing a pseudo/pop-science source like Psychology Today doesn't build much confidence you are smart.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday June 17 2017, @09:58AM
If you are counting 1000 votes of a box, the error range will be few votes. You can get 700 for A and 300 for B, or 705 for A and 295. even 700 for A and 295 for B (that don't sum 1000).
So What?
You'll never see 100 for A and 900 for B, So Statistically it will be non-significant. Moreover, Statistically there will be as many errors for one side as for the other. Unless the election is very very tight it is not important. And, in such case, automatic voting system wouldn't make things more reliable and less suspicious, but the opposite. With a voting machine it could get 1 for A and 999 for B, it could be suspicious but nobody would have any argument or proof to complain.
In Spain in 1978, the first democratic elections after 40 years, in the counting process there were battles for each dubious vote. Nowadays nothing of that happens. Why? people know that a vote up or down won't change anything. With 10 different results very similar there is no fight, they pick one and go home, that it is what they are longing to do after a long and boring day in the in the voting place. And I'm sure the error produced by such decisions is less than 0.0001%
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 17 2017, @04:04AM (1 child)
The weak point in manual counting, at least in a close election, are the absentee voters. We just had an election here in BC which was close to a statistical tie, takes 44 seats to clearly win, results on election day were 43-41-3 with one of those 41 winning by something like 8 votes. Lots of people like me voted before election day, those ballot boxes were put away and the recount and the counting absentee votes took over 2 weeks. While it is easy to verify the election day votes just by standing around and watching the manual count, those absentee ballot boxes, there has to be some trust. Where they're kept for the 3-4 weeks before counting them and how secure their location is. In our case the recount and absentee ballots just made the 8 vote winner into a 150 or so winner and I'm sure if the government was cheating, they would have arranged to win that seat and get their 44 but the count could have easily changed the results and given the government a clear mandate to continue.
Close elections are interesting in our Westminster type Parliamentary system, it'll be the end of this month before the Legislature decides on who is going to govern and even the Queen, or rather Her Lieutenant-Governor might have to make an executive decision on who governs or even if we have another election.
BTW, the 3 seats that decide on who governs are the Green Party, who got 1/6th of the popular vote and who are demanding proportional representation. Voting 3rd party here can make a difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17 2017, @09:48AM