[HN Gopher] Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords...
___________________________________________________________________
Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after
accidental leak
Author : rbanffy
Score : 75 points
Date : 2024-10-31 22:42 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| grugagag wrote:
| Is voting fraud at stake here or leak info over who voted? Is it
| possible to infer who voted what from the leak?
| wbl wrote:
| No, because of the way CO runs elections. But it is possible to
| gin up fraud claims and then resort to violence if the
| candidate who did this before loses again.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| That just seems so unlikely. What sort of out-of-touch ego
| monster, bigger than Jesus, flaming asshole would do this?
| hammock wrote:
| If you broaden fraud to include interference, suppression, etc
| yes absolutely
| cushpush wrote:
| Uh oh. Ignorance of computing showing. IF they need two passwords
| to combine to make one, but sometimes have one of them, they just
| need to brute the other open... I think it's a bigger problem
| than the administration understands, unless the passwords are for
| something inert like wattage delivered to the machine.
| leereeves wrote:
| Can you brute force a BIOS password without prolonged physical
| access?
|
| The leak does increase the risk of a single trusted insider
| messing with the system, though.
| laxmin wrote:
| The Indian Voting Machines are the answer. No operating system,
| no passwords, no connections, no bruteforcing anything, system on
| a chip, so widely distributed devices that hacking even a few of
| them is challenging, etc.
|
| The US voting machines are just waiting to be hacked, just a
| matter of when, not if.
| db1234 wrote:
| Regarding Indian voting machines, there is also randomization
| involved at various levels during distribution making it
| difficult to game the system but still I always wonder if there
| is any way to hack the system. I hope people in charge have a
| process to continuously evaluate the security procedures and
| improve it.
| recursivecaveat wrote:
| I never understood the desire to have any kind of machine at
| all. Paper ballots are a perfectly efficient and scalable
| system used for many large elections. Even if complicated
| machines are theoretically safe against malfeasance, keeping
| it simple increases public confidence.
| samarthr1 wrote:
| Scale is a bit of an issue.
|
| We need results in as short a time as possible, ws have
| about 100 crore registered voters, of whom about 70% on
| average vote, meaning that the ECI must process 70 Crore
| votes, in under 10 hours.
|
| Making that happen in a free and fair way is a logistical
| challenge, one that we undertake every 5 years.
|
| One more large advantage of EVMs is making booth capture
| very expensive (because EVMs have a inbuilt rate limit, but
| a ballot box does not).
|
| At any rate, with VVPAT being there, it adds another layer
| of security.
| cafard wrote:
| I should say, the speed of tabulation. An American election
| can include ballot lines for president, senator, member of
| congress, state senator, three state representatives, a
| county councilmember or two, a member of the board of
| education etc.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| More bits of paper. The ballot papers around here are
| bloated oversize monstrosities (picture A3 sized) due to
| the number of parties and candidates but you get a
| separate one for each election. Unfortunately not every
| area is paper only.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Here we don't even put names on the ballot, instead there
| is number assigned for each, this scales up to hundreds
| of candidates. This does prevent write ins, but I see no
| reason why you could not have own ballot for each purpose
| and then say colour code them and append letter or two in
| front of each candidate for each election.
| anon291 wrote:
| If the speed of tabulation is the main reason then why
| are results no longer known by election night? They're
| saying it might be days again. When we had paper ballots,
| we knew that night. (For America)
| gruez wrote:
| >When we had paper ballots, we knew that night. (For
| America)
|
| You forgot about 2000. Also, the main reason for the
| delays are mail-in ballots, which could be delayed for
| days/weeks, depending on how lenient the deadlines are.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Scalable? Not for same-day. I'd be fine waiting a few days
| if needed, though. Heck, early voting means I wait for
| weeks now.
|
| Ranked choice voting is essentially doing multiple
| elections at a time, having to recount portions of votes
| every time a candidate drops out. That's a lot easier with
| computers.
|
| I think the totals from every precinct could be made public
| in a way that they are verifiable from a central database,
| where the numbers add up to the total for the state and
| eventually federal count.
|
| This is probably already happening, but people don't seem
| to think so.
| bpye wrote:
| The UK manages to produce results within a few hours and
| all ballots, at least for general elections, are hand
| counted.
|
| I agree that for voting systems other than FPTP it is
| more work and may take longer - but it's not an
| intractable problem.
| wreckdropibex wrote:
| Same-day? It is not a problem at all. For example Finland
| calculates enough paper ballots in hours to give a
| definitive result, I am sure there are other countries
| that manage it as well. Your imagination is stuck in the
| world of voting practices of your side of the pond.
| jfengel wrote:
| Tell me you're under 24 years old without telling me you're
| under 24 years old.
|
| The US 2000 election was a fiasco of the failures of paper
| ballots. Officials spent weeks scrutinizing ballots and to
| this day nobody thinks they got it correct to within the
| margin of error.
|
| That's when electronic machines came in. They are not
| necessarily better, but nobody who lived through that
| nightmare thinks fondly of the clarity of paper ballots.
| albert_e wrote:
| Curious to know more. Is there a good source of information on
| the security of the hardware and software used for elections
| India.
|
| As an Indian citizen I see the casual lack of security mindset
| in large swathe of things implemented by both public and
| private actors. Many things get better only though iterative
| failures and corresponding reactive fixes.
|
| What type of failures and improvements have happened here, or
| instances of demonstrated hardness against those with
| motivation and access to machinery.
| samarthr1 wrote:
| IIRC it uses tamper evident hardware.
|
| There was an interview with one of the Profs who designed the
| EVMs here.
| brandonmenc wrote:
| > The US voting machines are just waiting to be hacked
|
| Feature, not a bug?
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| I think random, serialized paper ballots are the way to go.
| When the polls close you know the serial numbers of every vote
| cast, so no new serial numbers should be added to that unless a
| very good reason. Keep them or destroy them afterwards is
| another issue, but it's a step in the right direction.
|
| I have some distrust in the American voting system, first with
| the computerized systems, but also that federal elections are
| run at the state level. With so many states and jurisdictions,
| I can't help but feel that fraud is happening. If the federal
| elections process was truly federalized, and funded if it is
| not already, managed and controlled by the federal government,
| then I think there could be greater control and security.
| zie wrote:
| Go be a poll worker in your local election. See if you change
| your mind.
| saxonww wrote:
| What do you do when duplicate serial numbers start showing
| up? I'm assuming you won't know who was issued which serial
| number, and if it's truly randomized you wouldn't even know
| where they were sent.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| https://www.cpr.org/2024/10/08/vg-2024-how-your-vote-gets-
| co...
|
| Colorado ballot envelopes already have a bar code -
| essentially your "serial number".
|
| I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because everyone who
| thinks there's widespread election fraud seems to not know
| anything about how elections work.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| It's a matter of when, if, and, if we will ever know
| endgame wrote:
| Just use paper, and count by hand on the day.
|
| You need to present an election system that will convince Joe
| Q. Public, who is almost certainly not as tech-literate as this
| forum, is probably not even white-collar or university
| educated, and likely also suspicious of globalisation. "Tamper-
| proof Indian system-on-a-chip" does not have that property.
| Otherwise you get increasingly unhinged arguments over the
| election results until something breaks.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Unfortunately, hand-counting causes more errors than
| electronic counting, except in very small communities.
|
| Ref.: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/hand...
| kkielhofner wrote:
| > The US voting machines are just waiting to be hacked, just a
| matter of when, not if.
|
| The US election system is very distributed and fragmented -
| there is virtually no standardization.
|
| Even in the tightest margins for something like President you'd
| need to have seriously good data to figure out which random
| municipality voting system(s) you'd need to target to actually
| affect the outcome.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Ironically America's fragmentary and incoherent electoral
| system makes it extremely hard to steal an election there.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| You say "fragmentary and incoherent", I say
| "decentralized".
| tupolef wrote:
| The only way to get an honest electronic vote is by giving
| realtime visibility on who voted what and where publicly.
|
| Everything else is a scam.
|
| It would mean no secrecy of vote, but I think that secrecy of
| vote is for places that are new to democracy.
|
| It could be anonymised to a point a clever system of personal
| certificats, but the idea is that in a 100 people district, the
| citizens should be able to count themselves and check if their
| real votes are correctly registred.
|
| If the list is public, everyone got a proof of vote and can
| confirm that the global list is correct localy, then there is no
| way to hide cheating.
| stuaxo wrote:
| There are ways of doing this using encryption so that the
| person will know what their own vote is in a way that others
| don't.
| tupolef wrote:
| But, there is still someone somewhere that distribute the
| certificats and can link you to your vote so why try to hide
| something that can leak. It will leak.
| mFixman wrote:
| "Prove that you voted for Putin or you are out of a job".
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| Which is what troubles me about making auditable digital
| voting systems. I'm not sure how you could do it while
| preserving the secret ballot.
|
| About the best I can come up with is a QR code displayed on
| the screen and on a printout that you can compare with a
| third party phone app. Machine results are tabulated, and
| the QR code sheet is put in a lock box separately. This at
| least provides some way to compare what the computer says
| you voted versus the QR backup ballot for audits. I'm sure
| there are holes in my idea.
| gruez wrote:
| >About the best I can come up with is a QR code displayed
| on the screen and on a printout that you can compare with
| a third party phone app.
|
| That's definitely not secret. If you can audit it on your
| phone, baddies can force you to show your phone to verify
| that you voted "correctly".
| myth2018 wrote:
| > The only way to get an honest electronic vote is by giving
| realtime visibility on who voted what and where publicly.
|
| The secrecy on individual votes has a good reason to exist.
| Votes are already bought based on per-section public results,
| imagine what would happen if individual votes were public.
|
| Moreover, people under any sort of threat (communities
| dominated by drug dealers, employees of a dishonest,
| politically engaged business owner) would be in big trouble.
| aftbit wrote:
| I hate the narratives around voting security in the US. One side
| says that it is totally secure, basically 0 fraud, most secure
| election in history, etc etc. The other side claims that the
| election was completely stolen from them by voting machines.
|
| Neither of these claims is right. Personally, I doubt the
| election was stolen. I know of a handful of cases of voter fraud
| both anecdotally ("My mom [in a retirement home] told me to vote
| for McCain, but I know she really wanted to vote for Obama, so
| that's what I put.") and numerically[1].
|
| I would not be surprised if one or two of the very razor thin
| House district elections in 2020 experienced enough fraud to flip
| the decision. This doesn't mean that I believe all of the
| Dominion voting system hack nonsense or anything like that. I
| just think only a Sith deals in absolutes.
|
| 1: https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-
| referrals...
| Spivak wrote:
| This is a wild amount of both-sidesing in a case where one side
| has evidence and the other is literally an unsubstantiated
| conspiracy theory at a scale where you could not keep the
| secret.
|
| Most secure in history is (in my state) is correct. There are
| more pointless safeguards than have ever existed. If you were
| willing to go with the results of any election pre 2020 then
| you should be overjoyed at how much more "secure" the process
| is. That's the point that's being made, the amount of provable
| voter fraud that bypasses the checks and is only discovered
| after the fact is nil
|
| The article you cited is literally the system working. There's
| 11 million people in Ohio, the number of illegal registrations
| is several orders of magnitude less than the lizardman constant
| and they were nonetheless caught.
| anon291 wrote:
| Including the safeguards where observers are safely kept away
| from the counting! There were a lot of irregularities in
| 2020. The supreme Court recently said Pennsylvania should not
| have counted some of the ballots it did in 2020 (policy
| change by secretary of state vs legislature).
| gruez wrote:
| >There were a lot of irregularities in 2020.
|
| Source? I thought all the election fraud
| lawsuits/investigations for the 2020 election basically
| went nowhere?
| anon291 wrote:
| For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes.
| Courts aren't going to question a presidential election.
| That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of
| observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal
| extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various
| ballot drops etc.
|
| Opinions aren't formed on court cases. That's why in
| 2020, more than half of Democrats thought the election
| was irregular. It's remarkable to me because this is one
| of those issues where polling says voters of both parties
| agree, but the media insists that there's nothing there.
| That's crazy
| gruez wrote:
| >For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes.
| Courts aren't going to question a presidential election.
|
| ???
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
|
| >That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of
| observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal
| extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various
| ballot drops etc.
|
| My impression is that there were a bunch of "this seems
| sus" allegations, but all the popular ones have been
| discredited. What are the most credible examples (ie. of
| actual malfeasance going on, rather than merely "this
| seems sus") that you can provide?
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Yeah it's just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump
| nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who
| looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from
| casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of
| research about how things work.
| mythrwy wrote:
| Yes drop boxes and mail in ballots with no signature
| verification and the counting done largely by one side of the
| partisan divide (county/state employees) is totally 100%
| secure what could go wrong? Those conspiracy nuts just don't
| get it.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| They had a very long audit hand-counted ballot audit of the
| 2020 election in Arizona in 2021, and after (iirc) a few
| _months_ of double and triple checking they were unable to
| find any irregularities.
| brandonmenc wrote:
| > One side says that it is totally secure, basically 0 fraud,
| most secure election in history
|
| Additionally, the sides have completely flipped. Utterly
| bizarre.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Not bizarre at all. It's BS, but it's not bizarre.
|
| Politics has become trench warfare. Everything is a battle to
| the death to keep the other side from gaining an inch
| anywhere. And, as is often the case in warfare, truth is a
| casualty. Both sides will say absolutely anything to keep
| anyone from thinking that the other side has a valid point.
|
| It's advertising, but without any truth-in-advertising laws.
| Or, if you prefer, it's propaganda. Any relationship to the
| truth is purely accidental.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| The true casualty is America's credibility abroad. In
| pretty much every capital, embassy, boardroom, etc... it
| noticeably declines year on year.
|
| Even the Brits don't take anything at face value anymore.
| anon291 wrote:
| Our credibility has been suddenly made synonymous with
| how willing we are to go to war on behalf of other
| countries . We are not
|
| But I think any attack on an American force will get you
| a quick lesson on our credibility, which, as an American,
| is all I really care about.
|
| Similarly economically, good luck not participating in
| the American markets.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I really don't want to burst your bubble... but do you
| not realize this is seen as a joke abroad?
|
| e.g. In Hanoi, American officials, diplomats, and
| executives are rushing to wine and dine people who
| literally celebrate the defeat of 'American force' in
| public, on the record, every year.
|
| They treat even a random third secretary for some party
| committee 100km from Hanoi much much better than the 90th
| percentile upper middle class American household in the
| Bay Area...
|
| Edit: And I'm not even going to talk about Eastern Europe
| or the Middle East, it's really too harsh to put into
| writing.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Notice the Cheneys and John Boltons of the world also have
| seemed to flipped with them.
| anon291 wrote:
| I am happy to say, I've never been on the side of a Cheney.
| Go me!
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Good thing we fixed the hanging chad issue.
|
| Did Republicans anywhere try to "secure elections" in a way
| that didn't involve curtailing voting rights? Improving
| voting machines, systems, counting, etc. in a way that
| partisan leadership couldn't mess with?
|
| Georgia, I predict, will be a shitshow this year.
| tzs wrote:
| Before 2020 the only allegations of significant fraud or
| other shenanigans I remember were immediately after elections
| and were dropped shortly afterwards when no evidence could be
| found for them.
|
| Note that the Bush/Gore election issues were _not_
| allegations of fraud or any intentional shenanigans. The
| issue there was a badly designed ballots and /or badly
| designed voting machines that let to a large number of
| spoiled ballots due to people voting for more than one
| candidate or not marking any candidate, and in one major
| county led many voters to mark a candidate other than the one
| they intended to mark.
|
| All the controversy there after the election was how to
| resolve those problems. Some, like the infamous "hanging
| chads" could in some cases be resolved by hand examination of
| the ballot, but there would often be some ambiguity so that
| would not be without controversy.
|
| Others, like the "butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach County did
| not lead to any physical problem with the ballot but the
| design of the ballot led many voters to vote for a candidate
| other than the one they intended to vote for. That was a
| completely novel failure mode and the system had no procedure
| for dealing with it.
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| Each side uses the argument most expedient to them at the time.
| For the 2020 election I recall it was concern over mail in
| ballots.
| efm wrote:
| No one has mentioned 2FA. I suspect the passwords are not all
| that is needed.
| orev wrote:
| I've never seen or heard of 2FA being needed for BIOS access.
| However maybe we could consider "physical presence" as one type
| of factor, which does reduce the risk a lot.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Also, the article mentioned "partial passwords". I take that
| to mean the BIOS password was two parts, and only one part of
| the password was exposed.
| rsync wrote:
| Paper ballots have very boring failure modes and need no
| explanation or technical support.
|
| When you see a system more complex than paper ballots, know that
| the additions _are not there on your behalf_.
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| Colorado uses paper ballots. It's an all-mail voting state so
| every voter is mailed a paper ballot which is then dropped off
| or mailed back.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Mail-in ballots are worst of all, and the people who advocate
| for their expansion will regret it when they see entire
| church memberships filling out their ballots together,
| checking each other to make sure they voted correctly, and
| shunning, expelling, or firing people who don't participate.
|
| There are currently many heads of household voting for their
| entire families, and even aside from mail-in ballots, there
| are people watching and photographing other family members
| voting _within polling places,_ and uploading the photographs
| to social media with parental pride. In many places, this is
| not even criminal anymore.
|
| Paper ballots, with voters having no method to prove who they
| voted for (no-receipt), in a private booth.
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| It's been the method of voting in Oregon for 25 years and
| Colorado for 10 years, when does the regret start? The
| current states that have all mail voting are also some of
| the least religious states in the country, you'd think the
| religious states would be pushing for it given the scenario
| you laid out. Colorado also had the second highest voter
| turn out nationwide in 2020 which supports the claim that
| all mail voting is good for increasing access to voting.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| Oregon should never be the gold standard for how to do
| anything, ever. Can they even pump their own gas yet?
| jeffmcjunkin wrote:
| Recently, yes :)
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/06/us/oregon-drivers-pump-
| own-fu...
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| I disagree. I believe there are people who want results sooner
| rather than later. The greater the delay, the more annoyed
| folks become. Recording votes in _both_ paper and electronic
| form allows for the auditability of paper and the speed of
| electronic calculations.
|
| (Side note: I also believe that hand-counting of ballots can be
| tedious, and humans performing tedious, repetitive tasks are
| prone to error. See [1].)
|
| [1]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/hand...
| coolhand2120 wrote:
| Please correct me where I'm mistaken.
|
| * This password list has been public for a long time, and is easy
| to access: hidden excel column on a public spreadsheet.
|
| * BIOS access means the intruder can change boot devices, boot
| their own OS, infect the BIOS with a virus, change boot devices
| back, compromise the vote host OS.
|
| * Keycard security isn't tight security. Any amature physical
| penetration tester would just use a primitive attack on the door
| to get around it. E.g.: Grab the handle from under the door with
| a wire. Youtube has a ton of examples.
|
| * This could have been done months ago, and over a long period of
| time.
|
| * The intruder could clean up logs and any other traces of their
| actions.
|
| Where am I technically wrong here? I'm sure I'm missing something
| obvious. It sounds like what you would do with BIOS passwords if
| you wanted to do something nasty. I haven't seen these questions
| addressed anywhere.
|
| I hear some people say "but we use paper ballots". Then why do
| you have a BIOS password? If it's all paper where does the
| computer fit in? All of this is honest curiosity, I'm not sure
| how the voting system works.
| gruez wrote:
| >I hear some people say "but we use paper ballots". Then why do
| you have a BIOS password? If it's all paper where does the
| computer fit in? All of this is honest curiosity, I'm not sure
| how the voting system works.
|
| Not sure about Colorado specifically, but in many jurisdictions
| voters mark paper ballots, which go into a machine to be
| tabulated, and are finally deposited into a box for safe
| keeping/future recounts.
| quercusa wrote:
| You get to feed the ballot into the (literal) black box
| yourself, it beeps and tells you your vote has been recorded.
| What did it record? Who knows?
| gruez wrote:
| > What did it record? Who knows?
|
| How is it any different than traditional voting, where you
| drop your ballot into a black box and trust the poll
| workers would count it correctly?
|
| You can do random spot checks select boxes to make sure the
| machine is tabulating correctly. If they're all correct,
| you can be reasonably sure the others are correct as well,
| unless your adversary has incredible luck.
| treyd wrote:
| The idea is that the machine just provides a preliminary
| count, a official manual count happens over the following
| several hours. If there's a discrepancy then the only the
| manual count counts and the machine can be identified as
| problematic.
| sgerenser wrote:
| No manual count happens unless the results of the
| election are in question (very close race, evidence of
| impropriety, etc.)
| liquidise wrote:
| CO resident here.
|
| CO mails paper ballots to everyone* about a month before
| election day. You can choose to vote in person, or mail in/drop
| off your paper ballot anytime prior to election night.
|
| My understanding is what while the ballots are paper, many
| (all?) are tabulated digitally. It certainly appears to be laid
| out in a way that benefits digital reading, and i believe that
| is what the machines in question are responsible for.
|
| * for some definition of "everyone"
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| Mail in voting is a joke that enables fraud through wide
| scale incompetency in its process. These flaws cannot be
| fixed. Voting for others, ballot harvesting where activists
| collect ballots at nursing homes, ballot box stuffing, etc.
| E.g.:
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woman-says-she-
| got-16-ball...
|
| If the county can't detect an obvious error such as sending
| 16 ballots to unrelated people in a single apartment, what
| else are they missing? You would think AI/ML could help with
| fraud detection.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Another example of "Everything looks suspicious when you
| don't know how anything works."[0]
|
| Mailed ballots are verified against voter registrations and
| signatures are checked against the signature on file. This
| woman with a bunch of ballots for former residents of her
| apartment would gain essentially nothing and open herself
| to serious criminal penalties if she tried to vote as
| anyone except herself.
|
| [0] https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/elon-musk-
| electi...
| bhk wrote:
| The article you cite says nothing in direct response to
| the parent comment (ballot harvesting, etc.).
|
| It also includes some misinformation, saying " signature
| verification is a critical part of ensuring that only
| valid ballots from eligible voters get counted" ... while
| many states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North
| Carolina, and Georgia, do not verify signatures.
|
| https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-
| campaigns/table-14-how-st...
|
| Another example of "Nothing looks suspicious when your
| eyes are closed"?
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| > Another example of "Everything looks suspicious when
| you don't know how anything works."[0]
|
| Typical smug HN reply. I've voted by mail. I know the
| process inside and out. The system sucks and is full of
| holes. Holes which are frequently excused for various
| reasons including laziness.
|
| Taking days or weeks to determine the winner of an
| election (as frequently happens in WA and OR) in 2024 is
| laughable.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| > You would think AI/ML could help with fraud detection.
|
| I think that's a very big leap to make, that the ballots
| are going to where they're going because of fraud. Hanlon's
| razor applies.
|
| > ballot box stuffing
|
| Ballot-box stuffing happens when more ballots are cast than
| there are people who voted. This is difficult to do when
| voting by mail. Indeed, from the article:
|
| > LeVan Hodson told KING 5, "Even if someone gets a second
| ballot (or more), whether under their name or someone
| else's, we'll only ever count one ballot per registered
| voter with their matching signature."
|
| When you receive the envelope, you check the signature
| against what's on file. You also check records to see if
| the voter had voted elsewhere (such as at an early-voting
| location). You can check to see if the voter reported not
| receiving their mail-in ballot. You can do all these checks
| before opening the envelope. And once you do open the
| envelope, it's easy to see if multiple ballots had been
| included in the envelope.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Once you look past individual anecdotes, the actual rate of
| voter fraud with mail voting is tiny compared to the voting
| population.
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-
| of-...
| gruez wrote:
| >Once you look past individual anecdotes, the actual rate
| of voter fraud with mail voting is tiny compared to the
| voting population.
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-
| of-...
|
| that's hardly reassuring given how close this election is
| going predicted to be.
|
| >The median scenario from our forecast has Ms Harris
| winning her pivotal 270th electoral-college vote by less
| than half a percentage point.
|
| https://archive.is/uk388
|
| https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/10/31/what-
| to-w...
| crooked-v wrote:
| Half a percentage point is orders of magnitude bigger
| than a 0.0025% fraud rate.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| > I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.
|
| You forgot the voting machines with uncalibrated resistive
| touchscreens that resulted in people pushing Trump and the
| input being rejected, or worse, Harris was being selected
| instead. Videos of this went viral on socials the last few
| days.
| nkrisc wrote:
| > Videos of this went viral on socials the last few days.
|
| Sounds super credible.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| Are implying the videos were all faked because this is the
| most secure election in history (surpassing the previous
| most secure in history)?
| gruez wrote:
| There's a pretty wide range of possibilities between
| "videos were all faked because this is the most secure
| election in history" and "let's not take the video at
| face value and await further verification because it's
| election season and there's plenty of bad actors trying
| to sow distrust in the election system by posting
| misleading/manipulated videos".
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| The implication of the videos was that this was malice
| (and that generates clicks) yet if you read between the
| lines, it's simply incompetency - uncalibrated
| touchscreens.
|
| My point is local jurisdictions do not have the knowledge
| or resources to properly maintain or deal with electronic
| voting machines (of which there appears to be no national
| standard) and maintain integrity. If they can't remember
| to perform basic maintenance like calibrate the screens,
| what other steps are missed or ignored?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Which do you suppose is more likely...
|
| A) There was a voting machine that had a miscalibrated
| touchscreen that will be corrected before election day.
|
| B) An evil democrat conspiracy is going to steal the
| election in Kentucky
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| Are you saying the video was made by an election worker
| prepping machines in a back room?
|
| These were deployed machines used in early voting. The
| amount of willingness to excuse incompetency here is
| unbelievable.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Incompetence is not malice. I just googled for more info:
| https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/202
| 4/1...
|
| > Laurel County Clerk Tony Brown addressed the issue in a
| statement, saying the machine was temporarily taken out
| of service while an investigator from the Attorney
| General's Office was called to inspect the machine.
| Investigators tried to recreate the anomaly and were able
| to do so after spending few minutes tapping in the area
| of the screen between the Trump and Harris field, Brown
| said.
|
| > Despite additional attempts, Brown said investigators
| weren't able to recreate it a second time.
|
| > "The Kentucky Attorney General's Department of Criminal
| Investigations quickly responded to the complaint from
| Laurel County. Detectives have been in touch with the
| county clerk and recommended they change out the voting
| machine," Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said
| in a statement. "All Kentucky voters can have confidence
| that our elections are secure and any potential issues
| will be addressed quickly."
|
| > In a statement Friday, officials from the Kentucky
| State Board of Elections said the voting machine
| registered the selection for Harris because the voter was
| touching two boxes simultaneously.
|
| > Initially, the voter used their finger to "jab" the
| small box in the top-left corner of the Trump field on
| the touchscreen. After a few failed attempts, a second
| hand enters the frame and is seen attempting to
| "simultaneously click the large Trump field with an index
| finger and the large Robert F. Kennedy field with a
| thumb, leaving the Harris box highlighted," officials
| said.
|
| > Michon Lindstrom, spokesperson for Kentucky Secretary
| of State Michael Adams, also dismissed the incident as
| "voter error."
|
| > Brown emphasized that the issue occurred on a ballot-
| marking machine, which does not process votes. Marking
| machines allow voters to make their selections for their
| ballot and then physically print them to be cast and
| counted.
|
| > If the machine prints a faulty ballot, voters are able
| to discard it and print a corrected one, Brown said.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| I would just like to say, thank you for doing the work of
| locating a news post about the situation. That really
| helps ensure we are talking about the same thing. And it
| allows us to review the situation ourselves.
| nkrisc wrote:
| My point is "video of thing happening on social" media is
| worth essentially nothing these days
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| [delayed]
| dingnuts wrote:
| if you don't have a pile of links providing absolute proof of
| this sort of claim, please, for the love of peace and your
| countrymen, shut the fuck up and stop spreading fear,
| uncertainty, and doubt. Rumors like this are how wars start.
| Go watch A24's Civil War and think about the kind of rumors
| you're spreading. Or provide proof. "viral on social media"
| is anything but proof.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| > shut the fuck up
|
| This isn't Reddit. We argue like adults here.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| > Where am I technically wrong here? I'm sure I'm missing
| something obvious.
|
| As I understand that article, BIOS access requires two
| passwords, and the list only provides one of the two passwords.
| So, instead of "password list" I would say "partial-password
| list".
|
| The list also misses "There is 24/7 video camera recording on
| all election equipment." Of course, you can raise concerns and
| failure modes about video recordings, but that all brings up
| the question "Were those recordings compromised?" You should
| not assume that they were.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Interestingly, a website set up to document voter fraud by Mike
| 'My Pillow' Lindell has collected hundreds of election law
| violations, many in Colorado. For some reason they are all dated
| for the future though. Might be a warning signla about not
| populating your database where the public can watch you doing it.
|
| https://archive.ph/smlSQ (capture of https://electionnexus.com
| from earlier today)
| WorkerBee28474 wrote:
| More likely something like hand-rolling timezone conversion
| code.
| gruez wrote:
| I think the timestamp column is straight up broken. I checked
| the first and last few pages and they all have the same
| timestamp.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| No, it's weirder than that. All the samples I pulled up had
| the same date and time without showing any time zone
| information: 2024-11-03 01:43:25
| gruez wrote:
| Is the site satire? There's basically no information of each
| "incident" aside from the state and a bunch of hashtags.
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| That would support Colorado having a robust system then and we
| shouldn't be concerned just like the SoS says. If their system
| was bad, they wouldn't be catching the voter fraud.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| I think all US folks reading this should volunteer at their
| county's Registrar of Voters (or equivalent agency for their
| county). Spend one election working at a polling place, and
| another election working at the RoV HQ. See what it's like to go
| through the training, and what things are like on Election Day,
| and in the days leading up (for places that allow early voting,
| drop-off, etc.).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-02 23:00 UTC)