Making U.S. Elections More Secure Wouldn't Cost Much But No One Wants To Pay

[morningstar2651]

What would it cost to protect the nation's voting systems from attack? About $400 million would go a long way, say cybersecurity experts. It's not a lot of money when it comes to national defense — the Pentagon spent more than that last year on military bands alone — but getting funds for election systems is always a struggle.

At a Senate intelligence committee hearing last week about Russian hacking during last year's election, Jeanette Manfra , the acting deputy under secretary for cybersecurity at the Department Homeland Security recommended that election officials have a paper-based audit process to identify anomalies after an election.

While that's the advice most cybersecurity experts give, right now more than a dozen states use electronic voting machines that have no paper backup. Replacing those machines would go a long way toward protecting one of the core functions of democracy, says Larry Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice in New York.

Making U.S. Elections More Secure Wouldn't Cost Much But No One Wants To Pay

 

[Saucy]

Well, Obama pretty much answered this question. Both parties, whoever tends to be in power, rigs the system in their favor. Because they both can take advantage of the rigging, they don't want to fix it.

 

[Roseonathorn]

That just proves human greed of power and proves how little concern they have of human rights after all. So too bad Helen Keller died in 1968 now You need a new inspiration and activist. I think there are many clever Americans nowadays so if teamwork can be done perhaps You can save some money too. Good luck!

 

[FireDragon76]

Elections don't seem to be given alot of priority by Americans in general, considering less than 1/5 the eligible voters, actually voted for the current president of the US. Whether that's due to voter apathy or de facto voter suppression remains up for debate, though I would tend to guess the latter.

 

[morningstar2651]

Well, Obama pretty much answered this question. Both parties, whoever tends to be in power, rigs the system in their favor. Because they both can take advantage of the rigging, they don't want to fix it.

He didn't rig the election. We had just come off 8 years of the Bush administration and Bush's approval rating at the end of his presidency was about 37%. McCain marketed himself as a continuation of the Bush administration (the one 37% of people were satisfied with) and Obama marketed himself as a change (the one that 63% of people wanted). Obama had the presidency in the bag before McCain completely dashed his chances by announcing Palin as his running mate.

Similar thing happened with this last election. We were coming off of 8 years of the Obama administration. People were mostly satisfied with Obama (59% approval) but many people that were satisfied still weren't too keen on another 4 years of the same. An unknown senator from Vermont took the Democratic primaries by storm because he stuck to his principles and he wasn't marketing himself as just a continuation of the Obama presidency. Trump took the Republican primaries by storm because he wasn't one of the Republican governors or senators that had earned the ire of the people (congressional approval rating at the time of the election was 18%). Hillary marketed herself as being just like Obama, and that didn't work out very well for her.

 

[Albion]

It would be a lot cheaper and do much to safeguard our elections just to make people present identification when voting, but the Democrats have firmly fought any suggestion that this simple, non-discriminatory step be taken.

 

[Desk trauma]

That just proves human greed of power and proves how little concern they have of human rights after all. So too bad Helen Keller died in 1968 now You need a new inspiration and activist.

Yeah, no thanks. I have no use for a radical socialist eugenicist who praised the bolsheviks.

 

[mark46]

It would be a lot cheaper and do much to safeguard our elections just to make people present identification when voting, but the Democrats have firmly fought any suggestion that this simple, non-discriminatory step be taken.

I agree with the requirement of ID's. Of course, they should be able to be secured at no cost.

With regard to spending for cyber-security, I believe that this is necessary. For awhile, the open question was whether the Russians had used cyber means to tamper with the actual vote (for example, by reducing the count in certain districts). That didn't happen, but as technology increases, that may possible in 2018 or 2020. We think that we are safe because the control is local. That simply means that it will be harder to protect everyone. Someone can concentrate on a few key districts.

The federal government is indeed working with the states on cyber. However, the money should be appropriated by Congress.

 

[FireDragon76]

Voter ID sounds fair, until you realize it costs substantial money to obtain photo-ID's and Republicans tend to only accept ID's that are favored by their preferred demographic, one reason student ID's are usually excluded in states that require voter ID.

 

[mark46]

Voter ID sounds fair, until you realize it costs substantial money to obtain photo-ID's and Republicans tend to only accept ID's that are favored by their preferred demographic, one reason student ID's are usually excluded in states that require voter ID.

Certain ID's show where a person is a resident. Do student ID's do this?

 

[Desk trauma]

Certain ID's show where a person is a resident. Do student ID's do this?

Irrelevant. Showing ID at the polls is to verify that they are the person them claim to be, they had to register prior to that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Certain ID's show where a person is a resident. Do student ID's do this?

Not typically.

But since when is having a residence a requirement to vote? Should homeless people be prohibited from voting?

 

[mark46]

Not typically.

But since when is having a residence a requirement to vote? Should homeless people be prohibited from voting?

Being a resident and having a residence are not equivalent concepts. Homeless people are indeed residents. The "reside" some where, so they are a resident.

 

[mark46]

Irrelevant. Showing ID at the polls is to verify that they are the person them claim to be, they had to register prior to that.

Ok, my bad.

BUT, they should have a ID in order to register.

 

[Desk trauma]

Ok, my bad.

BUT, they should have a ID in order to register.

I disagree, it should be automatic. Turn 18 and you're on the rolls, you just need to provide ID at your precinct.

 

[morningstar2651]

It would be a lot cheaper and do much to safeguard our elections just to make people present identification when voting, but the Democrats have firmly fought any suggestion that this simple, non-discriminatory step be taken.

As I have explained several times, and even presented the math in PAINSTAKING DETAIL, fraudulent votes at the polls are a non-issue and are incapable of swaying a presidential election. We're talking about something smaller than the margin of error. You're talking about less than 0.0001% of the vote being an issue worth more attention than a foreign country being capable of altering the results of an election.

If you want to discuss Voter ID laws, do so in your own thread instead of hijacking this one. We're discussing an actual issue here. The fact that you don't seem to care about our democracy being vulnerable to hacking from other nations tells me a lot about your priorities. Winning at any cost.

 

[morningstar2651]

Not typically.

But since when is having a residence a requirement to vote? Should homeless people be prohibited from voting?

Yes, they're poor and they don't own land. Only land owning men should have the right to vote.

 

[mark46]

I disagree, it should be automatic. Turn 18 and you're on the rolls, you just need to provide ID at your precinct.

So, you are saying that we should get rid of the registration process, and simply allow anyone with an ID should be allowed to vote.

Sorry, I'm not buying. I would like voters to be registered. Otherwise, they can vote a hundred different times, and certainly in more than one state.

 

[morningstar2651]

What Kind Of Voting Hacks Hit Arizona, Other States?
Election Fraud: Why Are Voter Registrations Changing?
Dear Arizona: Seriously?
Phoenix Mayor Asks Justice Department to Investigate Alleged Voter Suppression in Arizona | VICE News
After voting fiasco, protesters gather at Capitol

Arizona voter registrations got hacked and several people had their party affiliation changed to "None" so they couldn't vote in the closed primaries. Voting didn't end until several hours after the results were announced publicly. People waiting in line were told who won the primary several hours before they voted.

 

[Desk trauma]

So, you are saying that we should get rid of the registration process, and simply allow anyone with an ID should be allowed to vote.

My idea is that initial registration is automatic upon reaching voting age. There after the voter changes their registration if they move or elect to be in a political party and must show ID when voting.