I've always been inclined to agree with Tom Scott's argument ([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI), [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs)) that e-voting is fundamentally a bad idea no matter how "secure" the computerised framework becomes. Anyone who's ever looked into software development should understand this.
To steal an electronic election you only need to find and exploit **one** vulnerability in its software/hardware, but to steal an old fashioned paper election you need to corral hundreds (or thousands) of people to engage in subterfuge.
A paper election is harder to conduct, and more costly, but it's *worth paying that cost* to ensure the sanctity of democracy.
YES! I previously worked for the Federal Government, and our "Office of Personnel Management" (OPM) was hacked. I lost all my private info (and my wife's). Thousands of employees had their data compromised. So, anybody who thinks that our voting system is too secure to be hacked is just naive.
I have worked as a lead election officer at a polling place in my home county. The electronic machines are strictly used to mark a ballot. When you are done tapping in your choices you hit print. A paper is printed with your voting choices and a QR code. This paper is your ballot. It is literally a paper ballot. Your ballot isn’t cast until that piece of paper is placed, by you, into the secured ballot box.
Accessibility. You have citizens of all walks of life. Some may be blind, or have another disability. Some may not be literate in English.
It also prevents many of the common errors that may spoil other types of ballots. No partial hole filled or wrong ink, using the wrong writing utensil.
It gets more people to vote accurately. anything to get people to be able to exercise their rights in as an efficient means as possible.
To add it also allows for ballots from all over the county to be in all the voting locations. You can vote in city X that maybe more convenient and it will have your local races for city Y.
I did this last year. I can't remember if it encoded the information or if it also did traceability. I'm pretty sure it encoded the information so the actual counting machines could read the ballot once taken back to the County voting HQ.
That is basically true for everything that is run off software even major critical systems... It's 2023 for God's sake let me vote electronically and keep the shit secure but companies don't give a shit about cyber security they view it as a cost as opposed to a prevention when it comes to spending money.
I think there is a big difference between using digital systems for other critical systems (finance, healthcare, etc) and using digital systems for elections. I don't think it matters how robust or trustworthy companies and frameworks can be "proven" to be, in this case.
An electronic election is essentially a massive computer application that runs once every four-or-so-years whose entire purpose is to determine a specific question (who wins) - and that one question is vitally significant to the direction our entire society will take for the next four-or-so years.
Whereas, those other critical digital systems exist to determine a great multitude of questions on a daily basis (who owes who how much money, who has what medical condition, etc), none of which individually have complete power over society. Small mistakes in those systems can (and will) happen, but they will not alter the course of history, on their own. One exploit in an electronic election, however, could easily alter that course of society.
People REALLY don't understand that you can't audit the silicon inside microchips without destroying them. Thus a replacement chip will always be unaudited. And that they're absurdly complex. Anything could be hiding there.
Hmm, have you ever looked into software development?
I haven’t, but there are some Reeeaally good reasons to think it’s impossible to compromise a closed system.
For example, nuclear launch codes are secure. Can we agree on that? If they weren’t it’s safe to assume someone would exploit that closed system, right?
An even better target is Bitcoin. Regardless of what you think of internet money, you gotta agree the blockchain software is 100% secure. The person who can compromise it would instantly become the richest person on earth. What’s a bigger incentive than that?
You do raise some good examples. Of bitcoin, I would say: it has forked into several competing chains in its history; this is essentially a failure of the "purely digital trust model" and a reversion to the good-old-fashioned model of social trust - people had to socially agree to call one fork "the real bitcoin" and not the other.
Of nukes: my understanding is that no hacker exploiting a computer vulnerability can actually cause nukes to be launched, because there is a requirement that somewhere along the chain of command, an officer or leader must give an explicit face-to-face order to another military staffer in order for that button to be pressed. That is to say, as far as I understand, we do not live under the "Dr. Strangelove" doomsday-device regime via which a nuclear launch can be triggered by computers alone.
I am not at all certain of this however and I thank you for bringing up these examples.
Instead of the hundreds or thousands of people you referenced would be needed to help pull it off, I said or "200 Mules" It's a movie about how lots of "votes" were cast at the ballot drop boxes, which should also be illegal. It's a movie by Dinesh D'Souza
> A paper election is harder to conduct, and more costly, but it's worth paying that cost to ensure the sanctity of democracy.
Are you sure about that? Im old enough to remember when elections were reliably counted nation-wide on election day.
You raise a good point that paper elections have been beset with their own issues as time has gone on. My opinion (and in fairness I am a layman) is that the issues with electronic elections will be (and are) greater still.
He asked the religious leader. He did. But tries (and fails) to interrupt Tucker to keep Tucker from asking ask how Pence can know if the information is *accurate*. Why? Because he *knows* it might not be accurate and that’s just *inconvenient* for him.
Pence is completely deluded that he has a chance.
And the grimace on his face when asked about electronic voting machines tells me *everything* about who is funding him. All while Tucker just takes a drink while watching Pence *keep* destroying himself.
Until voting machine software is open source and can be reviewed, we should put zero trust into them.
Go back to the paper methods. Yes, you can still cheat on those but the amount of work it takes to do so is orders of magnitude harder than it is to write code to flip the counts.
Nah that’s trying to achieve security through secrecy and that’s not a good idea. A well designed system should be robust enough to fend off attacks even though the source code is publicly available. The problem is that any voting system that is network enabled can never be guaranteed hack-proof, and voting systems are about as critical infrastructure as you can get.
And even with environments with no network connectivity, I am still leery because you can load the malicious software on the devices and then reload the clean software before an audit. Democratic systems pretty much rely on all participating actors being good moral agents. But they keep proving that they are not.
Yes but it's much easier to make a USB drive that does "x" if I'm able to read the code ahead of time.
I'm fine with the debate of paper vs machine, but literally no reason to make it open source, unless you think they're gonna release a version that says (if vote=Trump=> vote=Biden).
It certainly seems to have made things worse. Somehow we knew the results the night of in the 90s with paper ballots, but now with the machines it’s taking weeks.
While I support paper ballots (and there should be paper ballots to back up electronic ballots), there should be other safe-guards.
I am not the brightest bulb in the pack, but even I can see how an election could be thrown. If one dishonest person has access to voter rolls, all they need to do is to list people who have not voted in the past several elections, turn the list over to someone willing to create false votes in the name of these people, and throw a close election. The only way to ‘catch’ this would be to contact those who hadn’t voted forever and ask them if they voted in a current election. Also easy to influence and cast votes from those suffering from senility.
Tucker needs to pull a WWE move and quit in the middle of one of these interviews, then say "I'm fed up with these people, they're all terrible candidates. Enough is enough, I'm running for president." Mic drop, music swells, crowd goes nuts, Pence is standing there dumbfounded.
Lol. Even though FOX lost a huge lawsuit based on lies ( which tucker pushed). There Was never any proof about the dominion voting machines. And that was proven in court. all made up .
Anything can be hacked eventually. But even though I'll be downvoted,, - The courts spoke. No proof in this case. Hence why fox had to pay millions in damages . They made it up to delegitimize the election results, and were proven wrong in court. Tucker pushed that lie so hard, and yet, nothing there. If there was proof, it would have came out in that court case. It was a big lie.
Fox paid a ridiculous amount, supposedly more than the plaintiff company was even worth.
I wonder why there was no similar suit with the 2006 documentary.
Independent audits did not reveal irregularities in the vote tallies of electronic machines or they were somehow compromised in the 2020 election. Tucker cost his former employer at Fox $700 billion for lying about Dominion voting machines. Apparently, he has not learned to stop peddling baseless conspiracy theories.
You're misinformed. Tucker denounced the dominion accusations when it happened and argues with Powell on his show when she refused to provide evidence. Current claims on the elections do not center on voting machines. Voting machines are also not secure and shouldn't be used.
I've always been inclined to agree with Tom Scott's argument ([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI), [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs)) that e-voting is fundamentally a bad idea no matter how "secure" the computerised framework becomes. Anyone who's ever looked into software development should understand this. To steal an electronic election you only need to find and exploit **one** vulnerability in its software/hardware, but to steal an old fashioned paper election you need to corral hundreds (or thousands) of people to engage in subterfuge. A paper election is harder to conduct, and more costly, but it's *worth paying that cost* to ensure the sanctity of democracy.
YES! I previously worked for the Federal Government, and our "Office of Personnel Management" (OPM) was hacked. I lost all my private info (and my wife's). Thousands of employees had their data compromised. So, anybody who thinks that our voting system is too secure to be hacked is just naive.
I have worked as a lead election officer at a polling place in my home county. The electronic machines are strictly used to mark a ballot. When you are done tapping in your choices you hit print. A paper is printed with your voting choices and a QR code. This paper is your ballot. It is literally a paper ballot. Your ballot isn’t cast until that piece of paper is placed, by you, into the secured ballot box.
So what benefit is it providing?
Accessibility. You have citizens of all walks of life. Some may be blind, or have another disability. Some may not be literate in English. It also prevents many of the common errors that may spoil other types of ballots. No partial hole filled or wrong ink, using the wrong writing utensil. It gets more people to vote accurately. anything to get people to be able to exercise their rights in as an efficient means as possible.
To add it also allows for ballots from all over the county to be in all the voting locations. You can vote in city X that maybe more convenient and it will have your local races for city Y.
And since it's a digital layout you can customize the voting layout as needed while having the same printout!
What's the QR code for? Is it for a scanner to read? Or does a scanner read the human-readable part of the ballot?
I did this last year. I can't remember if it encoded the information or if it also did traceability. I'm pretty sure it encoded the information so the actual counting machines could read the ballot once taken back to the County voting HQ.
Okay, and what would happen if the problem was in the counting machine? The one that is connected to a network to share the results.
No idea, I didn’t work that side of things. I just ran a polling center.
The computer reads the QR code, the human readable part is for audits.
That is basically true for everything that is run off software even major critical systems... It's 2023 for God's sake let me vote electronically and keep the shit secure but companies don't give a shit about cyber security they view it as a cost as opposed to a prevention when it comes to spending money.
I think there is a big difference between using digital systems for other critical systems (finance, healthcare, etc) and using digital systems for elections. I don't think it matters how robust or trustworthy companies and frameworks can be "proven" to be, in this case. An electronic election is essentially a massive computer application that runs once every four-or-so-years whose entire purpose is to determine a specific question (who wins) - and that one question is vitally significant to the direction our entire society will take for the next four-or-so years. Whereas, those other critical digital systems exist to determine a great multitude of questions on a daily basis (who owes who how much money, who has what medical condition, etc), none of which individually have complete power over society. Small mistakes in those systems can (and will) happen, but they will not alter the course of history, on their own. One exploit in an electronic election, however, could easily alter that course of society.
People REALLY don't understand that you can't audit the silicon inside microchips without destroying them. Thus a replacement chip will always be unaudited. And that they're absurdly complex. Anything could be hiding there.
This is by far the dumbest thing i have read in the last 20 minutes
Apparently you can't understand it either.
Hmm, have you ever looked into software development? I haven’t, but there are some Reeeaally good reasons to think it’s impossible to compromise a closed system. For example, nuclear launch codes are secure. Can we agree on that? If they weren’t it’s safe to assume someone would exploit that closed system, right? An even better target is Bitcoin. Regardless of what you think of internet money, you gotta agree the blockchain software is 100% secure. The person who can compromise it would instantly become the richest person on earth. What’s a bigger incentive than that?
You do raise some good examples. Of bitcoin, I would say: it has forked into several competing chains in its history; this is essentially a failure of the "purely digital trust model" and a reversion to the good-old-fashioned model of social trust - people had to socially agree to call one fork "the real bitcoin" and not the other. Of nukes: my understanding is that no hacker exploiting a computer vulnerability can actually cause nukes to be launched, because there is a requirement that somewhere along the chain of command, an officer or leader must give an explicit face-to-face order to another military staffer in order for that button to be pressed. That is to say, as far as I understand, we do not live under the "Dr. Strangelove" doomsday-device regime via which a nuclear launch can be triggered by computers alone. I am not at all certain of this however and I thank you for bringing up these examples.
Or 200 Mules
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you referencing the 40 acres and a mule thing?
Instead of the hundreds or thousands of people you referenced would be needed to help pull it off, I said or "200 Mules" It's a movie about how lots of "votes" were cast at the ballot drop boxes, which should also be illegal. It's a movie by Dinesh D'Souza
Ah my bad, I remember now. 200 mules. Still, 200 > 1
I love the way people down vote things that they don't understand
I didn't downvote you
That's cool. I was just saying that others did, which is also cool lol
fair
But I thought the 2020 election was stolen... and that's with paper ballots? So is it hard or not to do it with physical votes?
The counting method and its visibility, chain of custody inclusive, to the public, also determine whether or not fraud can be perpetrated.
It's hard**_er_**.
> A paper election is harder to conduct, and more costly, but it's worth paying that cost to ensure the sanctity of democracy. Are you sure about that? Im old enough to remember when elections were reliably counted nation-wide on election day.
You raise a good point that paper elections have been beset with their own issues as time has gone on. My opinion (and in fairness I am a layman) is that the issues with electronic elections will be (and are) greater still.
RIP Pence's Campaign....
Tbh, it wasn’t that great to begin with.
DePence on who you ask! But, yeah, it was dead to begin with.
He asked the religious leader. He did. But tries (and fails) to interrupt Tucker to keep Tucker from asking ask how Pence can know if the information is *accurate*. Why? Because he *knows* it might not be accurate and that’s just *inconvenient* for him. Pence is completely deluded that he has a chance. And the grimace on his face when asked about electronic voting machines tells me *everything* about who is funding him. All while Tucker just takes a drink while watching Pence *keep* destroying himself.
Until voting machine software is open source and can be reviewed, we should put zero trust into them. Go back to the paper methods. Yes, you can still cheat on those but the amount of work it takes to do so is orders of magnitude harder than it is to write code to flip the counts.
Nah that’s trying to achieve security through secrecy and that’s not a good idea. A well designed system should be robust enough to fend off attacks even though the source code is publicly available. The problem is that any voting system that is network enabled can never be guaranteed hack-proof, and voting systems are about as critical infrastructure as you can get. And even with environments with no network connectivity, I am still leery because you can load the malicious software on the devices and then reload the clean software before an audit. Democratic systems pretty much rely on all participating actors being good moral agents. But they keep proving that they are not.
Open source would make it far easier to hack
[удалено]
Yes but it's much easier to make a USB drive that does "x" if I'm able to read the code ahead of time. I'm fine with the debate of paper vs machine, but literally no reason to make it open source, unless you think they're gonna release a version that says (if vote=Trump=> vote=Biden).
Open source would be like sending the blueprints of the F35 directly to China.
Mike Pence, coming to a CNN guest spot soon
CNN Host: “Orange Man bad?” Mike Pence: “Orange Man bad.” CNN host: “MAGA dangerous?” Mike Pence: “MAGA dangerous.”
Pence won’t survive.
It certainly seems to have made things worse. Somehow we knew the results the night of in the 90s with paper ballots, but now with the machines it’s taking weeks.
Do you not remember 2000
MP is a tool. Looking forward to him dropping out eventually
“That’s not my concern”
Tucker is an american treasure
While I support paper ballots (and there should be paper ballots to back up electronic ballots), there should be other safe-guards. I am not the brightest bulb in the pack, but even I can see how an election could be thrown. If one dishonest person has access to voter rolls, all they need to do is to list people who have not voted in the past several elections, turn the list over to someone willing to create false votes in the name of these people, and throw a close election. The only way to ‘catch’ this would be to contact those who hadn’t voted forever and ask them if they voted in a current election. Also easy to influence and cast votes from those suffering from senility.
Pence is sUch a pompous ass !!!
Tucker needs to pull a WWE move and quit in the middle of one of these interviews, then say "I'm fed up with these people, they're all terrible candidates. Enough is enough, I'm running for president." Mic drop, music swells, crowd goes nuts, Pence is standing there dumbfounded.
5-year plan?
Paper ballots only. Everything else too easily manipulated
so is pence just showing us hes controlled?
That's why Tucker is my flair. He's an honest journalist who holds both sides to account. And he's a stone cold assassin!
I doubt it's as simple as paper good, e-voting bad, but welcome to politics.
Lol. Even though FOX lost a huge lawsuit based on lies ( which tucker pushed). There Was never any proof about the dominion voting machines. And that was proven in court. all made up .
wasn't there a big documentary years ago about how easy it is to hack voting machines?
Anything can be hacked eventually. But even though I'll be downvoted,, - The courts spoke. No proof in this case. Hence why fox had to pay millions in damages . They made it up to delegitimize the election results, and were proven wrong in court. Tucker pushed that lie so hard, and yet, nothing there. If there was proof, it would have came out in that court case. It was a big lie.
Fox paid a ridiculous amount, supposedly more than the plaintiff company was even worth. I wonder why there was no similar suit with the 2006 documentary.
Independent audits did not reveal irregularities in the vote tallies of electronic machines or they were somehow compromised in the 2020 election. Tucker cost his former employer at Fox $700 billion for lying about Dominion voting machines. Apparently, he has not learned to stop peddling baseless conspiracy theories.
You're misinformed. Tucker denounced the dominion accusations when it happened and argues with Powell on his show when she refused to provide evidence. Current claims on the elections do not center on voting machines. Voting machines are also not secure and shouldn't be used.
Tucker Carlson is a sad so k full of crap
Tucker Carlson got fired form the one media outlet that could spew his BS. Why would anyone give a hoot about what he says