15 years too late
As anyone who rememberts the Slasdhdot Diebold wars can testify... Not quite 15 years ago:
https://m.slashdot.org/story/40566
(Far, far more in the /. archives)
Two US senators on Friday introduced legislation to set up the National Commission on the Cybersecurity of the United States Election Systems, to examine the possibility that people tried to hack the 2016 election. The commission would examine the evidence to see if the Russians, or someone else, actively tried to hack the …
Yep, complete with sucide-in-Mexico with a person taking a close look at problems, as I remember.
Still, here we read:
"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016,"
Actually, after practically a year of Hillary-and-NYT-generated hot air with various progressives, churnalists, Merkel and other Disgustables in hot pursuit, I still haven't see a shred of credible evidence that would support such a statement.
15 years ago, or so, a number of people where warning about "electronic voting" machines, especially those from Diebold.
We know the problems, "touch screen pads", no "paper trail", no credible means of recount. At the very least the units that require a "scan card" to fill out allow a recount or even a hand tabulation in a real dust up.
Talk to some real experts, they were warned, not to marketeers.
Yet we still see the vulnerable machines in use.
So a couple Congress criminals want us to ignore the fact the entire reason for this fiasco was their knee jerk reaction to Florida in 2000. What they forget to mention, the donkey county they had the most problems with had a ballot laid out by a donkey. Whether the layout had cost Gore any votes has always been pure speculation. But in the aftermath, instead of looking how to make paperish ballots less confusing the Congress criminals decide in their collective wisdom rivaling that of a flea that electronic voting was the answer. So an eighth-assed idea becomes what is done here combined with the typical incompetent implementation. What do you think was going to happen?
Note, Congress has had an abysmal reputation with many Yank humorists comparing them to criminals, fleas, thieves, etc.
Note, Congress has had an abysmal reputation with many Yank humorists comparing them to criminals, fleas, thieves, etc.
You Johnny-come-latelys. We've hated our Parliamentarians for longer than you have even been a country. In fact, we tried to blow the crooks up the year before the first substantive colonisation of what is now the US.
Correct. This is a deliberate distraction to hopefully prevent any meaningful investigation into the growing mass of illegal voting evidence.
Since it's the Democrats who benefited from all those criminal votes, one might wonder why a Republican senator would lend himself to this sort of thing. The answer is simple: Lindsey Graham always seems to side with the Democrats because he is one. Just like John McCain.
These two and several other RINO senators allow Democrats to keep pretending their dirty tricks are actually "bipartisan" legislation, and they've been performing this service for the Dems for many years. Probably they have a goodly supply of kneepads.
But they will feel the sting of woke voters in their next primaries. Count on it.
Since it's the Democrats who benefited from all those criminal votes
Really? Do you really swallow that line of pure BS? You really want to join that trope?
I don't see much benefitting from where I sit.
Voting machine fraud was already VERY clearly visible when George W Bush was elected, which is from when I have been following the whole voter machine fraud and the work - as mentioned before - of Dr Rebecca Mercuri who is pretty much world's foremost expert on this matter.
If you want to talk about voting manipulation, the voting fraud commission IS the manipulator for the next election as they seek to repeat the game of getting people off voting registers who are well entitled to vote. Next up: gerrymandering and "accidentally" misjudging the amount of voting resources in districts not favourable to the Republicans - that was a pure replay of what happened during the Bush election.
Accusing the opposition of what you do yourself is getting old, but they will thank you for the heads up. It's a sign that you are not confident to win with voting integrity intact.
"Since it's the Democrats who benefited from all those criminal votes"
"Really? Do you really swallow that line of pure BS? You really want to join that trope?"
From the Wikipedia page for Terry McAullife, Governor of Virginia... On April 22, 2016, McAuliffe signed an executive order restoring voting rights to more than 200,000 felons in Virginia. The order was overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court as a violation of the Virginia Constitution, as the Virginia governor does not have the authority to grant blanket pardons and restorations of rights. On August 22, 2016, McAuliffe announced that he had restored the voting rights to almost 13,000 felons on a case-by-case basis using an autopen.
Short answer: the question is ex-felons, not felons.
There are 9 states (including Virginia mentioned here) where felons don't get their voting rights back even after they are released and finish probation. So these ones would vote normally if they were not forbidden. 3 of the 9 states have small print automatically restoring first-time offenders or "minor offenses", but the general restriction applies.
Most of the rest do restore voting rights after release (15) or after parole (28). There are only 2 that apparently allow votes in prison (Vermont and Maine).
What a load of bullshit. The big problem is simple, non-qualified people voting. There has been no systematic investigation of this because any attempt to do so is labelled racist or equivalent. Yet small samples do show that there are illegals voting and in some areas the number implied to have voted (from sampling) being greater than the victory margins. Al Franken's election as Senator being a case in point.
The cry is that having to have some form of ID is discriminatory; yet the evidence we do have from comparing areas that do require photo ID and those that don't shows that needing ID is no barrier to legitimate voters especially as such ID is either free or very cheap.
The Democrat's oppose the process because it will be removing a wad of votes that they rely upon to win, votes that they are not entitled to as the voters concerned are not qualified to vote.
TRhe whole process is shot through with bias, what is definitely needed is a bi-partisan investigation into voter fraud - but the Democrats won't agree as they know what it will uncover - large scale organised voter fraud run by the various branches of the Democrat party.
In my state of NH there were almost 2 million out of state voters that never actually moved to or lived in NH during the election and most voted democrat. Hell if the rino's would get off their asses in congress the economy would be humming along right now and taxes due this year would be lower with no punishment for not purchasing overpriced "gouged" insurance policies either. Trumps economic plan is a work of art but to enact it fully the Congress would have to kill a bunch of tax loopholes the rich contributors to their campaigns so love and that is something they will never do since they can't have the rich paying as high a percentage or higher than a regular worker and 12% is not unheard of according to Warren Buffet who once said on TV he was sickened that due to his accountants he actually paid a lower percentage than his secretary and though he would still pay the lower rate because he could he thought it was unfair that the system was set up to let anyone do that.
In my state of NH there were almost 2 million out of state voters that never actually moved to or lived in NH during the election and most voted democrat ...
Please report to the nearest emergency department immediately, you are suffering from severe brain trauma which causes double vision and paranoid delusions.
The total population of NH as of July 1st, 2016 (the last official figure available) is 1,334,795 people.
Looking for how things might be rigged? How about this quote from Walden O'Dell, chairman of Diebold, shortly before the election that saw GW Bush returned to office...
"''I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president [GW Bush] next year.''
That is hardly unusual for Mr. O'Dell. A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's ''Rangers and Pioneers,'' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race.
Conflict of interests, perhaps?
Sauce: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics-in-the-digital-age.html?mcubz=0
You're absolutely correct.
What you've described is not the real problem.
In fact, it's not a REAL problem at all:
Registered Voters, Chicago Illinois, 2016 general election: 1,570,529
Votes Cast, Chicago Illinois, 2016 general election: 1,115,664
(https://chicagoelections.com/)
This is a 71% turnout, which is consistent with the region historically.
The real problem is morons who still believe Fox News and ultra-conservative blogs after they've repeatedly proven that they believe lying is a valid tactic for pushing their political agendas.
There is no credible source which supports the story you're repeating.
Looking at Chicago in another way:
The Chicago population has roughly 2,000,000 of people of voting age. The Chicago Tribune says 180,000 of those are illegal immigrants, so say 120,000 of those are of voting age and assume a pool of 1,880,000 people eligible to register to vote. Nationwide, 80% of the people who can register, do. If the percentage holds for Chicago, we would expect about 1,500,000 registered voters. In this last election, less than 60% of registered voters, actually voted. If this held true for Chicago, we'd expect to see about 900,000 votes.
What we actually saw was 1,101,178 voters voting and 1,115,664 votes cast - both those numbers are from the Chicago election board. So more than 200,000 votes than we would expect to "normally" see, and a roughly 20% greater turn out than the average for the rest of the country.
@etatdame
Your maths and reasoning are almost as bad as those of the original anonymous coward...
You pull figures out of your arse, without justifying them: "so say 120,000 of those are of voting age and assume a pool of 1,880,000 people eligible to register to vote."
You do, at least, state that you're assuming that the nationwide 80% eligible to vote actually register therefore the same figure holds for Chicago. But surely Chicago has the number that did actually register, so your assumption starts to look like it was made to conceal the real figure.
You do, at least, state that you're assuming nationwide figure of 60% turnout ought to apply to Chicago. And then complaining because it doesn't. You need a hell of a lot more than that before you can jump from high turnout to voter fraud.
As others have said, Chicago historically has high turnout. Of course, that could be caused by historic voter fraud, so that's not really evidence either way without further research.
But we do know the red states have a long history of voter suppression. They aim to prevent those who are likely to vote Democrat from voting. And have a lot of success. They mainly go after the poor, because the poor are more likely to vote Democrat. Of course, there's a strong correlation between poverty and dark skin colour, so it gets exposed as racism, when it's exposed. But it's still happening. So if we looked at turnout county by county and state by state, we'd find turnout is lower in the red states and a lot lower in poor counties in red states. That voter suppression brings the average US turnout down. So Chicago's higher turnout is at least partially due to not suppressing votes by the poor.
So, you're full of shit. Just like the original AC. You bring in needless assumptions. Just like the original AC. Your logic is crap. Just like the original AC. Were you both home-schooled by Betsy DeVos?
I' m not 'complaining' about anything. Just attempting to see what kind of numbers we would expect to see if the national averages also held true for Chicago.
The 120,000 number was derived from another assumption that I should have spelled out: that the percentage over age 18 was the same as for the rest of Chicago.
But I'm curious - why the anger and need to resort to personal attacks in what could be a civil discussion?
"But I'm curious - why the anger and need to resort to personal attacks in what could be a civil discussion?"
Insecurity, and the overwhelming need to feel both right about everything and in the comforting safety of the majority, establishment camp.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it...
"It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs".
- Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics” Book I, 1094.b24
"The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without".
- Eric Hoffer
What we actually saw was 1,101,178 voters voting and 1,115,664 votes cast - both those numbers are from the Chicago election board.
Both of those numbers are from this story: http://chicagocitywire.com/stories/511195461-election-board-lists-more-general-election-votes-than-voters-in-chicago
That story also includes this explanation from the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners:
Jim Allen, a board spokesman, said that the list [of 1,101,178 voters] turned over to the Chicago Republicans was incomplete and handed over prematurely.
“Not all voters were entered electronically into the system at first,” he said. “They have since been added.”
End of story.
As someone who lived in a state with endemic voter fraud, New Jersey, the pols are smart enough to make sure the numbers look reasonable. Thus there, if the fraud is done correctly, less votes than registered voters in all precincts. Chicago has been suspected of cooking (in Cook County) the election results for decades now and if so they have plenty of practice of doing it. They are not going to make so elementary a mistake as have too many votes for the number of registered voters. One common way of voter fraud is not to purge the roles of the recently deceased and have someone vote for them. This method has been done for decades in some areas of the US, North Jersey being one of the areas. Given that it is not very likely that the poll workers know most of the people in an urban precinct this trick is relatively easy to do. There are other tricks to do election fraud that would not show up in comparing the vote totals, percentage voting, etc. and would require an intense effort to stamp out.
What is over looked is most voter fraud is an effort to swing a narrow vote to other way in a state or local election. Given how US Presidential elections are actually done, a narrow victory could be swung by carefully done voter fraud in that state if the statewide vote is close enough. Typically this effective if the statewide race is decided by a few hundred votes or less. Get over a few thousand and this becomes more difficult to pull off. I do not remember what the margin in Illinois was but if it was a few thousand votes then I doubt Chicago voter fraud, if it occurred, changed the actual outcome.
The answer to whether voter fraud occurs in the US is yes it does and has been occurring for decades if not over a century. The real question is there the political will to stamp it out on both sides. Where I grow up it was the donkeys doing the fraud but that does not say in other areas the elephants are not guilty also. Also, the issue of 'Russian hacking' is an effort to hide the real problems with how elections are run in the US and that electronic methods leave a lot to be desired for vote auditing and recounts.
Fox News unlike CNN doesn't stage their news stories by hiring actors to be refugees, dead people, or say they are continents apart while I'm watching a video with both feeds and the same vehicles are going past both reporters seconds aparts because they are in the same parking lot. Yeah and the part where the CNN reporter and executive are tricked into saying the russian story is being pushed for the ratings and they don't believe it and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever.
For someone using the Anonymous mask icon you sure are uninformed about CNN, I remember on facebook when anonymous posted an image hacked from MSNBC 2 weeks before the election showing Hillary with a commanding lead with the number of votes and the percentage of the overall vote, it's amazing that MSNBC could actually predit a couple weeks in advance exact votes and percentages or was it that the election was supposed to be rigged.
They seem to shout a lot and be very angry a lot of the time on Fox. And hire women who like showing all they got, which is a lot, on Fox.
Seems to have worked on you, for sure. Ever tried turning off the telly and reading some serious journalism? USA is one of the dumbest nations on the planet.
What universe do you live in?
First you claim more votes cast than registered voters. Ummmm, how? You have to show that you're a registered voter at the polling station or they won't let you vote. There's a fiddle factor at voting time due to provisional ballots, but they get checked and are disallowed if the person was not entitleed to vote. So, yes, technically some small fucking fraction of those who turn up to vote will be unregistered and get provisional votes, and some of those provisional votes will later be accepted.
How do you then get from a turnout of 60% (your estimate) to 400,000 fraudulent votes? 60% of fucking what? The population of Chicago in 2016 was 2.7 million and either 60% or 40% of that is more than 400,000. And how does that relate to whether any of that 60% were unregistered? What proportion of that 60% were unregistered? And what proportion of that 60% were unregistered but entitled to vote as opposed to unregistered because they were not entitled to vote?
How the fucking fuck do you get from that 60% turnout to 400 fucking thousand fraudulent votes? The maths doesn't add up. The logic doesn't make sense. It's complete and utter bollocks.
You are either Kris Kobach or Donald Trump because you're out of your fucking mind and lying your socks off.
Dead voters not getting purged from the rolls is usually due to poor processes, not corruption. Republicans looking to point to corruption want to review all the registration lists so they can point to all the dead people and say "see, here's all the fraud that helped Hillary win the popular vote" but in most places the voter registration rolls are not plugged into the social security "death master list". Many precincts all over the country have no way of knowing who died, so they simply remove voters from the rolls if they haven't voted for a while.
Besides, dead voters on the rolls are only a problem if they vote so you have to demonstrate not only that dead voters are on the rolls but they are marked as having voted after they died (several months after they died, as they could have sent in an absentee ballot) If you had CCTV cameras you could possibly identify them as they walk to the desk with the nice old ladies who check you off the list when you vote, but if you vote absentee for a dead person it would be more difficult to catch you. Though obviously coming up with a better way to remove people when they die the best solution - you just have to make sure it isn't doing more than that.
Which brings up what is more likely the biggest source of potential fraud - absentee ballots. To start with, they're less secure since there's no 'in-person' element. Just a signature, and signatures are completely 100% worthless for proving you are who you say you are. It is all too easy to send in a request for an absentee ballot for someone else, so long as you have a way to intercept their mail. That's simple for family members / spouses, or people who live in apartments where the locks on the communal mailboxes are trivial to pick. Not only that, but since most states don't share information on their vote registration rolls and who has voted, people who maintain residences in multiple states can easily vote twice with little chance of detection. Or even if they only vote once, they can vote in the state where they think their vote will matter more - one has to wonder how many of the votes cast in Florida in presidential elections are people who legally should be voting in their home state.
Obviously hacking (whether by Russians, political parties, or griefers) is a concern, as is trust in the companies making the machines, but that part should be the easiest to address. Require all votes leave a paper trail, and using that paper trail require a recount of a 2% of every state's precincts selected randomly (plus maybe allow each political party to choose a few precincts if they feel there are some that need checking due to election day irregularities) and if the tallies differ by some small amount require a full statewide recount. Heck, a full hand recount wouldn't be that hard after EVERY election, if you only recounted the president, senator and congressman, and not all the rest. Whether to recount those would be governed by state or local laws anyway.
@DougS - The real point about voter fraud, is yes it occurs. There are several methods to use and which one is the most abused, I do not know. The point is not is there any but how much. The how much is important in very close elections (Florida in 2000) and did it swing the election from the actual winner. At what I suspect the likely levels of voter fraud, I doubt any statewide election with over a few thousand votes difference would be affected (the exact number probably varies a little based on state population).
The real problem with voter fraud is that neither party is really willing to stamp it out. I think this partly because it gives the losing party in very close election the ability to cry foul even the net effect of all voter fraud in the election is a complete wash. This is important in being able to challenge an election in court.
As long as there is no effort to establish transparency and accountability into the process from the bottom up (i.e. including the selection of officials, auditors, architecture and accompanying software, hardware and remote voting* facilities) it's just camouflage for another con trick.
* Instead of asking soldiers to vote in cleartext so they could be manipulated, a trick they started to use when Bush was elected
I know that very well.
The point I meant to make is that it's no more than another skin on a well-known issue of manipulating elections. Something that's come a long way since the eponymous Gerry. Or indeed before him, though I don't know if the Romans had a word for it.
What greater gerrymander for our times than Cameron reneging on his 2015 manifesto commitment to enfranchise Brits longer-term abroad? The very ones who might expect to lose most from brexit.
What greater gerrymander for our times than Cameron reneging on his 2015 manifesto commitment
Errm, how about the over-representation of Scotland and Wales in the Westminster Parliament? Funnily enough NI don't see that over-representation.
That's been a persistent net difference of 28 seats largely in favour of the Labour party. I'll grant you that prior to 2005 Scotland was even more grossly over-represented, but its still a strongly tilted playing field.
"Hostile governments like Russia don't believe in democracy," said Graham. "They have shown an eagerness to meddle in elections in the United States and other democratic nations.."
Hmm yeah.
When Russia interferes in another country's affairs they're undemocratic.
When the USA interferes in another country's affairs they're bringing democracy and freedom, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, etc., etc.
The USA is every bit as bad as those it criticises.
They've been doing it for over a century.
"Hostile governments like Russia don't believe in democracy," said Graham.
Interestingly enough, Russia is not an enemy of the United States - it shares way too many concerns and interests with the US, and has very little to gain from a confrontation, either open or by proxy. Neither is the Russian government hostile per se. A more accurate description at this point would be "unfriendly". Those of us who can remember a bit of the recent, post-Soviet history, will also remeber that not so long ago, Russia and its government were rather friendly and cooperative with the US. Since history is not an experimental science, one could only speculate on what was the root cause of this transition.
If I had to hazard a guess, then from the Russian (and not only Russian) point of view, any cooperation with the US appears to benefit mainly the US, frequently to the detriment of the other party. From the American point of view, it would appear that the stubborn refusal by the Russians to see the world the same way Americans do is the problem.
The sensible way to resolve these perceptions (which I know are both largely incorrect) would be to make every effort to increase the cooperation, so that the sides can get to know and trust each other more. Instead, we have both countries posturing and making exaggerated, and often unfounded, accusations against the other side. Well, I am sure this is a lot of fun for all politicians involved, on both sides. The problem for the rest of us is that once you start treating the other side as an enemy, it will eventually become one - regardless of where the relationship has started initially. It took us 50 years to dig ourselves out from that pit the last time this happened, and it looks like we have still learned nothing from it.
Russia and the USA are not enemies as such, but their strategic interests do run into conflict in quite a number of areas.
The USA has, however, targeted specific individuals that it feels are part of the criminal oligarchy that rules Russia. The freezing of assets and restriction of movement of these "big men" is what the current conflicts are mainly about. This is what all those discussions about "Russian adoptions" are about (since they are part of the same package) it's all about millionaire gangsters getting pissed off that they can't launder their money or live in nice Western societies.
In much the same vein, if you view brexit as the result of the EU passing anti-money laundering laws (coming into force in 2019) and the UK based oligarchs* deciding that they are buggered if they are going to pay tax like a little person, and can ride out the 5-10 years of chaos that brexit will cause. In fact, it's about the only logical explanation for the dogs breakfast that is brexit, since some powerful group(s) want out of the EU, but don't seem interested in pretty much any of the details.
You'll also notice that tax havens are not something the government will publish a position paper on, hoping to slip it through while the peons are screaming about stuff like jobs, food security or dude, where's my civil rights?
While it's a little old school, many of the current conflicts make more sense as a clash between different groups of elites (who broadly control each political bloc) than as any genuine clash between the peoples of those countries.
*perhaps less obviously criminal than the Russians, but most fortunes have at root some dodgy shit
*perhaps less obviously criminal than the Russians, but most fortunes have at root some dodgy shit
The Russian Oligarchs made their fortunes recently - from the big Yeltsin giveaway of state assets. It's the passing of time that turns later generations from Oligarchs to Aristocrats.
The UK has its relatively-modern oligarchy. From the big housing giveaway of the post-war era. From the high-profile gangsters like Rachmann or Hoogstraaten to the beneficiaries of council house giveaway, we have a modern-day oligarchy in a country where property counts for more than production.
"The UK has its relatively-modern oligarchy. "
I agree with you that it's an oligarchy, it's just not that modern. A quick squiz at the family trees of those with a lot of cash + power show that they've often had it for a while. The crown is still sovereign, but delegates all that to parliament, apart from the monarch giving a nice little speech.
Claiming anyone is an oligarch because they have benefited from the same policies is missing the point. It's about scale.
If you lost your job or current income source tomorrow, and received no assistance, how long would it be before you ran out of assets (liquid or otherwise) and began to starve? If the answer is anything shorter than a couple of generations, then you're part of the masses. Probably a better paid, comforted and pandered too part, probably more oppressor than oppressed, but still a worker or soldier bee. Not a drone or a queen, and never going to be.
Making you envy the people one level above you in hell, and feel superior to the ones one below is the powers that be like it.
"Interestingly enough, Russia is not an enemy of the United State"
Don't forget, also, that Trump sucks Putin turnip.
In much the same vein, if you view brexit as the result of the EU passing anti-money laundering laws (coming into force in 2019) and the UK based oligarchs* deciding that they are buggered if they are going to pay tax like a little person, and can ride out the 5-10 years of chaos that brexit will cause. In fact, it's about the only logical explanation for the dogs breakfast that is brexit, since some powerful group(s) want out of the EU, but don't seem interested in pretty much any of the details.
I think you nailed that one!
A very close look at the finances of the fat cats backing Brexit would be in order. Starting with BoJo the Bumbling Fatberg Clown.
"I think you nailed that one!"
Thank you :)
I've been trying to work out what the hell is going on with the UK negotiation on brexit, since it's clear that pretty much none of the obviously contentious issues have been addressed in any fashion other than wishful thinking, using existing EU law or flat removal of existing rights, which may fall under the first catagory.
There clearly is *something* that a lot of power and influence want from the UK leaving the EU, but it doesn't appear to be tied in with any of the issues that are being argued over, since the great majority of them could be solved by replicating the current situation. To put it in slogan terms, the current deal is a good deal, so why would you negotiate a worse deal?
So there must be another motive. Who benefits? US or Russian influence seeking to damage and distract the EU/UK for a number of years, driving a wedge between UK/EU co-operation on military matters or creating a divisive electoral issue could all be possible reasons.
But the clearing up of the UK controlled tax havens scares the crap out of a whole bunch of wealthy and powerful people. The Panama papers gave a wee insight into just how many political figures are getting paid on the sly, and you can bet that even more crap will surface once any of the tax havens start having to reveal the genuine beneficial holders of accounts. Then there is all the black book operations that start coming to light, so who knows what scandals are buried in the accounts.
I expect that there are a multitude of powerful interests around the world who are not keen on these reforms. That these would use an opportunity (or perhaps even create it) using plebiscite that promises one thing and delivers another to protect their current position should not be shocking to anyone.
To try and keep my beeb like balance, that statement about plebiscites applies just as much about the formation of the EU as any other use of a single poll to circumvent the normal legislative procedure of the country. It's still ultimately run for the benefit of the oligarchs, a different set perhaps, but the joy of financial capital is you can own bits of everything and own a bit of each side.
Direct democracy (legislature by plebiscite) is it's own beast, and beset with even more issues than representative democracy in all it's corrupt and manageable glory.
Machines are the problem; and pencil and paper and hand-counting by the candidates and their representatives is the solution.
Unless you're a reasonably advanced computer scientist, you aren't going to be able to make a lot of sense of the exploded views, wiring diagrams and firmware Source Code of the machines (which presumably are downloadable from some dark corner of the manufacturer's website; their concerns for "Intellectual Property" being insignificant compared to the integrity of the democratic process). And you still can't really be sure that the machines actually in use match the published information exactly anyway; I doubt the presiding officer would be keen on you pulling one to bits in the middle of an actual election.
Receipts don't help. There is nothing to stop a machine from recording a vote for one candidate and issuing a receipt for a different one -- and now there is another piece of paper out there somewhere saying who you voted for. This opens up whole new channels of abuse ("show your receipt proving you voted for me and enter a prize draw to win a car!"), unless the receipts are so easily falsifiable as to be worthless in practice.
Even sacrificing the secrecy of the ballot altogether and showing a list of who voted for whom doesn't help. If they know who you are (from your username and password) then they also know who your close friends and family are (from social media) and so can show you a personalised list with the votes of people unconnected with you doctored to fit the announced figures. You aren't going to print the whole lot out (even if the Digital Restrictions Management lets you) and go around asking complete strangers who they voted for.
Adding more layers of complexity simply won't achieve anything because the problem is inherent in machines which work by making a copy of your vote, as opposed to the actual ballot paper marked by you (or some other token; which either is marked in one of a finite number of ways but indistinguible from any other token marked in the same way, or is added to one of a finite number of separate piles) being counted directly.
Everyone understands how pencil and paper work, what can go wrong with them and how best to mitigate against those things.
"Everyone understands how pencil and paper work, what can go wrong with them and how best to mitigate against those things."
Nope. Easy to make is easy to BREAK, and you underestimate the size and scope of the major political parties in the US. If ANYONE can do a nationwide vote-rigging campaign, right down to rigging the riggers, it's those parties.
Actually, my state did go back to paper ballots. We used to have the touch screen machines, and the realized it was cheaper for everyone to just mail in a ballot instead. In a recent analysis, the fraud rate on the part of voters was very low.
Now, there have been instances where the officials simply didn't count scores of ballots, but that wasn't the voter's fault.
Classic intractable problem. You can't have a vote that's simultaneously secure AND secret. Anonymity (required for secrecy) means votes can be altered without your knowledge. Attribution (required for security) means your vote can be traced and you can be pressured as a result.
"Countries have no permanent friends, only permanent interests."
Although I also rather liked the comment from the lawyer in the book "Rogue Mail."
"You may eat with the best people. You may even sleep with them, if they will allow it. But you don't trust them. Not entirely. Not ever."
Right now, US State governments are in control of voter registration and voting in Federal elections. Which doesn't sit well with Federal politicians.
It's a power grab by the Federal government at the expense of State governments. And of course, they need to justify it somehow. That's why they are making up all kinds of stories about Russia, without any evidence.
The outcome of all this hoopla probably will be a big recommendation for the Federal government to take over the electoral process from State governments.
However, so far the current administration has shown little interest in investigating Russian hacking claims [...]
Well, Duh!, considering "the current administration" was the primary benefactor from such hacking. Does anybody in the world still believe in the fairy tale that the US political system is nothing but a fetid pool of self-serving, self-dealing corruption?
Things really haven't changed much from the '60's, have they....
This article clearly demonstrates that the US is no stranger to meddling in other people's elections. It is actually an impressively comprehensive rundown of election meddling, and the US figures prominently in the list.
Kettle, pot, you know the rest.
"While a lot of Democratic legislators are keen for such a plan, the response has been tepid from the other political party."
Wait until the Russians meddle on behalf of the Democrats. The GOP will suddenly decide that Russian interference is a terrible thing and should be stopped.
Strangely enough, the Russians obviously feel that having Trump for president and a GOP majority is a good thing for America's enemies.
I can't think why ....