The Security of Our Election Systems

Re:The Security of Our Election Systems by 3pt14159 on Saturday July 30, 2016 @07:30AM (#12192540)

> Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process.

Parties choose their candidates. While it is democratic in the sense that people cast ballots; the process was never guaranteed to be a level playing field. Sanders was an outsider from the democratic party. The party has rules and systems to keep people like Sanders out. That is what super delegates are for. You and I may both have preferred Sanders, but we don't have a right to the DNC's private email.

As for the polls, in Canada we do a simple pencil and paper system that works extremely well. You might be able to get an extra vote or two here or there, but the process is essentially unbreakable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Security of Our Election Systems by wwwdonohue on Saturday July 30, 2016 @08:39AM (#12192721)

The process was guaranteed to be a level playing field by the DNC charter (Article 5, Section 4):

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Security of Our Election Systems by krapp on Saturday July 30, 2016 @10:47AM (#12193161)

Is there any evidence that the bias of the DNC in this particular case is so uncommon as to be egregious? Candidates in both parties have cried foul that the process is 'rigged' (possibly with good reason) but only the Democrats are being accused of corruption.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Security of Our Election Systems by leviself on Saturday July 30, 2016 @11:08AM (#12193250)

I think it is always egregious, regardless of whether it happens all the time or not. For example, the USG is known to meddle with other countries elections. I don't think that's excusable. I assume the RNC played all kinds of tricks as well and that this is SOP for both parties. Wrong in every case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Security of Our Election Systems by 3pt14159 on Sunday July 31, 2016 @09:33AM (#12196904)

We're talking about different meanings of the word "guaranteed". I'm talking about guaranteed in the sense that supports leaking private emails to the public by people outside the organisation (as opposed to an unbiased whistle blower). Article 5, Section 4 is the type of thing parties put in, but only as a way of making sure the backroom politicking doesn't become so egregious that it leaks into public view.

Again, I prefer Sanders, or even Johnson or Stein over Clinton; but with Trump on the other ticket this election is far too serious to let Russian fuck around with the other main side. We need to fall in line and support Clinton. Pulling the not-an-idiot vote three more ways between Sanders stay-at-homes, Johnson / Stein protest votes is going to lead to a disaster.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Security of Our Election Systems by grav on Saturday July 30, 2016 @09:53AM (#12192959)

Paper votes makes a lot of sense, as it is possible to verify for non-experts.

[ Parent | on HN ]