News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by pmoriarty on Friday July 20, 2018 @05:01PM (#17578897)
"This seems like the best system to me. Most Americans are very familiar with bubble forms and there is a clear paper trail while still allowing electronic counting."

The problem is that the paper ballots may never be hand counted if the margin between the candidates given by the electronic vote counting machine is far enough apart.

Of course, whoever hacks a vote counting machine can give any vote count they want, so they can set the margin however wide they want.

The only way to really be sure of the totals is to do hand counts of paper ballots, with representatives of each party participating or at least observing the entire count.

Machines should never be trusted.

Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by c22 on Friday July 20, 2018 @05:36PM (#17579166)
It seems like any electronic-based voting system should be subject to randomized audit via manual recount of its paper trail, regardless of reported margin. This way we can reap the efficiency rewards of electronic systems while also becoming aware if wide-scale tampering has taken place.
Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by ball_of_lint on Friday July 20, 2018 @07:51PM (#17579904)
That would be excellent if you had to modify hundreds of machines to influence an election but the case now is that even a few strategically chosen machines could drastically swing an election.
Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by marcosdumay on Friday July 20, 2018 @10:26PM (#17580404)
So audit those machines. It's still a small number.
Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by hackandtrip on Saturday July 21, 2018 @09:10AM (#17581858)
It's not about the technical problem, it's about the perception from people of an electronic vote. People that didn't grew up in the tech revolution are going to be skeptical anyway, and I'm not sure about the ones that are full of social induces doubts about everything. It seems to me we are trying to solve a non existant problem
Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by regressible on Friday July 20, 2018 @11:37PM (#17580571)
Spot checking isn't enough. To claim that spot checking effectively enforces integrity is turning a blind eye, and shrugging at cut corners.
Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by scoggs on Friday July 20, 2018 @11:01PM (#17580483)
I know this is hard to imagine but I'd love to see a situation where a small community actually gets together and "on good faith" (this is the nearly impossible part, if not impossible) agree to record their votes pre-voting, anonymously, and PROMISE to vote the same exact way when they officially vote.

After the votes are tallied and it's said to be certiefied and "officially" over and counted from whatever government entity that community would check their results against the "official" ones.

I know that exit polls are designed to get an idea of what's going to happen but I'd love to see a scenario where a community, ahead of time, put this type of security in place to test and see if the people counting the votes / people creating these machines / any outside forces had a hand in tainting the election.

It wouldn't matter what party you voted for, it wouldn't matter who the candidates are, and hopefully people no matter their political beliefs would all agree that finding out if their vote truly matters or not is more important than any sort of partisan bickering.

It's nice to daydream though, is it not?

Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by pmoriarty on Saturday July 21, 2018 @12:43AM (#17580715)
I'd love to see a situation where a small community actually gets together and "on good faith" (this is the nearly impossible part, if not impossible) agree to record their votes pre-voting, anonymously, and PROMISE to vote the same exact way when they officially vote."

I was going to suggest that such people could just film themselves voting. But then I realized that with today's technology that's easily faked.

Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by cgb223 on Friday July 20, 2018 @07:50PM (#17579893)
Just to play devils advocate here, would it be much harder to place people on the ballot counting committees who might incorrectly record it?

I'm not sure I've ever seen a video stream of ballot persons actually counting paper, so it may not be monitored publically

Russia successfully infiltrated the NRA, I'd imagine local ballot groups wouldn't be much harder for a foreign adversary to do

Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by felipemnoa on Friday July 20, 2018 @06:19PM (#17579447)
>>Of course, whoever hacks a vote counting machine can give any vote count they want, so they can set the margin however wide they want.

Exit polls give you a pretty good idea, within a margin of error, of who is winning. If somebody is winning by a large margin and you want to change that by hacking voting machines, it is very likely to be detected by the exit polls.

Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by wahern on Friday July 20, 2018 @09:42PM (#17580283)
I'm guessing you didn't vote in 2000.

In a real dispute exit polls are worthless.

Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by tobylane on Tuesday July 24, 2018 @03:58PM (#17604403)
You describe the UK system, this video somewhat shows it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U19GzqfGdqM
Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by r00fus on Saturday July 21, 2018 @09:04AM (#17581840)
The concept of ignoring paper vote counts for large margin victories is entirely why we should always audit the paper trail.

Democracy needs opsec. Something about "eternal vigilance"...

Re:A used voting machine from the 2016 election by sorokod on Saturday July 21, 2018 @10:51AM (#17582181)
"Democracy needs opsec"

That's a t-shirt right there.