National Election Integrity

National Election Integrity, that's still a thing?

I figured after the mess in the Gore- Bush elections, it was over.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: UKTruth

Welcome to Europe! (Netherlands here) I am not allowed to be in public without a valid state-mandated identity card. It is an offence that can get you fined. You also have to pay for the card, it's 50 euros for 5 years.

Papieren alstublieft...

ID to vote.
Not to go about your daily business.
What you describe is EU authoritarianism.

Our election process is deeply flawed, and it is only a matter of time before it is compromised by a bad actor. And the entire system doesn't need to be compromised in order to sow the seeds of doubt about an election outcome. A successful PSYOP with the goal of causing disruption only needs to compromise a few municipalities, and then make sure that the electorate knows about the hack. With all of conflict we experienced with the results of the last presidential election, imagine what might have transpired if it was demonstrated that the vote totals were hacked.

This is a real issue that goes beyond Russia and partisan politics. No amount of investigation is going to reveal that there was any malfeasance in the 2016 election. It either didn't happen, or if it did happen then there's no way to prove it one way or the other because there is no paper trail or other controls in place to ensure the integrity of the end-to-end vote process.

And the problem goes way beyond the information technology aspect of the election process. Any point where a human is involved is a possible attack vector for a bad actor; not to mention the possibility of the human committing an error that could inadvertently affect the final election outcome.

The entire election process needs to be examined from end to end. There needs to be verifiable chain-of-custody from the time the voter casts their vote until it is finally tallied. However, there are other security issues that need to be taken into consideration that are unique to the election process. For instance, a voter's choice needs to remain secret after they have verified the correctness of their vote and left the voting booth. This is a necessary to protect the individual voter from outside coercion that attempts to force them to vote a certain way.

There are a number of papers that have been written that examine, in great detail, the security issues involved with the election process. Clearly there are a lot more potential points-of-failure than illegal voters and unsecure voting machines.

-dex

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: FyreByrd

I'll give you a chance to explain what you think the problem here is. Go for it.

Learn to read - it will help....

so you are angry over something you don't understand? Typical. Did they tell you HOW angry you were supposed to be? And do they give you a scale to use? Like 3 would be mildly irritated, and 10 would be full blown TDS?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: FyreByrd

Wait, you mean after Russia embraced capitalism and the USA celebrated that fact with them, they invested in companies all over the world, in very diverse sectors? HOLY GOD! Who the hell do they think they are, Westerners!?!?

Seriously dude, the mental gymnastics required to turn everything under the sun into a conspiracy of Russians has got to be exhausting. You're seeing a product of globalism, nothing more, nothing less. Russians, same as Americans, Germans, Canadian, hell even Mexicans like Slim Cortez and his billions, invest in a wide variety of industries and services. Unless you're pushing for an American law which outlaws all foreign investment (which hell, I'm game for that one, actually... why should the world profit off of us?) the concerns here seem far too convenient and targeted.

They embraced capitalism not democracy - kinda like China. Authoritarian Capitalism.

You may as well just forget about this election integrity business. It's never going to happen. How can you prevent it, when you can only be sure an election has been tampered with, after your candidate has lost?