Finally! The just announced Protecting American Votes & Elections ("PAVE") Act mandates that states give all voters a #handmarked#paperballot option & that they conduct manual risk limiting audits for all federal races! Sponsors include @RonWyden, ... 1/ wyden.senate.gov/news/press-rel…
3/ Here's the money shot: "...the voter shall have the option to mark his or her ballot by hand."
4/ Look at the impressive people supporting the PAVE Act!: @philipbstark (UCB statistics professor) "I strongly endorse the ["PAVE"] Act’s key election integrity requirements: paper ballots, rigorous ballot accounting, the creation of ballot manifests, and risk-limiting audits."
5/ Matt Blaze (Professor of Computer Information Science, Univ. Pennsylvania): “Optical scan paper ballots coupled with risk limited audits represent the state of the art in voting system security, an approach already in successful use in several states."
6/ @jhalderm: “Paper ballots & risk-limiting audits are the only practical way to guarantee that election results can't be changed in a cyberattack. Senator Wyden's bill will ... ensur[e] that these low-cost, common-sense measures are in place for all federal elections.”
7/ @ronrivest: Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “The requirements for paper ballots and for risk-limiting audits will provide for definite improvements in security for many states."
8/
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @jpanzer view original on Twitter
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Study shows that people of all political persuasions are willing to modify their beliefs based on corrective info from reliable sources, but “subjects ‘re-believed’ the false info when retested a week later.” 1/ news.northeastern.edu/2018/06/18/tir…
2/ The author of the article says It may help to warn people in advance that they are likely to forget the correction bc “this helps them mentally tag the bogus information as false.”
3/ It’s also “important that the corrective information be repeated as frequently, and with even greater clarity, than the myth.”
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but elections have been electronically suspect starting long before the Trump/Russia scandal. This article is lulling folks into a false sense of security, which is dangerous. Domestic hackers & insiders were always an equal threat. 1/
I agree, tho not enuf time (and 0 political will) to do this in Nov. Wish it were different. For now I hope to stop states from doubling up on electronics w/ touchscreen ballot markers. Using electronics to count votes is bad enuf. Having them mark our ballots too is nuts. 1/
Nuts except for those who are unable to hand mark their ballots. Once you have hand marked paper ballots they can be either scanned or hand counted (my preference) or both. 2/
Any time u put a machine between the voter and the paper record of voter intent there is an opportunity for programming mischief. Here is just the latest example.: 3/
I’m hoping some of the cyber experts who signed the letter about the risks of using cellular modems to transfer election results can answer this question. Thx! @philipbstark@SEGreenhalgh@rad_atl@jhalderm
Seeing as no one has answered yet, I will say that even if the cellular modems CAN be configured to bypass the internet, we should not have to blindly trust that vendors or whoever else is hired to set them up will do that.
Kathy Rogers, the face & voice of @ESSVote, which has installed CELLULAR MODEMS in tabulators in WI & FL, is cozying up to @DHSgov which refuses to advise states to remove the modems despite a letter from 30 cyber experts & EI groups stating it should do so. #CorruptElections 1/
The notion that cellular modems affect only “unofficial” results is bogus bc, among other reasons, in certain jurisdictions, unofficial results become the official results once added to absentees & provisionals—sometimes w/o ever comparing them to the precinct results tapes! 1/
And Wisconsin doesn’t even require that counties publicly post the results tapes so that the public itself can make this comparison! (I don’t know about Florida, Michigan, & Illinois.) 2/
Thus, we must simply trust that someone trustworthy is conducting this due diligence. In Johnson County, Kansas, the County acknowledged that it does NOT conduct this basic due diligence. 3/