California voters: Election officials say it is OK to use insecure voting machines as long as there is a paper record that can be audited. But CA senators will vote TOMORROW on #AB2125, which will implement audits lacking basic transparency protocols needed to deter fraud. 1/
As explained in the PETITION OPPOSING AB2125 (linked at the end of this Thread), the following groups & individuals oppose or have withdrawn support of #AB2125 based on this lack of transparency & related concerns:
* The League of Women Voters,
* The Voting Rights Task Force, 2/
* Common Cause, and
* UCB Professor Philip Stark (who invented post-election Risk Limiting Audits).
I have attached a screenshot of a letter from the California League of Women Voters expressing these concerns about #AB2125, California's terrible election audit bill. 3/
Here is a link to a more detailed letter from UC Berkeley Professor Philip Stark, who invented Risk Limiting Audits, likewise expressing concern about California's election audit bill #AB2125. drive.google.com/file/d/0B-j7Os…
4/
SURPRISINGLY, NATIONAL ELECTION INTEGRITY GROUPS DO NOT HAVE MUCH, IF ANY, VOTER OUTREACH, AND IT IS THE VOTERS THAT LAWMAKERS CARE ABOUT. 5/
Thus, if we care at all about election security, we should sign the petition linked here and forward it to our friends and family in California. This is up to us. Thank you.
LINK TO PETITION: yesfairelections.org/petition/ab212… 6/
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/