It is critical that you pass Senator Ron Wyden’s PAVE Act, which requires that states give all voters the option to mark their ballots by HAND and that they conduct Risk Limiting Audits for federal races. Thread. 1/
Although the PAVE Act has a 2020 effective date, the hand marked ballot clause must be accelerated to 2018. This CAN be done bc even most paperless counties already have scanners (for absentees), which can be used to count paper ballots in the midterms. 2/ usatoday.com/story/opinion/…
Relying on Touchscreens is too risky bc voters will be unable to vote if there is a widespread failure and an insufficient number of paper backup ballots at the polls. 3/ votetrust.verifiedvoting.org/index.php?opti…
4/ Touchscreens also limit the number of people who can vote at once, causing long lines that disenfranchise voters. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pape…
5/ The paper trails and summary cards from touchscreens are too abbreviated to be successfully verified or audited. And new touchscreens like the ExpressVote use unverifiable barcodes that, per IT experts, constitute a potential attack vector for hackers. medium.com/@jennycohn1/pr…
6/ Here is another article compiling sources on the dangers of touchscreen voting machines. medium.com/@jennycohn1/to…
7/ Our nation cannot withstand more poll-defying election outcomes that cannot realistically be confirmed with manual recounts or manual audits. The time for #handmarkedpaperballots is now. Waiting until after the midterms is unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Cohn, SF Bay Area
8/ If you are a voter and would like to send a similar message to your senators, feel free to cut and paste from mine. Please support #handmarkedpaperballots and the #PAVEAct. Thank you!
• • •
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/