1. Our election system is NOT too "decentralized" to allow an outcome altering hack. Per this 2017 Wharton report (p. 28), just two voting machine vendors, ES&S & Dominion, account for more than 80% of U.S. voting equipment! #ProtectOurVotestrustthevote.org/wp-content/upl…
2. This screenshot from the 2017 Wharton report shows that ES&S & Dominion account for more than 80% of U.S. voting equipment. The notion that our election system is too "decentralized" to allow an outcome altering hack is a lie.
3. Royal blue shows the jurisdictions that use ES&S.
Orange is for Dominion.
Green is for Hart.
Pink is for is for Unisys.
Dark blue is for MicroVote.
4. Here's an excellent 2010 article stating that Dominion & ES&S account 4 about 90% of U.S. voting equipment. As explained in the article, there are multiple ways to calculate market share, which may explain why the Wharton estimate is lower. @thebradbloghuffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/…
5. The Wharton estimate is also more recent than the article in post 4. But whether Dominion & ES&S account for 90% of US voting equipment (article at post 4) or 81% (2017 Wharton report), it is clear that ES&S & Dominion have a disturbingly enormous influence over our elections.
6. This centralization of our election systems through just a few vendors further demonstrates the importance of demanding that all states pass legislation BEFORE the 2018 midterms requiring #paperballots for all voters and #RiskLimitingAudits after every single election.
7. Please write to your state legislators, Secretaries of State, and state and local election boards NOW to demand #paperballots and #RiskLimitingAudits by the 2018 midterm elections! #ProtectOurVotes
• • •
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/