GOP opposes Secure Elections Act

[Jhhnn]

Never mind what the experts are saying-

Over the last 18 months, election-security advocates have been pushing for new legislation shoring up the nation's election infrastructure. Election-security reform proposals enjoy significant support among Democrats—who control the House of Representatives—and have picked up some Republican co-sponsors, too.

However, such measures have faced hostility from the White House and from the Republican leadership of the Senate.

"I don't think there is any likelihood that we are going to move a bill that federalizes more of the election process," said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the Senate leadership team, last week.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...achine-vendor-vows-to-ditch-paperless-voting/

Hackable election systems are apparently States' Rights.

 

[Indus]

Social security: no screw it
Border security: no screw it
Electoral security: no screw it

 

[ch33zw1z]

Gee, I'm shocked.

 

[Sgt. York]

Has anyone read the law?

 

[Indus]

Has anyone read the law?

Did you read the Mueller Report regarding how the Russians interfered?

The law isn't enough!

Apparently we can have a democratic candidate say Putin if you get me elected, I'll give you Russia and Texas! Then they'll help him instead of Trump.

 

[UberNeuman]

Has anyone read the law?

lol. Ignorance isn't a defense.

 

[Sgt. York]

I'm not on trial. I merely asked if any of you have read this law you are in favor of.

 

[UberNeuman]

I'm not on trial. I merely asked if any of you have read this law you are in favor of.

oh, you are. Jury has a verdict as well. lol.

 

[Jhhnn]

Has anyone read the law?

That's not really the point. Blunt didn't object to any of the provisions. He dismissed it as federal interference in States' Rights. It's a ridiculous argument in the face of cyber threats to election security.

No matter who wins or loses we need the most robust systems we can reasonably create so that there is no question as to the honesty of the results. It's something we should all want. The only way to do that is with paper trails & vote audits.

 

[brycejones]

Has anyone read the law?

I have not but I haven't expressed an opinion on it either. Have you?

 

[Sgt. York]

Nope, I just asked if anyone else has. I thought they could shed a little light on it.

 

[ivwshane]

Nope, I just asked if anyone else has. I thought they could shed a little light on it.

The bill is here if you wish to read it.

https://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Secure Elections Act.pdf

Basically it sets up a system to allow the federal government to communicate with states about issues or attacks. Its sets up some basic standards and a department (existing?) to gather information and to do audits. It also establishes grants states can take advantage of in order to shore up election security.

 

[nickqt]

Why would Republicans want secure elections, when they're counting on other right-wing authoritarian governments to help them steal more elections?

 

[Bitek]

Why would Republicans want secure elections, when they're counting on other right-wing authoritarian governments to help them steal more elections?

2020 ain't gonna collude itself.

 

[cytg111]

Another fine article for @SlowSpyder to catch up on

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...plans-to-prevent-russian-election-attack.html

 

[interchange]

I decided to read it, which isn't an easy thing to do really. The Mueller report is much more straightforward. Some pertinent things I got is that it establishes a duty and bounds on communication about potential election security threats, establishes a non-government advisory board, establishes a grant program for states to seek to bring their systems up to best practices, sets a budget for FY2018 for the program to be $386M, establishes a "hack the election" program with the opportunity to provide awards for identifying election vulnerabilities. It does call on the advisory board to establish guidelines based on statistics to determine audits, but I'm not sure from reading it whether they have the ability to enforce it other than just establishing guidelines.

Really, the bill doesn't interfere with states running their elections. I don't see it mandating much of anything other than reporting of incidents. That seems to me no cause for criticism. I could certainly deal with an argument against more federal bloat and a cost of $386M, though personally I think this seems more likely a lightweight intervention for the need that has been clearly established.

 

[dainthomas]

Just think What Would Putin Do, and you know with 100% certainty what the senate would do.

 

[dyna]

Never mind what the experts are saying-



https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...achine-vendor-vows-to-ditch-paperless-voting/

Hackable election systems are apparently States' Rights.

So you don't think there would be opposition to going back to only paper ballots? Hey, lets go back 56k modems, cassette/vhs tapes, tube TVs while we're at it.

 

[fskimospy]

The interesting question to me is if the Republicans knew with absolute certainty that the Russians (or any other hostile power, for that fact) would intervene in our next election but would do so to help Republicans, do you think they would do anything? I don't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So you don't think there would be opposition to going back to only paper ballots? Hey, lets go back 56k modems, cassette/vhs tapes, tube TVs while we're at it.

There is opposition to preventing foreign influence in our election system so sure I expect that a paper backup of some kind would be opposed. I can create on a piece of paper a message that quantum computers can't solve. Yes, paper and pencil, and then disposed of without hope of recovery. The question is security and what works. If you think dial up modems are in any way related to technological vulnerabilities compared to hard printout, please make the case.

 

[dainthomas]

Republicans don't care about election integrity. They support voter ID laws that do nothing but disenfranchise people. Laws that wouldn't disenfranchise anyone and actually would go a long way toward securing elections, they hate.

 

[dyna]

There is opposition to preventing foreign influence in our election system so sure I expect that a paper backup of some kind would be opposed. I can create on a piece of paper a message that quantum computers can't solve. Yes, paper and pencil, and then disposed of without hope of recovery. The question is security and what works. If you think dial up modems are in any way related to technological vulnerabilities compared to hard printout, please make the case.

The bill was co-sponsored by Republications, what is this opposition you claim to make? The way I read it, this bill is specifically being opposed because it proposes paper ONLY ballots. That is a dinosaur solution to revitalize the election system.

 

[dainthomas]

The bill was co-sponsored by Republications, what is this opposition you claim to make? The way I read it, this bill is specifically being opposed because it proposes paper ONLY ballots. That is a dinosaur solution to revitalize the election system.

Good point, Ivanka won't be able to make piles of cash off of unsecure Chinese voting machines if everyone uses paper ballots (like Oregon).

 

[VRAMdemon]

Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians

Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis

171 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, Rep. Nadler said yesterday in his opening remarks.

"If you ignore the evidence, there's no evidence!" continues to be a deeply compelling argument.

Of course ...lets be against securing our elections?

 

[HomerJS]

Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians



171 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, Rep. Nadler said yesterday in his opening remarks.

"If you ignore the evidence, there's no evidence!" continues to be a deeply compelling argument.

Of course ...lets be against securing our elections?

171 contacts that they all "forgot"!