Yet another reason we should have hand counted paper ballots (HCPB) and non-computerized

[diva77]

poll books: Computerized "Voting" machine companies and e-poll book companies use sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors to whom they give all of our personal voter data info. Some of the contractors and consultants are even off-shore.

[marble falls]

1. This is wrong on so many levels. I wouldn't even have thought it was real.

[JCMach1]

2. Blockchain voting with a hand countable paper trail

Unhackable

[diva77]

3. Not a viable solution. Cybersecurity experts explain here

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611850/why-security-experts-hate-that-blockchain-voting-will-be-used-in-the-midterm-elections/

Why security experts hate that “blockchain voting” will be used in the midterm elections
It’s too dangerous to conduct elections over the internet, they say, and West Virginia’s new plan to put votes on a blockchain doesn’t fix that.

by Mike Orcutt
Aug 9, 2018

Voting in West Virginia just got a lot more high-tech—and experts focused on election security aren’t happy about it.

This fall, the state will become the first in the US to allow some voters to submit their federal general election ballots using a smartphone app, part of a pilot project primarily involving members of the military serving overseas. The decision seems to fly in the face of years of dire warnings about the risks of online voting issued by cybersecurity researchers and advocacy groups focused on election integrity. But even more surprising is how West Virginia officials say they plan to address those risks: by using a blockchain.

The project has drawn harsh criticism from election security experts, who argue that as designed, the system does little to fix the problems inherent in online voting.

We first heard of the West Virginia pilot in May, when the state tested a mobile app, developed by a startup called Voatz, during primary elections. The test was limited to overseas voters registered in two counties. Now, citing third-party audits of those results, officials plan to offer the option to overseas voters from the whole state. Their argument is that a more convenient and secure way to vote online will increase turnout—and that a blockchain, which can be used to create records that are extremely difficult to tamper with, can protect the process against meddling.

But that premise has been controversial from the start. After two fellows from the Brookings Institution penned an essay praising West Virginia for pioneering the use of blockchain technology in an election, Matt Blaze, a cryptography and security researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, pushed back hard. It’s not that blockchains are bad, said Blaze, who testified (PDF) before Congress last year on election cybersecurity. It’s that they introduce new security vulnerabilities, and securing the vote tally against fraud “is more easily, simply, and securely done with other approaches,” he said.

SNIP

[JCMach1]

4. Every voting system has 'vulnerabilities'

These are the whinings of people who don't have a good grasp of block chain encryption. The record, the most important part of the vote, is untouchable by hackers or bad actors.

[diva77]

5. Not all vulnerabilities are created equal. The hand-marked-paper-ballot counted by hand is still

the gold standard; vulnerabilities are at the retail level. Blockchain introduces a whole new set of vulnerabilities, and at the wholesale level.

Characterizing what cyberexperts say as "whinings" is unnecessary and detracts from the point you were trying to make, IMHO

[JCMach1]

6. Takes us back to the age of stuffed ballot boxes...

I would take block chain with verifiable paper trail every time.