patrick.net

"Several Ohio websites, including that of Gov. John Kasich, were hacked Sunday with a message that supported the Islamic State and opposed President Trump."

Will Democrats please repeal NPVIC, or at least amend it to require paper ballots and safeguard against hacking? If they continue enacting NPVIC as written, we could see the easily hacked paperless machines in Ohio and elsewhere hacked by ISIL or anyone else. I suspect it's possible that some in the Deep State might have supported NPVIC as a way to "manage" elections, perhaps not realizing that other hackers have skills too, including Russian hackers who are among the best in the world.

zzyzzx says

Once we get voter ID's on a national level, all of this will be pointless since maybe only 3-4 states will go blue anyway.

Only if your voter ID prevents citizens from legally voting. Otherwise it is a right-wing pipe dream to prevent democrats from being voted into office by passing ID laws. Hell, done right, more people would vote.

Of course, what we should do is make voting power proportional to the number of people being represented. Then the right would have zero power on the national level.

"We have significant vulnerabilities in our voting machines, our voter rolls and registration process, and the vote tabulation systems after the polls close. In January, DHS designated our voting systems as critical national infrastructure, but so far that has been entirely for show. In the United States, we don’t have a single integrated election. We have 50-plus individual elections, each with its own rules and its own regulatory authorities. Federal standards that mandate voter-verified paper ballots and post-election auditing would go a long way to secure our voting system. These attacks demonstrate that we need to secure the voter rolls, as well."

curious2 says

Some opponents have pointed out a risk of fraud, but supporters seem to dismiss or at least underestimate that risk.

A risk of fraud is not what we have to worry about.

Since the acrimonious debate around NAFTA, where Clinton assured, swore and attested that more US jobs would be created, and against Perot, who started large technology firms, said that there would be a dramatic loss of jobs.

Since we now know that this is a greater loss of jobs, and that the "Giant Sucking Sound of job loss" occurred this is where we need the electoral college. Why?? Because a great deal of the manufacturing was outside of city centers (save for Detroit, Fremont,...).

If the electoral college goes, then the city dwellers near the coast decide the election, and the representation of the minority of manufacturers (

curious2 says

Some opponents have pointed out a risk of fraud, but supporters seem to dismiss or at least underestimate that risk.

A risk of fraud is not what we have to worry about.

Since the acrimonious debate around NAFTA, where Clinton assured, swore and attested that more US jobs would be created, and against Perot, who started large technology firms, said that there would be a dramatic loss of jobs.

Since we now know that this is a greater loss of jobs, and that the "Giant Sucking Sound of job loss" occurred this is where we need the electoral college. Why?? Because a great deal of the manufacturing was outside of city centers (save for Detroit, Fremont,...).

If the electoral college goes, then the city dwellers near the coast decide the election, and the representation of the minority of manufacturers (~ 9% of the workforce) is ended.

Bill Clinton should have met with Dept of Labor and industry leaders in 1999 and asked "How is NAFTA doing?" It would have been the right thing to do rather than ignore the whole sale loss of jobs.

IRONY: If Bill Clinton would have had a critical look at NAFTA, suggested improvements to stop US job loss ( or Bush or Obama), the wife of said Lawyer might have been elected.

""Connecticut OKs Bill Pledging Electoral Votes To National Popular-Vote Winner...The bill adopts an interstate compact that's officially called "The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." All of the states that have so far committed to the pact are also states whose electoral votes went to Clinton in 2016.

Democrats have led the recent push to change the way the Electoral College works."

Note that the NPVIC itself has not changed. There remains no protection against fraud, including hacking, no matter how obvious. The easily hacked, proprietary, paperless ballot machines in Ohio could literally award a trillion votes to the CEO of Diebold (or now PES), and Connecticut voters would have no say in the matter. It is practically an invitation to any skilled hacker, including state actors, including CIA/NSA, to hack American Presidential elections and control the Presidency.

The "National Popular Vote organization" does not disclose its donors on its website, although that information might be available somewhere. For example, the About page says, "Scott Drexel is the Managing Director of NMA Partners. A longtime advisor to some of the country's most active Democratic donors, activists, and business leaders, he serves on finance committees for several national Democratic committees, and has been active in the campaigns of numerous presidential, gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House candidates." I wonder who those "most active Democratic donors" might be, and how much they have paid into this misguided effort.

WarrenTheApe says

2) This whole exercise is just another example of why the suffix '-tard' is in the word Libtard. Why? Because it is yet another instance where the Left never really thinks things through. In this case, when the popular vote goes to a Republican...all those Bluetard states EC votes will go with him/her/xir. I can't wait for the voters of those states to experience this and riot in the streets over their own mass-stupidity. Truly. And with their luck, the first time that happens will be in 2020...with the re-election of one Donald Trump! :)

.

This is how Trump is going to beat Reagan's reelection electoral landslide.

"The nation's top voting machine maker has admitted in a letter to a federal lawmaker that the company installed remote-access software on election-management systems it sold over a period of six years, raising questions about the security of those systems and the integrity of elections that were conducted with them."

Gosh, I wonder why Democrats in blue jurisdictions would want to subordinate their fellow human voters to machines in red jurisdictions.

I predicted in November 2016 that Trump would win California in 2020. Maybe this is how it comes to pass? I’ve been astonishingly accurate lately, so I can’t doubt myself!

"In 2016, I bought two voting machines online for less than $100 apiece. I didn't even have to search the dark web. I found them on eBay.
***
Within hours, I was able to change the candidates' names to be that of anyone I wanted. When the machine printed out the official record for the votes that were cast, it showed that the candidate's name I invented had received the most votes on that particular machine.
***
[In 2018], I bought two more machines to see if security had improved. To my dismay, I discovered that the newer model machines—those that were used in the 2016 election—are running Windows CE and have USB ports, along with other components, that make them even easier to exploit than the older ones. Our voting machines, billed as “next generation,” and still in use today, are worse than they were before—dispersed, disorganized, and susceptible to manipulation.
***
But while state and local election systems have been conducting risk assessments, we’ve also seen an 11-year-old successfully hacking a simulated voting website at DefCon, for fun.
***
By using a $15 palm-sized device, my team was able to exploit a smart chip card, allowing us to vote multiple times.
***
Since these machines are for sale online, individuals, precincts, or adversaries could buy them, modify them, and put them back online for sale.
***
But there’s an opportunity here to develop nationwide policies and security protocols that would govern how voting machines are secured. This could be accomplished with input from multiple sectors, in a process similar to the development of the NIST framework—now widely recognized as one of the most comprehensive cybersecurity frameworks in use."

Oddly, the author fails to point out the two most obvious methods to address this problem.
1) Require paper ballots. You can have a touchscreen machine print a ballot, but the voter must inspect it and, if accurate, feed it into a second machine that counts and stores the paper ballots. If the voter detects an error, that ballot gets cancelled visibly and the voter tries again. At the end of the day, the counts should match: the number of ballots printed by the printing machine, minus the number of ballots visibly cancelled, should equal the number of votes counted by the counting machine. If the numbers do not match, you can recount using the paper ballots. Otherwise, with a paperless system, you have no way to audit or recount: you have only what the easily hacked machine says, and no way to know if that is accurate.
2) Repeal NPVIC, or at least amend it, to require safeguards including paper ballots. By enacting NPVIC as written, Democrats are subordinating human voters to proprietary, easily hacked, and unaccountable machines controlled mostly by Republicans. It amazes me how Democrats can identify a problem and then propose only ways to worsen it. It makes me wonder whom are they really working for, and why. What would persuade a governor who is a Democrat to sign legislation subordinating human voters in his own state to easily hacked machines controlled by Republicans in another state? It reminds me of the "#Resistance" that seems to come at least partly from the CIA, which also invested in Palantir. If the goal is to automate election hacking, so that a deep state agency or similar actor can control the outcome of elections, then NPVIC as written would enable that.

Democrats complain that people in other countries, e.g. Russia, are skilled at hacking American computers including government systems. China and North Korea have also shown prowess. Yet, Democrats neither repeal nor amend NPVIC. They say they want the "popular vote" to determine the election result, by circumventing the electoral college, but that is not what they are doing. They are instead enacting legislation that would enable easily hacked machines to determine the election result. Why? Cui bono? What are they really trying to accomplish?

Can you imagine the Leftist tears when Donald Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 and California has to cast its electoral votes to him?