![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teaotter posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
thisfinecrewPress release: a group of senators has introduced a bill to require paper ballots and risk-limiting audits in all federal elections. (Senators Wyden, Gillibrand, Markey, Murphy, and Merkley.)
These are the two BEST ways to protect our elections against electronic tampering. Taking a statistical sample of the paper ballots, we can check if the results match the electronically-tabulated ones.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer submitted a matching proposal in the House.
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPS TO DEMAND THAT THEY SUPPORT THE PaveACT 2018!!!
I haven't had a chance to read the bill yet, which is the only reason I'm not (yet) jumping on the tables and begging everyone to call their senators and reps and DEMAND that this bill get passed. But if this bill does what it says, that's exactly what I'm going to be doing.
edit: This is actually from June 12 and has been around for a while; I got really excited because tonight is the first I'd heard of it. I'm sorry if I'm late to the party!
Read them yourself: S.3049 & HR 6093.
A few notes from me (potential issues, but not deal-breakers imho):
- The bills require hand-marked ballots, not just paper ballots that the voter can check. Which means that every jurisdiction with electronic machines is going to have to replace theirs, even if it prints out a paper ballot that the voter gets to verify. This'll be expensive, may need federal money, and may push back the timetable.
- There is some language for accessibility for voters who can't hand-mark ballots, but I'm not versed enough in accessibility to know if it's sufficient.
- They require hand recounts, which will be expensive when they happen and may come into conflict with state election laws.
These are the two BEST ways to protect our elections against electronic tampering. Taking a statistical sample of the paper ballots, we can check if the results match the electronically-tabulated ones.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer submitted a matching proposal in the House.
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPS TO DEMAND THAT THEY SUPPORT THE PaveACT 2018!!!
edit: This is actually from June 12 and has been around for a while; I got really excited because tonight is the first I'd heard of it. I'm sorry if I'm late to the party!
Read them yourself: S.3049 & HR 6093.
A few notes from me (potential issues, but not deal-breakers imho):
- The bills require hand-marked ballots, not just paper ballots that the voter can check. Which means that every jurisdiction with electronic machines is going to have to replace theirs, even if it prints out a paper ballot that the voter gets to verify. This'll be expensive, may need federal money, and may push back the timetable.
- There is some language for accessibility for voters who can't hand-mark ballots, but I'm not versed enough in accessibility to know if it's sufficient.
- They require hand recounts, which will be expensive when they happen and may come into conflict with state election laws.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-25 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-25 07:25 pm (UTC)A few caveats, but no deal-breakers for me:
- They require hand-marked ballots, not just paper ballots that the voter can check. Which means that every jurisdiction with electronic machines is going to have to replace theirs, even if it prints out a paper ballot that the voter gets to verify. This'll be expensive, may need federal money, and may push back the timetable.
- There is some language for accessibility for voters who can't hand-mark ballots, but I'm not versed enough in accessibility to know if it's sufficient.
- It requires hand recounts, which will be expensive when they happen and may come into conflict with state election laws.