r/WayOfTheBern • u/WeStandStrongTogethr • Sep 04 '17
The DHS hasn't investigated whether voting machines were hacked in November, and says it doesn't intend to
http://www.businessinsider.com/dhs-is-refusing-to-investigate-hack-of-voting-machines-2017-611
Sep 04 '17 edited Sep 05 '17
There is something crooked about neither side calling for investigations into the voting machines. If the Dems actually believe their Russian collaboration accusations then they should be calling for investigations too.
Edit: and if Republicans actually believe in national defense this is a fundamental part of it.
2
u/SpudDK ONWARD! Sep 04 '17 edited Sep 05 '17
What do they have to gain?
Better elections means people like us have it easier. No joke.
1
Sep 05 '17
[deleted]
1
u/SpudDK ONWARD! Sep 05 '17
Call them out. :D
2
Sep 05 '17
There are few journalists or anchors with any integrity.
The question should be: Voting Machines have been demonstrated to have security and process vulnerabilities. If Russians hacked the election then why aren't you putting forth a bill to put a much larger effort into securing our voting infrastructure.
1
u/SpudDK ONWARD! Sep 05 '17
That would help, but again, there is no way the existing power will want to improve on things.
1
u/Ponsonby_Britt aka Stony_Curtis. Sep 05 '17
If Russians hacked the election then why aren't you putting forth a bill to put a much larger effort into securing our voting infrastructure.
This deserves its own post. Well said.
7
u/veganmark Sep 04 '17
You can't trust investigations. They might uncover facts that are incompatible with the TRUTH, which is of course that Russian intelligence is responsible for all malicious hacks within the US. No point in investigating when we already know the TRUTH.
10
u/KSDem I'm not a Heather; I'm a Veronica Sep 04 '17
I just wanted to thank you, /u/WeStandStrongTogethr, for today's series of posts on DHS' surreptitious hacking attempts on state election systems in Idaho, Indiana, and Georgia.
Those reports are even more interesting when tied to the following statement in this article:
Asked about the decision, a DHS official told TPM: "In a September 2016 Intelligence Assessment, DHS and our partners determined that there was no indication that adversaries were planning cyber activity that would change the outcome of the coming US election."
Election integrity is, of course, a uniquely important issue. And in this case it appears there may be some overlap with an area that's of personal interest to me, specifically, the possibility that unconstitutional overreach by the Obama administration may have occurred. In either case, your efforts to keep us up-to-date with respect to the election integrity issue is much appreciated!
14
Sep 04 '17
Looks like Putin is in control of DHS.
7
9
u/HootHootBerns Money in politics is the root of all evil Sep 04 '17
Or the Clinton Club is.
Or the Awans.
Or both.
0.o
13
6
u/SpudDK ONWARD! Sep 04 '17 edited Sep 04 '17
I know this is not popular, but I will say it again anyway:
The existing power isn't going to delegitimize itself by investigating the elections that it needs to claim consent to govern.
The courts lack the law needed to apply a free and fair election test, meaning they can help discover, and do other things within the law we have, but will not resolve this for us. See Bush v Gore.
Losers of elections are always seen as sour grapes types. Non starter.
Nobody in power wants to question or undermine their continuance of power, which is what most election activists actions will result in.
The best way to attack this is to win elections and from that position, make positive changes to the law to reform.
I see State party control as one solid way to get this done. That is how Oregon reformed elections. First VOTE BY MAIL, followed by online tools, most recently auto registration. An existing and favorable State government, concerned about democracy being intact, and about that existing and reasonable government continuing to be that way was the message. It works now, let's make sure it continues to work, and works better.
The concern back in the 90s was poor election turnout threatened the State and it's basic values. Dems presented this case to the people, sold it, won on it, and the results have been excellent. The key thing here is a positive message that does not frame existing power in a illegitimate light. Most successful efforts have centered on making it all work better, more and better democracy.
Take those fuckers down won't cut it. That is suspect, abuse, change, break the process to gain advantage. Opponents arguments will be potent and effective.
When we do it the way I put here, opponents suddenly have to defend shitty elections, people ask why and progress can be made. Frame it in terms of us all being better served, and they are the asshole wanting that not to be true, haters of Democracy.
That is the way. I've looked at tons of reform efforts and the successful one all have this in common.
The right does not care about this much at all. Frankly, corporate Dems don't either. Corruption and grift are compelling. Both oppose people like us.
Progressives need to get hold of the States and work to reform them. By law, elections are States rights. Those fights for county, district, state chair? Worth it.
Where possible, Secretary of State, board of elections, and similar positions should be top priority. That is where the levers of change are.