Election Security Has Become A Partisan Issue As Senate Votes Down Funding
from the bad-ideas dept
It shouldn’t matter which party you belong to (or if you belong to no party at all): fixing our totally broken election security should be a priority. This is a topic we’ve written about on Techdirt for nearly 20 years. The broken system of electronic voting has always been a security disaster, and now with more direct attempts to influence elections happening, it should be even more of a priority. And yet, following the lead in the House, this week the Senate voted down an amendment from Senator Patrick Leahy providing more funding for election security.
The vote was almost exactly along partisan lines, with only one crossover (Senator Bob Corker was the only Republican who voted for the amendment). While there were some arguments made against the bill, they don’t make much sense:
Sen. Blunt said that states are responsible for running their elections, not the federal government, and that providing more funds would give the impression of federal overreach.
Sen. Lankford said on the floor Wednesday, referencing the omnibus funds, ?the $380 million amount is what was needed for the moment,” and indicated he didn’t want to fund states beyond that right now.
There can be reasonable questions in how this money is being spent, and what’s being done to actually secure elections, but the fact that this seems to be becoming a partisan issue should worry us all. And, I know some of you will be tempted to do this, but claiming that Republicans are against this because insecure technology helps them get elected is not a serious response. That’s not only cynical, but almost certainly incorrect.
However, at a time when Congress (including many of the Senators who voted against this) have been grandstanding about tech companies being used to influence elections, the fact that they would then not really care that much about our woefully undersecured voting infrastructure just seems ridiculous. For years, we’ve argued that when tech policy issues get partisan, they get stupid, and it would be a real shame for election security, of all topics, to become stupidly partisan.
Filed Under: election security, funding, partisanship, patrick leahy, senate
Comments on “Election Security Has Become A Partisan Issue As Senate Votes Down Funding”
Actually, Republicans will argue that since they aren’t secured then they should be delayed until they are, or maybe just cancelled altogether “due to massive voter fraud” (which in reality is not only not massive but barely existent)… anything to keep themselves in office (because the next elections certainly won’t).
Re: Re:
I’ve been hearing "the President is going to suspend elections!" conspiracy theories since the Bush Administration. So far it hasn’t happened.
If you think it’s "certain" that the Republicans will lose the Senate in November, then I don’t think you’ve looked very closely at the seats that are in play. There are 33 Senate seats up in November; of those, only 8 are Republican seats. Democrats have to pick up a net 2 seats to gain a Senate majority (ie lose no seats and pick up 2, lose 1 seat but pick up 3, etc.). Their likeliest path to a Senate majority is to keep all their seats and win Arizona and Nevada, but again, this is far from certain; Manchin, McCaskill, and Heitkamp are all facing tough reelection campaigns and it’s possible the Democrats could lose one or more of those seats.
In a "blue wave" scenario, Democrats could keep all their seats, pick up Arizona and Nevada and maybe even Tennessee and Texas. I would not describe that as a likely outcome, but it is possible.
The Democrats are more likely to take the House than the Senate. But this article is specifically about the Senate.
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting picks for tough reelections! I would have thought Nelson (Beating Rick Scott in one of the only states Trump has gained ground in seems a daunting task), Donnelly (won against a foot-in-mouth candidate in massively red West Virginia) and Tester (Montana is not as democratic anymore) were more in a pickle?
Re: Re: Re:
The conspiracy theory in question here is the one repeatedly floated by Trump since he lost the popular vote in the election that put him in office–the completely false claim that there were millions of “illegal voters”. His hand-picked commission could find no evidence of it, much as they tried. As far as “delaying elections” goes, he stated the desire himself. But, no–not gonna happen.
After the Bush v Gore hanging chad election in 2000, the Feds DID hand out grants to all 50 states to upgrade election systems. That money was spent on the wonderful systems many of the folks are now complaining about. Repeating past mistakes in hopes the states will do better this time would most likely be as much a waste today as it was post Bush v Gore.
Better approach would be to make the states decide what system they want, test it to verify accuracy and security, then let that state apply for Federal funding to help pay for it.
Re: Re:
First: The purpose of the post-2000 grants was modernization, not security. This effort is fundamentally different, as its focus is security, and it’s not just about upgrading voting machines. There are a lot of systems that need their security shored up, including voter rolls.
Second: 2000 was 18 years ago. Even under ideal circumstances, computers purchased early in the Bush Administration need to be replaced by now. Here’s a good story on outdated election machines, including Texas districts still using ZIP disks and other discontinued hardware.
Third: While your suggestion that states should have a proposal already in place before they request a federal grant is reasonable, I see two issues with it: one is that I don’t think it’s any likelier to pass the Senate than Leahy’s amendment; the other is that the election is in three months.
Re: Re:
I mean, that’s a clear implementation of the goals of this bill, and not at all why the republicans claimed to disagree, in which they claimed the federal government shouldn’t spend or allocate any additional money with a perspective on election security, a serious issue given known hacking attempts.
The text of the amendment isn’t yet indexed, but I am not sure that grants to modernize election systems (given the ambiguity shown by hanging chads) is necessarily equivalent to grants to spend on election security. Not knowing the text, It is quite possible such grants would have to be applied for.
I just feel that, with the exact text of the amendment not public, just that it was about grants for election security, your comments seem to be in favor of such grants (“apply for federal funding”), but against them when they are called grants. You say the issue was that the grants after bush/gore were spent on poorly researched options that were, in hindsight, a bad choice, so we shouldn’t issue grants, but instead let the states who made poor choices, make those choices again, and apply for funding that doesn’t exist, because in the budgetary process we did not allow for additional grants to the states for improving election security (which we know is already an issue in the upcoming election).
What's the alternative explanation, then?
“And, I know some of you will be tempted to do this, but claiming that Republicans are against this because insecure technology helps them get elected is not a serious response. That’s not only cynical, but almost certainly incorrect.”
What other possible explanation could there be?
Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
I am not saying this is the correct answer, but in response to your question:
The voting machine companies that have already sold ‘secure’ machines to the states don’t want their equipment replaced with someone else’s ‘more secure’ equipment, and they have already paid their bribes, um…erm…campaign contributions.
Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
Unless the voting machine companies derive substantial ongoing benefits from keeping their machines in service (whether through lucrative support contracts or, as you allege, backdoors to subvert the election), they shouldn’t care if the machines get retired. They’ve been paid for the machines, and if they were smart at all, insisted that the support contract be paid upfront/non-refundable to the greatest extent the customer would accept. If so, they’ve already made their money off the machine and don’t care whether it goes straight from delivery box to trash bin.
I think it’s more likely that this is some combination of:
Re: Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
“Fiscal hawks, who need extremely strong evidence that an expenditure is worthwhile”
I believe you mean “pretend to need.”
Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
That they’re fundamentally opposed to federal spending on anything besides tax cuts or the military.
Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
Confirmed correct. Everyone else can literally go hang as far as they’re concerned.
Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
The election security scandal is tied to the Russian scandal. The Russian scandal is tied to Trump. Trump is a Republican. The Democrats are obviously trying use the connected scandals to embarrass the Republicans.
Therefore all of the connected scandals are partisan issues. Simple.
Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
Party over country – simple
everything is partisan
EVERYTHING is a “partisan issue” (i.e., political issue) in Congress… and most everywhere else in government.
Partisan & special-interests routinely jockey for power and control — that’s what “politics” is.
Who seriously thinks that Congress is some sober, objective deliberative body?
Congress is dysfunctional and does not perform even its most basic functions.
Election-security is a quite trivial issue on the long list of Congressional failings.
And this focus on Federal “spending” to supposedly fix election-processes… is itself a very partisan (and erroneous) subjective viewpoint.
You would think there would be some kinda learning-curve for
people who actually observe Congress in action over the years & decades ?
Re: everything is partisan
That’s a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of substance.
Re: Re: everything is partisan
@Thad:
… you just did such in eleven words; all onlookers are duly impressed with your brevity/vacuity
Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
Pee-Wee Herman said it better.
Re: everything is partisan
“Who seriously thinks that Congress is some sober, objective deliberative body?”
Congressional members ……. I’m serious.
Many times those who suffer from mental deficiencies are not cognizant of same and will deny it in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
“Election-security is a quite trivial issue on the long list of Congressional failings.”
I disagree, as it is not trivial.
“And this focus on Federal “spending” to supposedly fix election-processes… is itself a very partisan (and erroneous) subjective viewpoint.”
So – do nothing … great, as this is exactly what congress is doing – brilliant!
Re: Re: everything is partisan
Actually, I’d say that what congress does most is spend other people’s money on problems, while claiming that such expenditures will fix them. I (and presumably this should not be rare here) am dubious that the problems are usually fixed as a result.
That’s not to say that federal money given to states as proposed in the amendment wouldn’t increase election security. I have no idea. But, I lean toward the "provide some solid evidence/reasoning that this approach will work before we fund it" camp and away from the "pay and pray" camp.
Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
They do not even want to talk about talking about it.
Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
Not that he would dream of taking advantage.
Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
The Russians already have. And why not? They got away with it in 2016, achieved their desired result, and thus there is no reason for them not to repeat the exercise in 2018 and 2020.
My expectation is that they will target infrastructure this time around; power grid, communications, networks. Disrupting enough of that in just in the right areas should be sufficient to maintain plausible deniability while assuring the election outcomes they want.
Re: Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
Wacko Dacko alert.
Re: Re: Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
Wacko territory but I’m sure they have looked at the possibility.
Out of curiosity, i wonder how many of our senators aren’t actually stupid? The majority certainly seem to act like it over everything sensible!
Not news.
If anybody were interested in elections reflecting the will of the people, we’d not have gerrymandering. Tampering with the results of elections has been part of the political toolbox even before voting machines without paper trail upped the game.
Re: Not news.
Gerrymandering is done at the state level. We’re talking about US senators.
US senators have nothing to do with gerrymandering. They’re elected by state, not district.
Re: Re: Not news.
Yeah, but have you seen the shape of some of the states? We should really move state borders to fix Senate gerrymandering.
Re: Re: Not news.
So state politicians and federal politicians are a different species?
Re: Re: Re: Not news.
No, but Thads and strawmen are.
I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
I think I would come to the same conclusion – that there is something behind the curtain that the politicians are not showing us. There must be some motivation to block what seems to be an innocuous bill. Wait a minute, is it an innocuous bill? It has support for the “resistenace”, after all, that makes it suspicious naked and alone (metaphorically). I also understand that after the best efforts of the Democratically Fanatical FBI, not a single incident occurred that changed a single vote. So I agree with you, Mike, it looks suspicious on the surface. Did you actually read the bill? You do that sometimes, did you do it this time? It seems strange to write so many words about a bill you didn’t read. Without reading it, your article requires an excersize in mind-reading and soothsayer level inferences. “The mysterious bill” like “The mysterious island”… Is it good or Evil? Kind of a strange way to make your point, but I do agree with you, it bears further investigation. Why don’t you go read it and write another article about it and explain it to us? Sometimes you are surprising good at that (or at least you used to be)
Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
Yes, of course, law enforcement has always been known for being liberal.
Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
See STRZOK for a very public example of the Democratically Fanatical FBI. Watch him sneer on TV. Listen to how he talks about “Trump Voters” smell. Democratically Fanatical FBI without a glimmer of a doubt.
Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
See him what? He got fired for the appearance of bias not actual bias. It’s almost like Mueller is a professional. So maybe write a second draft there champ. And while you’re at it maybe look at synonyms for fanatical so you don’t look like you copy your claptrap from Fox News.
Re: Re: Re:2 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
“Yes, of course, law enforcement has always been known for being liberal.”
I was pointing out how ridiculous this attempt at sarcasm was. Strzok is a flaming liberal who spearheaded the FBI “influence” investigations on the election. He is on record saying he thought Hillary should win by 10000000 votes to zero and Trump will not win because he will “stop it”. So yes this is a concrete and recent example of law enforcement being fanatical liberals.
Understand? Probably not. Oh well. Carry on with your silliness, it is good for the written records.
Re: Re: Re:3 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
I’m sorry you are a failure. This whatabouthillary shit don’t fly here homeboy. This ain’t Fauxnews. But you are a dyed in the wool RWNJ so carry on being an white trash ass racist.
Re: Re: Re:4 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
Ok, you got me. What exactly is a RWNJ? Republican within New Jersey? Republican WIth No Job? Not many of those. Regarding being a “white trash ass racist”, I saw this really interesting thing on Tucker Carlson today. It is how the left will “trash” old white men with impunity, even though doing so is obviously racist. The idea is that racism is not only OK, it is mandatory if you are a Democrat/Leftist. You have to trash old white men, and especially rich ones (like me). Some Asian lady at the New York TImes made this very clear. Would you agree with that? Old white men (especially rich ones) should be the target of hatred and little else. Right? Thanks in advance for your help.
Re: Re: Re:5 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
People who think you’re a huge jerk aren’t necessarily left wing. Conservative here, and honestly, I think you’re a huge jerk. Here, read this: http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2018/02/do-you-really-think-for-yourself.html
Let me know how you get on.
Re: Re: Re:6 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
You are hilarious, you are a “pirate”, as I remember, you were the President of the Lesbian Separatist Pirates of the UK, does that sound familiar? Maybe I’ve got the wrong Wendy Cockcroft, feel free to correct me.
Re: Re: Re:7 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Actually I’m a duly elected representative of the People’s Front of Judea. The less said about those splitters spit! of the Judean People’s Front, the better. Romanes Eunt Domus! Domum. Whatever.
Re: Re: Re:7 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
If you directed your obvious creativity towards something productive you may even become a contributing member of society.
Re: Re: Re:8 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
We all try to help where we can. It’s Christian, and Buddhist, too. Never undestimate the power of faith. That is, clear thinking, well reasoned faith, like Christianity and Buddhism. Being certain of your hopes and dreams makes them come true. Trump, for example. He channeled the hopes and dreams of hundreds of millions of Americans. Like an attachment to ground for a limitless current of faith, optimism and belief in the future. Hating something is easy, but has no payback, other than brief vindication in the face of a fortunate event. Real faith, real love, real contribution, including monetary contributions to Trump, that’s what I believe. MAGA
Re: Re: Re:9 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
Trump’s still not going to let Shiva fuck his wife, Hamilton. Or let Shiva take over as president. Sucks, don’t it?
Re: Re: Re:9 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
Eh, that’s even funnier than that mad pirate lesbian separatist crack. I’m seeing Geena Davis in an eyepatch and headscarf for some reason. If Mitt “Etch a sketch” Romney was an internet troll…
Thank you for confirming that Trumpism is indeed a cult. BTW your small-handed orange idol has feet of clay, but I’m sure it’s the best clay. Have fun with your idolatry.
Re: Re: Re:9 I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
“Hating something is easy, but has no payback”
So trump got no payback for all the hate he spewed?
Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
You’re just embarrassing yourself.
Cons acting like cons. Scum of the earth they are.
Re: Re:
Out of office you should vote them.
/Yoda
too little, too late
There isn’t time to do any sort of government upgrade to election infrastructure. Not sure even if they doled out pork, I mean funds, that there is even time to do the upgrade by the next presidential election. You have to remember, this is government you’re talking about and they do IT at their own speed… Changes in systems for governments are planned in decades, not weeks or months or even years… And even then, they are as subject to fail as to succeed.
Re: too little, too late
Right then … off you – nothing to see here.
Re: too little, too late
That’s a wonderful argument for starting the process as soon as possible.
Re: too little, too late
Wait what? They PLAN the upgrades? I thought Gov IT just went with the lowest bidder and didn’t care what the reaults were.
No really I’m kidding. Anytime IT work is done it will depend on the project and people to determine if it is done right and/or quick. The problem is people usually only see and hear about the badly managed ones and not the projects that run correctly.
You can be a patriot or you can be a Republican. You can’t be both.
The current government is less right than anti-left
Essentially the legislature and executive presently are less interested in pushing an agenda than they are going against everything endorsed by the left, even if the notion or policy is entirely rational.
So when we say that we need better election security, the GOP is inclined to take the opposite stance, simply because some Democrats agree that we need better election security.
It’s kind of like the straw thing, where people are wasting disposable plastic straws just to piss off the environmentalists.
Why would the current senators care. The problem ones already have their pensions and tax cuts so it doesnt matter now if they are voted out
too little too late
Do the states need the interference (sorry, I mean help) that the fed offering them cash with strings would involve? How about “here, have some cash that you can spend issuing every verified voter an ID card with their biometrics and DNA”? Some solutions just aren’t.
If you think that the fed is in the business of handing out cash with no strings attached, then I have this bridge that makes a good income on tolls that is an investment just waiting for your life savings…
You’re Not Trying To Suggest ...
… that Republicans actually prefer crooked elections now, do you? That they’re terrified they can’t win if things were played fair?
I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that democracy itself has a Liberal bias now, could it?