Voting Integrity And The SAFE Act

The SAFE Act is something we absolutely need (boldface mine):

The changes that [Democrat] Pocan and his fellow House members propose would place elections systems in the same category as other critical infrastructure such as the power grid, the banking system, and essential utilities. At the same time, the SAFE Act protects against cyber threats by requiring the use of better voting machines that provide paper ballots. And it requires random audits of ballots to thwart wrongdoing and to assure against malfunctions….

To create that confidence the SAFE Act would:

… 2. Authorize the necessary funding for upgrading cybersecurity standards of voting systems, including the software used to operate such systems, and to ensure the security of the manufacturing processes for such components through collaboration with the National Institute for Standards in Technology (NIST) and the Department of Homeland Security. The bill will also ensure cybersecurity for all voter registration databases.

3. Require NIST and DHS to create basic cybersecurity standards for private companies contracted to work on elections systems in the US.

4. Require all electronic voting machines to have a corresponding paper ballot. The EAC would be required to randomly audit 5 percent of wards/precincts in each state to ensure that there are no discrepancies between paper ballots and electronic ballots.

Point #4 is critical. I’ve noted for years that there are very weird patterns regarding precinct results–not county-level results–but individual precincts that suggest a systematic bias. If politicians want to be viewed as legitimate, then they need to support this bill.

This entry was posted in Democrats, Voting. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Voting Integrity And The SAFE Act

  1. someone says:

    The simple thing to do is to forbid all electronic voting and only allow old fashioned paper voting. It’s simple, effective, auditable, everybody knows how it works, cheap.

    • sglover says:

      Yep. Says a lot about our supposed attachment to “democratic values” that it takes a spasm of hysterical fear-mongering to spur meaningful standards for election mechanics. You’d think the 2000 election, and various local electoral embarrassments since, would have had that effect.

  2. Pingback: The real question about U.S. election hacking | Phil Ebersole's Blog

  3. J Silva says:

    Mike: you’re right! Thanks to your participation, we have a valid description to direct instruction to relevant representatives exactly to the improvements the US needs to avoid civil violence. A citizen’s input as expressed thru elections binds both the governed and the government to the rule of law.

Comments are closed.