Election Security Has Become A Partisan Issue As Senate Votes Down Funding

from the bad-ideas dept

Thu, Aug 2nd 2018 2:01pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: election security, funding, partisanship, patrick leahy, senate

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Glenn, 2 Aug 2018 @ 2:56pm

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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 3:19pm
  
  Re:
  I've been hearing "the President is going to suspend elections!" conspiracy theories since the Bush Administration. So far it hasn't happened.
  
  anything to keep themselves in office (because the next elections certainly won't).
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 11:55pm
    
    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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Glenn, 4 Aug 2018 @ 5:56am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tom (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 3:21pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:08pm
  
  Re:
  
  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.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Burkhardt (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:09pm
  
  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).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DrSwordopolis, 2 Aug 2018 @ 3:27pm

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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 3:35pm
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:02pm
    
    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:
    
    Fiscal hawks, who need extremely strong evidence that an expenditure is worthwhile
    
    Waste hawks, who look at how the past grants were spent and oppose issuing new grants that aren't locked down tightly
    
    "Small government" types who think the Feds have no business working on this; they prefer to believe, possibly rightly, possibly not, that the states are better suited to handle this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:06pm
      
      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."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
  
  What other possible explanation could there be?
  
  That they're fundamentally opposed to federal spending on anything besides tax cuts or the military.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Aug 2018 @ 5:59am
    
    Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
    Confirmed correct. Everyone else can literally go hang as far as they're concerned.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coyne Tibbets (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 7:38pm
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
    Party over country - simple
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thorsday, 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:10pm

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 ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re: everything is partisan
  That's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of substance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thorsday, 2 Aug 2018 @ 6:42pm
    
    Re: Re: everything is partisan
    @Thad:
    
    ... you just did such in eleven words; all onlookers are duly impressed with your brevity/vacuity
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 6:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
      Brevity is the soul of wit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Thad (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
      Pee-Wee Herman said it better.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 7:05am
  
  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!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freedomfan (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: everything is partisan
    
    So - do nothing ... great, as this is exactly what congress is doing - brilliant!
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 3:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
      They do not even want to talk about talking about it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 4:34pm

Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
Not that he would dream of taking advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 6:05pm
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 5:11am
    
    Re: Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
    Wacko Dacko alert.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 7:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
      Wacko territory but I'm sure they have looked at the possibility.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 5:01pm

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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 2 Aug 2018 @ 5:06pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad (profile), 2 Aug 2018 @ 5:19pm
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 5:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Not news.
    
    US senators have nothing to do with gerrymandering. They're elected by state, not district.
    
    Yeah, but have you seen the shape of some of the states? We should really move state borders to fix Senate gerrymandering.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:03am
    
    Re: Re: Not news.
    So state politicians and federal politicians are a different species?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Thad (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not news.
      No, but Thads and strawmen are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 6:48pm

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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 8:10pm
  
  Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
  Yes, of course, law enforcement has always been known for being liberal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 8:17pm
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 9:29pm
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2018 @ 9:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 5:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Aug 2018 @ 6:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 6:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Aug 2018 @ 7:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Aug 2018 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
      You're just embarrassing yourself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dank710 (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 5:41am

Cons acting like cons. Scum of the earth they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Aug 2018 @ 7:09am
  
  Re:
  Out of office you should vote them.
  
  /Yoda
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cecil, 3 Aug 2018 @ 6:46am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 7:12am
  
  Re: too little, too late
  Right then ... off you - nothing to see here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: too little, too late
  That's a wonderful argument for starting the process as soon as possible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:41pm
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bshock, 3 Aug 2018 @ 9:21am

You can be a patriot or you can be a Republican. You can't be both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 10:56am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:03pm

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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cecil, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:40pm

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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 5 Aug 2018 @ 1:07am

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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]