Our elections are at risk because of bad technology.

By Jason Smith

When Dorothy discovers fraud in the land of Oz, she is told by the Wizard, “Don’t look behind the curtain.” But she does. In America, we demand truth and accountability in so many aspects of our daily lives, and yet somehow there’s little public outcry for transparency within voting, the sacred cornerstone of our democracy. For the most part, we sleep soundly under the blanket of assurances from government officials. FBI Director James Comey even attempted a spin of irony recently, noting that our “clunky” voting process actually makes wholesale rigging more difficult. However, Comey misses the bigger picture.

U.S. elections offer scant assurance of accuracy or security, and our nation would fail recognized international election criteria that we impose on emerging democracies. This November, millions of Americans will cast their ballots on unverifiable paperless voting computers. These machines incorporate flawed, buggy software that would not pass a college freshman computer science class.

Hardly anyone uses the same computer from 12 years ago, yet large sections of the country currently vote on aging electronic systems which utilize proprietary software that cannot be publicly examined. Unverifiable technology remains deployed in 29 states – including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida – and other key battleground states, which may determine our next president. Races in these areas are not evidence based, and consequently, we cannot be certain ballots reflect voter intent. Bereft of such knowledge, how can we put faith in the legitimacy of our government?

Two simple solutions would dramatically improve American elections: paper ballots and meaningful post election audits.

Jurisdiction over elections gets complicated quickly – by tradition, states run elections, but Congress has authority over federal races. Consequently, national standards for technology often filter across to state and local races. And for those who balk at federal intervention, state mandates for paper ballots and audits provide another viable path.

Concerns of rigged elections tend to focus on the presidency. Yet the outcomes of municipal and state races often play a greater role in our lives than who is in the White House, and we generally use the same exact systems for all elections. Everyone loves to talk about Pennsylvania, but we don’t look behind “the curtain” to see that at least half of the Keystone State’s counties use completely digital voting up and down the ballot. There is no verifiable paper trail whatsoever for these races.

The greatest doubt of all looms large in the rise of internet voting. Currently, 32 states incorporate some form of internet voting, mainly to service military and overseas voters. Two states, Alaska and Washington, allow anyone to vote online, creating a potential camel’s nose under the tent. Once the nose gets in, get ready for the whole camel.

If we can bank and buy things online, what’s wrong with voting online? Essentially, the obstacle rests with meeting the requirement for anonymity. Were fraud to occur in an online financial transaction, the transaction can be reversed. Elections require severing any connection of voter identity to voter intent. A successful hack on the internet or a digital voting computer would leave no trace of malfeasance. Plus, we must remember that even with state of the art security, banks and companies write off billions every year due to online fraud. Can we afford to write off our votes?

Leading computer science experts who study these issues have been ringing alarm bells for years, J. Alex Halderman a computer science professor at the University of Michigan once hacked an open test of Washington D.C.’s online voting system by leaving a unique calling card. Anytime someone cast a vote, the online system would play Michigan’s fight song.

Continue reading, US News.

As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton’s rotten record.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.

 Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”

A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she’d done wrong. “Everyone wants her to apologize,” wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. “And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles’ heel.”

Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.

A senior FBI official involved with the Clinton investigation told Fox News this week that the “vast majority” of career agents and prosecutors working the case “felt she should be prosecuted” and that giving her a pass was “a top-down decision.”

Continue Reading, The Wall Street Journal.


By Kurt Schlicter

Forgive me if I’m confused, but there seems to be a huge disconnect between what our would-be elite overlords are telling us about women and what they actually think. Apparently coherence and consistency are sexist, and probably also racist and homophobic, making the pooh-bahs of the establishment and their media gimps the most tolerant people in the world.

So, Hillary has some serious sads because Trump interrupted her in the debates. That’s sexist you know, because women are both just as good and tough and stuff as men and, simultaneously, little delicate flowers that we must treat like fine china. Apparently you go go go gurl until someone is mean to you and then you run run run gurl to the menfolk in the media to protect you. You can be anything you want to be except as tough and capable as a man, right Hillary?

You pathetic hack. I expect your vapid supporters, to the extent they actually consider things beyond your mind-numbing clichés, probably expect your whining about sexism is going to make Putin pause. But those of us who actually reside on this planet know that the bullies of the world have already got your number – it’s 33,000, as in the emails they have of yours they have that you tried to Bleach Bit into oblivion. They see you as weak because you are weak. You’re frail and you’re stupid and you allowed yourself to be humiliated by that dank bro clown of a husband in front of the entire world.

Respect? You haven’t earned it, you bizarre robot. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher whimpering like you do? She was the Iron Lady; you’re the Grinning Hummel, a neurotic first wife who would be whining to some therapist if she didn’t have the media oiled-up and at her creepy service.

So the next freakout du jour involves Trump calling out some chunky,homicidal ex-Miss Universe, whose entire job was supposed to be not getting chunky during her reign, for getting chunky during her reign. So wait, we can’t hold women to the same standards as men? Her job was to be thin. She didn’t do it. Oh no, her boss pointed out that this woman had failed the one thing she committed to do, and he’s the villain?

There’s another organization that fat shames people for failing to meet their commitment to stay within weight standards – the military. Why do you hate our troops, Hillary? Oh right, you’re a liberal. Anyway, do women need an exception there too, Hillary? Sergeant Hester didn’t need special treatment, but then she wasn’t some gender studies major intent on getting ahead through grievance mongering instead of actual achievement.

Why do liberals have such low expectations for women? Oh right, because their pro-woman agenda is as phony as their global warming scam. They’re the hippie in Forrest Gump, smacking around the heroine and blaming it on LBJ. Just ask Juanita Broaddrick.

You better put some ice on that.”

But will people see it that way? The sad fact is that some people love cultivating fake sexism as a bludgeon to beat on their opponents. That’s the Democrat way – try to turn opposition into immorality. And among a certain part of the population, it will work – those are the people who were perfectly happy while Bill Clinton treated his succession of women like trash and Hillary came behind with a garbage pail and a push broom. Broken, shattered women are collateral damage in their struggle, a struggle that is most assuredly not for equality but about something else – unaccountable supremacy. Hillary and her ilk are saying precisely the opposite of “Women are just as good as men,” which some suckers still think is the point of liberal feminism. What they are saying is “Women are whatever we need them to be at the moment, and the second they stop being useful we’ll wad them up and throw them away.”

Continue reading, Townhall.