Homeland eyes special declaration to take charge of elections

[Seriously?]

Homeland seeks to muscle in on Federal election territory. What say you Atlas about the Federal government taking over what is generally a state concern?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sourcing: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homeland-eyes-special-declaration-to-take-charge-of-elections/article/2600592

[Green Line]

Good.  Take them over.  Cancel them if need be.

[Devout Centrist]

It is critical infrastructure, but it's not like the Congress cares about cyber security. It may as well still be 1990 on Capitol Hill.

[Dr. Arch]

Uhh... Not sure how I feel about this. I will take my time to articulate a position.

[Lambsbread]

Good.  Take them over.  Cancel them if need be.

[Trapsy]

wow, this will only play into Trump's theory that the election is rigged. If there are riots after HRC takes office, Putin will be laughing his a** off.

[swf541]

Good

[ProudModerate2]

If not mistaken, Canada has a centralized method of conducting their federal elections.
We should consider something similar.
I think they use paper ballots (very large forms) that you write-on, and this is a good way of making sure all votes are accounted for and can easily be deciphered if a recount is in order.
No punch-cards, no chads, no butterfly ballots, no dangerous "electronic" methods of voting, etc.

[ProudModerate2]

PS: Kudos to Serioulsy for finally putting together a thread that is interesting.
(But something tells me, he will be just like trump, and go back to his "blunders" starting tomorrow.)
8-)

[Dr. Arch]

PS: Kudos to Serioulsy for finally putting together a thread that is interesting.
8-)

1/957 (.001%)

You can do it, Seriously!

[Maxwell]

to a certain extent, yes. whatever you think of the DNC being hacked, we need better protections over our election data and congress damn sure won't do anything about it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Are they going to administer them out of the FEMA concentration camps?

[kyc0705]

If not mistaken, Canada has a centralized method of conducting their federal elections.
We should consider something similar.
I think they use paper ballots (very large forms) that you write-on, and this is a good way of making sure all votes are accounted for and can easily be deciphered if a recount is in order.
No punch-cards, no chads, no butterfly ballots, no dangerous "electronic" methods of voting, etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me, at least until my ultimate secure-online-voting utopia is realized one glorious day in the future.

[izixs]

I'm not inclined to trust an article from a right wing tabloid. But it does provide an in perhaps of discussion of what should be done in terms of election security.

At the end of the day elections should be done in an impartial and fair manner. If there's to be any national management of election running and practice (its generally state by state now after all), that suggests an agency of some sort needs to be in charge. As such, either a fully bipartisan board or as independent an agency as possible would be ideal, not putting elections under the control of a cabinet position like Homeland Security, which could start putting political pressure for certain results through 'security measures' and the like.

But as such an agency is unlikely at this time, perhaps the best means for DHS and the like to be of use here is to provide the states information on securing there systems in general, not just for elections. If the voter databases are being compromised, it begs the question what other state based systems might be in trouble security wise. DHS could do some good here, provided... the help isn't just an excuse to sell computers and contractor 'experts' that don't actually know what they're doing.