2 States’ Election Systems Hacked – Presidential Election at Risk

2 States’ Election Systems Hacked – Presidential Election at Risk

,2 States’ Election Systems Hacked – Presidential Election at Risk
New Foreign Computer Threats Add to Old Fashioned Ballot Fraud Techniques

The FBI has reported that the data bases of election boards in at least two states were successfully hacked, apparently by foreign governments, and in at least one case the hackers were able to insert malicious software into the system. Thus, concern that the presidential election could be rigged is all too true, with new computer threats being added to both old fashioned and new electronic ballot fraud techniques, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, an election and math expert.

Banzhaf started hacking in the late 1950s, and his technique for determining the chance that any particular voter or small group of voters could change the outcome of a presidential election – now called “The Banzhaf Index” – has been widely adopted and utilized. That’s important because, under our Electoral College system, any rigging/fraud/hacking which resulted in a change in even a very small number of votes, and perhaps even in only one state, could change the outcome of the presidential election, something very unlikely to occur were there to be a direct presidential election.

Li Lu And Greenwald On Competitive Advantages And Value Investing

Li LuIn April, Li Lu and Bruce Greenwald took part in a discussion at the 13th Annual Columbia China Business Conference. The value investor and professor discussed multiple topics, including the value investing philosophy and the qualities Li looks for when evaluating potential investments. Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more How Value Investing Has Read More

He reminds us of how the 2000 presidential election was decided by fewer than 1000 votes out of almost 6 million cast in Florida. That election, with its hanging chads and long delays, focused public attention on the many problems of using punch card ballots.

Traditional techniques for rigging an election, including stuffing ballot boxes and permitting those who are not eligible to nevertheless cast votes – because they are dead, felons, or illegal aliens – still exist, notes Banzhaf, and their impact could be increased by challenges to voter ID laws and other measures designed to insure that only those legally entitled to vote in fact do so. Today, hackers can also stuff electronic voting machines by altering voting cards to permit them to cast hundreds of votes at one sitting.

More generally, the threat of a rigged presidential election – and the possibility that it could be accomplished by only a few determined individuals or even by a foreign power – has been dramatically enlarged by the increased use of electronic voting machines (especially in states where they leave no paper trail), by the escalating use of computers and data processing techniques to count or transmit data about votes, and the ever growing ability of hackers both here and abroad to penetrate virtually any computer, even those computers and other electronic devices not connected to the Internet.

Indeed, the hacking of the Pentagon, the alleged hacking of the Democratic Party by the Russians, and the hacking of many large corporations such as Sony by North Korea, has led many commentators to suggest that the 2016 presidential election could even be hacked by a foreign power.

Former Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, for example, has said that hackers can now get into any computer, even if it’s not connected to the Internet. CNN reluctantly reports that “we’ve officially entered the era of the hackable election.” This election may not be close enough to be successfully attacked, but those in the future are even more likely to be hacked, particularly if we ignore the growing threat, says Banzhaf.

One of the most vulnerable targets are electronic voting machines. While some do generate paper records so that some type of audit trail is available if hacking is suspected, too many do not. This can create what Wired’s Brian Barrett terms a “technological train wreck” because, if some one tampered with the machine’s software, there would be no way to prove it by comparing real votes with machine tallies.

In short, the 2016 presidential election could be decided by hackers, not voters, warns Banzhaf.

Updated on

No posts to display