comscore Recounts or no, U.S. elections are still vulnerable to hacking | Honolulu Star-Advertiser
Top News

Recounts or no, U.S. elections are still vulnerable to hacking

  • ASSOCIATED PRESS

    In this Oct. 14, 2016 photo, a technician works to prepare voting machines to be used in the upcoming election in Philadelphia. These paperless digital voting machines, used by roughly one in five U.S. voters last month, present one of the most glaring dangers to the security of the rickety, underfunded U.S. election system.

ALLENTOWN, Pa. >> Jill Stein’s bid to recount votes in Pennsylvania was in trouble even before a federal judge shot it down Dec. 12. That’s because the Green Party candidate’s effort stood little chance of detecting potential fraud or error in the vote — there was basically nothing to recount.

Pennsylvania is one of 11 states where the majority of voters use antiquated machines that store votes electronically, without printed ballots or other paper-based backups that could be used to double-check the balloting. There’s almost no way to know if they’ve accurately recorded individual votes — or if anyone tampered with the count.

More than 80 percent of Pennsylvanians who voted Nov. 8 cast their ballots on such machines, according to VotePA, a nonprofit seeking their replacement. VotePA’s Marybeth Kuznik described the proposed recount this way: “You go to the computer and you say, ‘OK, computer, you counted this a week-and-a-half ago. Were you right the first time?’”

These paperless digital voting machines, used by roughly 1 in 5 U.S. voters last month, present one of the most glaring dangers to the security of the rickety, underfunded U.S. election system. Like many electronic voting machines, they are vulnerable to hacking. But other machines typically leave a paper trail that could be manually checked. The paperless digital machines open the door to potential election rigging that might not ever be detected.

Their prevalence also magnifies other risks in the election system, simply because error or fraud is harder to catch when vote counts can’t be verified. And like other voting machines adopted since the 2000 election, the paperless systems are nearing the end of their useful life — yet there is no comprehensive plan to replace them.

“If I were going to hack this election, I would go for the paperless machines because they are so hard to check,” said Barbara Simons, the co-author of “Broken Ballots,” a study of flawed U.S. voting technology.

Stein described her recount effort as a way to ensure that the 2016 election wasn’t tainted by hacking or fraud. There’s no evidence of either so far — a fact federal judge Paul Diamond cited prominently in his decision halting the Pennsylvania recount .

Stein pursued similar recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, to little avail. Those states use more reliable paper-based voting technologies. (The Electoral College certified Donald Trump’s presidential victory last week.)

But a cadre of computer scientists from major universities backed Stein’s recounts to underscore the vulnerability of U.S. elections. These researchers have successfully hacked e-voting machines for more than a decade in tests commissioned by New York, California, Ohio and other states.

Stein and her witnesses said worries about fraud were justified given U.S. charges that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign. Emails of top Democrats were hacked and leaked. Over the summer, hackers also tried to breach the voter registration databases of Arizona and Illinois using Russia-based servers, U.S. officials said. Election networks in at least 20 states were probed for vulnerabilities.

“It’s a target-rich environment,” said Rice University computer scientist Dan Wallach. Researchers would like to see the U.S. move entirely to computer-scannable paper ballots, because paper can’t be hacked.

The U.S. voting system — a loosely regulated, locally managed patchwork of more than 3,000 jurisdictions overseen by the states — employs more than two dozen types of machinery from 15 manufacturers. Elections officials across the nation say they take great care to secure their machines from tampering. They are locked away when not in use and sealed to prevent tampering.

All of that makes national elections very difficult to steal without getting caught.

But difficult is not impossible. Wallach and his colleagues believe a crafty team of pros could strike surgically, focusing on select counties in a few battleground states where “a small nudge might be decisive,” he said.

Most voting machines in the U.S. are at or near the end of their expected lifespans . Forty-three states use machines more than a decade old. Most run on vintage operating systems such as Windows 2000 that pre-date the iPhone and are no longer updated with security patches.

On Nov. 8, election officials across the U.S. handled numerous complaints of aging touchscreens losing calibration and casting votes for the wrong candidate.

But while many experts agree the U.S. voting system needs an upgrade, no one wants to pay to fix it.

Money flowed after the 2000 Florida recount debacle, when punch-card technology was discredited by hanging chads. Congress appropriated $4 billion for election upgrades; states raced to replace punch cards and lever machines with digital technology.

But when that money ran out, so did the ability of many states to address security concerns overlooked in their initial rush. Four in 5 U.S. election officials polled by New York University’s Brennan Center last year said they are desperate to replace equipment but lack the cash.

Voters in poorer areas suffer disproportionately, the center found. Data collected in Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Colorado suggests the poor are more apt to encounter failing machines.

In Virginia, wealthier counties near Washington have upgraded technology while lower-income counties in the state’s southwest have not been able to afford it, said Edgardo Cortes, the state elections commissioner.

Click here to see our full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak. Submit your coronavirus news tip.

Be the first to know
Get web push notifications from Star-Advertiser when the next breaking story happens — it's FREE! You just need a supported web browser.
Subscribe for this feature
Comments (14)

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Terms of Service. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. Report comments if you believe they do not follow our guidelines.

Having trouble with comments? Learn more here.

Leave a Reply

  • The Bern got burned.
    DNC exposed.
    hiLIARy, Pidesta, Palmeiri, Washerman Schultz, Brazille EXPOSED.
    FAKE NEWS, CNN, NYT, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc., DEMS, hiLIARy all in…COLLUSION.
    Hacking illegal but happens.
    Hacking EXPOSES the TRUTH.
    You decide.

  • “But a cadre of computer scientists from major universities backed Stein’s recounts to underscore the vulnerability of U.S. elections. These researchers have successfully hacked e-voting machines for more than a decade in tests commissioned by New York, California, Ohio and other states.”
    This article fails to mention that hacking the machines involve physically altering the machine with electronic chips. But the machines aren’t connected to the internet, so they cannot be hacked from Russia or China.
    A statement from the Department of Homeland Security says so (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national):
    “The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.”

    • All old news, years old.

      What you failed to consider is when the machines are connected to the computer system to access/download the stored voting results. Who is to say someone working these computer systems didn’t load some malware into them? Is the two person rule in effect? Who is checking these machines for malware, security issues?

      This is the problem you completely missed. No need for the internet when you do it in the same room with the machines.

      • Everyone was sensitive to hacking this year, and Homeland Security helped States check their security when asked. Plus more than a few machines would have to be tampered with to change the election results.

  • Funny, but a week before the election the MSM was saying it was impossible to rig an election, either by hacking or voter fraud. But once their candidate lost…

  • Unfortunately for Waldo – where is she by the way?, haven’t heard much from or about her since there were random sightings of her in the forests of Chapaqua – the DNC head guy in charge of hacking evidently got his signals crossed and arranged for her to win the popular vote instead of the electoral vote. Details, details. In other news little Barry Hussein recently claimed he could have won a 3rd term because voters overwhelmingly support his progressive fundamental transformation agenda. If you like your Barry you can keep your Barry – not!

    • There’s little doubt that most any other democrat would likely have defeated Trump. Even Hillary was expected to beat him. The Democratic party made a huge mistake when they nominated her. They didn’t realize how flawed their candidate was and how many americans viewed her as an obvious liar and corrupt individual.
      This election wasn’t a vote in support of Trump, it was a vote against Clinton. Voters want change and we weren’t going to get it from Hillary.

      • Yup, an awful lot of buyer’s remorse out there and a lot of anger directed at the DNC by the Bernie true believers. In any case by nominating Waldo and alienating traditional America the democrats missed a golden opportunity to continue Barry’s agenda. Now they have to live with the consequences of bad judgement. Appointment of federal judges, the supreme court, returning immigration policies to sanity, the death of political correctness, holding Islam accountable for the murderous, mysoginistic faith that it is and basically reversing Barry’s progressive agenda are now the new reality for America. January 20, 2017 #MAGA

Scroll Up