Electronic ballots cast over the phone, or over the Internet, have been considered dangerously weak for some time. (A long, long time.)
And, we all know that portable devices have all kinds of security weaknesses.
So, in this climate, what do you think the smart thing is to do?
Walk in voting is weak on security! When I voted in last year's presidential election, I was able to ask the volunteer if my mother-in-law was registered to vote. She paged through the voter roles right in front of me and I could clearly see who had voted and who hadn't (they removed a sticker and put it on another sheet when you came in to vote, so no sticker meant you had voted already.) She looked her up and couldn't find her but said well she can come in and fill out a provisional ballot.
My point being, there was no voter id required. I could easily game the system by asking about my "sick" neighbor (who I knew to be out of town or I knew never participated in voting) and see if they were on there. If so I just show up later in disguise and vote in their place. And what is to stop the "volunteers" from stuffing the ballot box at the end of the night? They just peel off a sticker, slap it on the other form and then fill out a ballot. Lather, Rinse, Repeat until you get 100% voter turnout for an area. Add into that provisional ballots and you have greater than a 100% turnout.
The election system needs a serious overhaul and voter id should be right up there. P.S. I have seen this at every voting system across 3 states. Not that I vote in multiple states in an election, I have just been voting long enough and moved around enough that I have voted in 3 states in my lifetime.
I for one hold that voter turnout greater than 100% is wonderful evidence of the electorates overwhelming commitment to democracy!
If anyone has read any books in Alaistair Reynolds Revolution Space* Series he posits a political system called ‘Demarchy’, I assume a portmanteau of ‘Democratic Anarchy’.
Basically everyone in the Demarchy has to vote and you do it electronically and it realtime on much greater granularity than our current state of the art allows(Switzerland - IMHO it kind of works but is weird), and you get asked a lot of questions and are profiled(if it turns out you make good decisions then your vote gets added weight) - of course this needs to be electronic, and as such you’d assume that authentication would be secure, and profiling the individual over a the long term would provide better security that just walking into a polling booth or downloading and app.
Ultimately to have really secure elections our systems need multiple points of contact over time, and accountability and oversight are going to be as important as technology.
*It’s relatively hard SF, if compared to pop culture, though non of it as written before he current hype around Blockchain and AI. Data was also stored on ‘turbines’ which spun very quickly and failed spectacularly.
If we weighted people's votes based off of their social media activity I can see some people going into the negative weighting.
I could easily game the system by ...[voting for]... my "sick" neighbor.
Small risk in small-town America, where everyone knows everyone else. Bigger risk in big cities. Less detectable would be to steal absentee ballots from mailboxes, at the risk of violating 18 U.S. Code § 1708. Even less detectable would be to implement systems that don't require physical presence (either at the precinct or at your mailbox).
And what is to stop the "volunteers" from stuffing the ballot box at the end of the night?
Most (if not all) states require ballots boxes to remain in the presence of at least one Republican and at least one Democrat. Stuffing therefore requires cross-party collusion/conspiracy. I also believe that the two to three people you see at the check-in table must not be of a single party. So, for example, a Republican checks your name off the roster and a Democrat hands you your ballot.
The election system needs a serious overhaul and voter id should be right up there.
Most states have already implemented at least some form of Voter-ID. To prevent disenfranchisement (the opposite of voter fraud), Voter-ID needs to be coupled with a movement to "help people get IDs". Such a movement ought to be equally strong as "register to vote".