2/ Under this proposed edit, #HR1 would require that the voter “have the option to mark his or her ballot by hand, whether voting by mail or in person.” #HandMarkedPaperBallots
Without this clarifying language, jurisdictions cld still force all in person voters to use risky touchscreen voting machines called ballot marking devices (BMDs), as long as vote by mail is also an option. That won’t suffice to protect election integrity & faith in elections. 3/
Unlike #HandMarkedPaperBallots (pen and paper), BMDs are vulnerable to power failure, electronic failure, screen freezes, miscalibration, disproportionate distribution (causing bottlenecks & long lines in suppressed areas), and hacking. 4/
5/ I also suggest that you supplement HR 1 to specify that BMDs “must not put votes into barcodes or QR codes.” This language is important because barcodes & QR codes are not transparent, further endangering integrity and confidence in elections.
6/ We are only beginning now to understand how these barcodes and QR code’s unnecessarily increase the attack surface for bad actors seeking to interfere in our elections. This is unacceptable & unnecessary.
7/ Even without the barcodes & QR code’s, forcing in person voters to use BMDs is unacceptable. A recent study shows that 93% of inaccuracies in the text portion of machine-marked paper records from BMDs go unnoticed by voters. news.engin.umich.edu/2020/01/new-st…
8/ This is an invitation for fraud especially for down ballot races (eg, for state legislature).
9/ Per the author of the study in post 7, @jhalderm, merely instructing voters to review the printouts didn’t help much. The only thing that did was giving them a pre-filled slate (such as a sample ballot) to compare to the printout. Many/most voters don’t know to do this.
10/ With vote by mail under attack, we still need reliable in person voting. Thank you for your consideration. #HandMarkedPaperBallots
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yike. Paul Manafort intended for the Trump campaign's polling data to go to Serhiy Lyovochkin. Per the NYT in 2005, Lyovochkin was involved in the conspiracy to HACK ELECTRONIC ELECTION RESULTS in Ukraine's 2004 presidential election. 1/ archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.co…
2/ According to CNN, Serhiy Lyoyovochkin was one of two intended recipients of the polling data that Paul Manafort gave to Konstantin Kilimnik on August 2, 2016. cnn.com/2019/01/09/pol…
3/ According to the NYT piece in post 1, Viktor Medvedchuk (a key Putin ally) was also involved in the hacking of Ukraine's 2004 election. He, too, was reportedly in touch with the Trump campaign in 2016, though he denied it. reuters.com/article/us-usa…
Fun fact: @GOP is using talking points from Ben Shapiro who used to circulate pro-Yanukovich talking points while at Breitbart. Yanukovich was Manafort’s client in Ukraine. He was ousted & lives in Russia in exile. These people will say anything for money. They are all dirty. 1/
Dear @GAGOP: Advocating #handmarkedpaperballots isn’t a conspiracy theory. Do I need to remind you that a federal court agreed w/ @CoalitionGoodGv that Georgia’s prior paperless Diebold/ES&S voting machines were unconstitutional? Or that those machines lost 127k black votes? 1/
As FBI issues a WANTED notice for Konstantin Kilimnik (who received polling data from Manafort in August 2016), questions about why @vlasto leaked proprietary exit polling data to the Trump campaign on election night 2016 could resurface. 1/
In 2019, Kilimnik told me (through his Twitter alias, which the SIC revealed to be @PBaranenko), that the polling data he received from Manafort was just some basic stuff. Publicly available. Seems he lied. 1/