Forum Thread

Iowa will keep voter system that was almost hacked in 2016.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I don't know much about cyber security, but I do know something about public confidence in their government, as well the security of their voting systems. Iowa Secretary of State's office announced that they will be sticking with the 14 year old voter registration system for the time being. They said the new system would be off of the ground until after the next election.

    It looks like the old system will see yet another presidential election. The system was almost infiltrated by Russian hackers in the 2016 presidential election. Which was more than enough to raise eyebrows.

    It concerns me a great deal that out of all states, a swing state is sticking with what still could be a vulnerable voting system. This isn't the first time a swing state ran into controversy about their voting system. Anyone remember the "hanging chads" controversy in Florida?

    Most of all, I think it's asking for trouble. Since the 2016 election, there has been nothing but venom spat across the aisle about the legitimacy of the last election's results. I think this will only allow this same trouble to carry over into the 2020 election. Anyone else agree? Or would pushing a new system into action lead to unknown vulnerabilities in the next election?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    JFoster Wrote:

    I think this will only allow this same trouble to carry over into the 2020 election. Anyone else agree? Or would pushing a new system into action lead to unknown vulnerabilities in the next election?

    Same system with no improvements is just asking for repeat controversy. Definitely agree with you here. It always amazes me at how difficult states claim it is to update their voting systems. I honestly don't get it. There must be way more involved in the process than I would guess. Either that, or they just don't want to do it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Agreed. I think it's a combination of a lot of things. Money is moved around a lot, and they don't want to cough up the millions of bucks to fix something they only use every so often. I also don't think it helped that the politician overseeing the project resigned for personal reasons.