Despite Election Security Fears, Iowa Caucuses Will Use New Smartphone App

[Newest Reality]

This goes in the Democratic Primaries forum, right?

Iowa's Democratic Party plans to use a new Internet-connected smartphone app to help calculate and transmit results during the state's caucuses next month, Iowa Public Radio and NPR have confirmed.

Party leaders say they decided to opt for that strategy fully aware of three years' worth of warnings about Russia's attack on the 2016 presidential election, in which cyberattacks played a central role.

Iowa's complicated caucus process is set to take place Feb. 3 in gymnasiums, churches, recreation centers and other meeting places across the state.

As opposed to a primary in which voters cast ballots in the same way they would for a general election, Iowa's caucuses are social affairs; caucusgoers gather in person and pledge their support for a candidate by physically "standing in their corner" in designated parts of a room.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/795906732/despite-election-security-fears-iowa-caucuses-will-use-new-smartphone-app

[2naSalit]

1. I guess that's how you make

Iowa irrelevant.

[33taw]

2. When will Vlad be doing his data entry?

[Me.]

3. Honestly

I find I cannot trust such a system, let ballots be counted

[defacto7]

4. How idiotic. It's even comical

if it weren't such tragic ignorance.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. .

[IADEMO2004]

6. You know nothing Jon Snow

[The Revolution]

7. Not really an issue

From the article: "Because caucusing is an in-person process, verified by witnesses, there is virtually no risk that a cyberattack on the app could change the results of the caucus and go undetected."

Everyone in the room knows how everyone else voted and what the totals were. If the reported results don't match up, everyone will know. With standard secret ballot voting, it would be difficult to tell if a few hundred votes got flipped here or there (recounts are possible, but can be difficult, and some machines have no ability to audit at all).

Honestly, caucuses are probably the most secure form of voting if nothing else.

Now you could argue that the media attention paid the apparent winner might be enough of a reason to change the totals (as the article suggests), but that's really more of a media problem. Obviously the 2000 general election didn't have caucuses, but the media declaring Bush the winner had a huge impact on perceptions of the results).

If we do see any shenanigans with vote totals next month, I would think that sort of red flag would be too big for even the Republicans to ignore going into the fall.

[Tiggeroshii]

8. Thanks for this

[Mr.Bill]

9. The problem with caucuses

is the amount of people who are excluded because of the requirement to show up in person. People who have to work, are traveling, have transportation issues, illnesses, etc.

[The Revolution]

10. Sure, it's not perfect

Some of those issues can be mitigated, given that the caucus date is known months in advance (as far as arranging transportation or whatnot). There may be some that can't go due to illness, but the number is probably not enough to swing the results that much.

But the main point here is they are at least very secure. I'm not sure I can say the same out any general election after 2000.