A Nonprofit, Reader-Supported News Organization
Like so many important subjects, the future battle over improving our election system is about technical issues. Don’t let the geek factor throw you off: whether we emphasize accessibility for the disabled or a reliable paper trail is a very big deal for us all. The question is: Can we have it all?
Bill Browder, an American financier formerly operating in Russia, provides an in-depth look at what we should have been afraid of for a long time.
President Donald Trump wants an investigation into his unproven claim that millions of illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton. Enterprising lawmakers could take any findings to further suppress the right of minorities to vote.
Old voting machines and the Election Day sloppiness of officials in Detroit may disqualify tens of thousands of ballots from Michigan’s recount, which would make it very difficult for Hillary Clinton to prevail in the state.
Forget Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. This recount isn’t about them, it’s about you. It’s about shedding a little light on a process that is needlessly and absurdly opaque. A Gallup poll released in November shows that 69% of Americans lack confidence in the “honesty of the election.” That’s up 30% from 2009. […]
Experts insist that a full manual recount is the only way to ensure that the Wisconsin result is correct. A judge and election officials seem to agree … but the judge was unable to order it due in part to state law, and it might still not take place across the state, unless the public demands it.
In a time of despair, the road to fixing things runs right through the media: our main source for information about what is going on — and why. Here, WhoWhatWhy looks back on our experiment in a different kind of political coverage for the 2016 election.
The director of a cybersecurity center reveals surprising information about voting — like how early voting can actually increase the risk of foul play, and how distrust of the current system may be as damaging as actual hacking.
Usually, international election observers monitor new and struggling democracies, such as Ukraine. Turns out the “struggling democracy” that needs outside monitors is our own.
The mainstream media assures us that foreign governments can’t hack the election, and downplays the risk of domestic threats to elections — the possibility that special interests could access voting machines and change votes.
In a time when everything is digital and online, do we have to return to hand-counted paper ballots to assure trust in our election results?
Could Vladimir Putin’s hackers pick the next US president? We looked into the possibility a year ago and here is what we found.