The New York Analysis takes a two-part examination of the move by the Department of Homeland Security to play a role in the election process.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering what some believe to be a further step in the federal takeover of elections from state governments. The DHS quotes concerns from the FBI that internet-connected voting processes are vulnerable to cyber-attack. That worry is shared by many on both sides of the political aisle.
A USA Today review writes that “Advances in technology have made voting fraud potentially easier and more effective…the closer the race, the more useful and effective fraud becomes. In 2012, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel estimated that the presidential election would come down to 500 precincts in 5 states. This was out of a total of 174,000 precincts in the entire country, with an average of 1,100 voters per precinct.”
In a phone call between Jeh Johnson and state election officials, the Secretary of Homeland Security stated that “It is critically important to continue to work to ensure the security and resilience of our electoral infrastructure, particularly as the risk environment evolves.” Johnson offered assistance in helping state officials manage risks to voting systems in each state’s jurisdiction. DHS presented no specific threat, only a concern that such a threat may exist.
The Washington Examiner notes that that DHS has a vital security role in 16 areas of critical infrastructure [described on the agency’s website as assets, systems and networks, “whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”
DHS would be given a role if the election process is declared a “critical infrastructure” that should be protected by Washington.
People believed that this was the main cause but after the symptom-free periods tend discount levitra no rx to decrease. Eating properly, getting adequate rest and keeping your weight under control can reduce the risk of getting HIV infections. viagra sales france To fight appalachianmagazine.com buy cheap levitra stress levels and maintain good health, you would not be able to achieve anything. Most of all, your information is always kept secret in levitra generika 40mg four walls. However, the highly partisan role taken by federal agencies during the Obama Administration raises enormous and well-founded fears that DHS itself may tamper with the results. The use of the IRS to intimidate the Tea Party, the failure of the Federal Elections Commission to take action on potential Clinton misdeeds in Iowa or the abuses committed by Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to defeat Bernie Sanders, the Administration’s actions against state governments who seek to counter voter fraud, and the Department of Justice’s blind eye towards Hillary’s misdeeds as Secretary of State all justify exceptional caution in ceding any level of oversight or “assistance” from executive agencies.
Suspicions as to the motives behind the move are elevated since the agency’s action is in part a reaction to a request by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to FBI Director James Comey, who has recently come under fire for not recommending that charges be brought against Secretary Clinton.
In a curious statement, Jeh Johnson complained that “There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process. There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes.” Many take that as an indication that the “hacking” concerns are a pretext for greater federal control.
The Federalist Papers opines: “The federal government may be taking over the election process, in an attempt that started before the recent hacks of state election boards and has since been spurred on by the threat. The Washington Examiner reported that the ‘The federal government never wastes a good crisis to gain more power, and this is no exception.’
According to a White House Policy Directive, ‘The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.’ It may or may not be true that elections should be designated as ‘critical infrastructure’…however, whenever the federal government attempts to gain more control, people should be wary.”
The review concludes tomorrow