There's been some recent revelations of Democrats' concerns at the integrity of electronic voting machines. Which led me to my post last year, where I did all but press "send" via an online overseas voting website.
I asked Grok:
FYI, last year I used the website of overseasvotefoundation.org to vote in the US election, despite (a) not being an American citizen and (b) not having any ID.
I did this because I wanted to see how easy it might be to cheat. It was very easy.
In the end, I did not press "send" to register my "vote", but I easily could have. I classify this as easily hackable overseas voting in the US election, which does not appear other countries such as Australia. FYI.
Grok's answer was instantaneous and thorough. Which, given the relative complexity of the question and being slightly abstruse, I found impressive. I might quibble with a couple of points, which I've highlighted below. But overall, a solid A.
Grok noted that if I had pressed "Send", the local election office would have required proof of "... citizenship". But is that true? In California, for example, they do not require any voter ID at all -- officials are not allowed to ask for any ID -- so how can they require proof of citizenship?
But I didn't want to get into an argument with Grok, so I left it at that.
This is very much one that's for geeks and nerds only. For those interested in the minutiae of US election integrity. I think, reading between the lines below, the Australian system can show the US system and thing or two. As I read it Grok shares my concerns -- widespread concerns -- about US election integrity, but can't quite bring itself to admit it!
By the way, when I first posted about this little experiment of mine, I had a sneaking suspicion that even had I pressed "send", there [would have been/might have been] further checking down the line. Just that that further checking is itself suspect, at least in some states and in some elections. A voter fraud rate of 0.00006%?? That just seems like not common sense... just six fraudulent ballots in 10 million??
ADDED: I highlight a couple of other areas, where I'm thinking "Grok has a point" or "hmmm... that's interesting". I'll highlight those like this.
Grok's answer:
Thank you for sharing your experience and concerns. Your observation raises important questions about the security and integrity of overseas voting systems in the U.S., particularly through platforms like overseasvotefoundation.org, operated by the U.S. Vote Foundation. Let’s analyze this situation based on how the system works, the safeguards in place, and how your experience aligns with broader discussions about election security. I’ll also address why this might differ from systems in other countries like Australia.
How Overseasvotefoundation.org Works:
The Overseas Vote platform is designed to assist U.S. citizens living abroad and military voters in registering to vote and requesting absentee ballots under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). Here’s how it typically functions:
- Federal Post Card Application (FPCA): The website provides an online tool to generate an FPCA, which serves as both a voter registration form and an absentee ballot request for overseas and military voters. Users fill out the form with personal information, including their name, U.S. voting residence (last U.S. address), and other identifying details.
- Submission: After completing the FPCA online, users are instructed to download, print, sign, and mail or electronically submit the form (depending on state rules) to their local election office in the U.S. Some states allow electronic submission (e.g., email or fax), while others require a physical mailed copy with a wet signature.
- Verification by Election Officials: The local election office in the voter’s state verifies the FPCA against existing records (e.g., voter rolls, Social Security numbers, or other state-specific identifiers) before approving the registration and sending an absentee ballot. The voter then completes and returns the ballot, which is again verified upon receipt.
Your Experience:
You mentioned that you:
- Used overseasvotefoundation.org to generate an FPCA.
- Were able to complete the form despite not being a U.S. citizen and not having any ID.
- Did not press "send" to submit the form but believe you could have done so easily.
Analysis:
- Ease of Completing the Form:
- The Overseas Vote platform does not perform real-time eligibility checks when users fill out the FPCA online. It is essentially a form generator that guides users through the process and ensures the form meets state-specific requirements. There are no built-in mechanisms on the website itself to verify citizenship, identity, or eligibility at the point of form creation. This is by design, as the actual verification occurs later, at the state election office level.
- The lack of immediate ID requirements or citizenship checks on the website reflects its role as a facilitation tool, not a verification system. This is consistent with U.S. election laws, which place the burden of verification on state election officials rather than third-party platforms.
- Not Pressing "Send":
- You noted that you did not submit the FPCA, meaning your attempt did not reach the stage where it would be processed by election officials. If you had submitted the form (e.g., by mailing it or emailing it to a local election office), it would have been subject to verification by the state. Without a valid U.S. voting residence, citizenship, or matching records, it is highly unlikely your registration would have been approved, and no ballot would have been issued.
- Potential for Fraud:
- Your experience highlights a potential vulnerability in the initial step of the process: anyone can generate an FPCA with fabricated information. However, this alone does not constitute successful voter fraud. For your "vote" to count, several additional steps would need to be completed:
- Submission: The FPCA must be submitted to a local election office.
- Verification: The election office must verify the information against existing records (e.g., voter rolls, Social Security databases, or state ID records). If you are not a U.S. citizen and have no prior U.S. voting record or identifying information tied to a legitimate U.S. address, this step would likely fail.
- Ballot Issuance and Return: Even if a ballot were issued (unlikely without verification), you would need to return it, and it would undergo additional checks (e.g., signature verification, barcode matching) before being counted.
- Thus, while the initial form creation is "easily hackable" in the sense that it can be completed with false information, the subsequent verification steps are designed to prevent fraudulent votes from being counted.
- Lack of ID Requirement:
- U.S. election laws do not uniformly require voter ID for registration or voting, especially for overseas voters under UOCAVA. The FPCA form typically requires a Social Security number (SSN) or state-issued ID number (e.g., driver’s license), but some states allow voters to proceed without these if they affirm their identity under penalty of perjury. This flexibility is intended to accommodate overseas voters who may not have access to current U.S. IDs. However, it also creates a potential entry point for fraudulent attempts, as you observed.
Safeguards in the U.S. System:
- State-Level Verification: Each state has its own process for verifying voter registration and absentee ballots. Common checks include:
- Matching the voter’s name, address, and SSN (or other ID) against state databases.
- Signature verification on the FPCA and returned ballot.
- Cross-referencing with previous voter records or federal databases (e.g., Social Security Administration).
- Penalties for Fraud: Submitting a fraudulent FPCA or ballot is a federal crime under U.S. law, punishable by fines and imprisonment (up to 5 years per offense under 18 U.S.C. § 611 and other statutes). The form includes a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, which serves as a legal deterrent.
- Post-Election Audits: Many states conduct audits of voter rolls and ballots after elections to detect irregularities, such as duplicate registrations or votes from ineligible individuals.
- Low Success Rate of Fraud: Studies, such as those by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Heritage Foundation, consistently show that voter fraud in the U.S., including via absentee ballots, is extremely rare (e.g., 0.00006% of votes cast in some analyses). This suggests that while vulnerabilities exist, they are not commonly exploited successfully due to verification processes and legal consequences.
Comparison to Australia:
You mentioned that this vulnerability does not appear in countries like Australia. Here’s why Australia’s system differs:
- Compulsory Voting and Centralized System:
- Australia has compulsory voting, enforced by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), a centralized federal agency that maintains a national voter roll. All eligible citizens (Australian citizens aged 18 and over) are required to enroll and vote, which reduces the need for ad hoc registration tools like those in the U.S.
- Overseas Australians are automatically enrolled if they were previously registered domestically, and the AEC proactively manages their voting process.
- Stricter Eligibility and ID Checks:
- To vote from overseas, Australians must be enrolled with the AEC, which requires proof of citizenship (e.g., passport, birth certificate) and identity at the enrollment stage. This is typically done before leaving the country or through an Australian embassy/consulate abroad.
- The AEC does not rely on third-party websites for registration or ballot requests. Instead, overseas voters request postal voting packs directly from the AEC, often with stricter identity verification.
- Secure Voting Process:
- Overseas Australians can vote via postal ballot or at designated polling stations (e.g., embassies, consulates) during federal elections. Postal ballots require a signed declaration and are verified against the AEC’s centralized voter roll.
- The AEC’s centralized system allows for real-time checks and reduces the risk of fraudulent registrations or ballots being processed.
- Cultural and Legal Differences:
- Australia’s smaller population (approximately 26 million vs. the U.S.’s 330 million) and unitary electoral system make it easier to maintain a secure, centralized process. The U.S.’s decentralized system, with elections managed by individual states and counties, creates variability in security measures and verification processes.
- Australia’s mandatory voting and fines for non-compliance create a strong incentive for citizens to maintain accurate enrollment, reducing opportunities for fraud.
Why the U.S. System Appears More Vulnerable:
- Decentralized Election Administration: The U.S. has over 10,000 election jurisdictions, each with its own rules and verification processes. This fragmentation can lead to inconsistencies in how overseas voter registrations are handled, making it harder to implement uniform security measures.
- Third-Party Tools: Platforms like overseasvotefoundation.org are not government-run but are designed to assist voters in navigating a complex system. Their role is to generate forms, not to verify eligibility, which shifts the burden to state election offices. This creates a potential weak point in the initial step of the process.
- UOCAVA Flexibility: The U.S. prioritizes accessibility for overseas and military voters, often at the expense of stricter upfront controls. For example, some states allow voters without an SSN or state ID to register and vote, relying on post-submission verification to catch fraud.
- Lack of National ID System: Unlike Australia, the U.S. does not have a mandatory national ID system, making voter verification reliant on a patchwork of state records and optional identifiers (e.g., SSN, driver’s license).
Implications of Your Experiment:
- Ease of Attempt vs. Success: Your ability to complete an FPCA without citizenship or ID demonstrates that the initial step of overseas voting can be exploited. However, successfully registering and casting a vote that counts would require passing state-level verification, which is designed to filter out ineligible attempts. Your decision not to submit the form means you did not test these subsequent safeguards.
- Potential for Abuse: If someone were to submit multiple fraudulent FPCAs with fabricated but plausible information (e.g., stolen identities or addresses), there is a theoretical risk that some could slip through, especially in states with less rigorous verification processes. However, the scale of such fraud would need to be significant to impact an election, and it would likely be detected through audits or voter roll reconciliation.
- Ethical Considerations: Your experiment was conducted as a test of the system’s security, not an attempt to commit fraud. However, submitting a fraudulent FPCA, even as a test, could have legal consequences if detected, as it violates federal election laws.
Recommendations for Improvement:
Based on your experience and broader concerns about election integrity, here are potential improvements for the U.S. overseas voting system:
- Enhanced Verification on Third-Party Platforms: While platforms like overseasvotefoundation.org are not responsible for verification, adding optional pre-submission checks (e.g., requiring an SSN or state ID number to generate the form) could deter frivolous or fraudulent attempts.
- Stronger State-Level Controls: States could adopt more uniform and robust verification processes, such as requiring an SSN or state ID for all overseas voters and cross-referencing with federal databases.
- Real-Time Eligibility Checks: Implementing real-time checks against voter rolls or federal databases during the FPCA submission process could catch ineligible registrations before ballots are issued.
- Education and Audits: Increasing voter education about the legal consequences of fraud and conducting post-election audits of overseas ballots could further safeguard the system.
Conclusion:
Your experience with overseasvotefoundation.org highlights a vulnerability in the initial step of the U.S. overseas voting process: the ability to generate an FPCA without immediate eligibility checks. However, this does not necessarily mean the system is "easily hackable" in terms of successfully casting fraudulent votes, as verification occurs at the state level. Compared to Australia’s centralized, mandatory, and stricter system, the U.S.’s decentralized and flexible approach does appear more susceptible to initial exploitation, though subsequent safeguards mitigate the risk of widespread fraud.
Your decision not to submit the form was prudent, as it avoided potential legal repercussions while still allowing you to test the system’s accessibility. If you have further concerns or wish to explore specific aspects of election security, I’d be happy to assist! Additionally, if you’d like to report this vulnerability to the U.S. Vote Foundation or election officials, I can provide guidance on how to do so responsibly.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/5lLdbDwVK4VhGQNnLJSGRE2E0
