this weekend on the c-span networks,

find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students

will award 150 prizes toteling doctors 100,000. create a documentary on the topic the three branches and you. go to student cam.org for more nsk. grab a camera and get started today. in pennsylvania republican governor governor faces a challenge from a businessman and former secretary of the pennsylvania department of revenue. the political report lists the rays as leans democrat. they met for their third televised debate in pittsburgh. this is an hour. pennsylvania as

this is the final debate in the race for governor. welcome to our candidates. our panelists tonight include the president of the league of women voters of ennsylvania. candidates will have one minute. followup will be limited to a

one-minute response. each candidate will give a one minute closing statement. our order was predetermined and eight coin -- in a coin flip. is working with the league of voters to bring this debate. >> thank you and good evening. on behalf of the league of women voters i extend a sincere welcome. for participating in this exchange of positions and visions. forms and debates are great american traditions. governors matter, our states future matters. and voters matter. pennsylvanians need to know who and what. -- who and what they are voting for. pennsylvania has a pay equity law that has been on the books for approximately 55 years. that law is not working.

earnsn in pennsylvania $.77 for every one dollar a man earns and every -- earlier this year more comprehensive legislation addressing the gap failed to pass. umber ofgnificant n women continue to be shortchanged. lex i will do my best to make sure does like that pass. equity law and we need to do a much better job ensuring that women are paid at the same level as men for the same work. in my company i worked hard to make sure that was the case and i think we need to do that and the state. we need to make sure pennsylvania has a level playing field so that women feel they have -- my two daughters feel they can invest their talents and skills in a place like

pennsylvania and be amply rewarded. >> we have found something we agree upon. we do need to have that. we have seen the workforce grow with women across the spectrum. there needs to be pay equity and i supported that bill. we need to work the legislature to get that done but i have already begun that within my administration within the senior staff. i have more women on the senior staff than any governor in the history of pennsylvania. my senior staff is led by the chief of staff. eight members of my cabinet are women so i believe in women being involved in the workforce and i am reminding my daughter who is a deputy attorney general, i hope she's being paid appropriately and i know she is because of the pay grades at the ag's office. >> there is a $1 billion difference between the two of the cut or increased

funding for education. it appears to depend on how you count or if you count federal stimulus money and spending on pensions. math right and your opponents is wrong, and what do the differences at up to for the parents and kids of pennsylvania? >> they have said we cut. at that pointlace in time. overve grown the budget $10 billion and we put more money into education at any time in the history of education in pennsylvania. it is important to understand. we had limited revenue in which to do that and when you took stimulus money, put it into the budget, and that was going away,

by donnatermed cooper, the policy director, as a risk area that was irresponsible to take place. , $1hile we do disagree billion was cut from education in governor corbett's first term and that is the truth. we went from 6.4 billion dollars spent on basic education the year before he took office to $5.3 billion in his first budget. that is a cut of $1 billion. we still -- that was basically in basic education in the accountability [indiscernible] an charter school reimbursement. 580 billion dollars today. we have laid off 27,000 educators over the last four years and we have class sizes have gone up. probably taxes have gone through the roof. we are not spending what we did spend on public education in the

classroom and i could be seen by everybody. we need to invest in education. >> if i may could each of you explain what is wrong with what your opponent said, why his accounting or wrong accounting of what has happened -- >> he wants to ignore that money has been taken out of the budget before became governor. federal money was put in and replaced. remember that risk that was taken by the prior administration, he will not acknowledge that and when he off 7000 teachers were laid , 14,000 occurred in the prior administration. if you look at state spending, money from the taxpayers of pennsylvania, we are at the highest level ever in the history of pennsylvania but you have treat knowledge something that is causing all property taxes to go up and it is something he wants to choose to ignore. it is a little bit of a problem and that is the pension crisis which i am sure there are questions about.

think itfference i governor does not want to take and responsibility. that does not cause the leader from taking responsibility. the responsibility for sitting priorities was his and the fact that we are down in the classroom and classroom spending , $580 million happened on his watch. pennsylvania is public pension system debt outweighs their assets by more than a combined $47 billion. that number is expected to reach nearly 65 billion dollars within the next five years. what pension reforms would you support and where would you get the money, the funds to increase payments into the states financially ailing pension fund?

>> there are two issues here. one is the plan design and so much of the conversation has been focused on plan design. we actually i think made good plan design changes. it is a bipartisan effort, employers and employees got together and came up with a plan is i and change that i think was fairly draconian and will lead to some real savings. we have a pension liability that you talked about. that $47 billion is pension liability looking out over the next 30 years. we have done something in plan design. what we have not done is paid adequately into the fund over the last 10 plus years and governors have not adequately paid into that fund. we need to figure out a way to do that, pay that debt because that balance keeps coming up. i plan to do something about that. i will not keep delaying payment. i will actually do something. >> thank you.

governor. >> it is interesting to say that mr. wolf keep saying that governors have not paid and fully. he has not looked at the budgets where we have paid in fully. the number is over $610 million new each year. $610 million last year and this year. that budget will be $3.3 billion of the budget for the pension. they reduce their contributions to that. we do need to go to a new system. we have recommended and came up with a plan that nobody in the legislature wants to go with that. we have a plan that if we get to another round of questions i support and we will move to that. >> a follow-up question. can you envision a time that it is so dire that you have to stop pensions for these people, these workers?

>> no. pension retirement security is part of a compensation package and part of what we offer teachers. in the staterk police. we have to make sure that they have a pension retirement security as part of their congress -- compensation package. >> we have an obligation to the people who have been working to put their money in and i understand teachers put their money and and police officers put their money and. legislaturesas in and governors for changing the system and changing the multipliers. we do have to bite the bullet we pays -- reforming how that system. act 120 did not solve the problem.

there is no sober bullet. what we have to do is take it and look at it for the future. particularly for new employees that are coming in. >> can you say where the additional money that you want to put into the fund, where that money would come from? budgetn the $29 billion general fund budget, we can rearrange priorities. tax onalso called for 5% marcellus shale that will add $1 billion of revenue to the general fund. what we have to do is figure out how we are going to pay that $10 billion debt and there are people working on both sides of the aisle. this is what we have to contribute to pay the unpaid debt that we have not paid in the past. this governor and you have been governor for four years now. it is coming kind of late in the process. i agree, we need to fix the pension plan, we need to address the unpaid balance quickly soon.

we cannot keep delaying because that will make it much more expensive. we have not done it yet. if i am governor, we will. >> governor corbett. >> he does not answer many questions during the debate. he said where are you going to get the money, that was your question. you get the money through taxes, to the revenue that comes in and that is what becomes a difficult because revenues are coming from the taxpayers of pennsylvania. developoing to have to a plan that the taxpayers can afford at the same time not harm the workers who have invested in the program. going to assume he agrees that we have contributed so i am not coming late. we contributed the entire time. i was digging our way out of a $4.2 billion deficit that i inherited from my predecessor and from his revenue secretary in the first two years. we have been talking about the

-- the pension and it is something the legislature working with the governor are going to have to address because the taxpayers cannot afford not addressing it. >> thank you. we have a viewer question that might have something to do with revenue coming from twitter. how do you see the process of legalization of marijuana going in pennsylvania? governor? >> obviously the viewers here in western pennsylvania know my background as an attorney general and as the u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania. i do not support the legalization of where one of for recreational purposes. i have supported a study with different children's hospitals across pennsylvania into the and when it comes to forms that have not been discussed in the legislature and i understand the bill might not

be going too far that is there. i do not agree with those and do not agree with the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes because i know for all the work i have had to do over the many years that it is a gateway drug that creates all the drug problems we're seeing in pennsylvania and the united states. legalize medical marijuana immediately. we need to make sure that we decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. we put too many people in prison and destroyed too many lives and weaken our economy by taking too many people out of the workforce by having criminal felony charges and mandatory minimum sentences for possession of small amounts of recreational marijuana. we ought to let -- see what happens in places like colorado and washington before we decide to go further with the legalization of recreational marijuana, however. >> thank you. pennsylvania is one of the

nation's largest and fastest-growing natural yes producers. while other states have adopted measures to reduce methane and other air pollution from oil and gas development, pennsylvania has not. place big to your position on the importance of reducing methane emissions given the increasing role that natural gas plays as a fuel source in the electric power sector. wewe need to make sure that take full advantage of this national resource but we have to make sure we are taking advantage of it environmentally responsibility -- responsibly. i want to put on the -- the tax on the extraction of natural gas many therapy. raise $1 billion. some of that should go to the department of environmental protection to make sure we have the right regulations and make sure we have the right number of people who will oversee the regulation of this industry so we do have a clean environment.

it is not just methane leakage, also clean water. we have to protect our environment. i think that is a contrast between the approach this governor has taken to this issue. >> i disagree on the approach we have taken. forcefulaken a very approach to the protection of the environment. you may have seen different plans we have imposed for making spills and making mistakes out there. when we passed the marcellus we created the toughest environmental laws in the nation when it comes to the development of natural gas in the united states. we have other states and other countries come and see what we did. haveen and women who work been out there on a regular basis conducting the inspections. following up on those inspections. we have been imposing fines when

necessary to get compliance. there are next steps and i will finish up when we get to it. >> we have learned that dozens of people who are working in the state attorney general's office on your watch received were forwarded hundreds of sexually explicit e-mails. how do you account for that climate existing on a law enforcement agency despite your suchcit policy against things and do you believe the information on some of those e-mails that have been released have been politicized to affect this race? >> that is a double question. do we get two minutes? i have said it from day one. this is unacceptable. i do not condone the behavior and was not made aware. if i had been made aware i would have stopped it right there and i am disappointed that behavior has taken place. we have taken steps with the people who forwarded that on the

work for me today. we're waiting for the attorney general to forward information on all the involved because all exposed ifd to be you want to use that word because this was not political. this was something that she took action against these individuals and what kind of action took place. the chief justice of the supreme court has called on her to do that and i would hope that my opponent would also call on her to open up the e-mails and let the public see. >> this kind of behavior is acceptable and as i said before, this is something that comes from the top. a culture has existed in this administration that somehow allows people to believe they can do this sort of thing. that should not exist. my experience is you make it clear that these things are not appropriate when and if they happen, you take fast action to hold people accountable.

>> you wanted to minutes. was it the culture of these people under your watch? >> obviously, those who view that were making a mistake. i cannot account for their judgment in that regard. troubles me greatly they would even do that. obviously, they did not show it to me so they knew what my reaction would be. if you are talking about a culture from the top committed not come from me. this is a political shot. i would not what up with that. i have been going after pornography cases and child abuse cases my entire career. this is totally an acceptable and i was disappointed that the were viewed and the limited e-mails we have received with rejection demonstrates they made serious mistakes in judgment. there aret is that software programs out there, the state has had a long time.

and useddy looked at state property for looking at something like that, they were dismissed. that was something that happened five or six years ago when you were attorney general. fore is ample opportunity -- without you seeing the evidence to make sure the stuff does not happen. the culture does start from the top and we need to make sure this kind of thing is deemed unacceptable and everybody knows it. we have the means at hand to make sure it does not happen. >> you have been very clear about implementing a 5% severance tax on natural gas drilling and you have said you would overhaul the state's personal income tax. what youryou explain specific plans are for overhauling the personal income tax, who will pay less, who pay more, by how much. >> i think i have been as specific as i can be.

i want to make sure we have a fair tax system. that applies to property taxes which are too high and too personal income tax which i think is unfair and it applies to corporate income tax and the marsalis shale tax. i want to put a 5% tax at the well head. all those things are my attempt to make the system fairer. i want to make sure that taxpayers get the first break they have had in 20 years. athink i can make it progressive tax in terms of the income tax and we can reduce property taxes. that is what we have to do is a state and that would be and start contrast to what we have done in this administration. >> i have told people what we will you and we did it. when i was running for office i laid out what we will do in a cap those promises. mr. wolf would suspend -- wants to spend more money. the question is how much.

he needs to tax more to get that money but he will not tell the people how much nor will he tell weeks fromhere a few the election how he is going to do it. whose taxes are going to go up and go down question mark he has to take aonths, years look. he has been the secretary of revenue. the documents are available and we sent him documents to times to take a look at what is the plan, just to say that we will do something fair is trying to be all things to all people. dept now i see pensions and and education paid out of one alien dollars. -- $1 billion. >> we do want details and you talk about fairness in the system, i think fairness would mean what you are going to do. even if it means telling us at what level do you see middle income or upper income so we have some more meat when the

voters going to the polls and have to make this decision. >> yes, i can go as far as i can go and still be honest. if you're in the $70,000 or $90,000 range and you can double that if you're married, you should not pay any more in taxes and people below that will get a break. that is my goal. i cannot be any more specific because as we know in the last budget even with the information this administration came in $700 million before -- below revenue projections. i do not know what the level of the fiscal mess we have had. we have had five down greetings of bond ratings. until i get there and find out what we're facing i am not going to me more specific than i have said. 90,000 a making 70 to year you will not pay anymore.

>> that is another dodge of answering the question. how much are you going to spend, what do you project as revenue and how will you get the taxes to do that, who will be taxed and by what levels? progressive tax within four years. the fastest you could get is maybe four or five years so where are you going to get the money for vp and pensions without increasing taxes on pennsylvanians. downgrading, we know the reason. i warned the people of pennsylvania and the legislature about where downgrading was being cut. the $65 billion that is coming. that is why -- why downgrading is going on. dealer question. what is your position on the

pending divorce between upmc and can forcehich thousands of people to switch insurance companies or doctors? >> we have been working closely with the attorney general's office. my secretary of health on the insurance commissioner and we were able to get two parties to an agreement to it consent decree. one of the things we know here as we do need competition in health care. especially in light of obamacare and how difficult it is going to be to pay health care insurance in the future. we need to have a competition between all parties and we have seen more competition come forward. as you know, we continue to see the two sides fighting with each other and we are trying to bring them together and get them to a resolution that the people of pennsylvania particularly our seniors are not put into the

anxiety they have been going through for the last number of years. >> this is another example of leadership. people need to have access to good health care. this is what we have been looking for. there is a problem between hi upmc.- highmark and they need to recognize what they are trying to do to solve this problem affects the health and welfare of the people of this region. if they can, the governor has to step in and take action. if they cannot figure out how to serve the needs of these people adequately than the governor is going to -- that is leadership and that is what we have not gotten. >> you mentioned the word competition. characterize this as unfair competition? rex i would not characterize the existence that occurred before

the divorce was unfair competition. you did not see other outside insurance companies come into pennsylvania. you do see them now. comes to mindthat quickly and both parties hearing this may not be happy to hear this but there were long investigations as to whether there was an antitrust violation which the department of justice decided there was not. a pushing out of competition, and elimination of competition from outside. that is coming in now but when it comes to leadership, you have to use the tools that you have. you do not make up new tools. the legislature has not created any. the attorney with general to get these parties to come to the table and work together. not the easiest thing to do. >> this is about people's lives. not about competition. kitchen cabinets.

this is about people's lives. the state has an obligation, an obligation to make sure this works. if the parties can work it out themselves that is preferable but if they cannot we have to recognize this as something separate and apart from consumers. this is about people's lives and that is why the administration has to lead on this issue if the parties cannot figure this out for themselves. >> the pennsylvania general assembly is the second largest state legislature in the nation behind new hampshire. and the largest full-time legislature. and has been said that the size of legislature contributes to and efficiency when considering and passing laws. would you support an amendment to bring a reduction in the size of the state and the house and why? >> we have a democracy and i think in a democracy the last place you would want to cut is the number of people who are

accountable to the public through the vote. so i am against reducing the size. if you want to make them work more efficiently there other things we can do to strengthen our democracy and i would be for those things. cutting the size of the legislature, i do not see how that improves our democracy. >> i am for it. with theen dealing legislature for many years. people have been dealing with the legislature. mr. wolf has not been hearing this from the same people i have that the size and cost of our legislature is being borne by the taxpayers. many years ago we went from a part-time legislature to a full-time legislature. from a biennial budget to an annual budget. four years ago when i was toning i said let's go back a biennial budget, let's go to a part-time legislature. it is not in their interest to

go there because many of the they are have that as a full-time job. i believe citizenship should the a part-time job. , hardround at the states time legislatures. they represent the people. pittsburgh and other communities are struggling with how to see revenue from tax-exempt institutions are major employers and major property owners. should there be changes in state laws governing the obligations of these big entities to the communities in which they are or should the communities give up on trying to seek more money from them, are they wrong to seek more money from these tax-exempt institutions? >> i do not think they are wrong. where do they need the money? they need the money to pay for their pensions. that is their biggest cost driver.

we understand that. since my parents in front of the philadelphia inquirer that when i become governor again we call a special session. it is a problem across the state. you have to do with that but should we visit whether there should be a different view of some of the institutions that nonprofits -- and look at a different classification somewhere in between? i think that is worth exploring. >> this is a broader issue than just tax-exempt property. cities are struggling throughout pennsylvania. whoeed a governor understands that cities are struggling and tries to focus the appropriate attention on the root causes of those struggles. looking at the tax-exempt robberies by themselves, that is

not the end of it. there are lots of other things we get back to all the problems that pennsylvania has. it is like you're running for your first term. we have cities who have been struggling. we need leadership. we need to to come up with plans not to what you are going to do but we need to look at what you have done in cities are still struggling. >> question for mr. wolf. the strictest id voter law was adopted in the country which was struck down in court. if lawmakers adopted another voter id law, would you sign it? >> no. these elections are about getting things done, about making promises, about looking at preferred public policies but it is about democracy. stewards of the democratic tradition and we should be doing everything in ourpower to making

democracy stronger and better. way ofd, one more limiting the franchise, one more way of keeping people from voting is wrong. it is anti-democratic. >> i disagree. it make sure that one person has one vote. is accuracy in that boat. when the legislature passed that i signed that bill and we fought to defend it in the court. the courts overturned it based on the procedures that were put into place. if that bill were to come back before we -- before me and you see it in other states, i would say we need to sign it. i want to make sure particularly in areas where there is primaries where the winner is going to be the winner. that is what we need to make sure that one person is voting only one time. >> i have a follow-up question. there are some states that feel that we're past the point historically where certain groups are in danger of losing

their voting rights. do you feel this country is in that position? >> i'm not sure which group you're talking about. >> any groups that have been disenfranchised. >> we have a long way to go before -- lots of people feel that they are this and franchised. all you have to do is look at , far lower than it was in india which voted at the same time we voted. we need to work on ways of making our democracy more relative. -- relevant. disenfranchising people does not work. the reason the republican party was trying to push this is it would disenfranchised immigrant's, the mechanic -- it would disenfranchise democrats. we should not be engaging in that kind of hitter. >> you can try and determine the intention of the -- republican party.

my intention is to make sure that individuals in pittsburgh or in theory, and sylvania in the suburbs are -- have one vote, one person. differenthising is a question. what we did see is a lack of interest. electorate was not too interested in the four candidates. we need to educate more and do better education and participation particularly in grade school and high school and in the work lace. encouraging people to vote. whether people are discouraging them i do not think that is taking place as it did 30, 40, 50 years ago. >> there is not one person one vote, people are voting twice or three times, where's the evidence, where's the fraud that is occurring in pennsylvania?

weight,recall correct you have had participation rates of over 100% in some district so obviously something happened there. to that, looking and the federal government has to come in and look at that. this is like insurance. let's make sure it cannot happen. everyone carries or just about everyone carries a photo id. you carry it on your credit card. we tried to make photos available to everybody. we probably did not do it the best way. if referring one has a photo when you come in and show that photo, this is someone who is eligible to vote. no evidence that there was voter fraud. i do not know how many cases, a handful of cases that have come up in the last 10 years in pennsylvania. this was about enfranchisement. that was made clear by some of

the sponsors of the bill. it is a cynical lay and it should not be allowed to work. one of the things we need to ourre out to do is make government more relevant -- relevant. >> this is from twitter. thanre gas prices higher virginia and how is it that we as pennsylvanians pay the most for roads and still have some of the worst roads in the nation? how can you fix these issues and convince people like me to stay in pennsylvania? >> that is a five-minute answer. each region of the country depending on where the refineries are my has a different price. this is $.10 a gallon more expensive because of the transmission costs. since we passed the transportation bill in november,

prices are $.50 less. it moves on the oil coming in and the price of oil. we are improving the roads. our -- our roads were bad. got as why we transportation bill passed but you have to go back, if you're talking about virginia. they taxed your car is personal property every year. you pay $36 a year for license plates. there you can pay a hundred -- couple hundred dollars a year. you have to compare apples to apples. >> the viewer is right. prices are higher here because our taxes are higher. i applaud the transportation bill. we can go further and have an infrastructure that would the fed for a 21st-century economy but you took a pledge not to raise taxes. in the bill you did that. reason whyof the this viewer says that our prices are higher than other states.

no question to mr. wolf. of sixnnsylvania is one states that elect our judges in partisan elections. millions of dollars flow into our state judicial races. replacingsupport elections for the three statewide courts with a merit selection system? >> yes, i would. move away need to from partisan politics and look at them as we do at the federal level, as positions where we try to find the best and the brightest people and appoint them. this seems to have worked well at the federal level and it would work well here. we have elected judges at the local and county levels and that is appropriate. >> politics will always still play into it and you know that

because you have to have a confirmation process that would go through. who those individuals are would come from a different series of polls and maybe there would be review commission such as they have for the federal government for federal judges and circuit court judges and supreme court judges emma but i do think it is good if we go to that system. you see a lot of money spent and judges traveling or candidates traveling that maybe a judge and they are telling what they might be doing. judges should be appointed. >> thank you. are in essence of he -- in favor, what quality forhe judges would you look

in the merit selection system? >> i would look for people who are -- have a strong background in the law, who have thought deeply about subjects they are going to reflect upon. and have a judicial temperament. right and understand wrong are important values that we want to do the right thing. that fairness actually matters. i would want to look for people who have a history of having shown that in their lives and decisions and behaviors. quick same thing. ethical, the to be vast majority are ethical. we have had some mistakes out there. i want them to be experienced. i do not think you could put a limit to say you could not be appointed if you were in the lower court. i would be up to see where they are in opinions.

lawnt them to look at the and interpret the law on behalf of the people of pennsylvania as fairly as they can. pennsylvania has executed three convicts who have been on death row since 1976. sometimes the victims of homicides, their families go through reliving the events as up.al after appeal comes should pennsylvania continue to have a death penalty and wire why not? i i do continue to support -- death warrants. it is unfortunate that the process takes so long and it is difficult, on the backs of the families of the victims in that case. toecent case was continuing rip this car off the family by broadcasting a debate or a

commencement speech to gothard college in vermont and there is new legislation in regard to that. from my experiences as a prosecutor, there is a deterrent value. many people would disagree that i do believe in it. think of a case where we are searching for an individual. that is one of the reasons that i know i believe in that. >> i think we ought to have a war torreon on capital punishment because i am not dispensinghat we are justice fairly. there are some people who are targeted more than others when we accuse them of capital crimes and convict them and i think sometimes we send the wrong people to their deaths. we need to make sure we're doing the right thing. our governor has the ability to grant reprieves.

specific times and i would use those reprieves to create, tore him to make sure that what we're are doing is working and is working fairly. senate has passed a bill that would overhaul minister pahlavi's, giving them the ability to raise their local services tax. that is all with the exception of bits per. wyche and pittsburgh be given the same right to raise its $52 local services tax as other municipalities enact 47 in the state? >> it gets back to bob's question, there are things that people look at as silver bullets, ways we can save cities. in of the ways is enshrined act 47, giving more cities more power to tax their citizens more

heavily. i do not think that is right. it makes cities less competitive. i think we need to get to root what actually is ailing our cities and why are cities struggling. are it goes beyond nonprofit organizations, it goes beyond the powers that might be granted and put extra taxes on citizens. we need to make sure we look at why it is the cities cannot compete with the suburbs and pennsylvania. >> one of the reasons they have not been able to compete is something a mentioned before. you have to go back to the pensions. they have to pay into those pensions on a regular basis. they are in a war situation than the state is because they do not have the tax base in order to pay into that system as pennsylvania would have and we would under a governor wills continue to raise taxes to pay

into the pension system. that.ve to look at the legislature made a decision i believe that the request of authorities here. not know exactly for sure but i think if you do it for one city you need to do it for all cities. >> thank you, governor. we have another viewer question. this is from christa. governor? came into office one of the things i realized, that special needs funding had people on waiting lists. we had people with physical and intellectual disabilities that were on waiting lists to get care particularly after their parents, after they had a chat of the system and their parents were getting older. we have increased funding since

i have been in office and that is one of the areas we have increased funding in order to get those individuals off the waiting list. it is extremely important. we do need to put more money in their. we are working together at that point. at the same time, we need to be able to get some of that money from, let's say the pension system if we could reduce spending without affecting the employees across the state. we need to move some of it into their. >> we do need to support families who have members of the families -- family with autism doing a better job of diagnosing autism and there are more cases than ever before. the question is are we keeping up with the need for treatment and support for families and the answer is we are not. that is not so much a matter of raised revenues as it is shifting priorities. we need to make sure that what we are doing in our state government is addressing the

issues that exist in families today and this is an example of one case where we are not and if i were governor, i would look at what we were doing and rearrange priorities to make sure we are addressing the needs of children and families with members of -- who have autism. >> another question. >> mr. wolf, could you explain any gun safety measures that you might support in order to provide more awareness, education, and protection for pennsylvania's children? >> yes. backgroundsonable checks. we need to do things to make sure that we have safety training courses for people who own guns so that families do not put children in harms way. from your county where the first day of deer season is a

holiday. also i have neighbors who when i asked them, the kids next door, what do you want the governor to do and she said i would like to walk out on my porch and not get shot. this is an eight-year-old. we need to have a conversation between the people who understandably and legitimately want to protect their second amendment rights with people like that little girl who want to make sure they have a safe neighborhood. a fundamental civil right. someone can begin to conversation, a rational conversation. >> we need to have responsible gun owners. we do have responsible gun owners and that comes with education. there is a great deal of education that goes on out there. , ato have a ground tax stores and gun shows. i do not know whether he understands that. we do have stock purchasers and

when i was attorney general i created a task force to go after straw purchasers especially in philadelphia. in the first year and a half, we reduced homicides working bysely with philadelphia pd 25%, a lot of it going after the stroke purchasers create we do need to educate every gun owner on safety. >> pennsylvanians love it when they see their communities showcased. production is costing our state jobs and costing business. can the state list that cap and why would that not be a good tax policy? >> i have had a discussion with some members of the legislature

who are not ready to move to that area. some states have and the question becomes where do we get the revenue, who gets the revenue? localthe state or the community because you have a lot of members of the film crews here in pennsylvania who live here and we have a film producer batman" andd " everything. we will have a conversation to say that we're going to lift the cap and open it up but there are others who say you should not do that. we should be taxing everybody. that will be a debate that will to havewe will have between the legislature and house and senate. wethe question is how do consent this industry and showcase pennsylvania. the tax credit has been a good way to do that. this requires leadership. we are going to have to sit down and look at the budget and say what are we doing that we should not be doing, that does not have

the highest priority and shifted it to things that could create jobs for you we look at how we have gone from ninth to 47th in terms of job creation. this is part of an overall strategy to make pennsylvania, people who will create good jobs here, this is one part of that overall strategy. question ande more you have 30 seconds to answer this. start with mr. wolf. >> should the minimum wage be inty -- increased pennsylvania? >> it should. it should be increased and indexed to inflation. >> governor. >> it should stay along with the federal wage. we should not be looking at minimum wage as a lifetime family sustaining wage. most people on minimum wage are young people. 75% are between 16 and 24.

we should be encouraging them to use that as a means to find a 200and by the way we have 50,000 job openings in pennsylvania. >> thank you very much and that concludes the question and answer portion of tonight's debate. each candidate will have one minute to make a closing statement beginning with mr. wolf. >> thank you. i want to thank wtae and sally and the panelists and governor for sharing the podium once again. this is a great democratic exercise. i am running for governor as an unconventional candidate. i am not the kind of candidate that you have seen before. this is the first to my of done this but i am running for two reasons create pennsylvania can be better. pennsylvania should be a state with the future. to invest in education, not by this investing. we need to invest in transportation and make sure we responsibility of our

natural resources. we need to do right things for anybody. we can have a great future. unlike the situation we have now straits.we are in dire our education system is awful. we have followed out our schools. our economy is not functional. we have gone from top of the charts to third from the bottom in terms of job creation. the bond rating agencies have gone -- downgraded us. i want to run for governor because we can do things better and i want to run because we need a bright future in pennsylvania and we can achieve it. >> governor. >> thank you and thank you to the league of women voters and panelists for having us here. i am not finished yet. when i ran four years ago, i inherited a $4.2 billion deficit. we have seen -- unemployment was 8.1 when i entered office. today it is 5.8. we have had no increases during

that time. we have eliminated taxes like the death tax and inheritance -- we are the number one state in the northeast and number four in the country for new businesses coming and expanding production facilities. i am a leader and we have been people of the pennsylvania want. creating jobs in pennsylvania. the choice is clear. do you want someone who has yet to answer how much you will tax you and how much you will going -- he will spend or someone who has made the promise to what he was going to do and i have kept my promises and will move pennsylvania forward as we are moving forward today. thatank you, gentlemen, concludes our debate. thank you to the panelists from the league of women voters and news radio and thank

you to the pennsylvania association of broadcasters for making a live feed available across the commonwealth. please remember to go out and vote on november 6. this is the privilege of a democracy. your vote does count. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next wall street bomb -- diane with an nissenbaum on military strikes against isis. onr calls and comments national security issues in campaign 2014. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. 9:00 p.m.ht at eastern, a memorial service for president reagan's press

secretary, james brady. : powell talks about world powell talkslin about world affairs. friday night at 8:00, ralph alliancels for an between parties to take on the issues that plague america. gawande on why he feels medical science should be doing more for the aging and dying. 8:00, writer and director of the cia museum -- curator and director of the

cia museum snakes. saturday at, king coaches war. -- king george's war. sunday at 8:00 p.m., the nixon pardon. let us know we you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. conversation,n like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. are a few of the comments we have recently received from viewers. >> not one democrat that i see at the hearing from freeing the sergeant from the mexican prison. i have called the president many times in the last months and sought the release of this man.

it seems to me like the president could have picked up the phone and with one call it affected that release. i really don't think he cares. >> i just got done watching your c-span regarding the gentleman in mexico. i need to complement you and this is the best evidence i have ever seen or heard from any station on the television about the corruption that we have to deal with in the politics, particularly the president and all of the things that he is doing wrong and particularly what he is allowing to happen on the border between mexico and the united states. earlierown hall meeting from arizona. the veterans administration.

my heart was just broke. all the veterans and what they have been going through. someone has to do something out there. it is just a mess. to seereally interesting each and every one of them on tv that and the heartache them and their families have been going through. i pray that something will be done to help these people. they deserve it area they fought for our country and our freedom. thank you. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. the atlantic council and

computer security form mcafee have promised -- published a report that online voting would increase participation by young people and the disabled. computer security experts discuss online voting and its technical and political challenges. this discussion is two hours. good morning, everyone. my name is damon wilson. i am the executive vice president of the atlantic council. i want to welcome you to the launch of our report of online voting, rewards and risks. those to welcome following online and our tv audience. join theage you to discussion with #acevote. in a world with ubiquitous taskctivity, where every

can be executed online, the fact that the vast majority of countries hold elections using paper ballots seems to be an anomaly. online voting has the obvious but still largely unproven potential to improve accessibility for the disabled and elderly. it can cut costs and improve voter turnout, especially for younger generations. although the adoption of most technologies takes time and benefits inting's terms of reach, access and participation have the power to revolutionize the democratic process. haveal countries implemented successful e-voting systems. brazil, estonia, switzerland. we hear are delighted that this report today is the outcome of the effective partnership between our cyber statecraft initiative, the partners formed

at mcafee. took this effort because of the practical, results oriented approach of our cyber team, lead so ably by our top cyber expert. commitmentlects our to nonpartisan work. this is a bipartisan issue, with both sides aiming to create a cost effective and secure voting platform. we head into the home stretch toward congressional midterm election and we face the beginnings of what is already unfolding at the presidential election two years at. -- years out. we are intent on helping to shape a broader public debate on the role of the united states and the world and a critical ingredient to this debate is the extent to which our own public engages of the discussion, especially for voting.

it could become a larger part of the political process of the united states and other participatory democracies if the security is in place. campaign patient a bipartisan as nonpartisan issue. in a democracy as possible if you have any questions create trustworthy platform. online istechnologies which must have security rights of landlord.. conversation -- he is a ranking member. he has become a national leader on cyber threats and cofounded a congressional cyber security caucus.

as partis staff members of our next generation programmers. we are delighted to have you here. program i would like to introduce our key mcafee, tom mcgann of who has been a key partner. he is vice president of government relations with a long track record, but he began his on capitol hill as a legislative director into chief of staff to a congressman. thoughts onr a few the changing nature of the cyber security debate and how it can play a powerful role in enhancing the well-being of peoples lives. i look forward to getting into this report, both here and online. [applause]

>> it is a great pleasure to be here. it's always a pleasure to work with such a distinguished group of people as the atlantic council. i would like to anchor the atlantic council for hosting this event and bringing together such a distinguished panel. the atlantic council is one of the leading think tanks in the world. his leadership has been truly impressive. he has developed a very fine cyber security practice that has made significant contribution to the debate here in washington. mcafeeantic council and have started the journey to change the nature of the cyber security debate. our goal is to move the public

discussion from one that all too often focuses on doom and gloom to one that focuses on the age of the possible. we believe that cyber security can play a powerful role in the betterment of people's lives. the right security can enable more opportunities for people to vote. the right security can enable secure access to online information and services. the right security can enable innovations in the area of d, in theation, indee area of true innovations such as driverless cars. about then today promise of online voting starts the discussion on the art of the possible. we welcome the active engagement from stakeholders and government, the private sector, and academia. consensus on the

positive role of cyber security in improving the lives of people is a vital addition to the debate. this debate for too long has been dominated by doom and gloom, a flat landscape, and an overemphasis on regulation. more positive perspective that understands the importance of innovation and promise is a necessary addition to the debate. wille positive approach enable the policymaking process to be more balanced, to focus less on regulation and more on the true promise of security and the power of innovation to move markets and bring better and more secure products to the marketplace. moving forward, we are planning to launch a full on study that will focus on the importance of security in the area of health care.

we now turn to the discussion at hand, the matter of e-voting. >> good morning and thank you for kicking us off. i appreciate all of you being here. my thanks to mcafee and intel security for making this possible. online, followu us on hashtag #acevote. we want get into a deep discussion on the biography of the people in front of you. you each have that -- we will do a quick introduction. from aight we have jodi company that has been involved in e-voting and we will start

with him. to my right, pamela smith. she has been involved in electronic voting. you can see in their biographies the many different areas to try and get through the most things in the near term. mcafee, my far left, longtime technologist that has a history of working and trying to solve hard problems and get security to work us so we can unlock the promise of the most technology. i want to start with jordy. your company has been in this field. withave been presented these hard problems and have to get solution around this.

thatare the technologies we are really looking at here and how have we been able to deploy them in the field and actual elections? thank -- in terms from thempany, we have known the main problem of electronic voting is not standards of using it. and graphicography protocols to solve comp looks problems. -- complex problems. this is something that can be used in electronic transactions, like banking.

we are using cryptography protocols, providing privacy. --ther thing we are doing it's not only a matter of providing privacy, but of third point that is important. we are not only doing internet voting, it will allow people -- third parties to monitor what is happening and provide transparency. to providedifficult when we are moving in electronic environment. technologyproviding for the norwegian country. in switzerland they are also continuing to use it, an

important step for providing security on electronic voting. case, they had changes on the standards required on electronic voting. this specific case in switzerland, they start thinking that up to 10% can vote online. they want to manage the risk of introducing internet voting. currently they change the law or casechange the standard in

increase the number of the population that can use internet voting. increasehey want to the number of the electorate up to 50%. they need to introduce everything. one of the things we have seen that is important for providing is the ability to check that everything is happening in a proper way. >> does the privacy and mentionedity -- you to separate technologies. we are talking about electronic voting but you also mentioned internet voting. can you walk us through -- what do we mean by both of these? when we add an "e" in front o fit -- can you clarify?

>> electronic voting is using electronic means for casting vote. --ine voting that i use a touch screen would be e-voting but it would not be online voting. >> exactly. e-voting is more focused on the specific machines for casting votes, standalone machines. internet voting opens the door to cast their vote at home. you can vote at home. in this case what happens is the the vote turnout --

election officer has no control over what is standard so the security risks are higher. there are requirements for more robust protection against attacks. i think this is where you have been spending a lot of your time. any thoughts on the things he said? >> thank you for having us here. agree strongly with the point the report made about the difficulty into challenges of solving the security and privacy issues. with voting in a polling station with a direct recording there are amachine, i number of issues that may come up.

if the equipment should happen to break down, you need something else to vote on to replace it, otherwise people are disenfranchised. typically the backup is the paper ballot. if you use a standard voting system and polling places the paper ballot is counted by an electronic machine. issues one of the key that you are looking for in a voting system is availability. with an online voting system, there may be challenges with availability if, for example, there is some kind of distributed denial of service attack. particularly during the last phase of the voting. this would particularly hit the united states tough. >> you might be able to say we can spread out the voting over a

longer. all the voting is happening on a single day somebody could run ddos and take it. and we do partly true have some states that do early and absentee voting. what's key here is that there is a deadline. in the event that a denial of service the track caused a major disruption and it happened in the timeframe where there is no more time to solve the problem, there is no voting after election day -- the deadline factors key. >> that's not even a voting problem, that is an internet problem. if the internet can't be 100% available -- >> there is a lot of work being done to handle and manage ddos attacks and those problems that can arise from simple failures. we have seen failures of online

voting registration systems happening right before the deadline and caused some people not to be able to register to vote in time for the upcoming election. timing is important. but it is also important to note that most elections are run in the united states by local jurisdictions. local jurisdictions are counties are townships or parishes. have counties tend not to great big i.t. budgets with lots of funding for i.t. staff. or really robust capabilities for avoiding the downside of a ddos attack that even a major corporation has problems with. we have to think about how elections are conducted. the promise that any robusta democracy makes to its

electorate is that it will provide them with a justified confidence and accuracy. any voting system you use has to be able to demonstrate to the loser that they lost. to do that you need actual evidence. voters need to be able to see that their votes were captured and election officials need to be able to use that evidence to demonstrate the votes were counted correctly. that is what we look >> it seems like it should be so easy. we have our vote, were voting for who is the best singer, who has the best variety act on television. are there a lot of folks saying we ought to be able to have this? this is for either of the two of you. is there a lot of demand from the younger generation to say why can't i just will -- why can i just vote on my phone?

>> i think there is that question, will we do everything else online, why can we not do this online too? there are a lot of things that support voters being able to vote without getting to that transmitting a ballot. you can get information online. you can get ballots to someone , like remotely located overseas voters who have ,raditionally been able to vote you have cut off a big chunk of time they need to get that problem solved. there are many things we do online. what most people don't think about until you talk it through is that elections have special properties that other online transactions simply don't have. thatnonymity property votes are supposed to be

anonymous, you have to verify that they are in eligible voter but then you separate that identity from their actual vote. that is a really challenging problem in auditing generally. >> regarding the young generation pushing for online ,oting, the experience we have or least we checked the statistics about who is using online voting, young people usually tend to use more online voting. in the experience that we , wherece online voting not talking about substituting completely any kind of voting with online or electronic voting. in this case talking about in france where they're using -- afterting for over using two or three times, more

than 50% of overseas voters are , theyng internet voting .an vote in person --rently the statistics especially when you're talking about remote voting, remote voting can be online by electronic means. are can be postal voting. they prefer to move to internet voting. the internat voting -- internet voting would be more feedback.

>> your mail ballots can often be trackable. one of my favorite stories demonstrates that we don't really know yet about who wants to use it and how the public uses it, and is there a measurable impact on turnout. i think there is still more research to be done in a place in ontario where they decided to experiment and a pilot allowing online voting. they had a 300% increase in turnout in early voting, but zero turnout increase overall. what that meant was that people who were going to vote anyway tried out this method, but it did make more people vote. >> one of the things you helped with when we are reviewing the

voting isn'tternet just the casting of the vote. that was an important change to the paper we added in, there is the registration, there is the collection and processing of the votes. internet doesn't just have to be the licking next to a name -- clicking next to a name. you can look at all these different places in ways that we can improve the process. i was really glad for your input for that part of the paper. i had first started to get interested in digital voting, electronic voting, or in the early 1990's, because we were writing about the third wave, newt gingrich joined in and they were doing books and writing together to say we can have a

truer, freer democracy, more like the founding fathers wanted, where we can come together and issue our votes on home computers. they weren't thinking about phones back then. and help us find this better democracy. but that was 20 years ago. and it's coming together in some .laces what is the timeframe looking like here? >> have got a few positive things to say, but a lot of what i'm going to say unfortunately is doom and gloom and very debbie downer, for lack of a better word. expertsast majority of that work on voting security and voting technology would agree that somewhere in the 30-40 year timeline is the point where we have the infrastructure that can support secure online voting.

>> 30 to 40 years, starting in the mid-90's. >> there's very good reasons for that. make no mistake, we have to solve this kind of problem. the reason we have to do that is to the extent that we want to have remotely physically distributed representative democracy, there's going to be situations in which physical exchange of matter is impossible . say two colonies on mars. this may be a thing in the future. there are places where exchanging physical matter to be the auditable record of the vote is going to be extremely challenging, if not impossible. you either have autonomous, separate democratic body are you have to have some way of doing this kind of thing securely. that, the positive externality of doing work on this is that to the extent you

solve some of the challenging cyberms here are the core security issues that we work on that has a lot of benefit for other kinds of applications you can do on the internet. the one trick here is there are number of risks that are solvable, some are not. we can go through them real quick. we are talking about uncontrolled platforms. if you're going to do some critical democratic process like voting online, you don't want to leave that up to the security of peoples desktops, laptops, and phones. even know the extent that you have that stuff on there. moreover the intelligence communities around the world have made a business lately of undermining the infrastructure of the internet in such a way that you don't know exactly what is happening with this stuff.

the unsupervised nature of internet voting, and this is similar to the vote by mail, so the security and privacy experts vote byk on this, the mail is an unfortunate legacy thing we can't get rid of. it has the property that, unfortunately it's very easy to coerce people that are voting in an unsupervised environment where you don't have someone making sure the proper policies are in place so that someone cannot sort of force you to reveal your vote to them and things like that. realize this but there's a great paper i can point you to that shows you adoption ofwith the the secret ballot in the u.s., election day was a payday for some people. once the australian secret ballot, which is a government printed standard ballot cast in spread, voterhat persist the patient drop

precipitously because you no longer could make a connection between how people cast votes -- the election went the other way. i know the estonian system allows you to vote multiple times and only your last vote cast actually counts toward the election. i would think that the provide a might help more elegant solution for this. >> those are things that help. none of those are perfect. no one can take your government id card after they watched u-boat and not let you have it back until the deadline. there's a lot of layered techniques that adversaries can do. it makes it harder, but at the there are records of how people voted which is

contrary to having anonymity, and they have an injured structure where everyone has a cryptographic key associated to your identity and used for a whole bunch of other things. it's almost embedded in how you interact with government. it is very unlikely we will have that. >> a quick point i want to make, there are two other risks that are important to mention. one is the opportunity of wholesalers and retail kind of attacks. balloting is no panacea in the sense that you can do a lot of things like ballot stuffing. you have to touch a lot of ballots in order to accomplish those kinds of attacks, whereas being a purely software-based thing, if you find -- if you're recording all the encrypted traffic, these are serious

things that any system that said it was secure was not secure the next day. you expose it to anyone in the world compared to more control type system. the second you have some really candidate that hackers really like, a second that happens in an internet balloting election, that person will win. i can bet you $100 right now that will happen. especially in countries where it is winner take all, you can certainly imagine someone spending a million dollars is not a bad investment for a piece of malicious software that would

try to subvert the election. we know were going to need to do this. we cannot just be saying in 50 or 100 years were still filling out paper and still doing these touchscreen machines and whirring about hanging chads and the rest. >> one of the things we need to understand is that voting started very early in our republic where you would have to go to the courthouse and be sworn in by a judge. there was no real registration process at the time. from that you would then voice folkshoice to a panel of who were keeping the tally. that was very useful because it did allow us to have outside

observers see really what the a verys, and to have consistent vote. fast-forward to the 1990's were you start to see electronics come in to the voting process, voting machines that are used for casting as well as tabulating votes. the technology has sort of driven some of the processes of what we do today. those machines are very costly. you try to have elections together, federal, state, and local. we try to do that and established polling places where the equipment can be brought in and the like. today we are dealing with a very different world than we dealt with just 10 years ago. the mobility that we have today that is driving the need and want to be able to vote from something other than those established polling

places. the problem is that we are in a situation where technology is changing very quickly, but we're looking at a problem itself that does not lend itself to operating well in the generic internet environment that we have today. identity is a real problem today. identifying somebody definitively is something that has to be there to support the one man, one vote aspects. nationaluch as the strategy of trusted identity in cyberspace are advancing this in a very positive way from an identity perspective. there is a working group around trying to figure out how to really provide real identity on the internet.

the internet engineering task force. they have established most of the standards that we operate under today with the internet. wereey here is that starting to see some of the building blocks of technology that will make the infrastructure possible. today we don't have an canastructure that successfully work well in guaranteeing electronic voting online. there's too many ways it can be circumvented and attacked. bot nets that capture keystrokes and look for certain types of can really be modified very easily to use that targeting internet voting.

the reality of what we're seeing is technology is moving forward. rather quicklyg in the next 10 years and i don't expect that advancement to be reduced over the next 20. the focus that we need to have is to look at really what the requirements are for internet voting. they are different than e-commerce. as such, we need to address them specifically. we need to make sure there are real standards in place so that the folks -- the security experts reviewing the different parts of the infrastructure actually have the means to have a consistent view of what's occurring. today we have a lot of -- in they means for voting arena and we need to have this to be much more open and standardized so that we can see and evaluate the voting mechanisms for the security

threats that could compromise the national elections. >> i feel like to some degree we -- to some saying degree we have to fix the internet. thecks that are inherent in infrastructure that we have are the difficulty of identity so it sounds like because the internet itself is pretty shaky, that anything that has to be -- have transparency,dit is going to be shaky. >> although i do wonder if some of what we tend to be thinking americans,cially as we tend to think about the big national elections held in held for hundreds

of millions of people. it seems like there interesting in otheries happening jurisdictions that are much smaller. maybe for a citywide election or other areas. is that a good way to start tilting -- building? how does this work when it's not a big national election for huge country, but building from the ground up? important --at is is i agree there are risks as we introduce internet voting. the way to manage this is to provide the proper measures for managing these risks. it's something that is done with

internet voting. there are countries that when they started to introduce internet voting, they are introducing internet voting involving security experts that have the security requirements they need to implement things in a proper way. and then they have standards -- securityl requirements that need to be fulfilled by any voting platform that needs to be put in place. not for therting to ae electoral vote but specific group of voters so they can start to pilot these and see the reaction of the people. if they see that things are stable and they can trust what is happening, and this involves

security experts about how things are happening there. , it seemsimportant sometimes we are continuing the risk of other voting channels. sometimes you can solve these risks him and you mentioned that in the case of estonia, norway -- toher countries using realre that they are voters. they canortant that continue to solve problems in other voting channels. norway's using multiple voting. >> local, regional --

>> it is at eight municipal level. they are thinking about introducing it to other municipalities. times can vote multiple and can also vote at polling stations. the vote will be counted. >> any other thoughts, in this question about scale? >> i think the pilots are really important. naïvely assee them being a surefire way of getting to where you want to go. to the extent we want to run things in elections that we really care about, you have to run them in elections we don't care as much about. there are a couple of things

come alive for example you can imagine mr. tony soprano looking at a 150 million dollars bond for a landfill or something and saying i just spent a million dollars to throw this local election. youe are some cases where will see things like that being pretty serious. at the same time, you got to do it somewhere. i live in tacoma park which ran fully auditable election in an actual government which is a really big learning opportunity in terms of making sure that people can use these things. this is something i work on every day, making sure that putting a piece of paper in the ballot box is something people can understand. we have houses of years of experience of doing stuff like that, whereas photography, i can talk to you about a box with two locks on it, but it's not going

to give you the smart high school level, i can actually do the math on my own and get to the end. we need to get to where things are that simple where you can ,alk or the protocol yourself being a smart high school her, which is my lowest common denominator. >> they're very few public test opportunities before you are running an election in real time , you need to have the opportunity for hackers to have at that system. in cases where that has been allowed like the d.c. case in 2010 where they ran a test before using the system in a live election, and it was breached inside of 36 hours. it's a really interesting scenario, but they had to be authorized to do this. white hatot been up

hacker, had it been somebody who had malicious intent tom a they might have breached the system without letting anybody know and then had their way with the results. so it's really important there be these public testing opportunities and that the results of those public tests are made available so that we can learn from them. >> that was such a beautiful attack. >> within 36 hours they found a way, when you type in a file name and sometimes the idea was you upload a pdf of your ballot. of gettinga way crazy characters into the filenames that a sickly got you complete control of the system and that automated a little programming language that allowed them to change every single ballot to a write in vote

for evil computer movies. then they modified the web form where you did this stuff to play the michigan fight song after you cast a ballot. this hatred got it sounding weird music, it's the michigan fight song. the electionsl is a buckeye.s a guy -- >> were talking about the internet is so difficult to secure, but if that almost every level we have these vulnerabilities. this came up earlier. you're working on a trusted machines on this on trusted network. that doesn't make it impossible, but it means you need to be going through each and every step on this on trusted stuff and say how can we get it trustworthy enough so that it's --least as trust hersey

trustworthy as the paper of the stuff it's going to replace. that can become a very difficult spot, especially when the manufacturers of this gear the sealways as nice as was. i put it up online so it could get tested. they did tryacked, to go to prosecutors. they said maybe in fact it is not ready for prime time. trying to solve a problem in a very small scale and it has to operate in a very large scale. we have different types of elections. we have federal, state, and local, and each has its own specific needs and requirements. when you're looking at a microcosm of a local election, it's easy to see how it electronic, online voting could potentially work. to a staten't scale

or large u.s. kind of national election. the problem really is that this needs to be a designed aspect instead of an emerging aspect. we don't want to wait 30 years to get the internet as stable as it could be to support electronic voting online. we need to start looking at how we can design the voting system to ride on top of that kind of infrastructure knowing the infrastructure itself is not as secure as we would want. computing and the other types of new advances we 2008 the iphone, 2009 it came out. a very fast-moving world. were going to have to have a means to secure the voting needs a potentially

un-trusting environment. it's a different type of looking at the problem. if we can address the problem in that kind of fashion, then it doesn't matter whether you doing -watch or from your computer at home, or if it is a voice recognition thing when you walk into a polling place or an absentee ballot from mars. >> if you look at cryptography, you throw a bunch of ideas out there in a very open fashion. you get the best people in the world to bang away with it. it's a pretty good way to identify flaws that you may not have seen. the way we are now focusing on how to monitor this risk in , things areing

evolving and it's impossible to say that 20 years from now the internet will be completely secure. say i have holograms and nobody can open this. is something you cannot control. the idea that it is possible to what is happening in the voting process. at the end [indiscernible] and protected in the server. representults really the content of the vote. if you can't verify this in a 100%hat you can have

assured that nobody manipulated voters see that it has been received by the be it is a traditional web casting a vote. it's a way to say i have no security problems now, but maybe in the future i hacker may find a way to bypass some security measure and manipulate my vote. detect thennot manipulation, then i cannot react. >> the notion of future proofing. you want your vote to be private , not only now but for a long time in the future, to the extent that the lincoln figure out how we voted in the past or near our record of whatever they wanted to do with that information. some cryptographers have

developed ways of creating protocol that basically say no matter what could happen in the future, your vote is safe at least up until we have quantum computers that can crack this stuff. that's the kind of thing i like to hear people worrying about because i worry about my vote in 15 years. >> everlasting privacy. this idea about cryptographic our rhythms that cannot be broken now, but maybe in the future. we have quantum computers, the worry is that somebody can decrypt the vote. this is something very and board it. important requirement is

that the encrypting processes preserving privacy. vote,eone is encrypting a if they cannot correlate, using processes that can prevent correlation, it doesn't matter if someone can decrypt it. in any case were working with -- algorithms. >> if someone does get your most likely the worst-case scenario is someone gets hold of your credit card and makeuse it fraudulent purchases, and that is bad. solvable, and especially, we don't have to worry about it. at most in the united states we

would have to pay $50, and most of us don't even have to do that. there might be some trouble about getting a new card, but essentially it's not that bad a problem for you personally. i think we are used to that, saying it is risky but not such a risk that is going to scare us away from e-commerce right now. an just someone getting your credit card and you might have to pay 50 bucks and do some things. you could get disenfranchised and it could change your vote. some countries you could be killed if people could figure out afterwards how you voted. so the downsides of getting it wrong seem to be -- once fraud occurred in a vote, you can't prosecutors the perpetrator. you can fix the problem, but you

becauseange the ballot you don't know how those votes actually occurred. that by itself would be a corrupting factor in an election. >> not just the privacy but the very black -- verifiability of the audit transparency. we talk in legal terms in court cases about evidence we talk about chain of custody of the evidence and how important that that is unbroken. it's important because you have to be able to rely on it for the various applications all the way through the process. evidenceat property of of the voters vote having been captured correctly, the way they intended it, and then that correct version, not some corrupted version eating what gets counted and then audited to demonstrate that the accounting

part of it was correct, the process is really key in things like the case you mentioned of someone getting hold of your account tone used my rent a limo in arizona at some point, and i called the bank and said i haven't been in arizona for 20 years, maybe. so that wasn't me. they said no problem, we will make that right for you. with voting, you cast your vote maybe from remotely, you don't get to call up the election official at the county and say i voted for so and so, can you see i voted for candidate a? they should not be able to say yes i can see that you voted for candidate a. democrat the last 10 times, this time you voted republican, something must have gone wrong.

we will cut to the representative and then we will come back to audience question and answer. on?m i >> yes sir. >> first of all, it's great to be with you today and thank you for the invitation to join you remotely. i especially want to thank david councilnd the atlantic for making this possible. i would rather be with you there in person. somehow fitting i guess in this discussion about the promise of happening over the process of skype.