Network Security - Assignment Example

Network security The case involves election of the President of the United s. East Dakota is the most competitive and whoever wins its votes wins the presidency. The state allowed its citizens to vote over the internet and 30 percent of the state’s citizens used the avenue. An online election fraud occurred in the state and an organization tricked citizens to use its site then it used the details to vote for Candidate X. State officials from East Dakota compiled the results and candidate X emerged the winner.

X has been inaugurated and evidence has emerged over the fraud, though it cannot be established if X knew about the scheme. The following is a discussion of responses of two stakeholders to the case. The other presidential candidatesOther presidential candidates should dispute the election of president X because of the involved fraud and Article 2, section one of the 12th amendment support their claim. According to the article, electors in each state shall determine the president and his vice, and communicate their voting results.

This means establishment of a valid electors at the state level. Electors are however elected by majority vote and this relies on validity of the general elections. Knowledge of a presidential contestant regarding election fraud at the public suffrage level is therefore not significant to the issue because the main concern is validity of electors from East Dakota. Evidence however points to electoral malpractices that could have altered composition of the electors and this significance means that the validity concerns applies to the election of the president.

In addition, electors’ votes from East Dakota were fundamental to the election and this means that invalid votes elected the president. Consequently, the other presidential candidates were denied their rights to free and fair elections that they are entitled to and they should seek judicial enforcement of the right through contesting validity of the elections. They should therefore demand for a rerun of the election because the constitution requires simultaneous voting by electors throughout the nation (United States Senate 1).

Citizens of East DakotaLike the other presidential candidates, East Dakota citizens are likely to respond by disputing the presidential elections. Their interest in other candidates, significance of the electoral votes from the state to the presidential elections, and significance of the fraud in the state’s elections are some of the reasons for the potential response. Significance of the state in determining outcome of the presidential elections means that each of the presidential candidates had competitive opportunity for winning the state’s votes and therefore the presidency.

Attempts to initiate fraud also means that President X had few chances of winning the states votes and the fraud altered results that the citizens could have offered. In addition, the state officials’ acknowledgement of possible significance of the fraud to the state’s results is a basis for the citizen’s opinion against the results. The constitutional provision for election of president by electors, who are elected by majority votes, therefore provides for the citizen’s rights that the electoral process undermined.

This is because the technology breach compromised election of the electors and the final votes for the state were not valid. The citizens are therefore likely to demand for fresh state elections and this would mean fresh elections by the Electoral College (United States Senate 1).Works citedUnited States Senate. “Constitution of the United States.” United States Senate. N.p. Web. April 14, 2014. < https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm>.