Florida E-Voting Machine Fails

RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 05:16 · Score: 0

RTFA

Not as serious as you're making it sound... by ivan256 · 2004-11-02 05:17 · Score: -1, Troll

It's not like these are 13,000 votes for one candidate or the other... They likely represent approximatly the same statistical distribution of votes from the other machines in that area. Sure, this is serious, but losing those 13,000 votes is unlikely to swing the election one way or the other even if the outcome is decided on less than a 1,000 vote difference.

Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by T-Ranger · 2004-11-02 05:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, hell. Might as well not have elections at all, just phone up 15 or 20 people and see who they want.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by flibuste · 2004-11-02 05:31 · Score: 1

Yes, the statement of the parent is weird. Why have elections when a 3% population sample is enough to have accurate polls? After all, if it doesn't change anything "statistically", why bother?

I must say that's a bit scary
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by ivan256 · 2004-11-02 05:52 · Score: 0, Troll

I didn't say it was insignifigant, I said it would be unlikely to change the outcome. Apparently your sarcastic spin on what I said is insightful, while my perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation was "Flamebait" though.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Miriku+chan · 2004-11-02 06:16 · Score: 1

i do believe that would be because he was right, and you were wrong =)

facts are biased that way and all.

--
shaolin punk, activist post-industrial
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by T-Ranger · 2004-11-02 06:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You are missing the point. There are greater issues then who gets elected. If you dont, or cant, understand that, I cant explain it to you.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Karma+Farmer · 2004-11-02 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember that the differences came down to just a few hundred votes in some states during the 2000 elections.

Also remember that the level of support a canidate expects to recieve is going to very widely from county to county, and even polling place to polling place. If the election is anything like 2000, reducing the number of votes cast by even 5% at even a dozen polling places will change the outcome of elections.

Random errors like this have the potential to spoil the entire election, and the immediate effect would be devestating.

On the other hand, if we make it through these elections without documented random errors destroying the entire process, we have a bigger problem to worry about. Both canidates have spent millions of dollars to determine exactly which counties and polling places matter to them the most. And, a major public strategy of both campaigns this year is to employ armies of lawyers and campaign staffers to increase the "friction" at the small handful of polling locations that are unfavorable to their campaign. Simultaneously, both parties are working furiously to lubricate the polling locations that are favorable to them.

People are going to prison this year for fraudulant voter registration drives designed to increase friction at a small number of polling locations. Other efforts, like the Florida felony voter list, are diabolical and almost comic-book like in their evilness.

But in the end, both canidates would probably sell their own mother to have a chance to spoil all the votes from just a dozen hand-picked voting machines. I hope that neither campaign takes positive steps to cause a voting machine to fail. But, I pray to God that if a campaign does sabotage a voting machine that they are not caught. I honestly question if the country could survive that right now.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 06:44 · Score: 2, Funny

just phone up 15 or 20 people and see who they want

Then you have to have someone reliable to call those people. I suggest Fox News, they've proven themselves to be Fair and Balanced... they would surely do a good job!
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 07:14 · Score: 0

How exactly do you know the distribution of votes on that particular machine?
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by squiggleslash · 2004-11-02 07:36 · Score: 2

Actually it is. In general, different regions have different biases in terms of who gets more votes. For example, West Palm Beach is a primarily Democratic enclave, the vast majority of voters vote Democratic. Similarly, Martin County - just North of Palm Beach - generally votes Republican.
If you remove a ballot box from an area where the voting pattern is generally significantly different from the average - and most of the time, it will be - you introduce a bias. For example, by destroying a Martin County ballot box, I would be giving Kerry an advantage. By destroying a Palm Beach ballot box, I'd be giving Bush an advantage.
Daytona Beach is, if I recall correctly, in a red area of Florida. Bush can expect to have significantly more votes in that voting machine than Kerry. If 2/3 of the votes are for Bush, then we're looking at about 8667 votes for Bush, vs 4333 for Kerry, a 4334 vote difference. If the vote is anything like as close as it was last time over Florida as a whole, you can bet those 4334 votes will make a major difference.
I don't know what those percentages are in practice. What I can say is that Florida is a diverse state, and just because the margins are close over the state as a whole doesn't mean that the margins are close on a county by county basis, or especially a precinct by precinct basis.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 07:45 · Score: 0

That's a great stategery for the American people in the post 9/11 world. I'll bet there's 15 or 20 good Americans right here in my Cabinet. Elections cost millions of dollars, money which could be better spent fighting America's enemies in Iraq and the world. Also, think of the message it would send to our troops if they found out 50 or 60 million people voted against their commander in chief. Your plan will save money and maintain the morale of our troops in harm's way.

-- George W.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 08:25 · Score: 0

I just find it quite amazing that a country that
has had a "democratic" regime for more than 200
years can not even guarantee the correct results of
its elections, I mean, here in Europe we have
far less experience and I've never heard of
anything like what's going on in the USA, what's
wrong with manually counting paper ballots??
let me tell you, that system works great, what's
the need for electronic machines? why adding
complexity? so that it is more likey to fail?
Someone from the US please explain, here we
have the impression that people in that part of
the world have gone mad :-(
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by ivan256 · 2004-11-02 09:11 · Score: 1

I think you're in some strange alternate reality along with all the rest of the assholes that said I was trolling.

Try taking my comment, the entire comment, not just the first sentence, in context. Let's quote the story, shall we?

Considering how close some predict this election to be, losing that many ballots would be catastrophic.

So, how am I lacking in understanding by saying that while this is serious, it's not as much of a problem as the poster makes it out to be, because the election being close would probably has no impact on the situation?

I think it's you, sir, that missed the point.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by hackwrench · 2004-11-02 09:29 · Score: 1

Please look up the population of the U.S. and the population of your country and report the results back to us... Thanks!
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by hackwrench · 2004-11-02 09:34 · Score: 1

More to the point, not detecting election problems is not the same as no problems. I haven't heard anything on the validity of European elections, so by your logic there must not be any.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by black+mariah · 2004-11-02 09:41 · Score: 0

Random errors like this WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN, AND HAVE ALWAYS HAPPENED. When you are talking about something that is as massive an undertaking as this, there will always be errors. You do your best to minimize them, but going batshit insane anytime something fucks up just isn't useful. You have to find the errors, fix them, and TRY not to let them happen again. Shit happens, you just have to minimize its effects.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 10:13 · Score: 0

Sorry, I should have given more info, I am talking about the country of Spain, where even though the law does not make a provision for international observers they have always been here. This is the report for one such observer from the 2003 presidential election:
Report from OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)
I may be wrong, but I understand this is the first time that international observers go into the US elections, which, well... was about time.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 10:21 · Score: 0

Well, hell. Might as well not have elections at all, just phone up 15 or 20 people and see who they want.

After all, 100,000 dead Iraqis can't be wrong.... can they?
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 10:27 · Score: 0

Last time I checked it was about 300.000.000 versus 34.000.000 (Spain). Of course, the surface of Spain is about 194,884 squared miles while the surface of the US is approx. 5,984,685 squared miles, are there the same number of polling stations in the US as in Spain?? If not, the process of counting is a task that can be done
very much in parallel, all you have to do in the
end is add up all the different results (I suppose
the thing doesn't scale perfectly, but still...),
Why is then the difference in number of votes so important?
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by hackwrench · 2004-11-03 03:39 · Score: 1

More opportunities for things to go wrong per country. Let's say that an error happens 1 per 1000 polling places per election. If the amount of polling places is proportional, then the US will have the greatest number of hits. Furthermore a major election occurs every 4 years. This wikipedia article isn't much help in determining how often the Spanish Prime Minister is elected, perhaps you can fix that?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Spa in
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by hackwrench · 2004-11-03 03:47 · Score: 1

I didn't see any international observers at my polling place. As I mentioned in another post, I and others were disenfranchised when they removed Nader from the ballot in my county(county not country).

From your observer report: Although the election law requires secret voting, polling station procedures can compromise the secrecy of the ballot and open voting is common; these shortcomings should be addressed by the authorities.

Ahem!

Also: Because of the short duration of the Assessment Mission and its small size, it was not able to assess in detail all aspects of the electoral process. Likewise, a few brief visits to polling stations were not a sufficient basis upon which to draw firm conclusions in regard to the Election Day process of voting throughout the country.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-04 08:20 · Score: 0

Well, from my experience voting here, while it is
true that you pick the ballot from a table that
is open to view to everyone it is also true
that there are closed booths were you can insert
the ballot into the envelope and nobody can see it.
You could then pick all the ballots and only stick
one into the envelope, or you may come from home
with the ballot and the envelope, which political
parties usually send to you by mail.
While the second option is common, the first one
is not, so for simplicity people who take
a ballot from the table only take one. I never
liked that, however still doesn't affect the
actual count.

And yes, the report doesn't draw firm conclusions,
but I am sure if you look around you may find
other reports :-)

I don't understand why you were disenfranchised,
I will look around for your other post.
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-04 08:30 · Score: 0

Well of course, there may be a percentual error,
say, you can guarantee results +-0.1%
Since you have a larger absolute number of votes,
your error in terms of votes will be larger, but
your percentual error should be the same since the
"problem" is linear.
Anyway, voting in Spain takes place every 4
years also, it is fixed already in the wikipedia ;-)
Re:Not as serious as you're making it sound... by hackwrench · 2004-11-04 11:37 · Score: 1

Looking at the revised wikipedia entry, you don't have a popular vote for prime minister. That changes things substantially.

Title may be misleading. by cbiffle · 2004-11-02 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The title of this article may be misleading for those who equate "e-voting" with "touchscreen machines."

The machine that failed was an optical scan machine. This is like a scantron for school exams; it's the type we use here in Arizona. You fill in little arrows and it reads which ones are darkened. There are still paper ballots that go into a lock box under the machine.

Personally, I don't think this is "e-voting" at all and that the title is just plain wrong, but since optical scan machines do, indeed, use electrons, I suppose it's arguable.

Re:Title may be misleading. by ForestGrump · 2004-11-02 05:49 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info. From reading the blurb, I thought the machine stored the data on MO disc or something.

--
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
Re:Title may be misleading. by demon4 · 2004-11-02 06:26 · Score: 1

they use protons too!
Re:Title may be misleading. by AsbestosRush · 2004-11-03 04:55 · Score: 1

They do. they use PCMCIA cards to store the data on. I work with the county election supervisor, so I've seen these things work. Pretty nifty. Thing is that if the data gets hammered on the card, you just plug in a new card and rescan the entire box. The county election supervisor would have to make the call when/how/who to do that, however.

--
EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
AC's need not reply

These are the good electronic voting machines by theCoder · 2004-11-02 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I live in Brevard county, which is just south of the county in question. The machine that failed optically scans the ballots just like a scan-tron machine does (we have the same type in Brevard county). Voters fill in bubbles for the candidates they want, and the machine scans and counts the votes. The ballots are saved for just such a problem. Honestly, I don't know why all the electronic voting isn't like this. It's incredibly simple and efficient.

As to whether more problems like this will occur that will actually lose votes, I hope it does. I hope thousands of votes are lost and that the outcome is affected. That's the only way we'll be able to get rid of the paperless voting machines once and for all.

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown

Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by Otter · 2004-11-02 05:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Voters fill in bubbles for the candidates they want, and the machine scans and counts the votes. The ballots are saved for just such a problem. Honestly, I don't know why all the electronic voting isn't like this. It's incredibly simple and efficient.
Personally, I prefer the punch ballots. It's probably just superstition, but removing a single chad seems much less ambiguous than the various bubble-filling exercises, where I'm never quite sure when enough is enough. Some of your neighbors seem to have problems with the chads, but I can't imagine they do so much better with "fill in the arrow".
The most satisfying, though, has got to be the old mechanical lever machines. You'd pick your slate, pull the bar and *CLANG*! Always really felt like striking a blow for democracy.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by JCMay · 2004-11-02 05:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

[I live in Brevard as well] You missed the best part-- unlike touchscreen panels, I don't have to wait for a voting booth to vote! I filled out my ballot standing in line and skipped the booth altogether! Much faster than doing it the "offical" way. :)
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by Karma+Farmer · 2004-11-02 05:59 · Score: 2, Informative

It's probably just superstition, but removing a single chad seems much less ambiguous than the various bubble-filling exercises

Unfortunately, removing a second chad is remarkably simple and is a wonderful way to spoil a ballot.

Of course, someone with access to the ballots can selectively spoil bubble-ballots too. I suspect they're more difficult to spoil accidentally-on-purpose without being caught by an election monitor, though.
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by Hard_Code · 2004-11-02 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Considering that almost anybody that has attended public school knows how to fill out a Scan-Tron sheet blindfoled and upside down, I'd say that is a good criteria for usability. Well, I guess if you're not blind or something, in which case the electronic machines don't really help either. I don't understand why we need full-on generic purpose computing processors and on-screen displays and bullshit, just to perform a multiple choice selection. Come on, it's not that hard. It's embarrassing.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by sneakers563 · 2004-11-02 06:07 · Score: 1

I grew up in Connecticut where we too had the old mechanical machines with the levers and curtains. I was surprised when I moved to Arizona and saw the optical scan ballots. Filling in bubbles with a magic marker on a rickety table while your neighbor looks over your shoulder just feels cheap. Besides, the curtain and levers on the old machines, along with the fact that no one could come in (maybe a myth) gave the machines the feel of a really cool fort.
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by learn+fast · 2004-11-02 06:50 · Score: 2

"I hope thousands of votes are lost and that the outcome is affected. That's the only way we'll be able to get rid of the paperless voting machines once and for all."

Isn't that what we said last time, with the butterfly ballots?

Did this line in the article text give anyone else shivers?

"Let's hope that we won't see any more of this in the next 24 hours, and that these problems are fixed before 2006."

Is it cold in here, or am I completely terrified?
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by MindStalker · 2004-11-02 07:00 · Score: 1

but removing a single chad seems much less ambiguous than the various bubble-filling exercises, where I'm never quite sure when enough is enough.

The wonderful thing is its not like the scan sheets you use at school exactly, there are clear large bubbles beside each name. AND if you bubble too much or too little or there are some stray marks and the machine isn't 100% sure how you voted, it will split the ballot right out immidently and tell you to vote again. No error possible really.
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by MindStalker · 2004-11-02 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/samples/2004/G1.pdf
example of bubble sheet.
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by AuMatar · 2004-11-02 11:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I once programmed a scan-tron machine. Its pretty simple- check the pixel data in a rectangular area around the bubble. See how many are abover a threshold for darkness. If the number above the threshold is greater than a constant, its filled. a quick strike with a marker is sufficient to fill one, it does not need to be filled ot the edges. Writing an X or a check in there will also be picked up.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:These are the good electronic voting machines by WhiteDragon · 2004-11-12 03:42 · Score: 1

Considering that almost anybody that has attended public school knows how to fill out a Scan-Tron sheet blindfoled
You raise an interesting point. What about visually impaired people. The main trouble with optical mark ballots (or at least one serious concern) is that they are not accessible. However, a well-designed system would have some sort of audible voting. In fact, here in Maryland (yes, we also have Diebold touch screen machines and I don't like them either) we have an accessible system that has voice prompts, and a numeric keypad with braille to enter the choice. It then reads back your ballot, and if it sounds correct, you confirm it. I don't know how it stores the ballot after that, maybe the same way as the touch-screen machines.

--
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?

Do the machines run slashcode? by SoCalChris · 2004-11-02 05:23 · Score: 3, Funny

Seriously, slashdot hasn't been working right all morning.

And the /. editors bitch about Diebold trying to cover up and ignore defects in the software...

Re:Do the machines run slashcode? by ebrandsberg · 2004-11-02 06:08 · Score: 1

And who relies on slashcode to determine the president of the USA? I think that those responsible for the mechanisms relied upon for voting should be held to a higher standard than slashdot is.
Re:Do the machines run slashcode? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 06:11 · Score: 0

Relax, it was a joke.
Re:Do the machines run slashcode? by Wudbaer · 2004-11-02 08:55 · Score: 1

You are telling me the recent Slashdot poll was not the real election ? Bastards !

However, this in some way explains why I was able to vote in spite of not being American... and here I was thinking "Those Americans are SO internationally-minded people"...
Re:Do the machines run slashcode? by LearnToSpell · 2004-11-02 09:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, that Cowboy Neal always gets the European vote. I think it's his 20-hour workweek platform or something.

--
Haida Manga
Re:Do the machines run slashcode? by vsprintf · 2004-11-02 12:00 · Score: 1

However, this in some way explains why I was able to vote in spite of not being American... and here I was thinking "Those Americans are SO internationally-minded people"...

Hey, it really is true. We not only allow illegal immigrants to vote, but dead people and convicted felons who have lost their voting priviledge also. We are truly tolerant of all when it comes to voting. In most states it is considered intimidation to make a voter provide proof of eligibility or identity.

So who wants to be the first to say... by firephreek · 2004-11-02 05:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

I told you so?

What about the fallout from this? Who's liable? Can we sue companies like Diebold (or whatever manufacturer created this particular machine) for this sort thing?

List of irregularities by thelenm · 2004-11-02 05:24 · Score: 3, Informative

ABC News has a continuously-updated list of irregularities from around the country.

On the radio this morning, I heard something about a couple thousand votes already present on some electronic voting machines in Philadelphia before the poll workers arrived in the morning. But I can't find any stories about it online. Does anyone have any more information on this?

--
Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!

Re:List of irregularities by The-Bus · 2004-11-02 06:06 · Score: 1

Seems like this link at Drudge is what you're looking for. It is, unfortunately, not really informational.

--
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Re:List of irregularities by RandomCoil · 2004-11-02 06:07 · Score: 4, Informative

This has been on CNN (TV) for a while now. Supposedly "Republican observers" noted that machines at one location had registered 1300 votes before the polls had opened. "Poll officials" and some "impartial observers" checked the machines. The 1300 votes were actually the votes cast using that machine over its lifetime, not number of votes recorded today.

The mayor of Philadelphia seemed to think this was Republican shenanigans. I think it's more likely that the observers had one two many double espressos this morning.
Re:List of irregularities by sneakers563 · 2004-11-02 06:12 · Score: 1

Yeah, apparently it was a misunderstanding of how the odometers on the machines work. They aren't reset between elections and therefore show the total number of ballots ever cast on them, not just the number in the current election. Some people saw the numbers on the odometers and thought ballots had already been cast.
Re:List of irregularities by Shihar · 2004-11-02 06:38 · Score: 1

To be honest, it seems like for a nation as large as the US, the irregularities listed so far seem pretty minor and rare. If things keep going like they are with just minor irregularities like the ones listed, I would feel pretty good about the turnout of the election, no matter what it was. So far at least, it seems to have much fewer questionable problems.

I suppose I should hold my optimism for when the polls close and the real shit starts hitting the fan. Let just hope that things continue to run as smooth as they appear to be running right now.
Re:List of irregularities by Sanction · 2004-11-02 09:31 · Score: 1

Looks like Drudge is more worried about getting the scoop than fact checking. It turns out that there is a counter on the backs of the machines that shows the number of times the machine has been used in an election, and someone thought that it was some kind of vote count.

--
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Re:List of irregularities by Erwos · 2004-11-02 09:46 · Score: 1

I agree. There doesn't really seem to be anything terribly serious on that list. Just some minor screw-ups. Certainly,

The recurring MoveOn.org story is funny. Honestly, I'm not finding it hard to believe they might have been within a hundred feet in a few different places. But that's not really something to toss out votes over.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.

Titile is insightful by goombah99 · 2004-11-02 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Far from misleading the title is accurate. In most states its illegal to open an optical scan ballot box and recount without a court order. The votes are counted using a programable computing device. the good thing is that it's a rather dumb device, closer to your washing machine in general programmability. but it's still electroinc voting.

the good news is that there is paper trail. It can be secured, and it can be recounted.

It also shows the importance of spot checking paper trails. What if this error had not been so blaringly obvious? Who would ever know. Since its not routine practice (its illegal) to recount paper ballots there would not be any way to know.

hence we need paper trails and we need to spot check them.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Transparency? by sepluv · 2004-11-02 05:26 · Score: 1

Was the hardware and software for these machines transparent, freely documented and free?

(BTW, who /.ed /.?)

--
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]

Re:Transparency? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-11-02 07:00 · Score: 1

Doubt it- OSS would have had some programmer, somewhere, catch the fallacy of buffering 13000+ votes in RAM without a single disk write....

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Transparency? by Karma+Farmer · 2004-11-02 07:58 · Score: 1

They'd also cactch the fallacy of trusting a single piece of media and one geographic location. For all I know, a flash memory may be more reliable than a hard drive. But, both are incredibly unreliable compared to a transactional database with geographicly diverse redundancy.

The voting machine in Pittsburgh by mpost4 · 2004-11-02 05:27 · Score: 1

Why does not the whole country just use the same ones we ahve in Pittsburgh, they been in use for 50+ years to my knolage. you pull a switch, then when you finish you press a button and it then records on paper the results, simple and works.

Re:The voting machine in Pittsburgh by x4A6D74 · 2004-11-02 05:58 · Score: 2, Informative

The reason is that those machines are no longer being produced. Worse than that, parts for them are no longer being produced. Bad enough yet? How about this: the company went out of business about 25 years ago. If anything ever breaks, the county calls up a local machine shop to replace them ... and special orders like that can be pricey (I have a friend who's the GM of such a shop).

That would be the reason that a) those machines are not becoming more widespread and b) PA is thinking about phasing them out.

Besides, mechanical vote counting machines just aren't 1337 enough for this day and age. ;)

(I live in the Pittsburgh area and my mom volunteers at the polls in my district, so she got to learn this stuff.)

BTW: The machine doesn't actually record the votes on paper, I think. My mom said that there's a readout on the back (think car odometer) and a roll of paper for the write-in votes. The pollworkers have to unlock and open up the machines at the end of the day, all read the numbers off (so that everyone knows no one's cheating), total the several machines at each polling station, and then fill out some paperwork to be taken to the county courthouse.

Just another local's opinion.

--0x4a6d74
Re:The voting machine in Pittsburgh by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-11-02 07:16 · Score: 1

Wouldn't actually fit in the envelopes. Here in Oregon, we have mail-in voting only, no actual polling places (unless you consider the volunteers in the old polling places with the bucket and the drive-up ballot drop-off....)

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:The voting machine in Pittsburgh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 13:53 · Score: 0

I used to run pgh polling places. A minor addition
to what you said; the final print requires the
operator to attach a handle to the back and crank
like mad until it suddenly stops without warning.
You can use the same handle to elevate the half-
ton machine for use if it was delivered wrong. I
would strip to the waist to do this.

There is another large metal straight lever to use
when the power goes out, for recording each vote.
You can also use it to threaten right wing yahoos
who try to go in and tell the wife which lever to
pull.

The documentation was badly written, but the only
real problem I had with these things was that the
faint printed 0 and 8 were hard to tell apart.

All in all a very Fred Flintstone experience. Or
perhaps 19th century. I liked and trusted them.

Nils K. Hammer

...and that these problems are fixed before 2006 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 05:32 · Score: 0

What happens in 2006? Elections for sure, but not for president.

I'm concerned about lost votes. by alexatrit · 2004-11-02 05:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Regardless of the type of voting machine (optical readers, Diebold, or others), I'm still concerned about lost votes. I half-wanted to use the provisional ballot this morning, but when I asked the voting "official" about a paper ballot, she looked at me like I was crazy and said "we don't have any paper ballots here." Having untrained voting officials is going to bugger up this election as well.

--

Nothing but the finest in meaningless drivel

Re:I'm concerned about lost votes. by Unknown+Lamer · 2004-11-02 07:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Are you in Maryland? If you are, she was right. You are not allowed to vote on a paper ballot unless it is a special vote (absentee, etc.). A few people tried to use provisional ballots earlier in the year and their votes were ruled invalid (they even appealed to the State Supreme Court and the ruling was upheld). At least in Maryland, you have no choice but to use the Diebold machines.

That said, I doubt that there could be much vote changing by Republicans in Maryland simply because Maryland always goes Democrat by a fairly large margin. If it went Republican it would raise huge red flags and even if the Republican Party were trying to be evil they couldn't in Maryland (note the use of the subjunctive before calling me an evil Republican hater).

--

HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Re:I'm concerned about lost votes. by ajrs · 2004-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1

...before calling me an evil Republican hater

You love evil Republicans? Does that mean you hate the good ones?
Re:I'm concerned about lost votes. by dalutong · 2004-11-02 10:03 · Score: 1

Ways to read it: ...before calling me an "evil republican" hater
as in someone who hates only the evil republicans
or if someone considered all republicans evil. ...before calling me an "evil" "republican hater"
as if there were good and bad "republican haters"

possibly more but i got bored.

--

What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Re:I'm concerned about lost votes. by vsprintf · 2004-11-02 12:18 · Score: 1

A few people tried to use provisional ballots earlier in the year and their votes were ruled invalid (they even appealed to the State Supreme Court and the ruling was upheld). At least in Maryland, you have no choice but to use the Diebold machines.

The provisional ballot requirement is part of HAVA. How does Maryland think it can trump federal law during a federal election? Was there any rationale given?

Not so fast by goombah99 · 2004-11-02 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are right that simply discarding votes is a less serious problem than systematic errors that bias a count one direction.

but that's were the logic ends.

first let's consider the statistical fluctuations that might be present in 13,000 votes chosen at random from a larger set. If the votes were 50:50 for either candidate then in the variance of 13,000 cast ballots the outcome would be about fluctuate by 50 votes, or a difference bewteen the two candidates of 100 votes. That's the average deviation from the true average the actual deviation would be much higher. If more than one candidate is running, lets say nader is getting 10% of the votes, then the statistical fluctuation in naders total would be about 32 votes with those missing votes not equaly distributed among the other candidates.

Second, this is one precint in one county in florida. it's literally an island. One shoul dave ZERO expectation that its average demographics and voting pattern represents the state average.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Re:Not so fast by ivan256 · 2004-11-02 05:58 · Score: 1

Second, this is one precint in one county in florida. it's literally an island. One shoul dave ZERO expectation that its average demographics and voting pattern represents the state average.

True, but it's only one machine from less than a quarter of the day. There were other machines, and other votes from after the problem was discovered.

This is moot really, since there are paper copies and nothing was lost.
Re:Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 06:12 · Score: 0

The more concentrated in time (morning) the more non-uniform the voter demographic and the greater the skew introduced by lost votes

Lesser of two evils solution by isotope23 · 2004-11-02 05:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

For those considering casting their vote for the lesser of two evils, check out Inverse vote pairing.

Find a family member or friend who would cancel out your lesser evil vote. Make a deal with them to both vote third party. You get to take a vote AWAY from your greater evil, and the third paties get two votes. If enough people did this when the candidates suck perhaps we'd have REAL debates?

--
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!

Re:Lesser of two evils solution by The-Bus · 2004-11-02 06:08 · Score: 1

Uh, hate to troll but your sig "Vote for Badnarik or Hear 'Next Stop Amerika! Papers please'" is exactly what Badnarik wants. He has proposed extremely fortified, military borders unlike anything the U.S. has seen before. That being said, I don't understand the point of your statement.

--
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Re:Lesser of two evils solution by isotope23 · 2004-11-02 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, if case you haven't been following the news, the Reps and Dems are proposing checkpoints INSIDE the country.

From the article :

"McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints. "

So I'd say stop the terrorists AT the border instead of making me show papers inside the country.

--
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Re:Lesser of two evils solution by taitertot · 2004-11-02 06:31 · Score: 1

Why wasn't this mod'ed off-topic? There is a dedicated place for this type of discussion today http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/ 02/1413214&tid=219.
Re:Lesser of two evils solution by coaxial · 2004-11-12 15:33 · Score: 1

Find a family member or friend who would cancel out your lesser evil vote. Make a deal with them to both vote third party. You get to take a vote AWAY from your greater evil, and the third paties get two votes.

Sorry to rain your parade but it won't work. What you propose is a lot like the prisoner's diIf enough people did this when the candidates suck perhaps we'd have REAL debates?lemma, but without the downside of screwing your partner over. Let's game your strategy.
VoteForMyCanidate - VoteForYourCanidate = NetVotesForMyCanidate 0 - 0 = 0 0 - 1 = -1 1 - 0 = +1 1 - 1 = 0

If I keep the agreement the best I can hope for is my canidate gaining 0 votes, while the worst case is your canidate (my evil canidate) getting an additional vote. Bad for me. If break the deal, my canidate gets at most 1 more vote (good for me) or at worse our votes cancel out.

If enough people did this when the candidates suck perhaps we'd have REAL debates?

Nope. It's free advertising time, and neither side wants their canidate to come off as a dumbass (the first 2004 debate not withstanding). Plus the populus doesn't want indepth discussions of policies. Instead they want O'Rielly and Crossfire style shouting matches and easy answers. The days of Lincoln-Douglas are long gone.

semi transparent by goombah99 · 2004-11-02 05:49 · Score: 1

I cant speak for the florida machines. But here in new mexico the programming of logic packs for optical scan machines is awarded to a contractor. This tells me that while the programming method may be propietary its not secret; there is more than one contractor.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

It's on purpose by dscho · 2004-11-02 05:51 · Score: 1

They tested all the voting machines, and those failing were shipped into likely Democrat states...

Re:It's on purpose by ifwm · 2004-11-03 01:20 · Score: 1

Well, you're clearly a moron. This voting machine was in a heavily REPUBLICAN district, a fact left out by the partisans on your side. What about that smart guy?

The Truth About Politics by mono_indy · 2004-11-02 05:54 · Score: 1

It's always going to be the same. One party points to the other that is pointing back at them. It's like the only truth about politics is that no matter what we choose we still get dumped on.

--
Visit the Mother Site !

Only in Florida by woobieman29 · 2004-11-02 06:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it was in a black neighborhood......

--
\/\/oobie

Re:Only in Florida by ifwm · 2004-11-03 01:22 · Score: 1

And you would be wrong. And a moron. It was in a Republican district, so your partisan bias shows through again.

If you want to do something about this...read this by goombah99 · 2004-11-02 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't just say "Oh my gosh" and rant here.

Moreover it does no good to have voter verified paper trails in your own precint if florida or california lacks them. That paper trail only secures your one vote. You want everyone elses secure too as errors elsewhere swamp your measly vote.

So rant to the persons who could actually do something about this: the head of NASED the organization that sets voting machine standards is Denise Lamb and the head of the National Association of Secretaries of state is Rebecca Vigil-giron. Tell them you are a professional programmer and give them your candid opinion about the need for voter verified paper trails. Currently they are outspoken in nation wide advocacy agains adding paper trails to touch screen voting.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

This is why I like Virginia's system by ShatteredDream · 2004-11-02 06:14 · Score: 1

We bubble in our candidate of choice, or we write in whoever we want to vote for. Therefore I can be proud knowing that I'm probably the only voter in Virginia that voted for Michael Badnarik for President and Cthulhu as a write in candidate for my congressional district...

--
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!

Re:This is why I like Virginia's system by IvoryRing · 2004-11-02 08:54 · Score: 1

Does anyone know how to find the list of writeins? Especially the obviously joke/fake ones? I honestly think that the number of times people put down Mickey Mouse is a significant statistic that should be published.
Re:This is why I like Virginia's system by DavidTC · 2004-11-02 11:51 · Score: 1

For a write-in for the president to be counted, the write-in must register his electors before the election. (Which is either free, or a nominal cost.)
Why? Because you're not voting for that person, you're voting for his electors. If he has no electors, they will just throw the vote away.
This also solves the problem of the fact that, in the US, more than one person is named 'Ralph Nader'. (Nader wasn't on the ballot in this state.) If only one Ralph Nader registered electors here, and 'Ralph Nader' wins, those electors go.
I don't know what happens if two write-ins with the same name are registered...but I think all presidential candidates must belong to a party, so what you'd do is write the party in. (Registering a party, incidently, is basically the same as registering electors...it's a nominal fee.)
That said, they really should summarize all the invalid write-ins and publish them, if only to see what people who didn't vote for anyone thought.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Wake-up call by taitertot · 2004-11-02 06:21 · Score: 1

A story like this should be a wake-up call to those states that are using touchscreen voting machines with no paper trail. A memory card can fail--there needs to be redundancy in the system! It is fortunate that this particular case is one where the original ballots still exist.

Also, redundant memory cards would not be sufficient. The redundancy should be such that a single type of failure (i.e., a power surge that fries a memory chip) can't defeat the redundancy.

Now that I'm thinking about this, I wonder what poll workers are trained to do if there is a fire? Are they supposed to grab the ballot box as they run out of the building?

Will it ever be fixed? by jbarr · 2004-11-02 06:22 · Score: 1

Let's hope...that these problems are fixed before 2006."

Um, isn't that what everyone said in 2000?

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!

Votes stored in RAM?!?!?!? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-11-02 06:22 · Score: 2, Informative

News for the programmers of that system- volitile memory may not be the best place to buffer 13,000 scanned ballots- you should be writing to disk after every scan.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Votes stored in RAM?!?!?!? by Karma+Farmer · 2004-11-02 07:04 · Score: 1

Note to everyone: there are companies that make very good money building databases with mathematically proven transactions, secure logging, and multiple geographic locations for redundant servers.

If my vote is being cast electronically, I want to know that once the transaction is committed, nothing short of global thermonuclear war is going to spoil that record. Any volatile local storage, whether a disk or flash ram, is really just not acceptable.

Of course, in this case it's really not an electronic ballot as we normally think of it. The ballot itself is the piece of paper. The electronics do nothing but tabulate those ballots. They just happen to run the tabulator constantly through the day, instead of all at once at the end of the night.

Regardless, I really like paper. Certainly, paper ballots run the risk of being spoiled through mishandling. But, paper ballots can be physically monitored by relatively untrained staffers. It's comparatively difficult to monitor electrons going through wires.

am I the only one?! by mbonig · 2004-11-02 06:42 · Score: 0

that is in absolute awe that something as simple as picking candidates and amendments is so painful?! We saw crap like this 4 years ago and it hasn't been fixed! Will someone PLEASE explain to me why our voting system is so craptacular?!

--
Best FPS gaming site on the net... ok, well maybe not the best

Re:am I the only one?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 06:48 · Score: 0

explain to me why our voting system is so craptacular

There is no uniform nationwide voting system. The States are each responsable for their own voting process.

So already you basically have 50 separate elections, there is bound to be problems in at least a few states, especially with the veritable army of lawyers watching everything this year.
Re:am I the only one?! by mbonig · 2004-11-02 06:58 · Score: 0

I had hoped that after the 2000 election that some of the states would have had better systems though. While in line this morning I saw a man/wife in front of me who said they registered at the same time, same place, same address.. she was registered and able to vote, he wasn't and had to go to the county clerk to do it! I'll bet you he doesn't vote. He was (understandbly) upset. 200+ years of voting and yet there are still problems!

--
Best FPS gaming site on the net... ok, well maybe not the best
Re:am I the only one?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 07:00 · Score: 0

Matthew Bonig
2252 Grove Cir E
Boulder, CO 80302-6611
(720) 519-1990

Diebold Parania by Ender77 · 2004-11-02 06:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I just saw on cnn news about a woman who voted for Kerry but when she saw the screen showed her summary report it was for Bush. She called a lawyer and reviewed her selections with the election officials and it did show she selected kerry for her answers. They say it was "computer error" *Cough**bullshit**cough*

MODS - PARENT IS KNOWN TROLL by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 06:50 · Score: 0

mbonig (which is a slur for something racist) has been posting lots of GNAA trolls (search for his name, you'll see) and fake gmail invites that point to disgusting pictures.

Mod down at once!

from department is lacking too.. by phyruxus · 2004-11-02 07:25 · Score: 1

should have been from the "told you so" department.

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

MOD INFORMATIVE by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 07:34 · Score: 0

parent post

that's not right... by St.+Arbirix · 2004-11-02 07:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

From TFA, emphasis added:
Members of each political party and the canvassing board must witness the recount process Tuesday.

How is this fair? When I voted this morning some positions were competitions between a Republican or Democrat and a third party, so you'd think several different parties would get called for the recount.

Does Florida not allow more than two parties to watch recounts?

--
Direct away from face when opening.

Re:that's not right... by stinerman · 2004-11-02 08:06 · Score: 1

Thats because bi-partisian and non-partisian are synonyms in this day and age.
Re:that's not right... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 08:16 · Score: 0

"each" does not imply only two.

Drudge Report Exit Poll Results by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 08:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

These were posted to Drudge Report, and quickly yanked.
AZ CO LA MI WI PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 51 52 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 48 48 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41

Re:Drudge Report Exit Poll Results by slungsolow · 2004-11-02 08:56 · Score: 1

Those numbers have been siting up on several political blogs this afternoon. Drudge took them down (which doesn't make sense since it would comfort his more liberal visitors and throw is conservative visitors into a voting hissy fit).

Ohio voter sues over absentee ballots by RealProgrammer · 2004-11-02 08:13 · Score: 1

According to Fox News :

A woman has sued state election officials on behalf of voters who claim they did not receive their absentee ballots on time.

The woman sued Tuesday in federal court in Toledo with the help of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, a San Francisco-based group. A closed hearing took place Tuesday morning.

Here is the LCCR link. At first glance they look to be a social justice group not directly affiliated with either the Reds or the Blues.

--
sigs, as if you care.

yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 08:16 · Score: 0

post the link and I might consider believing this

Re:yeah right by zCyl · 2004-11-02 21:10 · Score: 1

I saw the event on CNN News, but haven't seen more mention of it since then. Coverage was quickly carried away to counting votes. I would also be interested in seeing articles with more information on this.

Not Again by OptimoosePrime · 2004-11-02 08:24 · Score: -1

Leave it to Florida to screw up yet another election. They should be put on some kind of probation.

--
796F75617265616E65726400

Gotta say this by dtfinch · 2004-11-02 08:36 · Score: 1

We warned them. For 4 years we told them exactly what to expect. Nobody should be surprised. Idiots.

Re:Gotta say this by dtfinch · 2004-11-02 08:56 · Score: 1

Didn't rtfa. The headline and summary are very misleading. However, I stand by my original statement.

fixing the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's hope that ... these problems are fixed before 2006."

Simple. Chuck machines into garbage, replace with paper ballots. Problem fixed.

Kerry is gaining on Florida by rep_mouth · 2004-11-02 09:11 · Score: 0

could not believe this, Kerry is ahead in Florida 5 points, this must be some f**king couting error, even markets are turning over, in last 30 minutes Pfizer and United Defence dipped, my f**king portfolio is heading south, bad times ahead

--

-- i am being constantly offended by liberal moderators here as a notorious republican flamer --

Re:Kerry is gaining on Florida by lothar97 · 2004-11-02 10:01 · Score: 1

Pfizer and United Defence dipped, my f**king portfolio is heading south, bad times ahead
Should've diversified your portfolio to hedge the election results. Other options you should've considered:
HJ Heinz Co (HNZ)
Skechers USA Inc (SKX) (makes flip-flops)

--

I saw on CNN .... by teamhasnoi · 2004-11-02 09:30 · Score: 1

that a ballot box in Florida went missing. Officials were searching frantically for it, and then the story just disappeared.

Oh, wait. That was last time.

None of this would matter... by Thunderstruck · 2004-11-02 09:36 · Score: 1

None of this would matter if we just had our state legislatures select the presidential electors. No more half truth sound bites from the campaigns, interest groups, angry individuals, or international actors. Just a peaceful discussion between the best & brightest in each state about which people should be given the job of choosing president.

Hook me up!

--
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.

Not all of Virginia by The+Queen · 2004-11-02 09:39 · Score: 1

At least in my district, we use the dreaded Diebold boxen. I shuddered at the sight, but stood in line anyway...

--

The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series

4 more hours baby, just 4 more hours... by jayveekay · 2004-11-02 10:10 · Score: 1

All the problems created in the last few years won't suddenly disappear, but at least we won't be digging the hole deeper.

Report of machine breaking down in Florida by pp · 2004-11-02 10:22 · Score: 1

One of the Finnish election observers says he saw a touchscreen device break down (with 200 votes inside), and it was replaced and the officials were left pondering what to do with the broken one. Apparently it was one of those touch-screen no-paper-trail ones. Interesting to see if this is an isolated incident or not.

Not everyone. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2004-11-02 11:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone who has attended public school since 1970, maybe. That leaves out a lot of voters. My parents (baby Boomers)never had scantron. My Grandparents certanly never did. My parents have since learned, my grandparents cannot. I don't mean to insult senoir citizens, but as we all get older our eyes get worse. They have problems with daily tasks that are much more important to their quality of lives that are much more embarsising than not being able to figure out scantron. So is there a better practical solution that will help the elderly/ disabled vote? I don't know. But scantron doesn't work well for them.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Amen to that by fredrated · 2004-11-02 12:04 · Score: 0

Like I told my mom, me and all my athiest buddies are praying this jerk is thrown out on his head

democratic county by CoolnessItself · 2004-11-02 12:08 · Score: 1

I live in Daytona (actually, Ormond Beach, part of the Greater Daytona Beach area), and for most elections this county (Volusia) swings left.

Re:democratic county by ifwm · 2004-11-03 01:32 · Score: 1

That's not true. I've lived here nearly 30 years, and the truth is that Volusia is split, with more people leaning Republican than Democrat. Just look at the 2000 results, and you'll see what I mean. Results are all over the place, but over all Republicans won a greater proportion of the offices.

Please use the word 'voucher' not 'reciept' by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 15:20 · Score: 0

The word reciept implies you take it home, you don't; the word voucher is different, it is something you turn in for it to be "redeemed", and if you don't turn in the voucher, it is worthless. This has the correct connotations.

Slashdot Mirror

Florida E-Voting Machine Fails

122 comments