Slashdot Mirror
WV Voters Say Machines Are Switching Votes
An anonymous reader writes "Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week.
This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for 'Barack Obama' kept flipping to 'John McCain.'"
These machines are not "switching votes". They're just not.
If the machines were "switching votes", they'd do it internally and secretly, and not make it look like they're putting checkmarks next to the wrong boxes. Especially since the voter isn't able to view a paper receipt.
If I had to guess, the way the ballot is organized in terms of candidate ordering probably makes it easy or possible to look like you're pressing the right area, but the boxes and/or your perception of the boxes' location isn't perfectly aligned with the touch sensing elements. Because people are so sensitive to this issue, any errant touch among thousands of voters accidentally getting the wrong box VISIBLY checked, AND able to be corrected, is going to be interpreted as malice instead of (user) error. "When asked if she is sure she touched the box for Rockefeller, she said, 'I'm absolutely positive.'" Yeah, just like a lot of users are "absolutely positive" that they did the right thing. No, they THINK they did the right thing. That's the only thing they are "absolutely positive" of.
Since so many people want to believe that the electronic voting machines are rigged to make Republicans win elections[1], so I'm sure people will choose to believe that this is due to a GOP conspiracy instead of simple errors. (And yes, it could still be an error, due to the way the screens are physically set up, even if the reported errors are "always" Republican. Does that mean it's not an issue that should be addressed, even if it is only a genuine design/setup error? No. But if you can touch the screen a little more carefully and get the checkmark beside the right name, that is what matters. Who hasn't ever had a touchscreen ATM or a touchscreen POS station not register a touch as something unintended? You don't think the ATM is trying to rip you off when it picks "Savings" when you meant "Checking". You just hit cancel and do it again.)
Remember, too, that in many jurisdictions in which we have electronic voting machines, they're there as a direct result of Democratic-sponsored legislation, like HAVA, in response to the voting difficulties with antiquated machines in Florida in 2000. The problem? Everyone assumed that modern technology was just great and overlooked a mandatory requirement for a paper trail. Of course, now ALL e-voting vendors have voter-verifiable paper trail capability as options, but many municipalities didn't want to spend the extra money to deploy since it wasn't required by law.
Also, "In Putnam County, early voters have the option of asking for either touch-screen machines or optical scan ballots -- paper ballots on which people mark in their election choices." And when people are using the machine, "The main thing people need to remember is that when you are done voting, make sure everybody you wanted to vote for has a check mark beside them." Just because you touch once and it registers wrong doesn't imply that it can't be corrected. Has no one ever used a backspace key on a computer before? Or an eraser on a pencil, for that matter?
Bottom line? Since this clearly is causing so much fear and doubt[2], we should go back to a simple, auditable paper solution, if only so conspiracy theorists can STFU and stop thinking every election where their preferred candidate doesn't win is "stolen".
[1] Have to put in the disclaimer. Very aware of the famous quote about "delivering the election to George Bush" by Diebold's CEO. It was in his capacity as a Republic business leader, but still a very, very, very poor showing on his part, and ridiculous appearance of a conflict of interest, even if none actually exists in reality.
[2] And it's actually not causing a level of problems that are probably any worse than error in paper or any other voting. But the perception is that it is a huge problem, and subverting democracy, and that is reason enough to change.
BlackBoxVoting has been doing some really thorough coverage on these occurrences and I would like to point out that in North Carolina & Tennessee, people are complaining about votes flipping from McCain to Obama. Some are saying this is a serious issue and not just isolated incidents of entropy.
I'm confused as to why the people voting weren't given access to an on site authority or technician that could verify this was occurring. I guess it's also possible this is something that will only happen once rarely but enough to do damage. It could also be attention seeking or insurance to claim fraud if the other side wins.
My work here is dung.
You can't secure them. Anybody with an ounce of sense about computer security knows this. Plus, there is no way to verify whether they are programmed to do what they should.
And we argue over whether to have paper trails?
What's wrong with a machine that tries to assist the politically challenged by selecting the right candidate?
And yes, it could still be an error, due to the way the screens are physically set up, even if the reported errors are "always" Republican.
What I mean by this is in this particular instance, not in general. There are reports of votes "flipping" both ways. But if there is something happening in one jurisdiction in one state, and it's always the same problem, and the same order is on every ballot, then it's no surprise that the manifestation of the problem is the same.
These machines aren't very smart. They need to change their votes to Cthulhu if they want to live.
UI design is an important consideration. Suppose you wanted to make a machine biased toward one candidate, without having anything obviously incriminating in the code. You could do something as simple as arrange the options so that parallax effects like you suggest make it easy to press the wrong portion of the screen. If the effects make people press high on average, and you put the candidate you wanted to favor at the top of the list, then pressing high on your candidate registers no check box, and people just press again. But, sometimes they'll press on the other candidate, get the one you wanted, and give up before figuring it out.
Ballot design needs to be fair, for all the same reasons the code needs to be correct. Badly designed ballots are probably just that -- bad design by someone who didn't know better. But, with something as important as an election, it's not ok to have badly designed ballots, and it's not ok to let people who don't know better design them. Design sufficiently bad that it shows meaningful bias should be treated as criminal election fraud, whether it was intentional or not -- there's simply no reason not to have that level of accountability.
I think Obama understands that a level playing field is about the common good and John McCain really needs a leg up. And Sen McCain should not feel ashamed because this is not charity.
This is an early example of new hope.
Have to put in the disclaimer. Very aware of the famous quote about "delivering the election to George Bush" by Diebold's CEO. It was in his capacity as a Republic business leader, but still a very, very, very poor showing on his part, and ridiculous appearance of a conflict of interest, even if none actually exists in reality.
I just want to point out that the conflict of interest does exist in this case. It doesn't matter how honorable the guy is. Conflict of interest is a matter of position, not character. He could be the most honorable guy in the world and never let his CEO position conflict with his Republican position, but the conflict of interest is still there.
As a practical matter, nobody is 100% honorable, and somebody who's in charge of building voting machines should not be politically active.
More importantly, we should switch to a form of voting in which a single company is not in a position to completely screw up the entire election.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Err... and then what?
It's not like you could use that photocopy to later on to check whether or not someone flipped your vote...
John McCain's own polling gives him hope, an aide says
When John McCain insisted, during his appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," that he was doing "just fine" in a presidential race in which the polls have shown Barack Obama with a steady lead over the last few weeks, many may have dismissed the comment as just something that a candidate has to say.
Not so, said a campaign official who spoke on background with The Times' Bob Drogin. The aide said the campaign's internal polling showed McCain down only 4 percentage points nationally -- a sharp improvement from a week ago -- and closing fast.
State-by-state, the private polling also showed McCain up 1 point in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, and behind by only 3 points in Virginia (a new Washington Post survey found him down 8 there).
McCain almost assuredly needs to capture all five states to win the presidency. And even that may not be enough if he fails to win Pennsylvania, one of his campaign stops today. Without Pennsylvania, McCain needs to pull more electoral votes out of some combination of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico or Iowa -- all states where, as of now, the internal numbers look bleak.
The anonymous McCain official argued a comeback remains doable. "Check with me Wednesday," the aide said. "If we're still within the margin of error (in polling), we're going to win."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/john-mccains-ow.html
Just like the last two times.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
What's with this hypothetical language ("would" and "if")? It's already happened -- hanging chads are caused by bad UI too!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So, really, it isn't a UI design issue; it's a voting machine response time/feedback issue, IMO.
How is response time/feedback not a UI issue?
As someone who lives in Canada (and having just gone through a federal election), I just cannot understand why it's impossible to have a paper ballot, with a big circle, that one makes a mark (check, X, whatever) in the circle for your candidate of choice with a pencil and then have people count the ballots at the end. Canada manages to do it every time we have an election and it seems to work out just fine. And, with a paper trail, we can easily recount, if needed. Yes, America has ten times the population but it probably has ten times the election volunteers as well so there's really no difference. I just don't understand why a good paper ballot is so hard to accept...
UI design, while it CAN and SHOULD take into account the amount of system resources it is using, cannot accurately predict the power of the machines that will be running it.
Given that this UI is running on custom hardware designed specifically for this use, isn't your argument moot? They not only could accurately predict the hardware, they also designed the hardware and tested both together.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I live in WV. The local news showed the ballots and exactly how this could happen and it was entirely feasible that it was user error due to bad software design.
The UI is poorly designed. McCain's name appears above Obama's. The bottom border of McCain's box touches the upper border of Obama's box. When looking down at the device it looks like you are selecting Obama when your finger is actually on McCain.
This effect can be compounded by initially touching the box with the tip of your finger and then rolling down so your fingerprint area is fully on Obama's name, but you initially touched the bottom of McCain's box. In this case your finger will fully be within Obama's box but McCain will remain selected.
However the people doing the voting should be double checking their vote on the screen and the paper receipt that scrolls up next to the screen as you vote.
Bottom line is, bad design, untrained user.
I'd like to see Barack Obama ridiculing these 50 million voters' computer (il)literacy, the way he ridiculed John McCain. Wouldn't that be sure vote-winner, uhm?
Those 50 million other Americans who may or may not need to use a computer in their daily lives shouldn't be ridiculed. A person running for the highest office in the land, who is expected to adapt and change as the world does, should be.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
If the user intends to vote one way and the machine interface is so designed that it does not allow an easy, intuitive reflection of this intention in the vote that is cast, the machine is at fault. We technologists sometimes feel frustration when non-technology oriented people don't see clearly what we see as intuitieve. But this is voting, for God's sake. WE MUST MAKE IT EASY for anyone or we have failed, and shoudl go back to easy-to-use paper ballots.
One of the basics of UI design is that if the intended users can't use it, you got the UI wrong. Simple as that.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Poor interface design isn't the issue. People who are computer illiterate expect computers to respond just like mechanical systems (e.g.: push the button and it instantly responds) and when things don't instantly provide tactile/audible/visual feedback that it "clicked" they will start spamming the button repeatedly.
Look son, I'm a computer professional, and I would do just that: spam the damn fucking thing until it fucking breaks. Because, btw, that's how I treat my own software.
And think for a second. On one hand, you have ONE piece of machinery; and on the other you have MILLIONS of user.
Which is it: millions of user who happen to be stupid enough and get it wrong all at the same time; OR one piece of poorly designed crapware? There's plenty of crap software out there, why shouldn't this be one of them?
Let's transpose the situation. Imagine there was a car which was involved in twice as many accidents as other similar cars. Would you say that this particular type of car's drivers just happen to be clumsy?
Think about that for a second. And stop blaming the victim. Making good software is hard. But the makers of those P.O.S. are payed handsomely for the detritus they produce, and they're no better than good ole' pen and paper, and in fact probably worse.
There are more than 2 people running for the office of President.
No, it's a design error to assume voting machine users will understand the same conventions as normal computer users. There any many people in the US who don't regularly interact with computers. The systems must be designed with the idea that, for many users, this will be one of their first experiences with a computer.
Or disqualify McCain for the inability to use a computer.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_mccain_unable_to_use_a_computer.html
Forbes, May 2000: His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.
There's a very simple, important difference. When an ATM makes an error, it can be reliably detected and corrected in nearly all cases. This is because the ATM (and electronic money transfer systems, in general) keep a detailed record of which accounts were debited and credited for each transaction, and this record can be reconciled with others: e.g., the customers' own checkbooks, online merchants' records, records of how much cash was in the ATM at any point in time, etc. When the relevant parties conclude a certain transaction was recorded incorrectly, it can be rolled back or revised.
When a voting machine makes an error, it's at best a toss-up as to whether it can be detected. No paper trails mean that, in many cases, the error can never be detected. Paper trails help A LOT in this case, but are not a panacea: you can imagine a case where, because of fraud, the electronic tabulation gives candidate A a clear win, and nobody bothers to perform a paper recount that would prove candidate B actually won.
And if you do detect an anomaly in the vote, forget about ever correcting it.
Are you adequate?
I see. Therefore, we should disqualify Obama as Commander in Chief as well because he never served in the military.
Until you realize the founding fathers specifically and purposely made the chief of the military a CIVILIAN POSITION. They did not want military service to be a prerequisite for the presidency.
(Yes, I'm sure you're going to point out that Washington had been a general. But move on to Adams, Jefferson and Madison and you'll find no military service in their resumes.)
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
I just don't understand why a good paper ballot is so hard to accept...
It's because elections are so much harder to steal if you have a "good paper ballot".
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel actually owned the company that controlled the elctronic voting in the election that he won, in a stunning upset, in every demographic, including many black communities that had never voted Republican before. Nebraska hadn't voted for a Republican for Senate in 24 years.
In Georgia, Democratic Senator Max Cleland (who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam, after he jumped on a grenade to save his fellow troops), was defeated by a Republican that alleged that Cleland was not patriotic enough. Even after the polls indicated that the voters did not actually believe this, the Diebold machines announced the Republican the winner. Surprise! And in another surprise, while the polls indicated that Democractic Governor Roy Barnes was winning, the Diebold machies announced that he lost as well to his Republican challenger. A whistleblower revealed that secret patches were applied to the machines late in the race, violating state law.
Here are other instances of Republicans winning through voting machine irregularities.
I see. Therefore, we should disqualify Obama as Commander in Chief as well because he never served in the military.
You failed to show a logical connection. Obama didn't say McCain was UNQUALIFIED to be POTUS due to his computer illiteracy, he said McCain was out of touch, and had a serious lack of understanding of the issues in the modern world, in addition that ad linked the lack of understanding of technology to lack of comprehension of economic issues, and McCain admitted lack of understanding of both to prove that McCain has no personal understanding of the issues important to America.
Using a similar comparison, Obama's lack of military service would make him out of touch with the rest of America since Military service = Computer literacy, or, percentage of Amercans serving in the military is similar percentage of Americans who are computer literate.
Whew, I'm glad you cleared that up for us....
Seriously, though, Computer literacy touches everyone in the US, the Military is important, but it doesn't touch ALL aspects of what the President has to deal with. So Military service != Computer literacy, particularly in terms of whether the candidate is capable of understanding what is going on with the average American.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Why? That didn't disqualify George W. Bush, did it?
You are welcome on my lawn.