Voting Machines Selecting Default Candidates

overThruster writes "Some voters in Las Vegas have noticed that Democrat Harry Reid's name is checked by default on their electronic voting machines. By way of explanation, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, has her name checked by default."

Comments

I abstain

[Robadob]

Surely there should be a box to abstain from voting (spoil your ballot), and this neutral should be checked by default.

Re:I abstain

[iluvcapra]

The problem with a no-confidence plebiscite is the resolution. Historically, when an election provides the option of returning no winner, like many parliaments have or once implemented, you'd end up with a situation where the body went months or years without a leader, and in the vacuum other institutions (like revolutionary parties) would take over -- eventually if you belong to the group with the most money or guns, it becomes in your interest to spoil the votes because you benefit from the chaos and can claim the body is "do-nothing."

The best way to protect the democratic institution of voting is ensure that it always returns an unambiguous result. If it isn't able to do this all the time, the institution itself will lose legitimacy.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

Err...exactly why is there a choice to vote in Spanish or English?

I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??

And you do have to be a citizen of the US in order to vote, don't you?

Re:I abstain

[Pojut]

Agreed.

I'm a very multi-lingual kind of guy...go most places in the world, and you'll see English plastered everywhere. Likewise, I think it's only fair to do the same thing with "alternate" languages that are common in this country.

That being said, there shouldn't need to be an "English" option when it comes to voting. you can (in theory, anyway) only vote if you are are a citizen or here legally. I can't imagine either case being true without being able to speak English well enough to vote.

Re:I abstain

[HungryHobo]

However you do not have to know english in order to be an american citizen.

Of course people who don't speak english don't deserve to get their vote counted if you listen to certain radio hosts.

Re:I abstain

[deathlyslow]

Unfortunately that only accounts for the dead ballots, with obvious errors or other issues. If there are preselected options and the voter either doesn't want to vote for either person and ignores that contest, it should not be a vote period for that particular contest. There should never preselected options. It should always be that just actual cast votes are counted, regardless of how many ballots are there. Nobody ever said I had to make a choice for every contest. Does that nullify my entire ballot, I would hope not.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is the United States not England, and in places where a large portion of the population doesn't speak the Queens language, it is better to provide instructions in languages that people might be more fluent in. This helps to make sure they can Vote properly. Just because you have enough proficiency to pass a citizenship exam, doesn't mean that you don't have trouble with a language. As a democracy we should be encouraging people to vote, not put up barriers to make voting a difficult chore for people.

Re:I abstain

[Enderandrew]

Many States have gone out of their way to allow illegal immigrants to vote.

Iowa allows you to register to vote the day of the elections, and the polling place without identification, and then provides ballots in Spanish.

What is stopping a felon or an illegal immigrant from voting? What is stopping you from going to every polling location and voting multiple times?

Minorities and illegal immigrants tend to slant to one side, so obviously that party wants votes in any way they can.

Re:I abstain

[Chapter80]

There's a HUGE difference between "being" an American citizen and "becoming" an American citizen through naturalization.

Simple example, both of my kids were American citizens at least a year before they were able to speak English. Same with almost every kid born in this country!

Re:I abstain

[Raistlin77]

If there was an option for "I confidently feel that none of these candidates are deserving of my vote", I'd show up every time.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

surely names are the same in any language.

Re:I abstain

[Defenestrar]

Maybe not speak (i.e. technically mute (You Insensitive Anonymous Clod)), but citizens should be able to read English (by braille if nothing else). The states are required to provide K-12 education (of which English is a required subject for all 13 years). The state is also required to provide education meeting the needs of any disadvantaged/disabled child which includes special ed, braille, sign language, full time dedicated teacher's aid, and while some of those require parents to go through the court system to force cash-strapped states into their legal obligations - there is almost never any controversy about the provision of English as a Second Language (ESL) accommodations. Typically it is also illegal to drop out of school before acquiring a sophomore level education (or home-school equivalent).

So no. There is no reason that a citizen (naturalized* or born-and-educated) should not be able to read the ballot in the de facto national language of this country. If a local jurisdiction elects (pun intended) to provide that alternate ballot languages as a service - that is their prerogative, but it should not be out of any sense of political correctness or necessity. Assuming a citizen can read English is not a statement with latent racism.

*I believe there are an extremely limited number of cases where a person may be naturalized while having the language requirement waived. They are probably along the lines of asylum-citizenship conversions (for international legal protection), extreme age, or unique disabilities. Each case would likely be able to bring a translator to the polls, or request a special ballot.

Re:I abstain

[malraid]

I'm sorry, but your comment is just ridiculous bigotry. I was born outside the US, and since my mother was a US citizen, I have US citizenship by birth. I did not become proficient in English until I moved to the US around the age of 13. So yeah, the test is required for naturalization, but that's not the only way to citizenship. And yes, those born here in the US have no requirement to learn English. Then there's those who can only speak one language (English), but can't really read or write. But that's beyond help.

Re:I abstain

[ultranova]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

Who is bringing up what laws where? BTW, I heard that some conservatives want to do something possibly bad somewhere. Prove me wrong.

In any case, anyone who can vote holds de facto citizenship. In a democracy, a citizen is someone who has power over the government. However, a democracy also requires almost all residents to have such power; almost all residents must be citizens, otherwise you'll soon get to the slippery slope of ever larger share of the populace being excluded from power, leading to a dictatorship.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"The one case that I can see non-English voting being valid: anchor-babies"

Hopefully someone will have the balls to change this law, or at least clarify the definition of it.

Isn't a challenge or two to this making its way through the court system right now?

I don't know of any other country that allows you to be ready to drop a kid out of the womb, and if you make it to home base in time, if the kid lands on your soil, it automatically becomes a citizen.

It shouldn't be that way here either...

Re:I abstain

[Americano]

If the people cannot agree on a leader to support, then it's time to dissolve the institution and start over.

I'm unable to fully articulate how uncomfortable this statement makes me.

It takes a peculiar sense of entitlement to say "If you all won't agree and give me a pre-made set of choices which match my desires perfectly, I'll take my ball and go home." If you want a candidate who agrees 100% with you - run for office. If you don't like the democratic or republican candidate - support a third party candidate that does agree with your views. Elections don't happen randomly, with no advanced notice. You have plenty of time to educate yourself, decide which candidates to support (or whether or not to run yourself). Refusing to participate, and then demanding that everybody else allow their government be dissolved to honor the fact that your wishes weren't met (even though you did nothing to go out and try and make them come true yourself) is a childish notion.

If you refuse to participate in the process at all other than to show up on election day and check a box on the ballot, don't expect to have a large voice in shaping the political landscape.

Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of, "The people get the rulers they deserve." He was right. Your options are:
1) Don't participate, and just grumble about the choices other people make;
2) Participate actively in shaping your political system & your society, secure in the knowledge that even if your guy loses, your rights are protected under the constitution, and you can continue trying to bring people around to your way of thinking;
3) Let your society collapse into a patchwork of warring tribal factions (See: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan), with power falling to the most ruthles.

Saying, "Right, Hatta wasn't happy with the results, let's do it all over again, and let's get some new candidates on stage this time," is a recipe for #3. Your wishes do not trump the wishes of millions of other people who did take the time to support candidates & go out and vote.

Re:I abstain

[Samalie]

You cannot assume that someone not showing up equals a vote against the system.

My wife will regularly not-vote in an election. It is not because she's disillusioned with the system...its that she just really doesn't give a fuck.

I do believe that there absolutely has to be an option of "All these assholes suck" on every ballot, and these votes should be counted against the rest of the votes. If the majority ov people who voted voted for "none of the above" - then basically the vote for that district should be thrown out & that district starts over.

But to assume that every no show = a vote for none of the above is pure fail.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

"Anchor baby" is a ridiculously loaded term, and one that shows ignorance of how immigration works in the US. A child born in the US to non-citizen parents must be 21 years old before he or she can act as a sponsor for the naturalization of the parents.

If people are doing what your use of the term suggests, it is an incredibly inefficient way to get legal residency.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

Who is bringing up what laws where? BTW, I heard that some conservatives want to do something possibly bad somewhere. Prove me wrong.

In any case, anyone who can vote holds de facto citizenship. In a democracy, a citizen is someone who has power over the government. However, a democracy also requires almost all residents to have such power; almost all residents must be citizens, otherwise you'll soon get to the slippery slope of ever larger share of the populace being excluded from power, leading to a dictatorship.

So you are saying women weren't Citizens of the United States until the 1920's?

Neither Suffrage nor Citizenship are granted in the US just for showing up. I've known citizen's of foreign nations who have resided in this country for decades, having not committed themselves to this country I see no reason to grant them a vote.

Re:I abstain

[cayenne8]

"I cannot believe there is a real requirement for English anymore - it would be divisive and against the overall policy of diversity. "

What policy of diversity are you talking about?

There is no diversity when it comes to being an American. Once a citizen, you are to assimilate into the big melting pot that is America, at least that's how it has been working till about the last few decades.

Sure, bring your cultural gifts and traditions...but make them part of the greater US culture.

Sure, you'll still be diverse in the things about you you cannot change...sex, race...etc. But when you become a US citizen, you really should cease to be a any other -ian. That's the point of becoming a US citizen. So, come here..learn the language, integrate into the society. If you want to stay German and speak only German...why bother coming to the US and going for citizenship? Same for coming from China, or Mexico or anywhere else? If you don't want to join and intergrate itno the larger American society, why fucking bother coming here and becoming a citizen.

If from wherever you came from was so great...why not stay there? Why try to change the US into YOUR country?

When I go to another country, I certainly don't expect to vote...and I don't expect them to make everything accessible in English. No, if I visit over there, I try to learn as much of the language as I can.

I've noticed that other countries don't bend over as backwards as we're trying to do of late...and I wonder why we are changing? I don't think they should...and I don't think WE should either.

Re:I abstain

[chris mazuc]

Where exactly did I mention anything that exuded racism??

Racism probably wasn't the word they were looking for. You made a statement that assumes anyone that doesn't speak English obviously wasn't from here, which is definitely not always the case.

Generally speaking, hard to imagine being born and raised in the US without knowing to speak English...is kind of needed to really succeed and operate in this country.

While it may be true that today almost all people born in the USA will learn English, there are still some older citizens that might have not ever bothered to learn because the largely self sufficient communities they live in don't primarily speak English.

It isn't racist to expect visitors to this country to follow the "when in Rome" type thinking, is it?

Isn't it reasonable to use the best understood language to communicate in? There happens to be a very large minority in this country that speaks Spanish as a primary language even if you find that distasteful. Even if they did speak English well enough to pass the citizenship exam, that doesn't mean that they aren't more comfortable with their native language. I think voting is an act that lends itself to having a complete understanding of the situation.

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"Who in their right mind would actually want to give power over the government to people who can't even be bothered to learn the language of their own nation?"

Where is it stated that English is the language of the USA? Last I knew about it USA hasn't an official language so English is a matter of social custom and, as such, open to change.

Re:I abstain

[Eivind Eklund]

A friend of mine has a US citizenship by virtue of being born there, but he was born of Norwegian parents (sailors) and more or less immediately returned to Norway. The US has not participated in his education in any way. Now, he does speak English (because learning that is mandatory here), but if his parents had been from another country, he could easily have avoided learning it.

Also, this guy, who has no particular ties to the US (I don't think he's ever visited) gets to vote and could run for president. Another friend who's lived in the US for 20 years can't vote for anything. This seems an unfortunate inconsistency.

Eivind.

How hard is it

[Anonymous Coward]

to have a default option "None of the above"?

They are probably afraid that at the end "None of the above" wins by landslide

Explanation?

[gstoddart]

How is:

By way of explanation???, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Reid's name is checked by default.

an explanation? Who cares what language you're using the voting machine in. A voting machine should never have default candidates -- it needs to be explicitly blank until the user makes a selection.

Re:Explanation?

[digitalhermit]

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence..."

The problem is likely some poor interface design. I've seen it used deliberately on some installers in order to sneakily add other products. It may follow a series of "Next" buttons that asks "Also install McAfee agent" or "Install Yahoo Toolbar"... In this case, the checkbox for the candidate may happen to be on the "Next" button of the previous screen.

Re:Explanation?

[xaxa]

The article talks about old people having this problem.

I expect if you're "firm" with the touchscreen you end up pressing a button on the following screen (selecting a candidate) while you still think you're pressing "English" (or "Spanish").

Easy solution 1: A "please wait" screen for a few seconds, which waits until nothing on the screen is being pressed
2: Not having any buttons "underneath" a button on the previous screen

Re:Explanation?

[khallow]

It is a simple UI issue combined with people being on auto pilot. Honestly not a huge issue because you should really check it before you hit next anyway but it should be fixed.

Now suppose you found out that the electronic ballot had been deliberately configured so that Reid's name would be under the finger when this error occurred? Would you still call it a simple UI issue?

My point here is that we should take even innocent mistakes seriously when significant things are at stake and it is easy to pass off fraud or other deception as an innocent mistake.

Re:Explanation?

[mark72005]

This.

It's a quality control issue with whatever Mickey Mouse company wrote this software.

The state board of elections also bears the accountability for this, in my opinion, for not thoroughly doing acceptance testing on the platform before rolling it out.

Software will always have defects. It's everyone's job to catch it.

Figures

[Archangel Michael]

Must be part of the republican conspiracy to steal elections.

Oh wait! Harry Reid is a (D)... so that is okay. Never mind. /sarcasm

(D) and (R) are both corrupt and beyond rehabilitation.

As for the problem: Why have a "default choice"? Sounds like just poor programming.

Re:Figures

[Mongoose Disciple]

Must be part of the republican conspiracy to steal elections.

Oh wait! Harry Reid is a (D)... so that is okay. Never mind. /sarcasm

Presumably more people in Nevada speak English than Spanish, so in that case you'd have been right the first time.

That being said, I think this issue is more about incompetence than conspiracy. Just like the candidates!

Abstaining creates fraud.

[AnonymousClown]

Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.

Whoa!

Sometimes, when I don't like any candidate for a particular office, I abstain and thinking, maybe naively, that it will be noticed in the count - 20,000 votes cast but only 19,999 for the office of [whatever] . Selecting someone by default goes against my choice and I would consider that to be fraud. Period.

My Favorite Line in the Article:

[RobotRunAmok]

(Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry) Lomax said voters need to have faith in the system.

Pure gold!

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[SatanicPuppy]

The real irony of it is that the system the Nevada Gaming Board has for checking slot machines, is the exact same system I'd like to see for electronic voting machines.

You can see which one they value.

Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whichever head you vote for it's still the same hydra...

Too sensitive touch screen: Troll of a summary!

[czmax]

From TFA: "Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they choose their candidate."

It is interesting how the options work out; but the real issue here is a lousy hardware/software implementation. I wonder if any individual can control the layout well enough to purposefully take advantage of this. (Obviously the original submission implies such: but I doubt they were thinking about it vs just being a troll).

Not a default candidate it is a quick screen updat

[gurps_npc]

They did not build in a default candidate on purpose.

What happens is that when you touch the screen to select "English" as your language, it immediately goes to the next screen where you select your candidate. But the old button that said "English" is very close to where the new button that votes for candidates appears.

So if you are slow to remove your finger from the "English" button, your finger is already on the 'vote for candidate button', resulting in what the slow voter thinks is a default vote.

This is:

1. A bad GUI design. Grade D- in my opinion for putting the touch buttons so close and keeping the touch time too short/sensitive.

2. A bad tester, if they did any. Grade F. I mean really, was this that hard to catch?

3. Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago. Can't we get competent people to design these things?

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[AnonymousClown]

They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen. In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.

That's just what they want you to think! When rigging elections, do you honestly think that there's a code block that started with:

"/* Begin election rigging code here */"

They want it to look like it's just a "coding error" in case they get caught and then they can say "Oppsie! Our bad!".

Re:FOX?

[ArcherB]

Really..? FOX News shouldn't be used as a reference for any intelligent news stories..

This was the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. The two are not necessarily related. For example, do you think that people as right wing as you think FoxNews is would play Family Guy, American Dad the Simpsons and even Married with Children?

Oh nevermind. Facts will not persuade you.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[mikvo]

Actually, even from reading the summary I assumed it was a coding error. Isn't that exactly the point, though? If this kind of trivial error gets through testing so easily, how can we have any confidence that more significant and impactful errors aren't slipping through?

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[ArcherB]

Okay Slashdot please stop using the FOX News and the Daily Workers guide to ethical journalism when writing the summaries!

This is the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. These are two entirely different entities.

Re:Typo

[m509272]

No, they mean Sharron Reid. It's so if you're not paying total attention you see Sharron and think it's Sharron Angle. This way the vote will be for neither Harry Reid or Sharron Angle (where it obviously would mean more). Just kidding.....

The more interesting question, what if you don't want to vote for anyone (which should be the default)? Is there no option for that? Don't have time to read thru this whole thread.

Re:Article Typo...

[JamesP]

Hey, you're right. But you don't need to be so obtuse, with such an acute error...

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[metrometro]

> Can't we get competent people to design these things?

That depends. Does your community pass every tax cut referendum on the local ballot? If so, then no, you can't get competent people to design these things.

Maybe Mozilla can build us a fucking ballot box.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[91degrees]

This is a non story.

Wouldn't say that exactly. Nevada using buggy voting machines that are prejudced towards a candidate is pretty bad. Suggestions of deliberate fraud are a little sensationalist though.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[Hatta]

They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.

That's not the only thing wrong here. A properly designed electronic voting machine will randomize the names of the candidates to avoid giving any one of them an advantage from being on the top of the list. If this voting machine had done this, the double picking errors would be random and not affect the result of the election. That the names are not randomized is a much, much bigger flaw in this voting machine than the double picking bug described here.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[zotz]

"Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again.
They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.
This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen."

Perhaps, but it is a coding error in a production system of some importance right? Should this have not been dealt with before going live? To me, this sort of error would invalidate an election. Not a good thing.

all the best,

drew

Re:Not a default candidate it is a quick screen up

[TheGratefulNet]

Can't we get competent people to design these things?

welcome to the new economy, mate. its not about getting things right, its about getting it down the cheapest way possible. hiring people who are too inexperienced to know better (hint: younger ones are cheaper. overseas ones, cheaper yet).

we get what we pay for. when we disrespect our own working force, we all lose.

Re:Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

Interesting idea but I wouldn't say that is a design flaw.

Paper ballots are not randomized and in my state they send out copies of the ballot so you can study them and see who is running.

Suppose I did study the ballot sent to me and then I am presented with one that doesn't match?
I am allowed to take may study ballot in with me and for some people a randomized ballot could be more confusing.
A non-randomized ballot is no worse then a traditional paper ballot.

It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Geoffrey.landis]

I am an election judge, I would be happy to provide the number of spoiled ballots.

In my last election, there were 3.

I will define any ballot for which there was a DEFAULT VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE BEFORE THE VOTER EVEN TOUCHED THE BALLOT as a spoiled ballot.

So, according to TFA, all the ballots in this Nevada election are spoiled.

The other case was where there were multiple candidates for 1 race (more than 2 candidates) and the voter chose more than one.

This is a flaw in the system: there is no reason that the ballot should be discarded in that case. Let them vote for all the candidates, if they want to.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[capnkr]

Hahahahh lol lol lol.... yer killin me...

Oh - you are *serious*???

What's wrong, is that you don't see anything wrong with people who are *not* bona fide US Citizens having a vote in a US election.

How about I get a vote on the board at your company which determines when, if, and how much of a raise you should get? Or a vote at your HOA/POA meetings, when it comes time to determine how to spend the money you pay into the collective account? Or we could just cut out the meetings and voting, and I get to say how you can or can't spend your money. Yep, that's fair, isn't it? Makes a whole lot of sense, right?

No, it doesn't. At all. And *that* is 'whats wrong' with it. HTH.

Why is it

[brillow]

That when it comes to electronic voting technology, incompetence seems to be the rule? Poor UI design, failure to properly user-test, poor or no encryption, lack of audit trails, etc. Why are we/they so bad at this? I understand the malice vs incompetence argument, though I find it overly optimistic in many cases, but these scenarios lead me to believe its malice disguised as incompetence.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[Cederic]

when it comes time to determine how to spend the money you pay into the collective account? Or we could just cut out the meetings and voting, and I get to say how you can or can't spend your money.

I believe there's an example of that - called taxation. If I'm living in your town paying taxes, too fucking right I want to vote on how the town's run.

Or you don't see anything wrong with taking peoples money through threat of force and giving them fuck all in return?

(That's a rhetorical question; you're American)

Re:*Citation Needed*

[spazdor]

Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!

Re:*Citation Needed*

[shutdown -p now]

Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections

I'd just like to point out that one of the core founding ideas of your nation was "no taxation without representation".