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

[Hatta]

Really, all voters should be presumed to cast a "none of the above" ballot unless they specifically vote otherwise. Yes, even those who abstain by not showing up. Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself, which is a very important statement and deserves to be counted.

If the majority of the population doesn't even show up to vote, that is a de facto vote against the system. Nobody can claim a mandate to govern under such circumstances. Any government elected under such circumstances cannot be considered legitimate.

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

[Anrego]

I'm Canadian, so maybe the political situation is completely different "down there", but I think you are reading a little too much into people not showing up to vote.

Sure some people are making a statement by not voting, but I think most who do not vote are either lazy (probably the majority) or don't feel they have enough understanding to make a serious choice.

And personally, I would actually rather have a relatively small turn out of voters making a choice based on their beliefs, than a huge crowd of people just randomly picking a candidate because everyone is telling them they must vote. Voting isn't the important part.. keeping yourself aware of the politics of your country is!

I do like the idea of specifically counting people who say "I don't think any of these are good" and maybe even a "I don't feel confident to make a choice". Would be an interesting number to see.

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

[bonkeydcow]

I am an election judge, I would be happy to provide the number of spoiled ballots. In my last election, there were 3. They were the results of either stray marks where the voter rested their pen in a box before checking a different box, and the machine wasn't sure which they meant, so they got a new ballot. The other case was where there were multiple candidates for 1 race (more than 2 candidates) and the voter chose more than one. If you would like I will post again next week with the spoiled ballot count for this election. We have to keep track of every single ballot, so knowing the number of spoiled ballots is trivial.

Re:I abstain

[molo]

A person can be born in the US and raised and educated speaking a non-english language.

BTW, in some jurisdictions, you can register to vote in local elections just by being a resident. I'm not sure if Nevada has any jurisdictions like that however.

-molo

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

[snkline]

The US does not have an official language at the Federal level. If a state only wants to issue ballots in English, I believe they can, but they are also allowed to issue them in other languages if they want to. If Nevada wanted to they could provide you with options for every single written language in the world.

Re:I abstain

[bsDaemon]

There is no "citizen or here legally option." It is if and only if you are a citizen. Voting rights are pretty much the definition of citizenship.

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

[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

[Rob the Bold]

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.

I think Woodrow Wilson is standing outside your window right now, getting ready to force you to learn Spanish.

Re:I abstain

[dlenmn]

For better or worse, if you are a natural born citizen then that requirement doesn't exist.

Re:I abstain

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... actually, it is a requirement, at least if someone is not currently an American citizen but wants to become one. Per Wikipedia, under "Eligibility for Naturalization", they "must have a working knowledge of the English language". It does note some exemptions for older applicants and those with disabilities.

For immigrants to vote, they must be Citizens. To become one if they aren't already, they need to understand English. Not at a graduate level, perhaps, but they need to know some of it.

And if they do not know English, nor are Citizens, then we have a bigger problem with them being in the voting booth.

Re:I abstain

[TheEyes]

I don't know about Iowa, but in California you can only cast a provisional ballot; your vote doesn't get counted until your registration checks out (which usually means the electin is decided before they get around to counting your vote.)

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

[glueball]

[citation]
http://www.kansas.com/2010/10/24/1555918/portland-may-let-noncitizens-vote.html

"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, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it."

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

[MightyYar]

The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally.

If you heard this secondhand, then you need to check out your sources before spouting off.

There is one city - not state - putting this up for vote: Portland, Maine. And it only applies to the local elections. Other cities and states do this, and have in fits and starts over the last 150 years or so.

It is a GOOD thing for the residents of a city to be involved in local politics. Let localities decide who is an is not a "citizen" of their region. That's not "progressives" - that's good old-fashioned individual liberty tea-party style talk.

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

[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

[DavidTC]

Actually, it is 'progressive'. A major aim of the Progressive Era was election reform. Without that, there'd be no recall or ballot initiative laws, and party bosses would still pick candidates instead of having primaries, and, of course, the seventeenth amendment directly electing Senators and the nineteenth allow women to vote.

While I can't think of any specific 'let non-citizens vote' concept (I suspect the Progressives would actually push for immigration reform instead.), it's not incredibly off-kilter from the rest of the stuff. I mean, they demanded letting all citizens vote. (People tend to get confused. Women were always citizens. It's just there's no requirement that all citizens be allowed to vote.)

Re:I abstain

[Grishnakh]

Not really. They live in their own, separate nations, and are able to do things however they want. They're not even subject to the laws of the States that their reservations happen to lie within; they only answer to the Federal government, and deal with them on a treaty basis through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

For instance, here in Arizona, state law is that you can own a gun, and as of recently, you can carry it concealed with you just about wherever you want without a permit. However, if you cross over into an Indian Reservation (easy to do since they're everywhere, with many of them bordering the Phoenix metro area), suddenly those laws are null and void, and you can be thrown in jail for possessing a firearm, something that's illegal on reservations. There's even a bunch of weird exceptions, because many public roads cross through reservations, so just having a gun with you as you're driving could get you in trouble when you cross into a Res, but usually they have agreements with the State government called "safe passage", so if you're only passing through and not stopping you're OK, but don't stop for gas or anything because you could get in trouble then.

However, in my observation, the Natives are much more pragmatic and realistic than many immigrants from the South; even though they'd be entirely within their rights to only use their native languages, they all know and use English because it makes it much easier for them to work with and interact with everyone around them (esp. when they set up big fancy casinos).

Re:I abstain

[turbidostato]

"So how would one indicate a lack of confidence in the system, as opposed to the specific candidates? Abstaining is not simply a way of expressing apathy; it can also indicate that one finds the office itself illegitimate."

That's not the problem. The real problem is that under a representative democracy (or republic) you ended up putting the fox to take care of the hens in this issue.

Solution (to your proposed problem): allow for a blank (or "no one of the above") vote. I don't know for the USA but a ton of countries allow for that option.

Why it doesn't work? Because your representatives don't want to lose the power your vote -or your no-vote give to them. That's why while a lot of countries allow for a blank vote, no one -that I know of, allow for those blank votes to hold representatives (as empty chairs in the representatives office). Politicians live quite a sweet life knowing that the more disconnected they are from the citizens they say to represent the easier for them to go after their own bussiness.

I wouldn't support dismantling government for too a high percentage of blank votes since that would lead to anarchy (see Irak or many African countries to see why anarchy is bad) but I certainly would favour for government going progressively into autopilot by means of blank votes leading to empty chairs.

In Spain for instance (and I presume it's more or less the same in USA) you need different majority levels for different kind of laws (like 2/3 in order to be able to ammend the Constitution, absolute majority for national budgets, simple majority for other laws...). Taking into account blank votes, then, first you wouldn't be able to ammend the Constitution, after that you wouldn't be able to pass yearly budgets (so you automatically would work on last years budget), then you wouldn't be able to pass any law: you would be forced just to be sit down and quiet in the Congress. Which can only make sense: if you didn't earn people's support you aren't entitled to govern the country -the less support you earned, the less important the changes you are allowed to introduce.

That's easy to acomplish and it would have the immediate effect that politicians would be *very* interested on gaining the attention and support of citizenship which would only be good for democracy. It's only that those in charge to pass such a law are the most interested on such a law never to be aproved.

Re:I abstain

[houghi]

In Belgium there is an obligation to vote. As we have a multi-party system, the situation is also different then in the US. People are so fed up will all the silliness, many vote at random. This paralyzes politics.

Re:I abstain

[pthisis]

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).

English is not a required subject in all jurisdictions. Whether to make it so or not is up to the state or local government, and there are often strong political reasons not to--for instance, while the overwhelming majority of Navajo speak English there is still a minority who do not. There's no political will to impose English on the remaining population.

As a practical matter (regardless of the actual law), many areas of the US that are not natively English speaking do not provide significant English-language instructions (e.g. parts of French-speaking Maine and Louisiana, German-speaking Pennsylvania, native-speaking Alaska, Chamorro-speaking Guam, Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico--and, of course, various other Native American communities).

In some of those (e.g. parts of German-speaking Pennsylvania) religious freedom issues would seem to legally trump government education requirements, in addition to the de facto reality.

Re:I abstain

[Omestes]

How is it dehumanizing? Yes, a bit harsh and sarcastic, but it doesn't seem really dehumanizing. He could have phrased it all a bit better, but I don't really see anything inaccurate or particularly vile about it. The truth of the matter is that it is a stupid law that made sense at the time but makes none now.

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution were in favor of today's "anchor babies". Or would be.

Re:I abstain

[eldepeche]

Well, for starters, non-citizens who give birth don't run 20 feet across the border and shit out a baby in the dirt; they tend to be living here, and they go to the hospital or midwife, just like everybody else.

The drafters of the Constitution protected the right of a white man to own a black man, so I'm not going to ask them what they think. The 14th amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US because Southern states used all kinds of nit-picky tests to deny black people citizenship.

And how many children do you think are born to non-citizens in the US? Does it have a significant effect on immigration, illegal or otherwise?

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.

Article Typo...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Reid's opponent is Sharron Angle, not Sharron Reid.

Typo

[ByOhTek]

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."

Did they mean Sharron Angle?

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.

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?

[Gravitron 5000]

The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.

Re:Explanation?

[LWATCDR]

Well if you read the link and not Slashdot's terrible, slanted, and sensationalist summary you will see that wasn't said.
The problem is a simple UI issue.
From reading the article it seems that they implemented the select language touch as select on touch begin and not select on touch end.
So if you hold your finger down long enough the next screen pops up and your finger will be on one of the candidates.
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.

Not evil or a conspiracy or anything but a UI error that really isn't that terrible if people bother to read. And yes it is so the type of UI problem that I would expect in any program like this.

Re:Explanation?

[commodore64_love]

>>>shitty embedded UI programming,

The geek's definition of government.
I think we should go back to paper scantrons. They can be counted twice - once by machine, and again by hand, for verification. Also it's hard to rig an election when you have several thousand pounds of paper laying around.

Re:Explanation?

[ArcherB]

The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.

I saw nothing in the article that says all of these voters selected Spanish as their language. The only close I saw was the explanation given by the poll worker.

"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."

All these people selected "Spanish"?

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.

Re:Explanation?

[formfeed]

Not evil or a conspiracy or anything but a UI error that really isn't that terrible

If incompetence and sloppy design work in your favor it is exactly that: "evil or a conspiracy".
That's how most gender or minority discrimination usually works. Incompetence and a attitude of not-thinking/ not-caring is what protects the status quo. I've seen it in job applications - and also your defense "just a mistake".

Re:Explanation?

[T.E.D.]

Further suppose that the company that makes the voting machines happens to have Nevada roots...

Also note that if you read the story, it is the Republican you get if you hold down on English too long. Presumably even in Nevada that is the more likely scenario. Nice deal when you can have a bug in your favor and complain about it too...

Re:Explanation?

[virtualXTC]

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

.... Never (and always) are strong superlatives that one would be wise to avoid.

Re:Sharron Reid, eh?

[rock_climbing_guy]

Please spare me the horror.

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.

Re:Abstaining creates fraud.

[Alsee]

The article was lousy. There was no "default" candidate being set. It correctly starts out as a blank ballot. The issue is that if your finger is still lying on the touch screen when the ballot comes up it will instantly trigger whatever candidate your finger happens to be touching. It happens so fast that the voter never saw the blank ballot. It looks as if the candidate came up pre-selected. You can change that mistaken selection before casting the ballot.

There is no fraud, nothing remotely resembling fraud. They definitely do need to clean up that touchscreen user interface. Confusing or unexpected behavior on a voting machine is a Very Bad Thing. Voting machine programmers must make extra special efforts to deal with potentially sloppy input from inexperienced users.

-

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.

Re:My Favorite Line in the Article:

[necro81]

An important difference with the FDIC, however, is their track record. Since going into effect during the great depression, no depositor in a failed bank has ever lost money (within the FDIC limit). And if the FDIC ever didn't have enough funds to cover depositors, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would believe that the US Treasury wouldn't step in and provide the necessary funds.

It is not unreasonable to have faith in a system that has demonstrated it is worthy of trust. Electronic voting, so far, hasn't earned anyone's trust. On the contrary, it seems the more anyone hears about it, the less faith they have in that system.

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!

Holy crooked election Batman!

[LWATCDR]

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.
In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.

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

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: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: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: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.

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:Why do we need Spanish?

[allawalla]

English proficiency is not required for citizenship, only that you pass a test, or were born here. There is no federal requirement that those born in the US speak english.

Ob. Homer!

[DarthVain]

DEFAULT! DEFAULT! DEFAULT!

Scientist: [resigned] Well, Homer, I guess you're the winner by default.

Homer: Default? Woo hoo! The two sweetest words in the English language: de-fault! De-fault! De-fault!

                        [assistant clubs him]

Re:Figures

[Sique]

What happened to an empty ballot and a pen to mark the choosen candidate?

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.

Always choose "default"

[PolygamousRanchKid]

When installing software, always choose "default (recommended)." This policy also applies to voting.

CNN is about to have a special about "default" candidates . . .

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:Fuck Electronic Voting Machines

[Attila Dimedici]

Seriously. If Democrats are pulling this and Republicans are renaming candidates "Rich Whitey" with this bald faced implausible deniability imagine what dirty tricks they are pulling behind closed source code. It's a fucking travesty.

You do know that the incident you are referring to occured in Illinois? And that the overwhelmng majority of Illinois elected officials are Democrats? In particular, the state board of elections is dominated by Democrats.

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:Figures

[geekoid]

There is no default choice. The selection screen is right after the language screen. If you press English and linger too long, it also selects what ever is at the position when the next screen shows up.

This is a 'young tester' type of bug. Any tester whose is comfortable and used to the type of technology won't see it. As soon as an old person whose finger lingers, it shows up.

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.

*Citation Needed*

[dlenmn]

The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally.

*Citation Needed*

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.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[FeepingCreature]

That has to be the first time I've seen the Chewbacca defense actually used.

Re:*Citation Needed*

[eldepeche]

You're talking about local elections, though. Why not let everyone who lives in your town help choose the city council members?

Re:*Citation Needed*

[pixelpusher220]

well for starters it isn't a 'US' election, it's local. If anything this is libertarianism at its best, not liberal.

A local community deciding it's own rules. Isn't that what the Tea Party/GOP has been spouting off about for years?

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".

Lol, you are joking right?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Fox is right wing, but not all of it is as insane as Beck. With the simpsons, they can show they got a humor but also make Homer into a kinda reverse hero. Left wingers might see him as an idiot and an example of everything that is wrong with people who vote against healthcare until they need it but he ALSO survives all his mistakes. He never dies in the unsafe work environment and has his widow screwed out of compensation. He hasn't undergone forced sterilization and this is NEVER ever mentioned despite this really have happened in nuclear facilities in the US.

Somehow despite all the jokes, the stabs and parodies, the right-wing dumb guy wins through. Same with all the other shows.

"You might be a redneck if..." how many rednecks proudly proclaim to be a redneck? It is not degrading when beat yourself on the chest. Homer is not a pititful figure to many, but a hero. It is a very good bit of propoganda. Remember that Goebels most beloved movie had a Jew as the hero. Propoganda is best when it doesn't label it on.

Perhaps this is impossible to see for an American. You might be so entrenched in the American way of life that you can't see just how much these shows celebrate this. Its battle cry is NOT "We are the best and everything is perfect" but "Things might suck, but we are still the best". It works. It takes the wind out of everyone who might dare to question the status quo.

No, if you think these shows are somehow left-wing, you got a very distorded view of the left. But what do you expect from someone who watches so many cartoons :P

you don't always have to be a citizen to vote

[cwgmpls]

Voting requirements are typically established by local and state government, not by the Feds. I assume small-government types would like it that way. Historically, non-citizens have been able to vote in local, state and federal elections in over 40 states and territories. It is more recent, anti-immigrant sentiment that has started to restrict voting to citizens only.

Historically, voting has been considered a right of anyone who pays taxes. "No taxation without representation!" was the rally cry of the original Tea Party. The current "tea party" seems to have an altogether different agenda.

There are tens of millions of workers in the U.S. who are not citizens but pay taxes. According to the principles of the founders the U.S., their payment of taxes entitles them to vote.

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:Does it really matter?

[im_thatoneguy]

Maybe on a handful of issues. There are pretty significant differences between Reid and Angle's legislative agendas.

But people like electronic voting!

[Kaenneth]

Diebold even ran a poll to determine which voting method people prefer, out of 100 people 65 preferred electronic voting, 45 preferred paper, and 5 George W. Bush.

Re:It's badly flawed [Re:I abstain]

[Geoffrey.landis]

http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/voting/approval.htm
http://www.tursiops.cc/idhop/av/
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html

Re:Really?

[LurkerXXX]

All the Amish schools I know of around here teach German as their primary language.

The fact that you can't think of one has no bearing on what actually exists.

Wááshindoon bizaad ádin (No nationa

[zooblethorpe]

Diné bizaad doo nilh bééhózingo biniina, doo yánílhti' da.

(You do not speak Navajo, so you should not talk.)

And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies. Though written and not spoken, some choice examples (emphasis mine): Obama: Commander and Theif , Respect Are Country, Remember Descent the Highest Form of Patriotic, Politicians Are Like Dipers , Obama Lier In Chief...

Examples like these make me think that an awful lot of people protesting at Tea Party rallies would be disqualified by your criterion. Mind you, I'm not saying one way or the other whether you support the Tea Party -- I'm simply trying to point out that, even if we decide that English is the national language (which, at the moment, it is not in any official de jure capacity), many supposed native speakers do not seem to speak / write / understand the language all that well.

Cheers,