Slashdot Mirror


Overheated Voting Machine Cast Its Own Votes

longacre writes in with the results of a report on voting machines that malfunctioned in NY during the 2010 mid-term elections. "Tests of a number of electronic voting machines that recorded shockingly high numbers of extra votes in the 2010 election show that overheating may have caused upwards of 30 percent of votes in some South Bronx voting precincts to go uncounted. WNYC first reported on the issue in December 2011, when it was found that tens of thousands of votes in the 2010 elections went uncounted because electronic voting machines counted more than one vote in a race. A review by the state Board of Election and the electronic voting machines’ manufacturer ES&S found that these 'over votes,' as they’re called, were due to a machine error. In the report issued by ES&S, when the machine used in the South Bronx overheated, ballots run during a test began coming back with errors."

12 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Scrap them all by Fned · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's clear we're just not ready for electronic voting. Let's stick to paper ballots and re-visit this idea in twenty years or so.

    1. Re:Scrap them all by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's clear that we hired the wrong people to build our electronic voting machines.
      Instead of the guys who build ATMs, we should have hired the guys who build slot machines.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Scrap them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. We should have hired the guys who print money and other secure papers. Paper voting is superior in every way to electronic voting, except possibly price - and shouldn't we be willing to spend what is ultimately a pittance compared to what we spend on everything else to ensure one of the cornerstones of democracy is eroded away?

    3. Re:Scrap them all by yakatz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except when slot machines are hacked, the developers usually keep it a secret so the casinos will not be investigated. (Mitnick, K (2005). The Art of Intrusion.)

      Oh wait, the voting machine companies probably try to do that too.

    4. Re:Scrap them all by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ATMs are incredibly reliable these days. The fact that these POS voting machines are built, in large part, by the same people who build ATMs indicates strongly that Occam's Razor beats Hanlon's (or Napoleon's) Razor here; malice, rather than stupidity or incompetence, is the simplest and most likely explanation.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Scrap them all by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Paper voting means a physical verifiable record. As to hanging chads the issue is complex and poorly designed ballots.

      As to the speed of counting ballots, so what? You have to wait a few hours, or on tight races, a few days. Sounds like a reasonable sacrifice for not having fucked up elections due to equipment failure.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Scrap them all by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pen-and-Paper-voting is the one system that can be made secure quite simple, and that can be verified by about everyone without actually tampering with voting secrecy.
      There are (at least) three conditions which are not easy to align: equality and secrecy of votes.

      Equality (each vote counts the same) is only possible if one guarantees that the counting process is open and verifiable.
      Secrecy (no one except the voter knows how he voted) is only possible if no one else can watch the actual act of voting.
      Integrity (no one can tamper with the vote once the voter cast the vote) is only possible if the votes can be watched without actually knowing the votes.

      And here pen-and-paper-voting shines, and no other voting system comes close. Nearly each part of the voting process can be in the open: the ballot box can be opened to the public, controlled by everyone to be completely empty, sealed and be watched all the time by everyone who likes to watch. The breaking of the seal and the counting can (and should) be performed in public, and again everyone who wants to can watch it. The result for the local election office is announced publicly, and publicly written down into the forms and sealed, the votes are put back in the controlledly empty ballot box and sealed again, and the ballot box is then transported (and accompagnied by whoever wants) to the central election office, where the votes according to the sealed forms are tallied and the complete result is announced.
      And the actual act of voting can be performed in the voting booth, no one else can watch it, the ballot is folded by the voter, which preserves secrecy and personally put in the ballot box, which preserves integrity. So all three: Intregrity, Equality and Secrecy are preserved.

      No electronic or mechanic voting system can come close to this. Each of them has at least one element which should be open closed (for instance counting with a computer is actually a closed process, because it is much faster than anyone can control count, so you have to trust the system to count correctly), or one element which should be closed in the open (the paper record which allows backtracking to the ballot).

      tl;dr

      Each voting system which performes at least one act of the voting process faster than the human eye can watch it can be tampered with and should not be trusted.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  2. Who, honestly, thinks e-voting is a good idea? by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, why the hell are people even trying these things? No permanent record of any kind, little to no public oversight of the process, and of course glitches and the possibility for "glitches" on a massive scale that can completely overturn the entire election process. At least with paper voting, cheating is a) moderately easy to catch and b) moderately difficult on a large scale. Mistakes can be corrected afterwards, by examining the paper trail. An e-voting machine? No trail, and a single alteration the code can allow anyone to change the result in absolutely any way they want, with almost zero possibility of detection, and with a single commands.

    They are a terrible idea, and honestly any politician/bureaucrat who pushes them should be regarded with strong suspicion, if not of attempting downright fraud, then of bowing to special interests (i.e. the machine manufacturers). Possibly both. And, even if they are really clean of both the preceeding, then they are technologically stupid and shouldn't be trusted to make decisions about these kinds of things anyways.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  3. One More Thing: by SlippyToad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Move Voting Day to Saturday. The only reason it was on Tuesday was to allow for travel time and to avoid the often-strictly observed Sabbath of the still quite Puritan colonial USA. Make it a Saturday, and make all businesses except essential service and emergency personnel close on that day period, so the people can take their time to vote.

    There. That's the last one.

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
  4. It was voting fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It shows a cluster of voids in MULTIPLE voting cells in one area. That means

    1) it was not random.
    2) Multiple machines in multiple buildings all voided?? No, not overheating, you might pretend that this particular part of NY is hot,but different building have different heat characteristics.

    That map is a clear voting fraud pattern, it suggests local tampering.

  5. Get the Choicepoint data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Added comment: Get the Choicepoint data, I bet it shows that section of New York votes strongly Democrat or strongly Republican, and it means that someone was trying to change the election by removing that cluster of votes.

    Then go subpoena Choicepoint to find out who commissioned political affiliation data for those districts, and start prosecuting these voter frauds.

  6. Re: by sedmonds · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was a scrutineer for one of the parties at one of the polls in the riding I lived in during the last federal election in Canada. There were two other parties at the poll who had scrutineers. Each of the three of us sat around a table while the deputy returning officer counted each ballot, showed it to the scrutineers, and waited for the scrutineers to not any exceptions. When he was done, the ballots were sealed in envelopes (which the scrutineers were permitted to initial on the seal), and placed in a box for delivery to Elections Canada.

    At the end, each scrutineer checked their count against the official count by the deputy returning officer. The vote total was checked against the ballot booklets. All counts were consistent with each other, and the total consistent with the number of ballots cast.

    In this polling station there were no irregular or spoiled ballots, and we had a count to report to our candidate HQ, and for the deputy returning officer to report to Elections Canada, in less than a half hour after the polls closed.

    There's no need for machines to count votes. And the notion that people can't count votes quickly, and accurately is pure bullshit.