Overheated Voting Machine Cast Its Own Votes 378
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."
Scrap them all (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.
Re:Scrap them all (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Especially on the news that at least one bank, (Citizens) has been keeping money owed it's customers who make math mistakes tallying up their checks when they deposit them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/citizens-bank-class-action-lawsuit_n_1498123.html). Funny how when you make a math mistake in YOUR favor they always catch it....
Re:Scrap them all (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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Scrap them all (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The argument Stallman uses against this is that we, as voters, have no way to know whether the code actually running on the machine in front of us is the same as the open code that we have reviewed.
That's not a good argument.
What's yours? It's a perfectly sound argument.
Re:Scrap them all (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hanging and pregnant chads had to do with Florida not cleaning the chad out of their punch card holders. The jurisdiction I worked for for over 10 years ran this technology and it was understood by the people, was transparent and used OPEN SOURCE ballot counting technology. I could give you the interpreted scripts that ran the counting software. This technology was used all over the US until Florida effed it all up.
The old "chaddy" technology counted ballots at a rate of 1,000 per minute. The "new" technolo
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Canada's federal elections are all paper ballots and it's very simple. You have a name, a party(now), and you mark in the big circle with an X who you're voting for. We do have electronic voting, but to be honest most people don't like it, and refuse to use it. Paper trails are good.
Re:Scrap them all (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh wait, the voting machine companies probably try to do that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scrap them all (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.
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anybody ever read /. journals?
Re:Scrap them all (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of the guys who build ATMs, we should have hired the guys who build slot machines.
ATMs are very reliable! Because if an ATM were to spontaneously spit out money, you bet that owner bank will hold the manufacturer responsible and make them pay! So ATMs don't really screw up, ever
This is a symptom of no one holding them accountable. If every lost/wrong vote cost, say, $1000 to the manufacturer, such crap would not happen.
Re:Scrap them all (Score:4, Interesting)
It was voting fraud (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.
Get the Choicepoint data (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a fundamental problem with elections in the US and many other places, regardless of electronic versus paper. The problem is that once the election is over it is OVER. There is no re-do if someone finds a mistake. In this case the cause of the mistake is discovered 18 months late and the next election cycle has begun! But even in a normal case in the US we have elections early in November and winning candidates take office in January. That leaves no time to invalidate results and hold a brand new election if something goes wrong. We don't have wiggle room like calling for early elections or rerunning them if there are problems. Generally when there are disputes they're not resolved until after it is too late, so we just cross our fingers and hope it doesn't happen again. The cases where a result is held off for more than a couple of weeks is very rare, and always because the counts are very very close. I've never heard of anything being delayed merely because someone thinks there were far more invalidated votes than are statistically expected (or because of evidence box stuffing for paper ballots). The election is a juggernaut and is not slowed down by inconveniences.
So how do you resolve problems like this. It's been 18 months, do you pull the elected officials from that district out of congress and have the state assign a pro-tem replacement? The governor of the state would just appoint whichever candidate belongs to the same party. But we've had 10 years of these problems without things substantially getting better.
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in Canada, if you can demonstrate that the irregularities were high enough to have brought an election result into question a judge can order the election results vacated and a new election runs. I'd like to think that if 30% of the votes were lost that the *independent* (there's a keyword right there) election commission would go to a judge and ask exactly that, that the election results be vacated and a new election called. And Canada may find out soon, as evidence of robocall interference may call the results of at least a few ridings into question, which means even if it ends up being a year or more since the election, those results can be discarded and a new election fought.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a fundamental problem with elections in the US and many other places, regardless of electronic versus paper. The problem is that once the election is over it is OVER.
This is a fundamental problem of all fixed term office. Once someone is elected, there's nothing to stop them turning around and literally saying "fuck you" to the people who elected them. They'll still be in power for the next 4 years, whatever anyone wants to say about it.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
These WERE paper ballots. The thing most people don't realize is that machines are going to be used to count ballots. If the ballots are paper, those machines will be scanners, as in this case in the Bronx. No one is going to count every ballot by hand. Why? Because hand-counting is far more inaccurate than machine counting.
So, here's the thing: if you're going to use a machine to count anyway, it's better to use a machine with no moving parts because they have lower rates of failure. That's how the election officials in Brazil are doing it.
Also, it's worth nothing that according to the report only one machine in the entire district was malfunctioning, election officials were alerted during the vote, and the votes were not close enough for the voided over-votes to have made a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Because hand-counting is far more inaccurate than machine counting.
Not if the machine is faulty or there is voter fraud. Both of which happens way too often in US elections.
Hand counting with oversight by representatives of both parties is the most secure and reliable and therefore accurate system there is.
Yes, hand counting will be out by 10s or hundreds of votes. Whilst faulty or fraudulent machines can push that up into thousands.
Re: (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.
Re:Scrap them all (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not just change the machines? Brazil uses them for more than a decade, without any big problems.
Either that or Brazil isn't as good at discovering there were problems after an election.
And before you get offended, I'm Brazilian. I'm also an electrical engineer and software developer, which means I don't trust voting machines, at least not voting machines without a paper receipt to be used for recounts. Which I know the Brazilian machines do not have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your statement is unproveable because, as the previous poster said, you don't get a paper record of your vote. With paper, you can do a re-count of the actual ballot papers used to determine the result, you can do it any time you like. You HOPE Brazilian elections are clean, but you don't KNOW.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? How is it easier to alter the result of a paper election? You have the ballots watched at all times, locked up when the polls close, it's damned hard to stuff. The problem in the States is, of course, that no one seems to have struck the bright idea that other democratic jurisdictions did decades ago that you don't let political parties run elections, ever. You create independent departments that are specifically non-partisan in nature to run your elections, instead of whatever Republican or Democra
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Scrap them all (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you never been to a magician's stage show? He gets 500 people to all look at the wrong thing at the same time with close to 100% accuracy. And you are claiming that a well timed car backfire won't make people look. Really? Really? All it takes for voter fraud to be easy is for stupid people to think they have a fool proof system, when they are the ones that are the fools.
Your speculation pales in comparison to the kinds of hey-nonny-nonny that can be committed with binary bits on a computer system by someone with a malicious intent.
Re:Scrap them all (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. But there's nothing I can say to get any of the lying idiots to compare a reasonable implementation of paper vs a reasonable electronic solution. It's always the best paper vs the worst electronic. So there's no reason for me to argue the points, other than tell you that you are wrong.
Even the worst paper vs. the best electronic still puts paper on top. Because with paper, there is macroscopic evidence of what has taken place. No matter how well you design an electronic system, it's still too easy to hide tampering in the ghostly phantoms of ones and zeros within computer systems. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. Anyone who truly understands both systems knows who is right.
Re: (Score:3)
You are the one that doesn't understand technology.
John Connor (Score:5, Funny)
I presume that the vote was cast for Skynet, or at least against some relative of John Connor?
Re:John Connor (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm running on a platform of free air conditioning for all computing devices!
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong Approach (Score:4, Insightful)
This reminds me of what I was thinking after yesterday's article about Java security problems.
I think society has taken the wrong approach to deploying computers. We execute untrusted code we receive from the internet. We build complex, computerised devices to perform a simple task.
I think that sometimes we should accept that less is more.
Re: (Score:3)
Who, honestly, thinks e-voting is a good idea? (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.
Re:Who, honestly, thinks e-voting is a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Elections in the US are messy. They were messy before these machines too. Essentially all the elections are run at the local level; not at the state but in each individual county and district. These election districts have very little funding and they're always being beat on to do better, have fewer errors, report results faster, reduce number of complaints, and save money. There is no national standard for how elections should be run, and not all states have standards either.
With the Bush v. Gore circus in Florida a lot of people panicked. Suddenly there was an urgent desire to upgrade the paper ballots even though almost nobody used systems similar to Florida's. At the national level some political pressure came to change things and there was even some funding. So in the madness of "omg fix it!" tons of districts purchased electronic voting machines with very little in the way of rigorous evaluation. But then the money dried up. In the absence of a national emergency things were back to the way they had always been. Problems cropping up here and there were disasterous enough to capture the nation's attention, these were just "glitches", and besides there was no money fix the machines or get new ones. Add to this that the elections were faster and recounts took seconds and no one had any incentive whatsoever to pull out the old dusty paper machines.
E-voting systems are ideal for open source (Score:3)
Not only is there massive interest in openness and transparency in the voting process, but there also a need for extremely thorough vetting of the software, its design, and its update lineage. All of these things make it an ideal application for public development under the open source model.
Because of the huge number of expert eyeballs that would be paying very close attention to this code, you can be beyond certain that it would rapidly become some of the most robust software on the planet, and employing
Why So Many Problems? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why So Many Problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the employ of Occam's Razor would be quite useful here. There is an un-holy appeal to any designer of such a machine to be able to artificially control the output. We already have the CEO of Diebold publicly promising to deliver votes [google.com] to George W. Bush, so any protestation of "naw, people who build these things are so trustworthy, nobody would ever actually think to rig an election by deliberately designing a machine to do so.
My very first thought when I read this rigamarole about how the software conveniently malfunctioned to create new votes was, "oh, my god, what a complete bullshit explanation. Overheating CPUs do not malfunction so specifically as to merely add valid data to the processes they are executing. They STOP WORKING COMPLETELY when they overheat, as anyone who has ever spent even a year working with them would know.
So, I'm calling bullshit immediately, and after being fed an incredibly stupid lie about why these machines generated extra votes, I'm inclined to believe the very fucking worst possible alternative explanation. Why else would someone make up such a fucking ridiculous fib?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These machines were scanning PAPER ballots. The scanning mechanism probably malfunctioned in high heat. They scanned the same ballot without errors when cool and with errors (overvotes) when overheated.
This is the worse of both worlds. You don't get the immediate error checking of a true electronic voting machine and at the same time you discard valid ballots because "the computer said so".
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think NY state officials are going to ask for a refund to replace all the machines? Blacklist ES&S? At least demand a full code audit and proof that any replacement get properly tested to JDEC/IEEE/IS
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that voting systems are not held to the same standard as "life critical" software, as it would drive up the price considerably. For example, some systems even use MS Access on Windows! And they provide no means of detecting or correcting problems after they occur, as all votes are typically stored on a single hard drive, with no backup, or even redundancy. (Yes, that's right, a hard drive crash could wipe out thousands of votes with no hope of recovery.)
However, there are solutions which s
Re: (Score:2)
The election officials do not have the money or clout to demand high quality equipment. If there is a problem nothing bad happens anyway except for some embarrassment. No one dies, no one loses any money. If the officials go to the state and say "I don't trust these numbers, statistically there's a problem" they will be told "sorry, we don't have any money, see if you can get the manufacturer to fix the problems".
Software for election machines has the same lousy software that most corporations create. Y
Re: (Score:2)
OK Enough of this SHIT (Score:5, Interesting)
Paper and pen ballots.
ONLY.
And while we are at it, let's fix Voter Fraud with one simple tool: a freaking indelible inkwell at the desk where you pick up your ballot. That way, once you've picked up ONE ballot, you cast your ONE vote. People with purple fingers cannot pick up ballots.
Then we can toss all of this disenfranchising "voter ID" crap on the ashpile too. Our elections will guarantee that each person votes just once and every fucking vote is counted. No swinging chads. No overheating vote-generating machines (oh, and does that story smell like ripe bullshit to me -- yes it does!)?
Paper trail. Physically impossible to vote more than once..
Done.
One More Thing: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Most of Saturday is the often-strictly observed Sabbath for a significant number of people. If the Christians don't observe Sabbath anymore why not make it Sunday?
Re: (Score:2)
Six of one, half dozen of another. I think since most people actually observe church service on Sunday, we would wan to vote on Saturday.
With apologies because as an Atheist I aactually have no clue what the fuck Sabbath means, and I assumed it meant the day you went to church or whatever, and in the US today, that day is Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about Saturday /and/ Sunday... And require workers to have six hours during voting hours off on at least one of the two days.
Re: (Score:2)
Ding ding, we have a winner! Works for all religions.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue rising sales of chemicals that remove ink...
Re: (Score:2)
It would need to be the kind of ink that you have to burn your skin to get off. What I mean by 'indelible.'
I know such inks must exist. Perhaps a henna tattoo, which I believe lasts about three weeks and is completely painless.
Re: (Score:2)
On the back of the hand, or on the forehead?
(No, I don't believe that shit, but some people do. Worst of all is that your country would pander to them and reject such an idea outright. Sane countries would tell them to fuck off and/or get a religious exemption from voting.)
Re: (Score:2)
Once those ballots are filled out and stored, SOMEONE has to count them. Rem
Re: (Score:2)
One election in the mid-1800s in San Francisco was won when someone imported an invertible ballot box with a false bottom from the east. No computers involved there. There are plenty of ways to cheat.
Yes, absolutely be against computer election fraud, but please stop being so naive. It's depressi
Washington State has had the answer for years (Score:2)
Vote by mail. It's that simple.
Anyone who wants to vote registers ahead of time with their address. Ballot gets mailed to each person weeks ahead of election day. They fill it out at their leisure, sign it, and mail it back in. Even better, people get pamphlets with their ballots explaining each issue (with explanations written by both the "for" and "against" sides, for fairness), so people actually understand what they're doing when voting on Referendum 1234.
Forget to mail it in early enough? No probl
South Bronx (Score:3)
Do you think they may have been testing 'flaws' in machines here?
This is an area where you can skew the votes 30-40% and not change the victor.
Anyway, you guys need to come join our wonderful 'write an X on paper' system. We get results the same night, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I should add, in 2008, NYC's 16th district (in the south Bronx) gave Obama 95%.
The highest support in the country - to give you an idea of how much room for error there is.
Re:South Bronx (Score:4, Interesting)
We had mechanical voting booths [bing.com] in the Bronx and NY in general, but then had to change to electronic ones to comply with federal law [wm.edu]. (Stupid HAVA [fec.gov].)
Bloomberg called its first use on primary day 2010 a "royal screw-up". [latimes.com] I've voted with both old and new machines, and while both seemed to work well, who knows what bits flipped (or were flipped) between feed and count. Personally I think the change was as necessary as the impending invasion of internet TLDs (i.e. not at all).
skynet (Score:2)
Voting machines get worked up like people (Score:2)
The Solution (Score:3)
What this solves:
Why can we not do this? Is it because people in power want a way to cheat? This isn't rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
ATMs aren't error-free. They also have a lot of properties that make security easier. If a problem is detected, an ATM can be turned off without angering too many people. They can record video footage of their users to catch tampering. They can record entire transaction details locally and remotely to audit errors. Errors in ATMs are almost entirely monetary, the owner of the ATM bears almost all the risk for ATM malfunction (keeping the customer happy), and said owner is already in the business of underwri
Re: (Score:2)
With no way to link to vote to you.
The fact that you're holding the receipt links the vote to you.
Almost any mechanism by which you can prove to yourself after the fact that your vote was counted correctly is unacceptable, since you can prove to someone else that you voted the way you were coerced to.
Gangs of New York (Score:2)
Well, they're not part of the process yet... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice. I actually went here: http://www.convertbinary.com/ [convertbinary.com] To read what that said.
This is a joke, right? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can write a program to do so in a couple of minutes. Just tell me which way you want the errors to go.
Machines Not Tested (Score:5, Informative)
Norden said so far the machine in the Bronx was the only machine found to have this problem, but itâ(TM)s also the only machine thatâ(TM)s been tested.
God help us.
Re: (Score:2)
How much you want to bet that the "replaced machine" gets shoved in a dank basement, or recycled for scrap, rather than
logical conclusion (Score:2)
The game is rigged (Score:2)
Might sound like conspiracy theorism, but we've seen black and white evidence. Maybe not in this case, but enough to make me not trust them. Any time a group of partisans can collect the machine tallies in a room by themselves and come out with different results, or more votes than voters show up in a district, that's all I need to know.
I've worked with computers for about 15 years now and I've never seen hardware glitches that magically only affect the most convenient values like that.
How bad can we tolerate? (Score:2)
The company owes the city, at minimum, a full refund for every machine they sold, because they all have to be scrapped.
But that doesn't go far enough. Since we're relying on them for a critical function, they need guarantees of correct count, after establishing basic ability to meet a minimum quality level.
1. They shouldn't be allowed to be bought at all unless the State qualifies them and it shouldn't be allowed to qualify them unless they can be shown to be more accurate under all circumstances than an
The perfect voting machine should be open. (Score:2)
Here's how you do it.
I just don't understand (Score:2)
I just don't understand. There's been a stream of voting machine stores on and off on slashdot for the last couple years.
We have netbanking. And ATMs. Both reliable. And used by the financial industry for gods sake.
We have ATMs all over the world. They seem to do fine, without any major issues. AND THEY HOLD AND DISPENSE CASH FOR GODS SAKE.
What is so special about designing and manufacturing voting machines ? Why does every voting machine ever built seem to have serious issues and allow you to put in fake v
Re: (Score:2)
The hard part it making it look like a malfunctioning machine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeahhhh well. There's always that, I suppose.
Voted the 2008 Presidential election:Protest Evote (Score:2)
Why... (Score:2)
Why even bother? (Score:2)
Here in good 'ol Lincoln, Nebraska, we use old fashioned No. 2 pencils and fill in the oval next to the name or ballot item. Until the Florida 2000 debacle, I had no idea there were even any other ways to cast ballots. I still fail to see why our method here shouldn't be the standard nationwide.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there's no money to be made for voting machine manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Overheated Voting Machine Cast Its Own Votes (Score:2)
two arguments against electronic voting: (Score:2)
1. it's a black box, so joe blow doesn't trust it. he trusts paper and pencil. but a machine his vote goes into and out comes electoral sausage is not confidence building. you can feel and touch and trust paper. it is a known quantity. i'm talking about tactile, emotional trust here
the greatest strength democracy has is that it manufacture legitimacy: the government you have is the will of the people. anything that puts in doubt that the will of the people is being adequately expressed, creates illegitimacy
What it says on the box (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The ballots were badly designed. That's like saying "The wheels fell off my Toyota Corolla, therefore all automobiles suck..."
Re: (Score:3)