![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Politics Politics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/politics_64.png)
Aftermath Of Failed Electronic Voting 84
dstates writes "The Christian Science Monitor and NPR report that failed electronic voting machines lost thousands of votes in Carteret County North Carolina, and the election for state agriculture commissioner is headed to court. A combination of human error (setting the machine to record a maximum of three thousand votes when eight thousand people voted) and a software malfunction (the machine kept accepting ballots after its memory was overloaded) resulted in the loss of 4,500 votes in an election decided by only 2,300 votes."
Old News (Score:1)
Two wrongs... (Score:1)
> A combination of human error (setting the machine to record a maximum of three thousand votes when eight thousand people voted) and a software malfunction (the machine kept accepting ballots after its memory was overloaded)
Sounds like the errors should cancel each other out.
Re:Two wrongs... (Score:1)
Re:You sound like a H1-B programmer (Score:2)
I'm guessing you're the programmer responsible for the endless
Stats don't make sense... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Stats don't make sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stats don't make sense... (Score:2)
How do you know that the votes wouldn't have gone for Candidate B?
You cannot know.
Bush lost, cheated, and was declared the winner (Score:2, Insightful)
More evidence (Score:1, Interesting)
Kerry weighs in at the last moment [onnnews.com].
And still more... (Score:1, Interesting)
If you do the math on the machine shortages, it becomes clear that, just by fudging which precincts get more machines, and which get fewer, someone could set an arbitrary absolute cap on the number of votes a candidate could get, by forcing their strongholds to be resource-limited rather than voter-limited. A little more math shows that this effect could be sufficient to tip a close race. If you look at the distribution of the long lines and the votes in Ohio, it becomes hard not to believe that this was
Re:And still more... (Score:2)
Re:And still more... (Score:2)
Re:Stats don't make sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stats don't make sense... (Score:1)
If Candidate A got 51% of the statewide vote and Candidate B got 80% of the vote in the district where the majority of the votes were thrown out, what does that tell you?
Re:Stats don't make sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really have a dog in this race, despite being from NC, but it seems to me ($0.02) that they should only repoll the ~4500 people whose votes were lost. Ra
Re:Stats don't make sense... (Score:2)
No, it isn't silly. As another pointed out, those voting later usually have jobs, whereas those without jobs (and more likely to vote Democrat, not that the "side" matters too much) would vote earlier. What if the first 5000 votes were missed? The result would have probably favored Republicans slightly. However, you are right in that I don't think it would usually affect the
All Human Error... (Score:4, Insightful)
It was human error on the part of the those who set it up and human error on the part of election officials who decided to use a product that wasn't thoroughly tested. Someone beyond the techs that administer the machines needs to be on the hook for this. Just because the machines that failed are electronic doesn't mean that there was no negligence on the part of those that chose to use them.
Re:All Human Error... (Score:2)
That's the problem with people that don't understand computers.
They just bow to the computer gods and chant "Com
Yup that should take care of it... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yup that should take care of it... (Score:1, Funny)
I hear that! I've never voted more than 2500 times in any one election - and I'm a Republican!
Re:Yup that should take care of it... (Score:1)
Okay, I sort of understand the idea behind the pricing scheme, but the
Time to find someone else? (Score:2, Informative)
... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:4, Insightful)
A. Why you would have a maximum number of votes for a machine AT ALL.
B. Why you would have something like a memory contraint AT ALL in these days of cheaper-than-dirt storage.
C. Why you would have either or both of A and B if you wanted a fair election.
Can someone fill me in?
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:1, Troll)
D'you think it's because North Carolina was John Edwards' home state, mebbe
Except, of course, that the errors were in Bush's favor. That means it's a vicious Democratic conspiracy, natch.
Look man, I'm a Democrat because the GOP has become so jaw-droppingly criminal and almost cult-like. And don't give me any of that "they're all corrupt" BS, because when it comes to corruption, no one can hold a candle to the modern Republican party. Don't believe me? Do your own research. I did [kuro5hin.org], and was as surprised as
Not the Republicans, but certainly the Neo-cons (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a Republican, as are most of the people in my family, and for that matter most of the people in my state. And I don't know anyone who approves of what was done in this last election, once they are confronted with the facts. The closest is a sort of lame "well, they probably meant well" or "it must have been overly enthusiastic grunts"--but you can see in their faces that they don't buy it.
But none of them are happy about it. We were raised, I guess, with those "moral values" that everyone's talking about. And I don't recall cheating on that list, anywhere. No, I take that back. There was "Cheaters never prosper" and "If you cheat, you only cheat yourself" and "Better to die for the truth then live a lie."
But to hear the media tell it, we're all a bunch of saps that aprove of doing anything to win (When in fact we were taught "The ends don't justify the means." and "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.").
As my brother said at Thanksgiving, "I want my party back!"
--MarkusQ
Re:Not the Republicans, but certainly the Neo-cons (Score:2, Insightful)
But none of them are happy about it. We were raised, I guess, with those "moral values" that everyone's talking about. And I don't recall cheating on that list, anywhere. No, I take that back. There was "Cheaters never prosper" and "If you cheat, you only cheat yourself" and "Better to die for the truth then live a lie."
I wish there were more Republicans like you, instead of Sean Hannity/Limbaugh/random GOP apologist. The "good" Republicans seem to have been almost entirely sidelined, while those in power
Re:Not the Republicans, but certainly the Neo-cons (Score:2)
Republicans aren't what they used to be.
GWB puts shame on the whole party.
I don't know what is worse, that he is acting as if he has a mandate when he just barely one, and some are even contesting the legitimacy of the election, or that the media doesn't seem to be questioning this. [reclaimthemedia.org]
Politicians have always been scumbags, but while they used to be wallowing in a Cesspool scumbags, now they are wallowing in a septic tank scumbags.
Think about
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:4, Funny)
Are you on crack? That list is all well and good, but how conveniently you ignore Bill Clinton. The guy got a blowjob and lied about it so that his wife wouldn't find out. Impeachment was too soft a punishment for such a criminal act.
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:3, Insightful)
So where in the world did you grow up?
When I was a boy growing up in the US, one of the firm lessons that was drilled into us was that a guy with any brains wouldn't "kiss and tell". We had a name for such a guy; we called him a "jerk". If you wanted the slightest chance with the chicks, you'd keep very quiet about what you did with them in private. I understood all this at an early age, perhaps because most of my good
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:1)
"Talking about your sex life would get you a bad rep and cut your chances."
So Billy just wanted to be sure he'd be able to get some from someone else when this was over? Is that a good president? Someone who cheats on his wife, then lies about it so he doesn't cut his chances with the other women he wants to cheat on his wife with?
"As for the "lying to Congress" charge; Congress had no business asking him about his private sex life."
So are you s
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:3, Insightful)
What he did was perjury, something for which you and I, mere mortals, would have spent a little time on probation for (first offense, probably wouldn't have served any time). Now, did this warrant an impechement? Hell, no
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you need to read up a little more on your history and why Clinton was actually on tria
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:2, Insightful)
No, its not, in the slightest. Wether or not Clinton had had consensual sex with Monica is irrelevant to wether or not he harrassed Paula Jones(Tripp trail? wtf?). Even the judge said so, look it up if you want to.
something for which you and I, mere mortals, would have spent a little time on probation for
Nonsense. You forget that Starr and Republicans in Congress didn't set out to convict him of any specific crime, they set out to convict him of *something*, by any means nece
Re:Answer: The Republicans are ******* criminals (Score:1)
About 90% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the same warlords who held power during the Taliban years, the same ones that are currently hiding bin laden and CO., that's Republican progress for you
Iraq, once under the murderous tyrannnical despot Hussein, is on track for elections. Al Qaeda and ALL major terrorist rings are on the run.
E
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:2)
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:1)
Although technically, I think some (not me) would argue that Clinton's infidelity would fall under the realm of the 10 C's.
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:2)
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:2)
In Iowa, a poll supervisor had to drive hundreds of miles to find a working counting machine. Worse, the state didn't accept a federal absentee ballot for military personnel, which meant that some Iowans fighting in Iraq were not able to vote.
Given that the majority of the Military are republicans, this would be a blatant way of tipping the results towards a Democratic candidate.
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:2)
The lost votes that this article is referring to were in Carteret County. Carterey County is heavily Republican (Bush had about 70% of the vote there), so lost votes in that county hurt Bush and the GOP. In other words, you are full of crap.
Look man, I'm a Democrat because the GOP has become so jaw-droppingly criminal and almost cult-like.
I think it is sad how irrational and hate-filled the Democrats have become. Seriously.
Re:Answer: The Republicans are fucking criminals (Score:1)
Bill Janklow incident in which he was driving intoxicated and killed a motorcyclist.
It really has nothing to do with the republican party, or their criminal activities.
It could have happened to anyone who drives drunk, and there's no evidence that republicans do it more often than democrats.
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2)
You might want to limit the number of votes to the total number of registered voters in a precinct, to prevent ballot box stuffing.
B. Why you would have something like a memory contraint AT ALL in these days of cheaper-than-dirt storage.
(scratches head) ... you got me there.
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2)
A better system would be one that didn't have a cap, just big ass warning when it thought too many had voted.
An even better sytem is one that prevents Joe Smith from voting in 2 states and three precints of each twice. Though that is much harder to do and maintain the anonymity required to prevent bought
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2)
True. I wasn't trying to say that it was an effective mechanism, only that there could be a legitimate rationale for limiting the number of ballots issued at a precinct.
An even better sytem is one that prevents Joe Smith from voting in 2 states and three precints of each twice. Though that is much harder t
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2)
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2)
But why? If there's 1000 voters in a precinct and you see a recorded total of 1000, you might think "Wow, every citizen is really committed to voting!" However, if you see a recorded total of 1001 (exceeding the limit), you know for sure that fraud occurred. A cap can only serve to mask fraud, imho.
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2, Interesting)
To throw up a red flag if it looks like some individuals voted more than once.
"Why you would have something like a memory contraint AT ALL in these days of cheaper-than-dirt storage."
Lowest bidder.
"Why you would have either or both of A and B if you wanted a fair election."
It's not a fair election they're after, it's the appearance of a fair election that really counts. After Florida 2000, electronic voting appeared to be more fa
Re:... I've been reading about this, and ... (Score:2)
Because talks with the client have made it clear that they want a way to limit the number of votes in certain "problem" precincts with a history of voting "problems", and you won't get the sale unless this feature is included.
Re:Aftermath Of SUCCESSFUL Electronic Voting (Score:1)
further evidence of flawed system (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just further evidence of a deeply flawed system. There is absolutely no reason that we can't have an honest and reliable election system in this country. You can do with old-fashioned paper ballots and hand-counting in the presence of scrutineers from all parties. Instead we've got a mishmash of systems, many of them untested, many with known flaws, some of them run by companies like Diebold known to be both incompetant and dishonest. We can't be sure who won this election.
Re:further evidence of flawed system (Score:1)
Re:further evidence of flawed system (Score:1, Troll)
Actually, there are two major reasons: the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party.
It used to be that the Democrats were the dominant party, and also the one that was well known for widespread voting fraud. But the Republicans seem to have learned, and have taken the lead in both areas.
Small area anyways (Score:1)
Re:Small area anyways (Score:2)
I guess I shouldn't expect more, seeing as how the majority of the population doesn't even register to vote, and only 50% of people registered to vote even bother to show up..
It doesn't matter how many people are represented by the person, votes were thrown away by these voting machines.
Re:Small area anyways (Score:2)
Re:Small area anyways (Score:1)
Re:Small area anyways (Score:2)
Every single election, be it for President, Mayor, or Town Dog Catcher is important and ANY fuckups cannot be accepted.
Re:Small area anyways (Score:1)
Info on county's voting machines (Score:4, Informative)
Unilect Corportation [unilect.com] is the manufactorer of the "Patriot Voting System" (because losing votes = being patriotic).
Interactive demo [unilect.com] of their voting system!
Verified Voting [verifiedvoting.org] has a Voter Information Sheet on the machine.
Disinfopedia has an article [disinfopedia.org] about Unilect Corporation. From this article:
The President of UniLect Corporation is Jack Gerbel, who has been actively involved in the election equipment industry since 1965. His career began in elections with IBM Corporation and then as a founder, Vice-President and Board of Directors member of Computer Election Systems (CES).
Mr. Gerbel had the distinction of personally selling and installing more election systems than any other person in the U.S.
Two major accounts that he sold and successfully installed were Cook County, Illinois and the City of Chicago.
Mr. Gerbel became Vice-President of Sales for Business Records Corporation (BRC).
So, there you have it. Background info. Side note: I live in NC and this is not the same machines that were being (these are the literal words of the poll workers) "tested" in Watauga County. And although they officially said these machines were only experimental and being tested, paper ballots were often withheld upon request and their availability was NOT posted. The Republic Party in Watauga County also refused to move polling locations onto Appalachian State University's campus, proposed by the Dem Party, although 22,000 of the 25,000 residents are students.
Re:Info on county's voting machines (Score:2)
"To begin voting, press anywhere on the screen."
"PRESS HERE TO BEGIN VOTING"
I guess it's good that they think they're simple enough to use without instructions, since the instructions seem to have nothing to do with the actual software.
Re:Info on county's voting machines (Score:2)
START OVER
PRESS HERE WHEN FINISHED WRITING IN WRITE-IN COMPLETE
CANCEL WRITE-IN
Let's say you're an interface designer, and you have to assign colors to these... let's say your choices are green, yellow, and red (why!?)... how can you assign them to maximize confusion... let's make canceling red, confirming be green, and being unsure (restarting) be yellow... that's logical. Wait, let's flip them! much better!
Re:Info on county's voting machines (Score:1)
It looks and feels like a nightmare to use, and I would be nervous using it.
Re:Info on county's voting machines (Score:1)
http://www.web.appstate.edu/news/glance.html [appstate.edu]
Where did you get the 22,000 residents are students number?
Are you counting High School and Grade School students also?
Oh, the tension! (Score:1, Troll)
Corporate Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also no mention of the joke that is government testing and certification of these machines. Unless the elections controllers have demonstrated proof that the machines have been tested without failure or serious vulnerability, they must assume the machines will fail. And they can't claim ignorance of the risk, compounded by the absence of mitigation in a fallback auditable record, like a paper log. So these government officials, representing the people of North Carolina, are also unaccountable for their gross malfeasance.
These people have violated the public trust in North Carolina most seriously. It's not necessary to prove they colluded to design a failed election, for their political or economic benefit. Their gross malfeasance has deprived thousands of North Carolinans their fundamental right to vote, regardless of its effect on the election, though there seems to be at least one office, Secretary of Agriculture, which is seriously damaged. The irresponsible people must be unmasked, and sent to jail for these serious crimes against the people.
So which story is right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are the reporters really so clueless that they don't understand the difference? Or maybe they do understand, but half of them are trying to put something over on us?
I notice that TFA's explanation is "... an exhausted poll worker failed to notice a "memory full" caption on a machine,
So which is it? Inquiring minds want to know