Slashdot Log In
WV Voters Say Machines Are Switching Votes
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:20 AM
from the he-who-pays-diebold-wins dept.
from the he-who-pays-diebold-wins dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week.
This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for 'Barack Obama' kept flipping to 'John McCain.'"
Related Stories
Submission: WV voters say machines are switching votes by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspiracy (Score:5, Insightful)
These machines are not "switching votes". They're just not.
If the machines were "switching votes", they'd do it internally and secretly, and not make it look like they're putting checkmarks next to the wrong boxes. Especially since the voter isn't able to view a paper receipt.
If I had to guess, the way the ballot is organized in terms of candidate ordering probably makes it easy or possible to look like you're pressing the right area, but the boxes and/or your perception of the boxes' location isn't perfectly aligned with the touch sensing elements. Because people are so sensitive to this issue, any errant touch among thousands of voters accidentally getting the wrong box VISIBLY checked, AND able to be corrected, is going to be interpreted as malice instead of (user) error. "When asked if she is sure she touched the box for Rockefeller, she said, 'I'm absolutely positive.'" Yeah, just like a lot of users are "absolutely positive" that they did the right thing. No, they THINK they did the right thing. That's the only thing they are "absolutely positive" of.
Since so many people want to believe that the electronic voting machines are rigged to make Republicans win elections[1], so I'm sure people will choose to believe that this is due to a GOP conspiracy instead of simple errors. (And yes, it could still be an error, due to the way the screens are physically set up, even if the reported errors are "always" Republican. Does that mean it's not an issue that should be addressed, even if it is only a genuine design/setup error? No. But if you can touch the screen a little more carefully and get the checkmark beside the right name, that is what matters. Who hasn't ever had a touchscreen ATM or a touchscreen POS station not register a touch as something unintended? You don't think the ATM is trying to rip you off when it picks "Savings" when you meant "Checking". You just hit cancel and do it again.)
Remember, too, that in many jurisdictions in which we have electronic voting machines, they're there as a direct result of Democratic-sponsored legislation, like HAVA, in response to the voting difficulties with antiquated machines in Florida in 2000. The problem? Everyone assumed that modern technology was just great and overlooked a mandatory requirement for a paper trail. Of course, now ALL e-voting vendors have voter-verifiable paper trail capability as options, but many municipalities didn't want to spend the extra money to deploy since it wasn't required by law.
Also, "In Putnam County, early voters have the option of asking for either touch-screen machines or optical scan ballots -- paper ballots on which people mark in their election choices." And when people are using the machine, "The main thing people need to remember is that when you are done voting, make sure everybody you wanted to vote for has a check mark beside them." Just because you touch once and it registers wrong doesn't imply that it can't be corrected. Has no one ever used a backspace key on a computer before? Or an eraser on a pencil, for that matter?
Bottom line? Since this clearly is causing so much fear and doubt[2], we should go back to a simple, auditable paper solution, if only so conspiracy theorists can STFU and stop thinking every election where their preferred candidate doesn't win is "stolen".
[1] Have to put in the disclaimer. Very aware of the famous quote about "delivering the election to George Bush" by Diebold's CEO. It was in his capacity as a Republic business leader, but still a very, very, very poor showing on his part, and ridiculous appearance of a conflict of interest, even if none actually exists in reality.
[2] And it's actually not causing a level of problems that are probably any worse than error in paper or any other voting. But the perception is that it is a huge problem, and subverting democracy, and that is reason enough to change.
Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, it could still be an error, due to the way the screens are physically set up, even if the reported errors are "always" Republican.
What I mean by this is in this particular instance, not in general. There are reports of votes "flipping" both ways. But if there is something happening in one jurisdiction in one state, and it's always the same problem, and the same order is on every ballot, then it's no surprise that the manifestation of the problem is the same.
Parent
Re:Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of people who simply don't know how to use a computer. My 75-year-old dad came home and told me about his job switching from paper to PC timecards. His boss directed him: Now move the mouse over to the box and type in your hours.
My dad's reply: What's a mouse?
Now imagine 50 million baby boomers with similar level of non-expertise trying to use a PC-based machine when they've never (or rarely) used a PC. You're going to have all kinds of mistakes, and the user will SWEAR that it was the machine's fault, rather than admit they don't know what they are doing. Nobody wants to look stupid.
- this message posted with LYNX, the Commodore 64 browser (2 kbit/s modem)
Parent
Re:Clarification (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody wants to look stupid
I passed a guy this morning with a Bush/Quayle '92 bumper sticker who begs to differ.
Parent
Re:50 million can't use a computer? Ain't it funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see Barack Obama ridiculing these 50 million voters' computer (il)literacy, the way he ridiculed John McCain [aol.com]. Wouldn't that be sure vote-winner, uhm?
Those 50 million other Americans who may or may not need to use a computer in their daily lives shouldn't be ridiculed. A person running for the highest office in the land, who is expected to adapt and change as the world does, should be.
Parent
Re:50 million can't use a computer? Ain't it funny (Score:5, Informative)
I see. Therefore, we should disqualify Obama as Commander in Chief as well because he never served in the military.
Until you realize the founding fathers specifically and purposely made the chief of the military a CIVILIAN POSITION. They did not want military service to be a prerequisite for the presidency.
(Yes, I'm sure you're going to point out that Washington had been a general. But move on to Adams, Jefferson and Madison and you'll find no military service in their resumes.)
Parent
Re:50 million can't use a computer? Ain't it funny (Score:5, Informative)
Or disqualify McCain for the inability to use a computer.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_mccain_unable_to_use_a_computer.html [factcheck.org]
Forbes, May 2000: His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.
Parent
You underestimate stupidity. (Score:5, Insightful)
You really, really, really underestimate some people's stupidity. This is NOT a technology problem. It's a stupid people problem:
1. Remember hanging chads? You know, the thing where some people couldn't figure out that you had to poke the entire piece of paper out.
2. Remember where some people voted for multiple people on their paper ballot and were disqualified? Sure, maybe they were purposely trying to throw their vote away. More likely they couldn't figure out how to use a PENCIL properly.
I could go on and on. Stop trying to think that paper/pencil means perfect and hold any machine up to the standard of perfection.
There are just too many stupid, tired, distracted, illiterate, whatever people out there. Voting won't be 100% or even 99% perfect no matter what mechanism we use. Guess what - that means tens of thousands of lost votes.
Parent
Re:Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
This touchscreen bullshit needs to stop.
Really. Prompt for one thing at a time (but let someone go forward/back, like with a scroller).
Two big buttons. Several inches separating them. MECHANICAL FUCKING BUTTONS.
You push one, a big light comes on over it. You push the other, it switches. The name of the person is displayed near the switch.
If you can't figure out which one is the one... I just can't imagine someone being so dense as to not get that.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
From your reply:
From the article:
It would really suck if votes came out wrong because of a poorly-designed user interface.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
What's with this hypothetical language ("would" and "if")? It's already happened -- hanging chads are caused by bad UI too!
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
So, really, it isn't a UI design issue; it's a voting machine response time/feedback issue, IMO.
How is response time/feedback not a UI issue?
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
UI design, while it CAN and SHOULD take into account the amount of system resources it is using, cannot accurately predict the power of the machines that will be running it.
Given that this UI is running on custom hardware designed specifically for this use, isn't your argument moot? They not only could accurately predict the hardware, they also designed the hardware and tested both together.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
For computer software, I would agree with you. You can't predict what hardware onto which the customer will try to install your software.
In this particular case, though, I disagree. For isolated software that is running on isolated hardware, where both are produced by the same company and engineered by cooperative teams (I would hope), they ought to know the hardware platform before they begin the software development. This is a single-purpose machine running a single-purpose software program. It is almost a kind of embedded system. Thus, blaming UI delays on the hardware is not acceptable, not in this day and age. This particular kiosk is not any more complicated than a ticket-sales kiosk at the train station or movie theater, or than an ATM, and we can easily design those to respond instantly.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the basics of UI design is that if the intended users can't use it, you got the UI wrong. Simple as that.
Parent
You've just described a poor interface design (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor interface design isn't the issue. People who are computer illiterate expect computers to respond just like mechanical systems (e.g.: push the button and it instantly responds) and when things don't instantly provide tactile/audible/visual feedback that it "clicked" they will start spamming the button repeatedly.
Look son, I'm a computer professional, and I would do just that: spam the damn fucking thing until it fucking breaks. Because, btw, that's how I treat my own software.
And think for a second. On one hand, you have ONE piece of machinery; and on the other you have MILLIONS of user.
Which is it: millions of user who happen to be stupid enough and get it wrong all at the same time; OR one piece of poorly designed crapware? There's plenty of crap software out there, why shouldn't this be one of them?
Let's transpose the situation. Imagine there was a car which was involved in twice as many accidents as other similar cars. Would you say that this particular type of car's drivers just happen to be clumsy?
Think about that for a second. And stop blaming the victim. Making good software is hard. But the makers of those P.O.S. are payed handsomely for the detritus they produce, and they're no better than good ole' pen and paper, and in fact probably worse.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's a design error to assume voting machine users will understand the same conventions as normal computer users. There any many people in the US who don't regularly interact with computers. The systems must be designed with the idea that, for many users, this will be one of their first experiences with a computer.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
UI design is an important consideration. Suppose you wanted to make a machine biased toward one candidate, without having anything obviously incriminating in the code. You could do something as simple as arrange the options so that parallax effects like you suggest make it easy to press the wrong portion of the screen. If the effects make people press high on average, and you put the candidate you wanted to favor at the top of the list, then pressing high on your candidate registers no check box, and people just press again. But, sometimes they'll press on the other candidate, get the one you wanted, and give up before figuring it out.
Ballot design needs to be fair, for all the same reasons the code needs to be correct. Badly designed ballots are probably just that -- bad design by someone who didn't know better. But, with something as important as an election, it's not ok to have badly designed ballots, and it's not ok to let people who don't know better design them. Design sufficiently bad that it shows meaningful bias should be treated as criminal election fraud, whether it was intentional or not -- there's simply no reason not to have that level of accountability.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, there's no way to prove that someone intending to vote for Republicans has had their vote switched, because no-one's voted for Republicans.
(Lighten up, it's a joke)
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
Have to put in the disclaimer. Very aware of the famous quote about "delivering the election to George Bush" by Diebold's CEO. It was in his capacity as a Republic business leader, but still a very, very, very poor showing on his part, and ridiculous appearance of a conflict of interest, even if none actually exists in reality.
I just want to point out that the conflict of interest does exist in this case. It doesn't matter how honorable the guy is. Conflict of interest is a matter of position, not character. He could be the most honorable guy in the world and never let his CEO position conflict with his Republican position, but the conflict of interest is still there.
As a practical matter, nobody is 100% honorable, and somebody who's in charge of building voting machines should not be politically active.
More importantly, we should switch to a form of voting in which a single company is not in a position to completely screw up the entire election.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Informative)
I live in WV. The local news showed the ballots and exactly how this could happen and it was entirely feasible that it was user error due to bad software design.
The UI is poorly designed. McCain's name appears above Obama's. The bottom border of McCain's box touches the upper border of Obama's box. When looking down at the device it looks like you are selecting Obama when your finger is actually on McCain.
This effect can be compounded by initially touching the box with the tip of your finger and then rolling down so your fingerprint area is fully on Obama's name, but you initially touched the bottom of McCain's box. In this case your finger will fully be within Obama's box but McCain will remain selected.
However the people doing the voting should be double checking their vote on the screen and the paper receipt that scrolls up next to the screen as you vote.
Bottom line is, bad design, untrained user.
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Parallax, touch screens, stupidity, and conspir (Score:5, Funny)
sometimes paper and pencil should not be automated
As a long time RPGer, I couldn't agree with you more.
Parent
More Cases Than Just This (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm confused as to why the people voting weren't given access to an on site authority or technician that could verify this was occurring. I guess it's also possible this is something that will only happen once rarely but enough to do damage. It could also be attention seeking or insurance to claim fraud if the other side wins.
Re:More Cases Than Just This (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the on site election officials are 90 year old retired people that have no real training or skills with the gear. Cities and states intentionally do not fund the election departments to be able to hire people that are fully trained and capable of troubleshooting this stuff. but we bought a nice new stainless steel piece of 30 foot tall art for the front of city hall for $290,000!
It's scary at best, insane at worst.
Parent
Re:More Cases Than Just This (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it illegal for someone to take a cellphone into the booth and record this happening? A couple of youtube videos would probably raise public awareness of the problem and encourage a fix, whatever the problem is (having worked with a LOT of touchscreens in the past, I'm going to guess it's a calibration and/or screen angling issue).
Parent
Re:More Cases Than Just This (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people are saying this is a serious issue. Everyone else could not be reached for comment.
Seriously, uh, only some people think it's serious? No one else cares?
And, yes, this is a calibration issue instead of a fraud issue. Fraud, of course, we'd never actually hear about.
The fact we can't even managed to have machines that act like they're properly working should be a rather serious indication that even if they do act like they're properly working, we don't know if they are.
Parent
Re:More Cases Than Just This (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just go back to paper.
Seriously.
It's been-around for 5000 years. It's a proven technology. It "just works" and was used in elections dating back to the 1700s. So what if it takes 12 hours to physically handcount the ballots? (Thrice for verification.) Do we really need to know, immediately, who won? This election has drug-on since Christmas of last year... one more half-day is not going to kill us.
My district still uses paper. The only difference is that machines do the counting, however if you don't trust the machines, a handcount is still possible. I trust papers; I don't trust computers. I've been working with them for too long.
Parent
Re:More Cases Than Just This (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Obama is the "left" candidate, and McCain is the "right" candidate.
I can understand how this might be confusing, but just remember it this way: your left hand is the one that when you hold it up, the index finger and thumb make an "L". Also, it wants to take all your money and give it to the poor. The right hand is the one that makes a backwards "L", and wants to take all your money and give it to the rich.
Hope this clears things up for you.
Parent
Ban them altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't secure them. Anybody with an ounce of sense about computer security knows this. Plus, there is no way to verify whether they are programmed to do what they should.
And we argue over whether to have paper trails?
Re:Ban them altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in WV and voted early. Communities were given the option for paper ballots with optical scanning OR touchscreen machines that print continuous roll tape. In both cases, it is the paper trail that will be followed on a recount. The problem here is one of mis-calibration of the machines and Betty Ireland, the Secretary of State who certified the machines, has ordered all touchscreen voter machines be re-calibrated EVERY DAY since their alignment slips with usage. These machines were calibrated on the first day but not beyond that.
On an aside, Kanawha County, where I live, chose paper / optical scan machines because most citizens are familiar with it since schools use the same "fill in the circle" for testing. Also, the paper trail is far easier with these type ballots.
Parent
Re:Ban them altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
What if your ATM machine presented you with a list of five different banks and you had to choose which one to pay? And if you hit the wrong button you paid the wrong bank, and they gleefully took your money and said nothing. Now you're out 20% of your income and your mortgage is still unpaid! But wait, it's also a cash transfer with no records or receipts, so you cannot prove anything. And even worse, the ATM that does these cash transactions is managed by a faceless third party, perhaps volunteers or petty beureaucrats who may own stock in a rival bank or might even divert the funds into their own accounts, with nobody the wiser.
Would you still trust the ATM?
Parent
Not at all alike. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a very simple, important difference. When an ATM makes an error, it can be reliably detected and corrected in nearly all cases. This is because the ATM (and electronic money transfer systems, in general) keep a detailed record of which accounts were debited and credited for each transaction, and this record can be reconciled with others: e.g., the customers' own checkbooks, online merchants' records, records of how much cash was in the ATM at any point in time, etc. When the relevant parties conclude a certain transaction was recorded incorrectly, it can be rolled back or revised.
When a voting machine makes an error, it's at best a toss-up as to whether it can be detected. No paper trails mean that, in many cases, the error can never be detected. Paper trails help A LOT in this case, but are not a panacea: you can imagine a case where, because of fraud, the electronic tabulation gives candidate A a clear win, and nobody bothers to perform a paper recount that would prove candidate B actually won.
And if you do detect an anomaly in the vote, forget about ever correcting it.
Parent
I don't understand the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with a machine that tries to assist the politically challenged by selecting the right candidate?
Re:I don't understand the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
It's a touchscreen issue apparently (Score:5, Informative)
Letter from Diebold CEO (Score:5, Funny)
President and CEO of Diebold
1600 Styx River Rd
Hades, New Jersey 66666
October 27, 2008
Dear Voters,
I regret to inform you that the evil bit [wikipedia.org] of the IPv4 packet header field was accidentally propagated to the display screen and--subsequently--would ensure that in the last femtosecond your vote was for evil as you were accepting your selection.
Who would have thought that Americans could see this near-planckian event on the screen
Regardless, we are sorry and promise that I will personally collect and publish information on these three voters although I heavily doubt that 3 votes will change the outcome of John McCain 100% Barak Obama 0% which is what the current count is at.
This may be merely be something we have to live with for now and is trivial. We will fix this when IPv6 is enforced and it is an entire "evil byte" in the packet header that will be much easier to spot and stop. This should not undermine your satisfaction with the democratic process in America--do not let the terrorists win! You must remain ever vigilant and patriotic!
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Swidarski
vote absentee by mail (Score:5, Interesting)
Vote by mail, and make a photocopy of your ballot. It is a lot harder to change a vote when there's a massively distributed paper trail.
Re:vote absentee by mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Err... and then what?
It's not like you could use that photocopy to later on to check whether or not someone flipped your vote...
Parent
Re:vote absentee by mail (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also easier for me to verify if you voted for the party I paid you to vote for.
Parent
Better person to change the vote to. (Score:5, Funny)
I HATE electronic machines (Score:5, Interesting)
In Pennsylvania we have the option of either using the electronic machines, or using a paper ballot. I use the paper ballot every time.
-posted with LYNX, the Commodore 64 browser
Vote redistribution is all about fairness (Score:5, Funny)
I think Obama understands that a level playing field is about the common good and John McCain really needs a leg up. And Sen McCain should not feel ashamed because this is not charity.
This is an early example of new hope.
Calibration? (Score:5, Insightful)
In it to steal it (Score:5, Informative)
John McCain's own polling gives him hope, an aide says
When John McCain insisted, during his appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," that he was doing "just fine" in a presidential race in which the polls have shown Barack Obama with a steady lead over the last few weeks, many may have dismissed the comment as just something that a candidate has to say.
Not so, said a campaign official who spoke on background with The Times' Bob Drogin. The aide said the campaign's internal polling showed McCain down only 4 percentage points nationally -- a sharp improvement from a week ago -- and closing fast.
State-by-state, the private polling also showed McCain up 1 point in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, and behind by only 3 points in Virginia (a new Washington Post survey found him down 8 there).
McCain almost assuredly needs to capture all five states to win the presidency. And even that may not be enough if he fails to win Pennsylvania, one of his campaign stops today. Without Pennsylvania, McCain needs to pull more electoral votes out of some combination of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico or Iowa -- all states where, as of now, the internal numbers look bleak.
The anonymous McCain official argued a comeback remains doable. "Check with me Wednesday," the aide said. "If we're still within the margin of error (in polling), we're going to win."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/john-mccains-ow.html [latimes.com]
Just like the last two times.
Paper Ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paper Ballots (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple answer: Because a good paper ballot is hard to forge (in time for the pre-counting of the votes).
Previously in US, Inc. where paper ballots have been used in the past, they've been "lost", "stolen", or switched out for "other" ballots with different counts.
Electronic voting doesn't have all of those pesky "accountability" issues that paper ballots have.
Parent
Man Of The Year!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's exactly like in the movie!
/sarcasm
Re:Spam inc. (Score:5, Funny)
yes a little caricature called Voty pops up and says,"I see you are attempting to vote for Barak Obama, would you like me to help you? Press yes for me to help you change your mind, or press no to vote for John McCain." Bounce Bounce ... Bounce Bounce
Parent
Re:fair voting interface (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more than 2 people running for the office of President.
Parent