SHOCK VIDEO: CA touchscreen machine gives Sanders vote to another candidate

[berniesandero]

Computer malfunction or intentional software shenanigans? Either way, we need to fix America's infrastructure, starting with voting machines!


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Faux pas]

1. K N R-ed

and

[pnwmom]

74. The orange box says "Alameda co." But that county uses paper ballots & optical scanners.

On the county elections website, you can see a demonstration of their optical scanning system here. (The second video, where it says "Voting System Demonstration.&quot

http://www.acgov.org/rov/videos.htm

And here you can see Alameda employees getting training on this machine -- in 2011.

[billhicks76]

90. Computers Dont Just Malfunction

Trust me...flipping a vote doesn't just happen. When was the last time your ATM flipped numbers incorrectly. The machines are very similar and made by the same companies. Banks never have errors unless human eror but voting machines always do??? By the way CA Sec Of State said there are 1.25 million uncounted votes still. Thats amazing. Bernie was down by 400,000 when it was said.

[pnwmom]

91. Alameda county uses paper ballots and optical scanners..

The machine shown next to the "Alameda county" mail-in box isn't an optical scanner.

So I think that little scene was staged.

On the county elections website, you can see a demonstration of their optical scanning system here. (The second video, where it says "Voting System Demonstration.&quot

http://www.acgov.org/rov/videos.htm

[billhicks76]

92. Its A General Comment

[JimDandy]

96. Doesn't look like a voting center. Might be a warehouse/facility where CA's election equipment is

certified and or stored. A state I used to live in would radomly pull voting equipment from the counties right before an election, and check them for calibration problems.

I'm not sure what this video is attempting to prove (calibration error? deliberate stealing of votes?), but it's doubful this is an actual voter on election day, as the setting looks off and most jurisdictions prohibit voters from using cameras to take screenshots of their vote. Deliberate vote switching or not, this video instantly conveys the real problem our country has gotten itself into by trusting our elections to hackable, problematic electronic voting machines, instead of verifiable paper ballots.

Could Alameda County be using optical scanners for the mail in ballots and electronic voting machines on election day?

[pnwmom]

98. The Alameda County elections website

has a link to a demo showing what voters will encounter when they go to the polls -- paper ballots that they will mark themselves and then insert into the optical scanner.

Here is a link to the demo:

http://www.acgov.org/rov/votingsystemdemo.htm

Here is a link to the elections website that connects to the above link:

http://www.acgov.org/rov/videos.htm

[JimDandy]

99. Thanks so much for that...

ETA: I see now the link was in your first post, but I somehow missed it.

[DetlefK]

105. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes they do. Oh, they do.

Semiconductor-electronics age because of diffusion of the doping-atoms, magnetically stored data becomes corrupted from thermal noise, the glue holding the glass of the touchscreen deteriorates and leads to uneven contacts...

Do you know how old those touchscreens are? I bet, 5 years minimum.

Have you ever used a 10-year-old touchscreen? A 10-year-old computer?

[billhicks76]

107. Good Point

I guess they just aren't maintained like ATMs ?

[DetlefK]

108. Maintenance costs money.

And there is only so much you can maintain without professional help from the company. You can handle data-corruption, but aging will always happen unless you solder in new microchips and glue in new glass-sheets for the touchscreen.

[billhicks76]

109. I Need A Harddrive That Never Goes Bad

[DetlefK]

110. Then you need an SSD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

+ very fast
+ can hold data for long time
- Ages not with time but depending on how much it's actually in use. Bad for situations where you regularly write and delete huge amounts of data.
- expensive

[billhicks76]

122. Thanks

[JimDandy]

118. They are seldom used during those years though. Maybe 200 uses twice a year every couple years.

The failure rate for touchscreen election machine was unacceptably high in the 2000s when I was involved with their use. Both jurisdictions where I lived back then ended up dumping them in favor of optically scanned paper ballots

[missingthebigdog]

2. Okaaay. . . .

If this were a widespread issue, it seems Mr. Steinberg would have made a considerably better showing.

[notadmblnd]

3. Yep just another isolated incident just like all the other isolated incidents

that just happened to screw Sanders and help Hillary.

[missingthebigdog]

4. This helped Hillary how?

[notadmblnd]

8. it diluted and denied votes

that Sanders should/would have received.

[missingthebigdog]

11. Nice. Juvenile name calling.

I am REALLY going to miss that after the 16th.

[phazed0]

15. I didn't call you any names, wish to clarify?

Change your handle if you don't like it.

[missingthebigdog]

18. Nope. Proud of my handle

Think I'll keep it.

[phazed0]

19. So where did I call you a name?

Or are you just going to drop your juvenile finger pointing?

[PatrynXX]

54. didn't see any name calling either.

it was a Joke. I've been name called. That wasn't name calling. Besides us bullied people tended to crack jokes over it and not tape the bully's mouth shut . Hey 4 eyes. Oh ahem sorry you didn't notice I have 6. Bifocals. Now we have no lines I'm a fly Shut them up real fast Don't have any idea why that was hidden but I've given up on the jury system. It's nothing but kids. It works about 50/50 of the time.

[JimDandy]

97. Yes, that was a bad call by the jury. Well, in 8 days, at least jury calls will be appealable.

[Fuddnik]

116. Who's gonna be left here in 8 days?

This place needs a control tower.

[JimDandy]

119. LOL.. Yep.

[highprincipleswork]

29. How many isolated incidents does it take to make some seriously fucked up shit!

[Tortmaster]

93. Are you suggesting a giant, evil conspiracy?

Well, then the game is afoot! Grab your revolver, Watson, we're needed in California!

[alain2112]

95. A giant evil conspiracy indeed

A conspiracy so vast, encompassing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, not one of whom has ever divulged his terrible secret, yet foiled by the discovery and release of this video. I tremble for the future of America, nay for the entire Free World. BradBlog! O, BradBlog! Come save us, Mighty BradBlog!

[notadmblnd]

113. no

As I said just one more coincidence in a long line of coincidences. If HIllary wasn't rich, I'd tell her to buy lottery tickets, she's that damn lucky.

[Omaha Steve]

7. Perhaps they didn't all flip to Steinberg?

Maybe to somebody else...

[missingthebigdog]

13. Perhaps none of them flipped at all.

Perhaps this machine had a glitch and was taken out of service.
Perhaps voters are smart enough to call somebody's attention to the fact that a machine is broken.

Interesting that there was no attempt by whomever made this video to attempt any of the other candidates to see what would happen.

[Omaha Steve]

16. Like butterfly ballots and chads in FL....

[Scootaloo]

79. You know, it really amazes me that the machines we use for voting keep getting "glitches."

And it keeps getting dismissed as nothing.

I wonder, if the same machines take votes from Clinton in November, and deliver them to, I dunno, Gary Johnson, will you be as dismissive and accepting of the problem? Oh. Just a glitch.

Fort a moment, get over the candidates. These machiense and hteir perpetual "glitches" are a real problem for our democracy, regardless of who you support.

[JimDandy]

100. Yes indeed.

Fort a moment, get over the candidates. These machiense and hteir perpetual "glitches" are a real problem for our democracy, regardless of who you support.

[JohnnyRingo]

86. The whole video is fishy.

First of all, the voter walked up to the machine and immediately began voting without inserting an activation card. Presumably he could have voted on all the machines. He had his iPhone ready to record the act for some reason. Second, anyone with half a brain and one eye would have noticed that the vote was recorded incorrectly and report it. You're right that he oddly didn't try any other options.

This was staged for entertainment purposes and hi-jacked by Bernie people as "proof" that Sanders won in California. I'd wonder who'd fall for this obvious prank, but you know...

[pnwmom]

124. Yes, lots of clues that this was fishy. And yet another one:

the orange box for the mail-in ballots says this was in Alameda County. But Alameda County's website says they use paper ballots and optical scanners -- which makes sense because mail-in ballots and voting-day ballots can then both be scanned on the same machine.

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. Well ...

I'd wonder who'd fall for this obvious prank, but you know...

I'd say the same people that fell for this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2164332


See this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2166263

[hopemountain]

53. yes, depending on the

precincts and counties. less traceable.

also, the misinformed volunteer workers who insisted on only giving out provisional ballots to voters who brought in their mail in ballots to exchange for vote in person.

they are wiley - those coyotes.

[OldRedneck]

77. Not so fast there.

I'm a member of the electoral board in a rural Virginia county.

If someone shows up with an absentee/mail-in ballot at our polls and wants to cast a live ballot, claiming they did not mail in their ballot, our poll workers are instructed to give them a provisional . . . because . . . HOW DO I KNOW THE ABSENTEE/MAIL-IN BALLOT YOU HAVE IS YOURS? HOW DO I KNOW YOU DID NOT CAST YOUR ABSENTEE/MAIL-IN BALLOT?

You cast a provisional. The day after the election, the registrar now has a record of who received absentee/mail-in ballots, who returned them, and who has them still outstanding. If yours is one of those still outstanding, we count you provisional. If your absentee/mail-in ballot has been cast, we toss your provisional.

This situation happens 2-3 times in our county at every election.

[hopemountain]

88. are you replying to my post, specifically?

my post is specifically in reference to the voting machine in yesterday's primary. and the report of provisional ballots being given to person's who brought in their mail in no party or independent ballots and wanted to exchange for a party specific primary ballot. poll workers were supposed to have been instructed to exchange per the request of the voter.

when someone brings in a ballot - obviously, they have not yet voted. unless someone was mailed duplicate ballots - does this happen?
no? did not think so.

seriously, how would it even be possible for someone to bring in their ballot and somehow have already sent it in and voted?

[JimDandy]

101. I don't get it either. As a previous poll worker, we were trained that if a voter brought

in their ballot along with the mail-back envelope having their name on it, they could spoil the ballot and receive a new regular ballot.

[JohnnyRingo]

127. Would you have noticed this error?

Do you think all the other Bernie voters are too stupid to see this obvious alignment problem and report it?

I don't.

[Omaha Steve]

128. I'm think english as a second language etc

[rhett o rick]

9. LOL. For every shenanigan we find you act like that's the only one.

How about this one: http://www.gregpalast.com/california-stolen-sanders-right-nowspecial-bulletin-greg-palast/

And here's what Pres Carter had to say: "In the context of the Carter Centre’s work monitoring electoral processes around the globe, Carter also disclosed his opinion that in the US “we have one of the worst election processes in the world, and it’s almost entirely because of the excessive influx of money,” he said referring to lack of controls over private campaign donations."

Where did this "anything to win" mentality for Democrats come from?

[GoneFishin]

58. I've given up on euphemisms. They are fucking cheating. And they have been all over the country. nt

[Tortmaster]

94. I saw an anonymous video of an Alien Autopsy once, ...

... so don't tell me they're not hiding aliens, too!

[w4rma]

5. It's misaligned. Hillary's vote should go to Roque De La Fuente. Touchscreens shouldn't be used.

In my county we use paper ballots and the paper ballots are scanned, and proofed for errors, as they are dropped into a ballot box. I can't think of a better system than the one used in my county (Henrico, VA).

[rhett o rick]

10. Our election system is rigged for a reason, to support the Corporate Candidates.

The sad part, many Americans live in a bubble of denial.

[desmiller]

22. ^^^This

[zeemike]

34. And has been for years.

And no matter how many times it is exposed it just goes on and on.
And no one in positions of power will say a word about it much less do something.

[RufusTFirefly]

42. Yes, I'm exasperated by those who see it as "a Republican thing"

Face it, folks. It's a One Percent thing.
Voting is fine. It pacifies the masses into believing we still have a democracy.
But it can never threaten the goals and wealth of the billionaire class.

[rhett o rick]

75. well put.

[Angry Dragon]

59. yes

[bbgrunt]

64. so obvious, yet it eludes those whose bread it butters

[rhett o rick]

76. It also eludes those that choose to live in a bubble of denial. Try to pull back the curtain

and they will attack you.

[valerief]

67. Yes, our voting system is working as designed. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. Or don't care when it favors their corporate candidate.

[jg10003]

73. The problem with that system is that the electronic vote from the scan....

is used to determine the outcome. The paper ballots are only checked in the event of a recount. It's the same system used here in Broward County, Fla. The best system is to use a touch screen to print a clear unambiguous paper ballot. The paper ballots are then counted. The touch screen doesn't record any votes, it just prints a ballot unencumbered by bad handwriting, over-voting, under-voting, confusing layouts (i.e. butterfly ballots), etc.

[pnwmom]

83. They use paper ballots and optical scanners in Alameda County -- the county

named on that orange box in the photo.

So there's something strange about the photo.

This is the Alameda county elections website. See the second video, where it says "Voting System Demonstration."

http://www.acgov.org/rov/videos.htm

[bvar22]

123. Even that system can be rigged.

The most vulnerable point in you election system is not the optical scanner (or BBV i other places), but at the tabulators which are out public sight... and so are the paper ballots by that time.
To rig a vote at the individual BBV level would take thousands of rigged boxes, and many people in on the scam. To rig a few tabulators takes only one person, and that would be enough to flip a close election.

[packman]

12. Reminds me of the Stalin quote

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes"

[felix_numinous]

14. Why do Hillary supporters scoff at election fraud?

Pretend for a second Clinton votes were changed to Trump with these same tactics. I keep hoping people will wake up to the problem, but I don't expect it at this point.

[notadmblnd]

46. Just wait, they'll not be scoffing for long

They'll be wailing and accusing Donald Trump of election fraud

[FailureToCommunicate]

48. Agreed!

[MattP]

17. The guy was messing with it

It's like any old touchscreen they suck

[w4rma]

20. He wasn't messing with it. Touchscreens go out of alignment, especially during heavy use.

And, yes, touchscreens do suck and shouldn't be used.

In my county we use paper ballots and the paper ballots are scanned, and proofed for errors, as they are dropped into a ballot box. I can't think of a better system than the one used in my county (Henrico, VA).

[DawgHouse]

25. Sounds like the system used at my precinct but what do you mean

when you say the ballot is proofed for errors?

[w4rma]

30. We have a scanner that will reject ballots and allow the voter to fill in a brand new one.

It won't let invalid ballots into the ballot box and cuts down on voter error.

[DawgHouse]

32. Oh, gotcha!

Ours is the same.

[w4rma]

36. I really like that system and can't think of a better solution. (nt)

[DawgHouse]

37. I agree. I like that there is a paper trail.

[w4rma]

40. Yeah, and each ballot inserted into the locked ballot box has to pass through a verification system.

I don't know if the system keeps a record of timestamps for ballots inserted, but that little bit of code, would make the system even more secure than it already is.

Even without ballot timestamps, it's still the best, most secure, system - I think.

[zeemike]

39. Buy still that scanner counts the votes.

And you have no idea if it puts them in the right place, and no one does...Only the computer programer knows for sure...that is the beauty of it.

Only an audit of the actual ballots will uncover it...and that is difficult to obtain, and if you do they will only do a few precincts not the whole thing.

The computer whether it is a touch screen or a scanner makes election fraud child's play.

[w4rma]

41. I'm fine with this. The paper ballots are there to be counted and to verify.

The scanner allows for speed and immediate results. The paper ballots allow for accurate, verifiable results.

Since the scanner checks for voter errors on ballots, too, the paper ballots should be well-organized, practically error free, and easily read and counted.

[zeemike]

69. There is no verification unless you count them by hand.

And you will need a court order to do that...and probable cause.

The scanner may check for errors on the ballot but no one checks for "errors" in the program that counts and totals the vote.
And any programer could write a program to say something like, if candidate A is less than candidate B, add vote A to B and when percentage reaches X stop.
And if you can't look at the code no one would ever know.

If fast is what you want then you will get it, but it don't mean it is not rigged.

[w4rma]

129. I'm fine with this, too. That's a legal issue, not a technical issue. The ballots would be there for

the counting. If you want a law to make counting the paper ballots, required, in all elections, I'm fine with that. And the computer tally would *still* be there for redundancy.

[downeastdaniel]

28. Good for your county...but the vast majority has these damned touch screens or whatever...no good.

[w4rma]

31. Exactly. Those touchscreens need to go away forever.

And I say this from the perspective of a computer engineer.

[notadmblnd]

47. Trying to cast a vote is messing with it?

[kadaholo]

21. And there you have it!

Sad commentary for voting in our "democracy."

[Duval]

23. Dammit!

I wish the Revolution happened yesterday!

[zentrum]

24. Hope he raises Holy Hell nt

[downeastdaniel]

26. Gee, we've know this crap especially during 2000 and 2004 prez elections..so why not just use paper?

Answer: Both Parties act like there's no problem, and of course there is and it has disastrous results...we need to change the system...

[Amimnoch]

27. ROFLMAO, okay, all 7,905 vote Michael got.. Bernie can have.

That gives you what? A 0.25 delagate gain?

You know the story about the boy who cried wolf? If Hillary really has the super powers to swing elections, I guess there's nothing for ya'll to worry about with regards to her winning in November.

[AlbertCat]

43. ROFLMAO

Yes, it's all just a big joke, isn't it?

When the Hill's in the house.... we can all go back to our complacency. She's got this! Even if she was voted "most untrustworthy".

[Amimnoch]

45. Yes. This is a pathetic attempt at a joke.

Worse, it cheapens actual disenfranchisement like Arizona and Brooklyn.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Where was this?

[renate]

35. this really pisses me off. People stand in line for hours to cast their one single vote

Of course mistakes due to touch-screens are worse the more often they happen, but it's completely unacceptable that it happens at all. And that's not even addressing the susceptibility of vote-counting to hacking. It's just absurd that the United States of America, a country that thinks it's entitled to get all judgy about other countries' elections, can't get it right.

And this has been going on for YEARS. There has been plenty of time to either get rid of this kind of voting or get it right. It's completely unacceptable in a country where "one person, one vote" is (supposed to be) a bedrock of our society.

[allinthegame]

50. So

Use the absentee ballot...no standing in line...no computer muck-ups....
Just get it in before Election Day.

[renate]

61. lucky me--I live in Oregon :)

Voting literally could not be easier--the ballot comes in the mail, you go over the voter's pamphlet at your leisure, and mail the ballot in or drop it off. I really wish everybody was as fortunate as we are here.

[hughee99]

38. Bookmarked. I'm curious to see the contrast the next time

It's a republican who benefits from this.

[Cheese Sandwich]

44. LOL

[AzDar]

49. 16-Point Discrepancy In CA Exit Polls...

[PatrickforO]

51. This, and many other 'incidents' are troubling.

The AP announcement on the eve of the CA primary, for instance.

But our guy is going to meet with Obama tomorrow. As much a gentleman as he's been, I fully expect that he'll get behind Clinton and add a powerful voice to President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

See, as bummed as I am about Bernie losing, we did not lose. These politicians are now discussing how to mitigate wealth inequality, relieving student debt, improving healthcare, and other things that would genuinely make our lives better. Obama just came out with the idea we should EXPAND Social Security! He WAS ready to put it on the table for the so-called 'grand bargain.'

Bernie's really done some good.

[LibDemAlways]

55. Yes, Bernie's ideas are great and they'll be about

as welcome at the platform committee as telemarketer calls at dinnertime.

[PatrickforO]

56. LOL...Sure they will!

But thanks to Bernie (and all of us), they'll be making that call anyway.

[PatrynXX]

52. This is where if whoever wins complains in November

Hey we warned you in March on forward. If you didn't listen we can't help that.

[Angry Dragon]

57. sanctioned election fraud

[Major Nikon]

60. This doesn't happen in America! Maybe Ohio, but not America.

[SmittynMo]

62. This is a calibration problem

Odds are the machine was serviced and the screen was not re-calibrated. Very easy oversight, but then if testing was done, they certainly would have caught this.

[still_one]

84. or defective, and I would hope they informed the poll worker, and they took the machine out of

service.

[kadaholo]

63. Just Realized...

...the programmer forgot the last command on this machine which would have hidden all flipping from the voter. LOL!

[SusanCalvin]

65. Not saying it has been done, but it sure could be.

HAVA was a scam.

Paper ballots, hand counted at the precinct level, with a webcam watching. Results posted on the door, and a photo of same posted on the web, before the ballot box leaves.

[JimDandy]

104. Yep...all of those procedures are necessary for a good election process!

[valerief]

66. Are people surprised by this? It's been going on since the introduction of electronic

voting.

[blackspade]

68. More election fraud....

[Rafale]

71. Good thing these machines can't be hacked, right?

I mean who would hack them. Computers are completely secure. Well except for OPM, oh and United Airlines. And Target, and the Federal Reserve. Oh and. Ugh. Never mind. Gotta pee. This could take all night listing exceptions.

[SusanCalvin]

112. ^THIS^

[pnwmom]

72. Except this CA county uses paper ballots and optical scanners.

See the orange box that says "Alameda County"? You can see a demonstration of Alameda County's optical scanning system on its election's website here. (The second video, where it says "Voting System Demonstration.&quot

http://www.acgov.org/rov/videos.htm

It looks nothing like the touchscreen device shown in the video.

And this is a 2011 video showing Alameda employees getting training on the machine.

So this doesn't make sense.

[still_one]

78. Do you notice how you are being ignored? Since what you are stating doesn't fit their narrative,

they don't want to hear it. However, let's assume the machine was used.

The video doesn't show what happened if you try to select Hillary Clinton. Would touching Hillary's name have selected Fuente?

It's possible the touch screen was not calibrated properly and the same would probably happen to each candidate you try to select. However, it could also be a defective machine. Was the machine taking out of service? Was the problem reported by the voter?

[JimDandy]

103. A lot of us Sanders supporters have the majority of the Clinton supporters on ignore

(and vice-versa) so her posts are probably just not being seen. I took all the Clintonians off ignore just 2 or 3 weeks ago. It may take many SBS supporters a lot longer to do so, if at all.

[still_one]

115. Makes sense. I don't put anyone on ignore, but that's just me. Thanks

[OldRedneck]

80. I'd like to see more

I'm on the electoral board of a rural Virginia county.

We got rid of our touch-screen machines last year. However, while we were still using them, at every election, we always had a problem with at least one machine -- either the machine would not accept a vote, or, it would do what this one is doing.

Every time a machine did something like this, the voter IMMEDIATELY called it to the attention of one of our poll workers. We call the machine out of action, issue the voter a paper ballot, seal the machine, and remove it from the polling.

After the election, when the techs check out the bad machine, we always found it was either:
-- slipped out of calibration
-- user error (long fingernail hits the button above your choice; voter doesn't firmly touch button, punches screen again, this time missing the button for their choice; voter drags their finger across the screen instead of tapping the button).

I have another question about the video. Why is the VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS ballot box sitting on the floor next to the machine? Why wouldn't vote-by-mail ballots go to the registrar's office by mail? Do people bring their vote-by-mail ballots to the polling place for deposit? If so, it seems to me proper polling place layout would have that box located somewhere else, so you don't have people voting at the machine while someone else is elbowing their way past to cast a mail-in ballot.

Something's fishy here and it's more than the performance of the machine.

[pnwmom]

81. And the other thing that's fishy?

The vote-by-mail ballots in that county -- Alameda co, as identified by the box on the floor -- are processed by optical scan machines.

The same machines that the county elections website says is what they use in their elections.
See the second video, where it says "Voting System Demonstration."

http://www.acgov.org/rov/videos.htm

[still_one]

82. That is exactly right. What would have happened if Hillary was selected, would it select Fuente?

If the machine was defective, or the touch screen not calibrated properly, was this reported, and the machine taken out of service? None of this is made cleared.

All your points are excellent.

[JimDandy]

102. Yes, voters can bring their mail in ballots to their precint voting center on election day

and drop them in the box. This might be a warehouse that CA state uses to check election equipment from various counties or a distribution center. It is almost certainly not a voter on election day in this video.

[Gomez163]

85. The machine has more sense than the voter. Good.

[JohnnyRingo]

87. Hahahaha

I know you don't mean it, but that's funny.

I think the video is a scam anyway. It's just too perfect how he walks up to the machine, cell phone in hand, and twice pushes for Bernie. Obviously it's a misaligned screen that would have been caught immediately by anyone with half a brain and one eye.

To imagine this would have fooled thousands upon thousands of voters really sells Sanders' voters short on intellectual awareness.

[pnwmom]

89. I agree. Also, the box of mail-in ballots says its Alameda Co, Ca.

And that county's website says it uses paper ballots and optical scanner machines.

On the county elections website, you can see a demonstration of their optical scanning system here. (The second video, where it says "Voting System Demonstration.&quot

http://www.acgov.org/rov/videos.htm

[DetlefK]

106. Oh, for fuck's sake. This is clearly a simple technical malfunction.

You never had that problem? Seriously? This is a well-known issue with aged touchscreens.

So, if you tip on Bernie, the mark goes to the candidate above Bernie. Why didn't this imbecile try tipping on the guy BELOW Bernie and see what happens?
"Oh No! The touchscreen falsely alocates votes to Bernie Sanders!"



This whole video is so ridiculous, words fail.

[progressoid]

111. Yeah, my old phone did this too.

Had a hell of a time getting the 'period' to work.

And it looks like this one has already been pulled from use.

[JohnnyRingo]

126. Even more amazing...

...is that some here think thousands would not have noticed and cast their ballot anyway. It's a pretty obvious glitch and unless someone were texting and checking their email while looking around the room they would have caught it and alerted the poll workers. If they didn't the next person would have.

Anyone who didn't see such a stark error probably didn't care who they voted for anyway.

This was probably just a poll worker checking a malfunctioning screen on a machine that was already out of service... Or what many call widespread fraud by Hillary. hahaha

[Gamecock Lefty]

114. Why is it . . .

When Bernie loses a state he said he was going to win (and there are lots) there were voting machine shenanigans but when he wins – “hey, all these voting machines performed perfectly?”

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. This is why the corporate candidate hates caucuses.

You can't hack a caucus.

[pnwmom]

120. You seem to have forgotten all the screams of election fraud

over the Iowa caucuses.

And all the screams over the Nevada caucuses.

And in my Washington caucus, the Bernie poll-watcher was so sure there would be fraud, he was telling everyone to take a photo of our ballots on our phones.

I hate caucuses because they require hours of time, are non-representative, and non-inclusive.

[jimlup]

121. It's obviously miscalibrated....

I would assume there is a calibration proceedure. Not trying to defend Ms. Clinton here but I suspect other votes would have been missed by this machine. The correct procedure would be to immediately draw it to the poll worker's attention.

[Pastiche423]

131. K&R!