You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #30: I just don't think this is correct [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #21
30. I just don't think this is correct
I agree that the point about "my" vote counting is salient: it isn't obvious that it inherently matters whether individual votes can be audited or not.

Here's my problem:
Unfortunately, the mechanism of a lever voting machine maintains no independent record of each voter's ballot. Instead, the only record of a vote is the count maintained on the mechanical register behind each voting lever, where each register has a mechanism comparable to the odometer in a car. Not only is this vulnerable to tampering by the technicians who maintain the machine, but it means that the machine has an immense number of moving parts that are subject to wear and very difficult to completely test.

Roy G. Saltman has noted that the number 99 shows up in the vote totals on lever machines significantly more frequently than would be expected if vote totals were randomly distributed -- that is, the number of 99's is noticably different from the number of 98's or 100's. The probable explanation is that it takes more force to turn the vote counting wheels in a lever machine from 99 to 100, and therefore, if the counter is going to jam, it is more likely to jam at 99. The fact that this is a frequent occurance (sic) in vote totals reported from lever machines is empirical evidence that the lever machines that have been used in real elections are, in fact, inadequately maintained and that this results in the loss of a significant number of votes. Exhaustive pre-election testing would be expected to detect these jams, but exhaustive testing of a mechanism as complex as a lever voting machine is very time consuming, and performing such tests on every voting machine prior to every election would be prohibitively expensive.

Lever machines do fail in elections, and some probably fail without it being noticed. Also, as demodonkey pointed out, there's reason to believe that individual machines can be tampered with practically undetectably.

I think it's at least perfectly plausible to say that lever machines are the best we've got. But Andi Novick seems to be in deep denial, and I'm not interested in going there with her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Voter's Unite Responds to NYVV's Innaccurate and Incomplete "Fact (sic) Sheet" Wilms  Feb-20-09 11:24 PM   #0 
  - Are they all sleeping? Or are they just not doing their job  kster   Feb-21-09 01:11 AM   #1 
  - hey, do you have hand counted paper ballots in your home town, county or state?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-21-09 12:31 PM   #3 
  - Hand Count  a777pilot   Feb-21-09 12:37 PM   #4 
     - Welcome to DU, 777.  troubleinwinter   Feb-21-09 07:49 PM   #5 
     - Hand Count E'm if you Got Em  kster   Feb-22-09 01:12 AM   #8 
  - We in NC deliberately chose the term "voting system" to ensure  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-21-09 12:29 PM   #2 
  - They are not working against each other. NYVV has mistated some facts and VU has corrected them.  Bill Bored   Feb-21-09 10:46 PM   #7 
  - yeesh  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-22-09 07:28 AM   #9 
     - Wrong.  Wilms   Feb-22-09 10:53 AM   #10 
        - huh?  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-22-09 01:17 PM   #11 
           - I'll put a lever up against a DRE, any day, in a transparency competition.  Wilms   Feb-22-09 04:14 PM   #12 
              - is that the choice?  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-22-09 07:41 PM   #13 
                 - The difference is...  Bill Bored   Feb-22-09 08:38 PM   #14 
                 - Pencil lead will wear away as gears rub against it over the course of election day...  demodonkey   Feb-22-09 09:26 PM   #15 
                    - Well, that's why the machine should be tested before each election and LOCKED.  Bill Bored   Feb-23-09 01:42 PM   #20 
                       - The old-time reasoning was that the person doing the locking was the person inserting the lead.  demodonkey   Feb-23-09 06:17 PM   #22 
                          - One problem with this scenario in NY:  Bill Bored   Feb-23-09 08:56 PM   #25 
                 - You brought up DREs. I didn't.  Wilms   Feb-22-09 10:40 PM   #16 
                 - but so far you haven't addressed my central point  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-23-09 05:44 AM   #17 
                    - I did address your point.  Wilms   Feb-23-09 09:25 AM   #18 
                       - it's my vote, not yours  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-23-09 12:51 PM   #19 
                          - Wilms' point about the "Me Generation" is intertesting.  Bill Bored   Feb-23-09 02:25 PM   #21 
                          - I just don't think this is correct  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-24-09 08:02 AM   #30 
                             - This isn't about Novick...or Jones.  Wilms   Feb-24-09 09:29 AM   #31 
                             - I'll tell you who's really in deep denial:  Bill Bored   Feb-26-09 02:36 AM   #34 
                             - Can I quote you?!?  Wilms   Feb-26-09 09:13 AM   #35 
                                - Wilms, WTF?  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-27-09 04:09 PM   #36 
                                   - I'm just appreciating it.  Wilms   Feb-27-09 09:07 PM   #37 
                                   - Now boys, boys...please let's try to keep the discussion CIVIL!  Bill Bored   Mar-02-09 02:23 PM   #51 
                          - How's those ballot security bills going in the NYS Legislature?  Wilms   Feb-23-09 09:34 PM   #26 
                             - no, I'm totally frustrated about the matter at hand  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-24-09 07:57 AM   #29 
                                - It's bizarre to you.  Wilms   Feb-24-09 09:34 AM   #32 
                 - Levers are NOT transparent, their plus is the limited risk compared to risk with computerized voting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-23-09 07:17 PM   #23 
                 - Avi Rubin on software vs. lever machines:  Bill Bored   Feb-24-09 03:14 AM   #28 
                 - Levers are NOT transparent, their plus is the limited risk compared to risk with computerized voting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-23-09 07:17 PM   #24 
                    - See Post #21. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder, but with software,  Bill Bored   Feb-24-09 03:07 AM   #27 
  - self delete  Cookie wookie   Mar-06-09 07:14 AM   #52 
  - K&R!  Stevepol   Feb-21-09 08:28 PM   #6 
  - NYVV's interpretation re permanent paper records is reasonable  payin attention   Feb-26-09 12:48 AM   #33 
  - well...  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-28-09 10:10 AM   #38 
  - GIven the EAC Advisory, NYVV is reasonable  payin attention   Feb-28-09 10:29 PM   #39 
     - the ground is getting a bit boggy  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 09:24 AM   #40 
     - Professor Blur, do you still defend Lipari being disingenuous and misleading?  Wilms   Mar-01-09 10:19 AM   #41 
        - dude, you are flatly misquoting him  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 12:40 PM   #42 
           - I have not misquoted him.  Wilms   Mar-01-09 01:41 PM   #43 
              - look, you can't win this  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 06:05 PM   #46 
                 - Hey. I already "won".  Wilms   Mar-01-09 07:14 PM   #47 
                    - I welcome anyone to listen to the MP3  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 09:00 PM   #48 
                       - Forget my "line". It's Lipari's at issue.  Wilms   Mar-01-09 10:48 PM   #49 
     - That advisory is NOT reasonable!  Bill Bored   Mar-01-09 05:11 PM   #45 
  - You are wrong. Here's why:  Bill Bored   Mar-01-09 05:00 PM   #44 
  - Oh, and BTW, you're wrong about this too:  Bill Bored   Mar-02-09 02:01 PM   #50 
  - kick! nt  Bill Bored   May-20-09 10:58 AM   #53 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC