Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OH: Broken (Diebold) Memory Card Blamed in Lost Ballots (Brunner's Audit Credited with Finding Them)

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
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 12:42 AM
Original message
OH: Broken (Diebold) Memory Card Blamed in Lost Ballots (Brunner's Audit Credited with Finding Them)

Broken Memory Card Blamed in Lost Ballots

Issue raises questions about the reliability of Montgomery County's electronic voting machines. (Wilms notes: Ya think?!?)

By Lynn Hulsey

Staff Writer

Thursday, January 08, 2009

DAYTON The maker of Montgomery County's electronic voting machines is blaming a damaged memory card for the loss of five ballots on Election Day.

Board of Elections Director Steve Harsman said Premier Election Solutions' (Wilms notes: pronounced, "Diebold") preliminary report, however, does not indicate how the card became damaged or, more importantly, why the company's software did not detect the problem or correct it.

The five missing ballots from a single precinct in Trotwood on Nov. 4 were discovered only because that precinct was one counted in a special audit of electronic voting machine results ordered statewide by Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/...

Refresh | +10 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well yeah, an audit would find stuff like that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
diva77 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. I wouldn't count on an audit to be a flawless check & balance on results
audits have been done improperly in several CA counties for years
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. The same can be said about HCPB, so be careful what you argue.
Some of the precincts in NH that recently went to Optical Scan did so based on alleged counting errors.

I'm not happy about it. I even wonder if the hand count was rigged to defame HCPB. But if that's what happened, we're still stuck with a problem. Either the hand count was botched, or it was hacked to look like it was botched.

Hope this post didn't ruin your evening. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-10-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Those ain't audits. They're "1% manual tallies."
And I'm still waiting to hear the results of the 10% one they did in CD-4 last year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. And here's the rest of the story:
Edited on Fri Jan-09-09 02:56 AM by Bill Bored
Montgomery County is the largest of 44 Ohio counties using the Premier machines, which earlier were scrapped by Cuyahoga County. Montgomery County paid $6.2 million for 2,500 machines in 2005. The machines made by Premier, then known as Diebold Election Systems, were among the few certified by former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

In 2006, local voting rights advocates discovered calibration problems with the machines here, and in the March 2008 primary, Montgomery and Butler counties found some votes did not properly upload to servers.

Montgomery County also has had problems with the paper records of ballots cast on the machines and with scanners that read paper ballots.


OMG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
3. I was alarmed after Florida that some areas were going to no paper
audit trail electronic systems. While optical scan ballots have some issues, they have proven to be the best overall system.

What we have seen in Minnesota is that optical scan ballots also have problems.

When you are dealing with +/- 200 votes out of 3 million, I don't think any voting system can have fine enough accuracy to truly decide a winner.

How about a force decision touch screen that prints out a ballot at the end which should be reviewed by the voter and dropped into a box? That has problems as well.

Any other suggestions for the best voting method?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. For as much as those machines cost you'd think Quality control would be better.
I know it's MS and I'll bet that all the hardware is the cheapest shit they can assemble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. That's not the problem. The problem is that the machines were designed to
help the repugs "win" elections. They keep people from voting. They "miss register" the vote. The breakdown are programmed in. The only transparent way to register votes is to use pencil and paper ballots and hand count them as Minnesota did with its recount.
We really need to go back to paper only ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. And another problem
Machines that only get used a couple of times a year never get the real world testing they need to get the bugs out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Those bugs were designed in on purpose.
Those voting machines are working, or not, as they are supposed to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You pretty much said that before. I asked if you can back it up.

If not, why not let it go at what we know is provable?

But if it makes you feel that much better...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. A lot of people say those things. I haven't seen proof for half of what you claim.

In fact, these machines are unreliable enough, insecure enough, and expensive enough, that everyone, Dem/Repub, could be up in arms about it.

What has happened, however, is that we've turned it into an easily dismissed partisan wing-nut argument of unsupported claims.

I regret that belief passes as truth.

I say, let's stick to verifiable facts when demanding verifiable elections.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
truckin Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. Does anyone know if these are "Touch-screen" machines or scanners? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. According to verified voting, it's touch screen.
Diebold Accuvote-TSX

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?state=Oh...


It wouldn't surprise if the issue related to scanners, too, however.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
truckin Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-09-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thanks Wilms
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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