Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Guardian: Why machines are bad at counting votes

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
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:48 PM
Original message
The Guardian: Why machines are bad at counting votes

Why machines are bad at counting votes



Democracy is made difficult by the fact that electronic voting systems are inherently flawed



Click the box voters from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, during last Novembers presidential election hope their ballots wont be erased. Photograph: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

It's commonly said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Yet this is what we keep doing with electronic voting machines - find flaws and try again. It should therefore have been no surprise when, at the end of March, California's secretary of state's office of voting system technology assessment decertified older voting systems from Diebold's Premier Election Solutions division. The reason: a security flaw that erased 197 votes in the Humboldt county precinct in last November's presidential election.

Clearly, 197 votes would not have changed the national result. But the loss, which exceeds the error rate allowed under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, was only spotted because a local citizen group, the Humboldt County Election Transparency Project (humtp.com) monitored the vote using a ballot-imaging scanner to create an independent record. How many votes were lost elsewhere?

Humboldt county used Diebold's GEMS operating system version 1.18.19 to tally postal ballots scanned in batches, or "decks". The omission of votes was a result of a flaw in the system, where, given particular circumstances, it deletes the first deck, named "Deck Zero", without noting it in the system's audit logs.

more at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/30/e-voti...
Refresh | +6 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Business as usual for the biggest scam industry in the US next to Bernie Madoff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. we had problems with some ballot files, also early voting
We had around 3,000 polling places open in Nov 2008.

During early voting we had problems with the reporting of results, which are sent to the
State Board of Elections website. Some votes were double reported, messing up the count.

Then there were cases where officials made errors in the ballot definition files, causing
errors there.

There's so many ways to foul it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. From the article
"It is shocking that in this day and age this has been allowed to continue."

In other words don't let the ballots leave the neighborhood before they are hand counted and recorded by the people in that neighborhood, its that simple people.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why do we feel we have to have election results that night? I'd wait a few days. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. Blaming machines for the vendor specific and ...
state dominated systems in which they are implemented is silly. The difference betwixt ATMs and voting machines is that the end user can verify the ATMz work. Were ballots standardized like money utilizing current OCR technology, we could design a class of machine to enable the end user, the voter, to verify the results in parallel to the official systems, thus wrestling control of the electoral process from the current electronic business and state monopolized systems.
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 Sun Aug 31st 2014, 02:06 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