I agree that this is not 'user error'. I would say its a 'poorly made interface', but bargl is right. Your initial claim was: >If it's user error, there should

I agree that this is not 'user error'. I would say its a 'poorly made interface', but bargl is right. Your initial claim was: >If it's user error, there should be reports of votes being switched both ways. Bargl gave a counter-example, showing that a lack of bi-directional changes doesn't place such constraints on the possible nature of the problem. > I can think of a few reasonable explanations. The first being that it probably defaults to whoever is at the top of the ballot. I.E. The incumbent and in this case a Republican. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." He wasn't claiming that the defaults must be relevant, only that they could be relevant.