5 ms·

Voting machines need to be a lot better than this or not exist at all, but does anyone actually think that IF this machine was altering votes, it would alter it

Voting machines need to be a lot better than this or not exist at all, but does anyone actually think that IF this machine was altering votes, it would alter it in this fashion with a UI element tied to the alteration? Seems more like a crappy touch screen.

jneal 14y ago
This was my thought exactly. If someone was going through the trouble of altering votes, it would make no sense to make note of this within UI elements, it could just as easily "secretly" change the votes for 1/8 (just my theoretical magical number) voters and alter the results just enough without being noticeable.
- Nursie 14y ago
  I wonder though... maybe the inconvenience would be enough to either change a percentage of votes or make a few people give up. Looks like a bug, actually swings a close election?
- weaksauce 14y ago
  from the article (emphasis mine): > I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney’s name and started tapping very closely together to find the ‘active areas’. From the top of Romney’s button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama’s name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein’s button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.
- swang 14y ago
  Except this just frustrates the voter and maybe he doesn't bother voting for Obama at all. There's no accusation of "altering" the votes because how do you track, "Touchscreen didn't select Obama, voter just gave up?"
  - orenmazor 14y ago
    "Cannot reproduce. user error"
  - sharkweek 14y ago
    Donning my tin foil hat for a minute here -- I think if I were to try and attempt to commit voter fraud through the machines, I'd make it this obvious intentionally so it seemed like a legitimate accident to those who noticed; "It's too obvious to be fraud" It would probably cause a small dent and shift by people who don't notice or are confused (elderly).
    - evan_ 14y ago
      If you had complete control over a voting machine, it wouldn't make any sense to try to lower turnout or confuse anyone- you'd want people to vote and leave without having noticed anything, so you could change their vote. The result here is that the voting machine was taken out of duty and will be investigated. If the strategy was to make the error so outlandish that nobody would believe it was happening, the strategy has failed. Since it's pretty obvious that this would be the outcome, it's not a good strategy, and is therefore not likely to have been enacted.
polarix 14y ago
Yep. That's clearly what's happening, and given that there's instant feedback, the user would know there's a problem, and either ask for a different machine or adjust until the system represents their actual intent.
- Groxx 14y ago
  I'm not claiming it is malicious, but would they? If they can swing even 1% of the votes of people who just don't care enough, or would feel embarrassed at failing to use a machine, they can have a significant impact while having an obvious scapegoat. Assuming it's miscalibration, how many people used this machine before the video? how many afterward? >I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said “It’s nothing to worry about, everything will be OK.” and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video. That sounds like they were very likely the first person to complain. What did the rest do?
danielweber 14y ago
It sure looks exactly that way from the video. I've used that exact type of machine to vote in North Carolina (but this ballot is not from North Carolina). You have all sorts of people pounding on the screen all day. Remember the reason we all wanted electronic voting after the year 2000: because it gives absolutely clear answers, not necessarily better answers. (Even the best systems have errors because there are humans involved.) You don't have to debate whether that smudge counts or does not count as a vote.
- weaksauce 14y ago
  Electronic voting should be allowed but not unless it prints out a ballot with all your selections on it so you can verify and have a real paper trail; not some bit in a database that can be changed and most likely has been changed in the past based on grand jury testimony from one of the diebold programmers. As a programmer knowing how insecure programs are I want paper for something like this.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "Electronic voting should be allowed but not unless it prints out a ballot with all your selections on it so you can verify and have a real paper trail" The lack of a receipt is deliberate and prevents vote-buying. A carbon copy of your vote will open as many avenues to fraud as it will close.
    - weaksauce 14y ago
      Not what I was meaning. A physical ballot that you can actually put into a box that then gets counted. You don't get to keep it.
    - Firehed 14y ago
      With everyone and their dog carrying around a camera in their pocket by means of a cell phone? Hardly. Anyone interested in selling their vote could easily take a photo of their ballot (with some identifying info added to the photo as well to show it wasn't a copy from a friend) to prove they voted the way they were paid. Even if this theoretically did increase the chance of vote-buying, I think it's still a worthwhile tradeoff for the massive increase in accountability we get from it.
baddox 14y ago
> does anyone actually think that IF this machine was altering votes, it would alter it in this fashion with a UI element tied to the alteration I think you mean if the machine was intentionally designed to alter votes, it wouldn't do it in this fashion. The article doesn't even hint that this might be done on purpose.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  > The article doesn't even hint that this might be done on purpose. Altering is an action, not something passive. If a machine is altering votes then it must be doing that intentionally. What is happening here is the person interacting with this machine is interacting in such a way that makes the machine believe he is pressing elsewhere on the screen. The title reads as if the machine is doing something, the reality is the user is doing something in such a way that the machine believes they're doing something else, due to poor calibration.
  - dalore 14y ago
    Except the guy is a programmer, understands calibration and tested other elements on the screen. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/12q6wu/2012_voting_machine_altering_votes/c6x8sbi http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/12q6wu/2012_voting... > I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney's name and started tapping very closely together to find the 'active areas'. From the top of Romney's button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama's name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein's button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      Then the issue could be the system is damaged. There are these sort of touch screen systems all over England in train stations and every single one I've used has problems with the "next" button because of how much usage they see. My point is "alter" is something that has to be done on purpose, by using the word alter they are stating the system KNOWS the user is voting for Obama and changes it to Romney.
tocomment 14y ago
But maybe the programmer didn't do this. Maybe it's something under the election worker's control like calibration settings on only part of the screen, or the spacing of the ballot, or something else user-configurable. Just a thought?
- salman89 14y ago
  Highly doubtful that an election machine would be able to pass any standard tests that would allow it to be specifically rigged like that by an election worker. If it were built to calibrate on only part of a screen, it would be ripe for rigging by both sides.

jneal 14y ago

This was my thought exactly. If someone was going through the trouble of altering votes, it would make no sense to make note of this within UI elements, it could just as easily "secretly" change the votes for 1/8 (just my theoretical magical number) voters and alter the results just enough without being noticeable.

Nursie 14y ago
I wonder though... maybe the inconvenience would be enough to either change a percentage of votes or make a few people give up. Looks like a bug, actually swings a close election?
weaksauce 14y ago
from the article (emphasis mine): > I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney’s name and started tapping very closely together to find the ‘active areas’. From the top of Romney’s button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama’s name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein’s button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.
swang 14y ago
Except this just frustrates the voter and maybe he doesn't bother voting for Obama at all. There's no accusation of "altering" the votes because how do you track, "Touchscreen didn't select Obama, voter just gave up?"
- orenmazor 14y ago
  "Cannot reproduce. user error"
- sharkweek 14y ago
  Donning my tin foil hat for a minute here -- I think if I were to try and attempt to commit voter fraud through the machines, I'd make it this obvious intentionally so it seemed like a legitimate accident to those who noticed; "It's too obvious to be fraud" It would probably cause a small dent and shift by people who don't notice or are confused (elderly).
  - evan_ 14y ago
    If you had complete control over a voting machine, it wouldn't make any sense to try to lower turnout or confuse anyone- you'd want people to vote and leave without having noticed anything, so you could change their vote. The result here is that the voting machine was taken out of duty and will be investigated. If the strategy was to make the error so outlandish that nobody would believe it was happening, the strategy has failed. Since it's pretty obvious that this would be the outcome, it's not a good strategy, and is therefore not likely to have been enacted.

polarix 14y ago

Yep. That's clearly what's happening, and given that there's instant feedback, the user would know there's a problem, and either ask for a different machine or adjust until the system represents their actual intent.

Groxx 14y ago
I'm not claiming it is malicious, but would they? If they can swing even 1% of the votes of people who just don't care enough, or would feel embarrassed at failing to use a machine, they can have a significant impact while having an obvious scapegoat. Assuming it's miscalibration, how many people used this machine before the video? how many afterward? >I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said “It’s nothing to worry about, everything will be OK.” and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video. That sounds like they were very likely the first person to complain. What did the rest do?

danielweber 14y ago

It sure looks exactly that way from the video. I've used that exact type of machine to vote in North Carolina (but this ballot is not from North Carolina). You have all sorts of people pounding on the screen all day. Remember the reason we all wanted electronic voting after the year 2000: because it gives absolutely clear answers, not necessarily better answers. (Even the best systems have errors because there are humans involved.) You don't have to debate whether that smudge counts or does not count as a vote.

weaksauce 14y ago
Electronic voting should be allowed but not unless it prints out a ballot with all your selections on it so you can verify and have a real paper trail; not some bit in a database that can be changed and most likely has been changed in the past based on grand jury testimony from one of the diebold programmers. As a programmer knowing how insecure programs are I want paper for something like this.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "Electronic voting should be allowed but not unless it prints out a ballot with all your selections on it so you can verify and have a real paper trail" The lack of a receipt is deliberate and prevents vote-buying. A carbon copy of your vote will open as many avenues to fraud as it will close.
  - weaksauce 14y ago
    Not what I was meaning. A physical ballot that you can actually put into a box that then gets counted. You don't get to keep it.
  - Firehed 14y ago
    With everyone and their dog carrying around a camera in their pocket by means of a cell phone? Hardly. Anyone interested in selling their vote could easily take a photo of their ballot (with some identifying info added to the photo as well to show it wasn't a copy from a friend) to prove they voted the way they were paid. Even if this theoretically did increase the chance of vote-buying, I think it's still a worthwhile tradeoff for the massive increase in accountability we get from it.

baddox 14y ago

> does anyone actually think that IF this machine was altering votes, it would alter it in this fashion with a UI element tied to the alteration I think you mean if the machine was intentionally designed to alter votes, it wouldn't do it in this fashion. The article doesn't even hint that this might be done on purpose.

citricsquid 14y ago
> The article doesn't even hint that this might be done on purpose. Altering is an action, not something passive. If a machine is altering votes then it must be doing that intentionally. What is happening here is the person interacting with this machine is interacting in such a way that makes the machine believe he is pressing elsewhere on the screen. The title reads as if the machine is doing something, the reality is the user is doing something in such a way that the machine believes they're doing something else, due to poor calibration.
- dalore 14y ago
  Except the guy is a programmer, understands calibration and tested other elements on the screen. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/12q6wu/2012_voting_machine_altering_votes/c6x8sbi http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/12q6wu/2012_voting... > I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney's name and started tapping very closely together to find the 'active areas'. From the top of Romney's button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama's name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein's button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    Then the issue could be the system is damaged. There are these sort of touch screen systems all over England in train stations and every single one I've used has problems with the "next" button because of how much usage they see. My point is "alter" is something that has to be done on purpose, by using the word alter they are stating the system KNOWS the user is voting for Obama and changes it to Romney.

tocomment 14y ago

But maybe the programmer didn't do this. Maybe it's something under the election worker's control like calibration settings on only part of the screen, or the spacing of the ballot, or something else user-configurable. Just a thought?

salman89 14y ago
Highly doubtful that an election machine would be able to pass any standard tests that would allow it to be specifically rigged like that by an election worker. If it were built to calibrate on only part of a screen, it would be ripe for rigging by both sides.