New Study Shows Massive Error Rates In E-Voting Machines
from the that-can-swing-an-election dept
Just as e-voting firm Sequoia is resisting having its machines reviewed independently, the Brookings Institute has put a bunch of e-voting machines to the test, and found error rates around 3% on some of the machines. These weren't errors due to software problems, but usability problems, where the design of the system resulted in people voting for a candidate they did not want. 3% is a huge number, and could easily change the results of an election. While the study found that people generally like e-voting technology, that still doesn't mean it's particularly effective. One other interesting part of the finding: when there was a voter-verified paper trail, it didn't cut down on errors. This suggests that many voters were either confused or didn't even bother to verify their vote. This should all be very worrisome. Even ignoring the technology problems that these machines have been shown to have, the fact that the design tends to create so many mistake votes should lead people to seriously question the use of e-voting machines.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: e-voting, error rates
Companies: brookings, diebold, es&s, sequoia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
failure rate of paper ballots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voter mistakes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves . . .
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Same is true in regards to "convienience."
If you don't CARE enough about as something as important as your own vote then you deserve NONE of the benifits of this country.
Especially since your vote doesn't just affect you.
The level of apathy and just general lack of respect and responsibility in this country pains me at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and...
I don't think barring them for life is going to have the desired effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One mans error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crazy thought here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do the companies come from? What did UTX start?
Your not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check it out before it goes away:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=334
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few different points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few different points.
The point that you're missing is that those in the %60 who supposed didn't vote really did vote. They voted with their feet for "None of the above". It's not the fault of the voter if there are no candidates worth voting for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few different points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few different points.
In other words, democrats have no right to complain about republicans in office and vice versa. If you're a democrat we already know you don't like the republican who won the election so just shut up already. You didn't elect him anyway. It was republicans who put him in office and those are the only ones he's obligated to listen to now. If he doesn't do what he said he would that made you vote for him then you, as someone who actually voted for him, have something to complain about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A few different points.
After all, you are the one who put him in office, not the people who voted for the other guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"3% error rate? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the usual error rate when you read poll numbers?"
Polling error rates are due to the fact that small sample size results are projected upon the entire population, thus predicting an outcome.
In the article, the error rate is measured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electronic Voting Machines
As to the "huge" 3% differential, yes it is huge. But if the mistakes are more or less divided among the different voters and candidates, then it is unlikely to make any difference except in VERY close elections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expectations are too high.
Maybe you could try putting pictures of candidates on e-voting machines? You know, kind of how McDonald's has picture menus for those who cannot read?
Or you might stop pouring billions annually into the education abyss, and thus force back-to-basics, and use savings to improve voting technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You say this like it is a bad thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And until you have somthing to compare this too (i.e. the error rates of current voting systems) wh y is this even being discussed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, what he said. Shut up saying bad things about voting machines.
(Disclosure: I own voting machine company stock)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much junk on a ballot => higher error rate. D
for key positions such as governor, senator, and president, there should be only the one position being voted on.
congressmen and initiatives should be on a separate ballot.
a good e-vote w/paper trail solution could make it easier to vote more frequently. And there are some absolutely simple tamper proof e-vote w/paper trail systems. We don't use them, but they exist. The trick is in the paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting Machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voting Machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting Machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting Machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If he doesn't do what he said he would "
Ummm, help me out here ......
I'm trying to recall the last time a politician followed through with what was promised.
All I remember are the (many) times that the opposite happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people are stupid
Some people are too stupid to drive cars.
Some people are too stupid to operate power tools.
Unfortunatly these people aren't too stupid to reproduce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting machine integrtity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no perfect system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just in...
Seriously, what a crock of BS this is. This 3% error rate is obviously human error. Even the article states that.
"These weren't errors due to software problems, but usability problems, where the design of the system resulted in people voting for a candidate they did not want."
The design of paper ballots causes the same issue. It's not the voting machine, IT'S THE VOTER. I hate press that insinuates there are problems with the electronic voting machines, such as the title of this article does.
Harumph!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3% is an improvement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eVote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I the only one that has a problem with this ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No less perfect than paper ballots!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiple replies
First not voting is voting: This is bull what a lot of people are looking for is the "perfect candidate". There is no such thing. Yes there are people that we may agree with on a lot of things but not everything. Not voting is being lazy. Sometimes its just better to vote for the person you think you agree with the most and holding that persons feet to the fire when you don't If nothing else if possible run yourself if you are elegible.
Second: Winners/loosers can't complain: Yes both can. Because those who voted for the winner can complain when said person doesn't follow through on what they say. Those who lost can still complain because they at least tried to get the person they wanted elected and will continue to make there points to the people (if the listen) and try and get things to change.
I think the biggest problem are country is facing right now is that there are only two parties involved. Are founding fathers I don't think intended for this to happen but it has. I think though as more and more people become disillsioned with either party I can see one or more parties rising to power. Which wouldn't be a bad thing it would mean people would have to do more reasearch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Multiple replies
"Faction" or "parties" indicated that representatives were not acting with virtue, i.e. they did not have the best interests of the Commonwealth, but rather were governed by their own private views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Multiple replies
Every citizen has a right to complain. You need to read the US constitution sometime my fascist little friend. It's covered by things like the right to petition the government and freedom of speech. Those rights are not limited, as you would seem to like, to those who can prove that they voted for one of the officially offered candidates in the last election. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. And while you might like for everyone who won't play your game to just "shut up", that's not the way it works either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary in Tuzla: The Tale of Bosnian Sniper Fire (TRAILER)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.... but rather were governed by their own private views.
and their fears were warranted.
I suppose you could say this is a representative government, however it is not the will of the people that is being represented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19248375&postID=5418832287881365472&page=1
That whole blog needs serious checking out by Masnick & co. -- not only have we got the usual misunderstanding of business models here, right down to the nonsense phrase "steal content", but a serious control-freak attitude in general that, if widely adopted by web site operators, would doom web 3.0 and destroy most of the value of the existing web, as well as locking in a small search engine oligopoly of only the existing big search companies.
Of course, they're also openly advocating cloaking different content to search engines than gets shown to humans, which would make the search engines utterly worthless to users anyway as what they found and linked to would no longer bear any reliable correspondence to what the user actually searched for.
A Techdirt article specifically on how it's both evil and stupid to try to completely lock down one's web site seems to be overdue. :)
On the topic, it's worth noting that Sequoia has been intimidating third-party reviewers of its machines and source code with specious threats of copyright-infringement lawsuits, and claiming falsely that simply describing the behavior of its machines could infringe copyright.
This kind of copyright misuse needs to be stopped, whether by Sequoia or by J. Random Webmaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do people go on and on about these 'problems' with voting machines like it's some issue with 'fairness'? The problems aren't a concern of those in charge - being able to manipulate the vote is the core concern and I'm sure they work quite well for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My solution
to vote and once to verify their vote.
If the votes don't match a trap door drops
open and they fall onto the rotating knives
to be flushed into the sewer system.
Voters would tend to be more careful and
those incapable would be culled.
MWUAH HA HA HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Write-In Vote Tabulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]