When There Are So Many 'Human Errors' On Your E-Voting Machines, It's Your Problem
from the sequoia,-i'm-talking-to-you dept
Last week, we wrote about yet another problem with Sequoia e-voting equipment where the company was vehemently denying the problem was with the machines, even saying: "There's absolutely no problem with the machines in the polling places. No. No." Of course, this came right after a report revealing how easy it was to hack their machines, as well as numerous other problems with Sequoia machines. Yet the company consistently employs the same exact strategy: it couldn't possibly be the fault of the machines.You may recall the story earlier this month about the Sequoia optical scanning machines in Palm Beach County that supposedly couldn't reach the same vote tally if different counting machines were used. At least that was the original claim -- but it was later changed when election officials admitted they had simply misplaced some ballots. Well, the latest report claims that the recount is now not showing lost ballots -- it's showing too many ballots. Fantastic. Election officials think they've traced the problem to the fact that some votes on Sequoia's e-voting machine cartridges weren't properly transferred, which kicks off Sequoia's standard PR response:
The company's representative, Phil Foster says "the cartridge is fine. Why it didn't read I do not know," suggesting another human error made on election night.You know, when you keep saying that, and the problems keep occurring, at some point, people are going to stop believing you. Even if the problem really is human error every one of these times, people might begin to wonder why you don't design your systems to avoid such human errors.
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: denial, e-voting, human errors, palm beach county, security, vulnerabilities
Companies: sequoia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
User Error?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The human factor
of the stupid things that users will do. Some
field testing followed by thoughful tweaking was
in order, maybe a little follow-on engineering.
In a rational world it would go something like
this... "Yes, of course there are problems.
There are always problems. We will fix them."
The first step is admit there are problems.
But Sequoia's stance makes that unlikely. So
the problems will probably not be fixed by
them without a little "inducement." By then
their product will be so thoughly tarnished
it will come to late.
Just my best guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The human factor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The articles listed about suggest a 1% or 3% error rate at the tallying point (depending on which link you follow). Then there must be some errors using the machine (I think I voted for X but I really voted for Y).
Of course you never really know if your vote was tallied correctly...which means that most people assume theirs was and forget about it.
The only way to improve this is to have a really good trail (does not need to be paper) so that voters can verify that their vote was cast for the candidate they thought it was cast for. Good luck in getting that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buyer error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comedy of Voting Errors
The Colorado Secretary of State de-certifies all but one voting machine manufacturer, then they say a software patch will fix the de-certified machines. But, because they can't re-certify under current state election rules, they lobby State Election Officials to change the law.
This was last year and I haven't seen anything to indicate they have been re-certified yet.
http://cbs4denver.com/politics/Voting.Machines.colorado.2.613848.html
Why are we doing eVoting again? The whole concept seems undercooked, like a microwaved frozen pizza.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy of Voting Errors
"The horrible (virtually non-existent) [Colorado] state certification process was begun under Republican SoS Donetta Davidson, who was replaced by Dennis after Davidson was named by George W. Bush as a commissioner of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission. Davidson's new duties at the EAC would include overseeing federal certification for e-voting systems across the entire nation."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6359
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Public Is Missing the Point
Sequioa does not have any reason to make their machines accurate because they know election officials will buy them anyway. Election officials don't have any reason to buy accurate machines because nobody calls them on their decisions or punishes them for imprudence. And elected officials don't want accurate vote counts because then there is no chance for someone who loses the election to actually have the vote overturned.
If you want to get an accurate voting machine, write your government and let them know that you won't vote until there is one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Fix It?
After all, dead people have the right the vote to you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to fix this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#16
Unfortunately this will never happen.
If the politicians calling the shots as to who they buy from actually made rules like that (and enforced them) then companies would simply not bother. It all comes back to the fact that they are in this business to make a profit.
If you include a clause that they their product has to actually Not Fail and they risk losing money they simply won't make the machines at all.
No company will put out a product that they have a written contract stating they could lose money for errors - too much risk.
That's why you can't sue your doctor for botched surgery - if you could, no doctors would perform surgery.
Just my 2cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]