Guy Who Insists E-Voting Machines Work Fine... Demonstrates They Don't
from the say-that-again-please dept
If someone pitched a movie based on e-voting machines that work as bad as the ones being used in the current election, the story would be dumped as being unrealistic. But truth is, indeed, often stranger than fiction. You may recall on Friday that we had a post about problems with e-voting machines in West Virginia selecting the wrong candidate when voters touched the screen. Various officials rushed to insist that there was absolutely nothing wrong. One, the local county clerk, Jeff Waybright insisted that the problems were "the result of voter error."Well, it appears that a group called Video The Vote went and visited with Mr. Waybright as he showed them how the e-voting machines work, and perhaps the "human error" is on Mr. Waybright's part. The beginning of the video is troubling enough, as he brushes aside concerns while he shows a miscalibrated machine. He demonstrates how he clicks on one candidate and another is highlighted, in a tone of voice that suggests why would anyone possibly be upset or annoyed if that happened? He then oddly thinks the fact that his wildly miscalibrated machine enhances his point because when he clicks on Barack Obama's name, the actual name highlighted isn't McCain (of course, it's not Obama either, but he doesn't seem troubled by this). Waybright seems to think that the only complaint people are making is the fact that some tried to vote for the Democratic ticket and saw the Republican ticket show up -- when the real concern is simply the fact that when you touch one name, someone else's name is highlighted. Democrat or Republican really isn't the issue here.
However, then things get worse. After mocking the idea that anyone clicking on a Democratic ticket vote would get the Republican ticket vote, he shows how to correctly calibrate the machine, showing how easy it is to fix the "problems" of the miscalibrated machine. When he's done, to prove it works, he touches the box to vote for a straight Republican ticket ticket... and, wouldn't you know it, Ralph Nader's name is highlighted as the voter's choice. His response? "Oh, that's out of calibration!" as if it was no big deal, apparently missing the fact that he had just calibrated the machine. He then seems to think none of this is a big deal, because voters will see the misvote before they submit it, apparently unaware of the idea that many people are already quite distrustful of these machines, and seeing them highlight the wrong name over and over again will make them seriously question the legitimacy of the election.
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, glitches, west virginia
Companies: es&s
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better see if you can find the crank for your car folks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, these machines add additional ways to make a mistake, and not all voters will be completely diligent. Also, some will come to mistrust the machine because they don't understand how the interface works. Paper/machine readable cards would be best since pretty much everyone can fill out a scantron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absentee Voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately it is.
Badly calibrated/programmed machines are a serious issue in their own right, but it completely obscures the problem when it's painted as a partisan conspiracy.
It's a major technical problem, and it's being used as a reason to fan the flames of political polarization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact of the matter is that these machines have serious flaws, and should not be allowed to be used, especially in such a crucial election. Voters should not be expected to have to check and recheck their selections time after time after time. Also, if the machine really did work properly for all of 5 seconds as shown in the video, and then slipped out of calibration again, that means that techs are going to have to reset the calibration after every single use. That is going to be a nightmare of galactic proportions.
What I don't understand is how these machines can be so flawed. I've seen plenty of touchscreen kiosk machines that work flawlessly (i.e. bridal registries, ATMs, and so on). Why something as serious as voting machines isn't dealt with in the most serious manner possible is beyond me. I think this is just yet another sign that corporate America is corrupt beyond all reason, because they're obviously more interested in preserving their reputation and profits than they are fixing a known problem. I got a news flash for you: quality sells itself. If you acknowledge and fix these problems in a timely manner, your company WILL have a good reputation, and your WILL be profitable. When you just try to sweep dirt like this under the carpet, your reputation will go down no matter what you do. Just admit your mistakes, fix the problems, and life will go on.
However, I'm still in favor of banning any and all kinds of electronic devices from voting stations. Anybody with half a brain can figure out how to put an X in the box besides thee name of their candidate of choice. If anything, we need some standardization on the paper ballots (no hanging chad crap), not proprietary electronic machines that just make the problems worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skynet has become self aware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mental note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mental note
Proper calibration is:
Select NcCain get Obama.
Select Nager get Obama
select Obama get Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
I'm an EE, and I wouldn't feel totally comfortable about voting on one of these electronic machines.
We have enough problems with the political process in this country; accurately tallying votes should be a no-brainer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh
John gets the point... Or not.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If one goes into the booth makes a mistake and selects Nader and then corrects the mistake by selecting McCain one would be most up set to find that they had voted for Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What IS the problem??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What IS the problem??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What IS the problem??
Can't be the hardware -- touch screens have been around for a long time. "Recalibrating" the touch screen should be a no-brainer -- there are children's toys that do that today. So it's probably the software? If so, then this is a software design issue. How is a voting software more complex than software from retail Point-of-sale(multiple, overlapping discounts/promos, etc), internet stock trading, eBay, etc.? With all the cash these companies are being paid to come up with better systems, you'd think they can afford to hire top-caliber system (and usability) designers.
So maybe I'm missing something in my understanding of the difficulties here. If there's someone on this forum who's knowledgeable on voting machine issues, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What IS the problem??
Voting demands two contradictory objectives: count every vote accurately, BUT attach no audit to an individual voter. [Secret Ballot].
ATM/cash registers all survive on audit trails, tracking each transaction.
The best disconnect we have, with recountablity, is a paper ballot, be it "scancard" or hand mark, put into a box with all the others. It could be printed on the spot by a DRE, but the paper must be the ballot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No -- evoting is not bad, and not to blame.
Poorly designed, inexpertly implemented and ignorantly defended systems (like Mr. Waybright has staked and lost his professional reputation over) are bad.
Adjust as necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, not out of calibration - error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, not out of calibration - error
The checkbox for Nader did not move. Is that wrong? No. Is it a good UI? Probably not, but debatable... say someone wanted to vote straight Republican, but wanted to vote for Ron Paul instead of McCain. They could put in Ron Paul's name, and then press the "Straight Republican" button to select the rest of the Republicans...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, not out of calibration - error
The checkbox for Nader did not move. Is that wrong? No. Is it a good UI? Probably not, but debatable... say someone wanted to vote straight Republican, but wanted to vote for Ron Paul instead of McCain. They could put in Ron Paul's name, and then press the "Straight Republican" button to select the rest of the Republicans..."
Yeah, the design should be, if you have selected someone outside of a straight-ticket vote, to say, "You previously selected Ralph Nader as your vote for President of the United States, and have now chosen to vote a straight Republican ticket. Do you want to change your vote for Ralph Nader to John McCain?"
Of course, expecting Diebold's crappy programmers to think of such a thing may be stretching it. It may even be stretching it to think that all voters, especially elderly ones, would even understand what was going on when they got that message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, not out of calibration - error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson of the Butterfly ballot
The video does not show that systematic an error rate because it looked like the errors were going every which way. Still, I don't want an official who was elected based on who got the lucky breaks on the random calibration error bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson of the Butterfly ballot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO WHAT!
VOTE McCain 2008 - The politics of failure have failed, together we can make them work again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO WHAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO WHAT!
It will make you feel much better and possible give you time to reflect on the mistakes in your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO WHAT!
Jesus people, this guy is an obvious troll who's just playing around. People actualy like this don't exist, and certainly don't provide such snarky quotations.
Seeing all of this... STUPIDITY just makes me go RRRRG. Doesn't ANYONE understand paradoy? Quit villifying the other side, they're not that bad, they're people.
I'm upset with you self proclaimed liberals for beliving that "neoconbushsupporter" is anything BUT an assumed persona. Real people like that, who talk like that, don't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO WHAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SO WHAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO WHAT!
The problem is, thats exactly what they do say. Hes definately doing satire here, but using pretty much the actual arguements of the RNC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SO WHAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO WHAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO WHAT!...I am concerned!
However, the electronic voting machines are VERY concerning, Mr. Magoo from Oklahoma made a great point and the system they use would work just fine. Anything electronic should be thrown out the window, have you seen the confusion at the 'self check-out' lanes at the grocery store? It's amazing, scan your bread and put it in the bag BEFORE you scan the next item....drrr!
McCain 08 - if you want my money, EARN IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO WHAT!...I am concerned!
As far as I am concerned, he works less than about any middle class person anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SO WHAT!...I am concerned!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO WHAT!
Never mind the fact that all your supposedly capitalist friends just nationalized half of the financial system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO WHAT!
So, does that mean that thepolitics of failure, having failed, we should all get together and make the politics of failure work again? I'm so confused. Make a policy of failing work, which is in essence, succeeding to fail. Your original statement of "The politics of failure have failed" means that it was a success! Huzah! I think this is what you were trying to say?
VOTE McCain 2008 to succeed with politics of failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The above link is to a patent search result from Google. I am not anti-corporation nor anti-profit; however, how do we balance the public's need for government transparency and corporation's need to recoup their investment in research and production?
While I want the company to earn money, I feel every citizen should have the right to examine every aspect of the machine's hardware and software. Under the current system, I don't believe that can happen because design flaws would be found. Hardware and software can always be improved and when that happens this company is no longer entitled to earn it's profit because the end result really doesn't belong to that corporation.
If we cannot see the hardware nor the software then how can I trust what is doing with the data? I ask these questions every day. I validate data. I examine the source, consider the methods of collection, storage, security, and I examine the sql code utilized to reach each answer. If I cannot ask the questions of my data or my clients data then how can I trust the results? I can't and this is why I do not like e-voting.
One thought before I move along: This is the kind of process that the opensource community would be perfect to develop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NeoCons are Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NeoCons are Funny
One doesn't rule out the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go about your business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go about your business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go about your business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go about your business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can go around and around and around
PROS: E-voting terminals can be more convenient than paper systems as well. When equipped with headphones and a Braille keypad, touch-screen machines let sight-impaired voters cast their votes without needing to share their choices with a human aide. Officials don't need to supply paper ballots in different languages--voters select the language as a menu option. Results can be transmitted to election headquarters in seconds, and recounts are a snap since each vote is unambiguously stored in memory.
CONS: The Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project was established in December 2000 to study voting machine reliability and generate guidelines for future voting systems. The project's 2001 report--still considered the definitive study of machine accuracy--found that in elections from 1988 to 2000, touch-screen (also called DRE, for direct record electronic) machines fared worse than paper ballots in many cases (see the project's report here). But generally, their margin of "residual votes"--those thrown out because of error--was within the range of other voting technologies. In presidential elections, for example, punch-card machines had the highest percentage of residual votes, at 2.5 percent. Touch-screen voting machines were slightly better, at 2.3 percent, and optically scanned paper ballots worked best, at 1.5 percent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can go around and around and around
If someone is going to participate in our democracy they damn well should be able to speak the language. We have enough trouble interpreting our constitution written in our native language; how might it be interpreted once translated into a foreign language?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can go around and around and around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can go around and around and around
Unambiguously? I guess that doesn't mean the same thing as storing them correctly and reliably, so technically you're correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey - Its the Palm Pilot
It's amazing we've had completely reliable ATMs for years, but brand new electronic voting machines don't work. No wonder we can't get back to the moon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey - Its the Palm Pilot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Straight Republican?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Picthurs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paper Trail required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: paper Trail required
State and federal voting machine certification tolerate very low machine failure rates: no more than 1 in 250,000 ballots for federal certification and no more than 1 in 1,000,000 ballots in some states. Certification serves as an important screen: machines that produce failure rates higher than these tolerance levels are not certified or used.
Typically when software stands up to benchmark tests you can expect it to perform as intended. I disagree with your analysis that e-voting is not ready for use. If you want to throw in, "This could happen, that could happen, etc" you could apply that to any voting standard. Be it paper or e-voting. Your arguement that having a paper trial is the golden key to 100% secure flawless voting results is inaccurate. The MIT study above shows the ranges of technologies and how they perform all with very little margin of error. If a technology does not meet the criteria set by State and Federal regulations. It is not used.. Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: paper Trail required
I wonder if you were smart enough to change your IP this time, "Anonymous." You've posted before with the same misinformation and you are doing it again. There are numerous cases where machines have failed all (not so stringent) requirement and were still allowed to be used.
Care to sign your name and company you are affiliated with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: paper Trail required
In theory. In reality, all we hear about are e-voting machine problems. They seem quite common.
Certification serves as an important screen
This would be the same "certification" that was later shown to have not involved any actual investigation of the machine?
This is also the "certification" that is not particularly rigid and has not turned up most of the problems found by independent investigators.
Sorry, the certification process is a joke.
I disagree with your analysis that e-voting is not ready for use.
I don't understand this statement. We are pointing out serious problems with the machines, and you claim they're ready for use?!?
If you want to throw in, "This could happen, that could happen, etc" you could apply that to any voting standard. Be it paper or e-voting.
No one has said that paper is perfect. But the damage that can be done from a bad e-voting system is much worse, because a single error can totally change the results of an election. A single paper ballot error effects a single ballot.
If a technology does not meet the criteria set by State and Federal regulations. It is not used.. Simple as that.
This is simply untrue. If only it were so, but remember that California found that uncertified code was used in many of its machines last election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: paper Trail required
There is no theory here. State and Federal regulations only allow so many errors to e-voting technologies. What your hearing are cooked up conspiracy theories. Not hard facts on how technologies are not passing certification. I will admit there are cases of human error. If certification procedures are followed as intended there should be no issue. Do you some states have poor certification procedures? You could argue that yeah. But that is a human issue. Not a mechanical one.
"This would be the same "certification" that was later shown to have not involved any actual investigation of the machine?"
You are focusing on human error Mike. Not malfunctioning equipment. Its important to distinguish the difference. Certification procedures vary from state to state. The human error involves not testing equipment properly not a mechanical malfunction.
"I don't understand this statement. We are pointing out serious problems with the machines, and you claim they're ready for use?!?"
Come on Mike, You are generalizing everything into some kind of consipriacy theory. Your title to the story is "A Guy who insists E-voting machines work fine.. Demonstrates they dont". While there are obvious flaws in that specific device in the video. The only thing the video showed was someone having trouble with the calibration process of one piece of DRE technology. Based off of this video you are implying in your title every type of E-voting is flawed. I think last week you had a problem with backup. It would be the same if someone said, 'Dont Blog on Techdirt! They have a major issue with backup.. Just look at this story!!... Would that be accurate?
We currently are using optical scanned paper ballots in my state and I am 100% fine with it.
By stating, "We are pointing out serious problems with the machines." I feel you really are not fully looking at this issue close enough to make any kind of informed decision it.
"No one has said that paper is perfect. But the damage that can be done from a bad e-voting system is much worse, because a single error can totally change the results of an election. A single paper ballot error effects a single ballot."
Just look at the Gore Bush election. Almost every ballot was disputed in some way. Almost all of that was on paper. You are only looking at a cooked up worst case scenario. Not a realistic depiction on how these machines perform. Excuse if I dont buy the, Chicken little says the sky is falling arguement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: paper Trail required
Yes, and of course the technology itself pays attention to regulations... oh wait, it doesn't. The technology barely works.
What your hearing are cooked up conspiracy theories.
Lost votes in Florida? Miscounted votes in DC? Incorrect tallies in New Jersey? I'm not talking about any conspiracy theories, I'm talking about actual mistakes with the machine that are found to be quite common in practice.
I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but I do believe the actual results will show that these machines have a tendency to not work very well.
You are focusing on human error Mike.
No, actually, I'm not. You insisted the certification process was wonderful. There is tremendous evidence that it is not, and the GAO condemned the cert process.
The human error involves not testing equipment properly not a mechanical malfunction.
No, part of the problem is WHAT the cert process tests for (i.e, not nearly enough to determine if the machines will function properly).
You are generalizing everything into some kind of consipriacy theory
I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I'm interested in the act that time and time again it's been demonstrated these machines are neither reliable nor secure.
The only thing the video showed was someone having trouble with the calibration process of one piece of DRE technology
No, the video showed how easy it is for those machines to be miscalibrated and to confuse voters -- even "experts." That's a HUGE FLAW in the machines.
Based off of this video you are implying in your title every type of E-voting is flawed.
For six years we've given similar examples of nearly ever e-voting machine on the market.
'Dont Blog on Techdirt! They have a major issue with backup.. Just look at this story!!... Would that be accurate?
If we had the same thing happen every day, then that would be reasonable. In EVERY election we keep hearing of at least some SIGNIFICANT problems with almost every make and model of DRE.
We currently are using optical scanned paper ballots in my state and I am 100% fine with it.
Like in DC, where every time they're scanned a different result pops out?
I feel you really are not fully looking at this issue close enough to make any kind of informed decision it.
Care to enlighten us then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes me sad
Granted i really wish i could just vote from home online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Election errors in voting machines
Some problems probably simply did not exist and were reported by disgruntled losers. Keep recounting the votes until you find out how many you need to change the election your way, then produce the needed votes from somewhere, somehow.
As far as I am concerned, the election officials are criminally negligent in their duties and should have resolved and cleared up the problems a long time ago. There is no penalty for being incompetent in these positions but a lot of people should have to spend some time in prison for their failure to perform adequately.
We are losing our faith in the election process vote counting and someone other than the voter must be held responsible for this scandal. Acorn is a bunch of nuts and they are no help at all in maintaining the integrity of the election process. A bunch of them need to spend some time in prison in addition to the time some of them have probably already spent in prison. What a bunch of crooks!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fabricated vs Real problems
Pay attention from min 33 on for the details that were left out of this propaganda bs.
I agree that there have been too many errors with these machines for them to be reliable, but we need to focus on the real problems and not the fabricated ones. We have enough of that crap already.
The truth is not open to the democratic process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What You Need To Know About Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting software...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voting software...
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080320/175151605#c74
http://www.techdirt.com/ar ticle.php?sid=20080320/175151605#c184
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
operator error
Oh yeah, because when I use a touch-screen, I expect it to make the selection under my finger. D'Oh, silly me, entirely my fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait WHAT?
This is just ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impressive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
attention-grabbing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]