Texas E-Voting Machines Switching Votes For Non-Nefarious But Still Stupid Reasons
from the almost-competent-handling-of-the-democratic-process dept
For all the talk about election interference from nation-states, there's been not nearly as much concern about devices themselves threatening the integrity of the voting system. E-voting machines have long been an insecure mess. On top of that, they're prone to introducing errors -- either through flaws in the devices themselves or by users who aren't familiar with how they work.
The latter seems to be the issue in Texas, where voters have been complaining about their votes being switched. What sounds like just another crazy conspiracy theory may be nothing more than software not behaving the way people think it should behave.
Some Texas voters are complaining that machines flipped their straight-ticket selections to the other party in key races during early voting, especially the much-watched Senate battle between Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Beto O’Rourke.
[...]
“The Hart eSlate machines are not malfunctioning, the problems being reported are a result of user error — usually voters hitting a button or using the selection wheel before the screen is finished rendering,” said Sam Taylor, spokesman for the office of Secretary of State Rolando Pablos, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
This appears to be happening only to voters voting straight-ticket. (Gross. -- Ed.) The software apparently populates tickets slower than voters are expecting. Hitting "submit" before it's ready to move forward causes problems with candidate selection. The Texas Republican Party is warning voters to be patient and double-check that all candidates have been selected before moving on. The same thing is happening to Democratic straight-ticket voters, causing them to "vote" for Ted Cruz if they aren't careful.
This would be somewhat comical if there was any way for voters or election officials to track which votes may have been flipped. But there isn't. The move to paperless voting has eliminated the backup system everyone looks to when things go wrong: the paper trail. The Hart eSlate machines produce no receipts, leaving it up to voters to catch errors before submitting their votes.
The Democratic Party is blaming the government for not doing more, which is a very Democratic Party thing to do. In this case, the Republicans are in control of the state and the Democratic Party has chosen to claim the Republicans don't care enough about the problem. The state's government has pointed out e-voting machines only need to comply with state laws, not actually be accurate and/or idiot-proof. It points to the voting machines' certification -- which last happened nearly a decade ago -- as evidence that the bare minimum requirements have been met.
It's a mess and it's probably not going to be fixed anytime soon. The state says it's up to the counties to replace voting machines they don't like. Counties likely don't have the funding to do so immediately and there's no way any county is going to hotswap e-voting machines with an election already in progress. The problems of the 2018 election will be kicked down the road to 2020 where it's likely the same fears of voting interference will be stoked while the faulty machines causing the problems remain in place.
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, switching votes, texas, ui, user interface
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
The Democratic Party is blaming the government for not doing more, which is a very Democratic Party thing to do. In this case, the Republicans are in control of the state and the Democratic Party has chosen to claim the Republicans don't care enough about the problem.
Come now, that's a bit hyperbolic isn't it? I mean I'm sure they are taking the matter seriously and are deeply concerned that votes might end up going to the wrong people. It's not like they're going to just handwave something as large as bogus votes during an election or anything...
The state's government has pointed out e-voting machines only need to comply with state laws, not actually be accurate and/or idiot-proof. It points to the voting machines' certification -- which last happened nearly a decade ago -- as evidence that the bare minimum requirements have been met.
... huh. You know, they may be on to something in this case after all.
One does have to wonder if they'll be singing the same tune should the democrat candidate win, or if suddenly potential 'bogus' votes will be of huge concern, leading to calls to redo the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
It would be nice if you stopped commenting also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
Ombudsman much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
This is a blog, not a news site. You can't expect unbiased reporting in the news any more and you sure as hell shouldn't from a blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
I find Cushing allows his personal opinions to adversely affect the reporting of the information.
Opinion site. We're an opinion site. The reason he writes for us is because we think his opinions are thoughtful and get people thinking. But if your complaint is that there are opinions in our writing... well, that's going to remain the way Techdirt operates.
Ombudsman much?
Again, this is an opinion site. You are free to disagree with opinions. And you can present an argument about why you disagree with Tim's opinions. You can do so in the comments or literally nearly anywhere else on the web. But merely complaining that you don't like the articles doesn't allow us to view your argument and understand what could be improved.
So... yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinion site. We're an opinion site.
Ah, but that’s just your opinion, isn’t it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
Without knowing more the magic coding TD uses that forces people to read and leave comments on articles they don't care for would be my guess.
If you have issues with the article, by all means list them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
(See detailed critique above).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
If I like a restaurant and one of my meals comes out and doesn't taste good I will let them know.
And if you do so in the manner you've done here, odds are they and other diners are just going to ignore you as an overly picky eater.
'It's a bit too salty.'
'It's a bit too spicy.'
'The flavors are kinda bland.'
All of those would be valid criticism in the restaurant example. 'It's bad' would not be, as it's utterly without any detail beyond that you in particular didn't like it for whatever reason, and provides no avenue for rectifying the situation beyond blind guesses on their part if they feel like wasting time/food.
Similarly if you're going to criticize the article and expect to be taken seriously you'll need to list what you have a problem with specifically, not just make vague generalities like 'He lets his feelings get in the way of proper reporting of the facts.'
If you're going to say/imply that he got something wrong then it's on you to list what specifically he got wrong and provide evidence that it is wrong, so that it can be corrected or at least so that other readers can know that it is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
You want specifics? I don't like this sentence without references. "The Democratic Party is blaming the government for not doing more, which is a very Democratic Party thing to do."
How does this opinion relate uniquely to the story. As you said, if the tables were turned, I am sure the Republicans would complain, which is a very Republican thing to do, based on my viewing of Fox news anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
That is a valid criticism but since I posted as a reply to your reply I was assuming it would be understood that I was supporting your criticisms without being too wordy. Apparently not.
Yeah, afraid you completely lost me there. Support of which criticism of mine?
You want specifics? I don't like this sentence without references. "The Democratic Party is blaming the government for not doing more, which is a very Democratic Party thing to do."
How does this opinion relate uniquely to the story. As you said, if the tables were turned, I am sure the Republicans would complain, which is a very Republican thing to do, based on my viewing of Fox news anyway.
I'd chalk that one up to a dig/opinion regarding the democratic party by the author, but at the same time because it isn't really relevant to the story I don't see any problem with it not being sourced, as a minor throwaway line like that isn't really worth the effort and could distract from the main story. Were it important to the story I could see objections to it being unsourced, or if it was more than a throwaway, but as it is I'm not really seeing a problem with it, though I suppose I can see why you might have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
That is a valid criticism but since I posted as a reply to your reply I was assuming it would be understood that I was supporting your criticisms without being too wordy. Apparently not.
Hahahaha. Oh, I see. You totally misread That One Guy's comment, which was obviously sarcastic, as being in earnest. That's hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
so...yeah.
^^^^ I was being sarcastic, it is meant to be funny in case it was not very clear to everyone.
Maybe I misread the reply. I felt it was being critical of the Republicans (by sarcastically saying "I'm sure they are taking the matter seriously and are deeply concerned that votes might end up going to the wrong people"). Was I wrong to get this impression? I was annoyed by the unnecessary condescending remark critical of Democrats which I felt matched the tone of the reply.
Mike, I have been a non-financial supporter of TD for many many years. I understand that you receive a great deal of criticism from anons and trolls and your gut reaction is to return the attack.
I have contributed multiple comments that have been labeled as both insightful and funny. I have shared your site with multiple professionals including lawyers a c-suite occupants.
Your site's information has helped shape my opinions on multiple topics and I appreciate that.
If I have future criticisms I will be attempt to be more articulate, but a more likely scenario is I will not share any feedback and not engage in conversations.
I realize I am just one irrelevant voice and this whole exercise is meaningless and a waste of time. Good night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
All government activity is mired in red tape and tends to move at a slow crawl. So are highly regulated private companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
This is a problem that needs to be addressed as inciting violence is not something to be applauded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tl;dr
And then what happens? You get a refund? I'm sure Techdirt would be happy to give you one.
In which case, maybe stop ordering that dish.
This article has 60 comments. I'd say the other diners are perfectly happy with their meals.
What detailed critique?
You wrote a post that read, in its entirety:
That is not a detailed critique. It is not constructive. It does not explain what your objection to Cushing's article was. It makes no argument. It's merely a statement that you don't like articles by Cushing. It does not explain why you don't like articles by Cushing, or what conceivable reason anyone else might have to give a fuck what you think.
Constructive criticism is fine. It can lead to interesting discussions.
Just saying "I don't like the guy who wrote this article!" is not constructive. Nobody cares whether or not some random anon liked the article or its author. If you've got something relevant to say, then say it; if you don't have anything relevant to say, then be quiet and let the grownups talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
If I like a restaurant and one of my meals comes out and doesn't taste good I will let them know.
You didn't do that here. Instead, you came into our restaurant sighed super loudly about how awful it was and walked out. Can you see why people might not take that criticism/feedback as seriously as an actual explanation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
The "wrong people" in this case being Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
If the machines "respond slower than users expect", that's a machine defect, not a user error. If they can't improve the performance, they need a "Loading.." screen that actually hides the sheet until it's ready to display.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Eh, accurate voting isn't that important really.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet we can't build a voting machine that finishes rendering before allowing the submit button to appear?
Each side is going to use this to cast blame on the other side & we're still going to waste millions on the dumpster fire of e-voting while the 'quirks' of the system give rise to larger conspiracy theories.
Is it really that impossible to build a single voting device, using a common platform, subject to code & output auditing??
The market has no interest in building a better mousetrap, their shit machines have a nifty habit of being replaced every couple of scandals and they profit.
Perhaps allowing people to control a market with no downsides to bad behavior is a bad thing the government shoudl address... (See also: Skyrocketing price of insulin resulting in dead citizens not due to hardship in making... but because we allow them to literally tell diabetics your money your insurance money and anything you can borrow... or your life)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people have spoken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like the power internet platforms like Gab have to not moderate speech?
Where is the article on Gab anyway?
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here’s your article: “Gab is neither guaranteed or owed access to financial services such as PayPal or the use of hosting companies’ servers. That they got kicked off is well within the rights of those companies to do. Whether you agree with the morals and ethics of what those companies did is your own gotdamn business.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean like the power internet platforms like Gab have to not moderate speech?
If you think of "Internet Platforms" as bakers and Gab as a gay couple, it makes total sense. Amirite?
Karma's a bitch, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is deeper than that - it's accepting multiple commands with each new command taking precedence over any previous command that hasn't been finalized.
Simple to fix in the software - ignore commands while processing current command.
Hell, DOS did it - it's why Ctrl-C was enabled. The machine was locked until the running command ended.
But not something that should have been "missed". It's shoddy work, no excuses should be accepted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defaults to (R)?
Why does it end up with the Republican candidate selected? Is this the default before the voter starts to select anything? If so, this is incredibly bad. There should be no default votes, no default selection, so waiting for rendering should not affect anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defaults to (R)?
It doesn't.
According to multiple articles I've read about this subject (including this one), when you choose to vote a straight ticket and manage to trigger this problem, it somehow checks the box for the Senate candidate from the other straight-ticket option - no matter which straight-ticket option you chose.
That is, triggering the problem while voting a straight Democratic ticket votes for Cruz rather than O'Rourke, and triggering it while voting a straight Republican ticket votes for O'Rourke rather than for Cruz.
How exactly the system might be managing to produce that result, I haven't managed to develop a clue yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet we can't build a voting machine that finishes rendering before allowing the submit button to appear?
To be fair, my iphone can load a funny cat video in seconds, but also can't finish rendering prior to accepting new commands. Though in Apple's case, it's a deliberate design choice rather than apathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better yet, skip the e-voting entirely
A machine that fills out a scannable paper ballot would seem to be the best of both worlds. It gives both a way to check to see if your vote is recorded accurately, has an auditable paper record, while removing all the various ways people manage to fail to follow instructions with paper-only ballots. (And if the machine breaks down, or the voter is feeling paranoid, the old-fashioned way is still an option.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better yet, skip the e-voting entirely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The silly things we try to tell ourselves.
Consumer software is NOT the model you want to copy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The silly things we try to tell ourselves.
https://xkcd.com/2030/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not all that simple...
Most of the towns around me still use the "booth" mechanicals bought back in the sixties.
The township I'm in used electronic voting machines a couple of cycles back. Which returned on the order of twice the number of votes actually cast. Thankfully, those machines did print a paper trail.
There was enough of an uproar over that to consign those machines to the dumpster. Punch cards for the '16 election.
The more complicated the device the more points of probable (NOT "possible") failure. It's basic engineering.
Punch or checkmark cards are about as simple as you can get. Add in even an antique Scantron to count them, and you've created dozens of potential failure points.
Vote from a cellphone? With the number of middlemen between your phone and the final data collection point, plus the software to tally, software to verify ID, etc.? That's asking for trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not all that simple...
There are arrows pointing to your option, with the middle removed. fill the correct gap, and that is your vote.
I agree with your assessment of voting concerns. I have advocated for a e-voting system that just fills out a paper ballot for you. It would save space on the ballot (a lot of information could be presented simpler on the ballot), the actual vote is cast by turning in a paper ballot with a paper trail (so failure/hacking of the voting machine would be mitigated by checking your ballot), allow voter guide information to be displayed to the voter, and eliminate the 'did they vote' question that comes up with punch cards or check mark ballots occasionally, as it would create a clean ballot readable by both machines and humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not all that simple...
While your e-vote solution sounds good, there's no way to tell if the machine is actually "counting" what the paper it spit out says it does.
What if the machine is set to "reverse" every prime-numbered (D) vote for Governor, resetting on every X total votes? But shows it on your printout AND on screen as (D), but advances the (R) counter instead?
Keep the machines out of it. Voting is IMPORTANT.
Paper ballots and each site telephones in their final counts, right up the ladder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not all that simple...
Most paper ballot systems, punch card, check box, ect, still use a machine to count the vote. That is part of the issues behind the 2000 election issues - the machines needed a proper punch for the vote to count, and during the manual count people had to determine at what point does the punch count given ambiguities in the law. With proper auditing before and after there is no reason why machine counted ballots should be a concern. It has the same potentials for manipulation as a person counting the vote.
Also, you shouldn't count votes on site - it allows poll workers to associate your vote and invites reprisals. You take the lock box with the vote off site, where they are tallied, and then use the phone to report in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not all that simple...
Once the machines get involved, the probability for skullduggery skyrockets.
The 60's era booths, all mechanical, are a lot harder to hack - unless someone swaps the paper ID strips over the levers around.
If you use a machine to print a paper ballot that will be machine read, the simplest way to do so is to barcode the printed slip instead of optically reading either the printed candidate names or the "checkmarks" next to them.
Now you've got to trust that the voting machine printed the correct barcode for your selections, AND that the counting machine is not only reading them correctly, but hasn't been "fixed" to discard or swap selections.
As to shipping the tally boxes offsite for counting, Chicago proved decades ago how easy it is to swap those boxes with others containing the "correct" votes.
There's no simple solution. But any method involving software should be suspect from the get-go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not all that simple...
I remind you, I vote in a county with no machines the public accesses. My vote is done with nothing more than a paper and pen, a fully paper ballot. But I have physical limitations that make filling out that ballot difficult on presidential election years, when the list of offices tends to skyrocket both federally and locally.
A machine which generates my ballot in a human readable manner, much like the current designations, while also machine readable ala scantrons or hole punched ballots, with minimal if any software needed and auditability, would be incredibly beneficial.
Your instance that my stance is to just "trust" machines are doing correctly is completely inaccurate. I don't want what the machine reads to be anything other than what I read. I want the machine to read that information the same way I do. Any other design is contrary to the whole point of the system. And that you assume I didn't think about that, as well as insisting that we use a system that is proven to have major flaws in a close election, makes me wonder what you are advocating for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not all that simple...
You said "machine counted", "machine readable", and "what the machine reads" so unless I've badly misunderstood you, the above is contrary to your suggestion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing THIS site doesn't have that problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be prepared
IF the Democrats win, be prepared to do an s/Democratic/Republican/g replacement on this line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be prepared
Nah. The equivalent would be:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any software dev out there calling this user error isn't worth their salt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have to agree. "Don't enable the Submit button before the form's completely ready to be submitted." is a standard thing for any Web page or application. If that button does anything before the form's completely loaded and rendered, the developers failed even India Consulting Firm Coding 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Before Party Tribalism comments commence, it's reversing ALL straight ticket votes, not just for one party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pen and paper for voting.
Optional: Scanners for counting (if you are lazy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) ATMs encounter very few problems
2) Voting machines are a horrible mess of many problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ANY vulnerabilities are bad in voting machines, so you hear about them a lot. A hard to exploit ATM vulnerability is just something to factor into risk calculations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However - when errors per use is compared, the picture is a bit different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ever get "surprised" with a new ATM card in the mail that you didn't ask for? Or if you bank online, a sudden request to change your password?
Those aren't because *your* card was hacked. It's because the *bank* was hacked, and lost a ton of user info, including the "security codes" from the back of the cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I do not recall ever reading about an ATM that changes the amount withdrawn/deposited or the account number(s).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As to the ATM itself, no, you don't see the amounts "changed". It just eats cards, or, my personal favorite, "Your financial institution cannot be reached" on the bank's OWN ATM.
They glitch all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it a bug or a feature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it a bug or a feature?
Everything from paper ballots with pencils to the latest web-enabled horror touchscreen system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who cares really
we can make self driving cars
but we can't build a voting machine with 2 paper print outs (so that I can get a printout of my vote, and there can be a printout for manual vote counts)
nevermind, American Idol is on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who cares really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who cares really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who cares really
sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in Texas, under our reconstruction-era constitution that was passed in response to decades of corruption and paranoia, just about every government position you can think of is elected. Every single ballot has at least a few dozen different positions on it, and it gets so overcrowded that you can easily expect a few hundred different names to choose from in their respective positions. It's a ginormic freaking mess in about every way imaginable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a problem
this is not a problem if the voter has half an ounce of common sense and actually reviews their choices before submitting.
Just a case of people trying to make a story out of nothing; trying to find non-issues to be angry about.
[ 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 ]
No paper trail
There has to be a way to do this without all the wasted paper. Maybe throw some blockchain at the problem or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No paper trail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another vote for the old fashioned way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a desperate way for local government officials to try and protect themselves in wave election years by hoping that voters for the other party won't check to make sure that they selected candidates in local offices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The state's laws are seriously fucked up if voting machines don't need to be accurate.
This brings up another issue with electronic voting machines that's often ignored. Electronic voting machines with no paper record are actually illegal in a number of states that they're used in. They're illegal because they don't comply with the state's recount laws for close elections (which typically happen automatically if the margin of victory is below 0.5%).
Yet those laws are not being enforced in many states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd
This goes both for standing in line at the DMV and proofreading your ballot before you submit it.
If you care enough about what's going on beyond just bitching and moaning and playing victim, then the problem goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'It's your fault for not expecting the unexpected'
I've got to be misreading that. Are you really suggesting that the blame should be on the voters because they should have known that the system is so badly programmed that it's possible to unintentionally vote for the other party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Straight ticket voting in Texas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This most important
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This most important
It's a spambot, which tries to shield itself from automated spam filtering by reposting (parts of) other comments, and putting its spam link in the comment's URL field.
If you see a comment whose name is a hyperlink - particularly if the hyperlink points to a URL which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the contents of the comment and/or the topic of the article - and it's not visibly from a commenter whose name you recognize, try searching the thread for a distinctive line from that comment. If you find that it appears at least twice, one of the two comments is almost certainly spam, and thus flag-worthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]