Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 7:26 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #106

pnathan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) We have > 300 M people. That's a huge population. (2) We are OK publicizing it. (3) Probability would indicate that we'll have a certain error, and it'll be shouted about. --- But it's very strange that it was "miscalibrated" to not select one particular candidate, no? :)

> (1) We have > 300 M people. That's a huge population. It's hilarious when Americans use that as an excuse for things being sub-par in their country. I see it all the time for health care, roads, schools etc. Yes, your country has lots of people in it, but it also takes in an enormous amount of tax, and has enormous government agencies to organize this kind of thing. Everything should scale up appropriately, but you…

Post by astrodust » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 7:28 PM UTC

bryanh wrote: post #117

Looks like a touch screen that isn't calibrated correctly.

Post by wbrendel » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 7:28 PM UTC

DirtyCalvinist wrote: post #153

wbrendel wrote: post #65

What's wrong with paper ballots again? Serious question. In my area (northern MA), voters are given a ballot with a bubble next to each of the candidates' names. You use a marker to fill in the bubble next to the candidate you want to vote for, like 6-year-olds manage to do all the time on multiple choice tests in school. Then it gets read in by a machine, leaving a paper trail just in case. How are these electronic…

Electronic voting machines allow for easier customization of text for edge cases, like a need for higher contrast, larger print or another language. A good compromise, I think, would be to have the electronic machines print out a human-readable paper ballot, and that would be counted as ballots used to be. The security/checkability of the old system with the convenience of the electronic interface.

Post by genwin » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 7:29 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #155

genwin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistics tells you the odds that the exit poll would disagree by some degree with the actual result. If the odds show, for example, only a 1 in a 100 million chance of it happening, an investigation should take place. That you've never hit an exit pollster doesn't say much, because the odds can be computed with high confidence by polling only a tiny fraction of the voters. Statistics is highly valuable despite not…

And who regulates the exit pollsters? Normally I wouldn't worry about this, but if you want to give them power to invalidate an election (or force an "investigation," whatever that means), then you shouldn't just let them run around doing whatever they think is best. but the odds of him losing are nil, the stats show. I don't even know what mindset produces this thought. While Nate Silver doesn't think Romney will wi…

Post by Firehed » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 7:29 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #68

weaksauce wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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.