Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

Post by mcantelon » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 11:20 PM UTC

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #500

mcantelon wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A random person's video carries more weight than a random person's unsubstantiated claim because video is, to some degree, evidence (it would be possible to fake, but would at least require some work).

But there is no real evidence. He shows a video of a garden variety bug/error with resistive touch screens, then makes some sensationalist claims in his comments that are completely unsubstantiated.

Post by trhtrsh » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 11:23 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #377

mcantelon wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These voting machines flaws were widely reported last election. They always favoured the Republican candidate. Here's court testimony of an developer who was asked to create one of these rigged systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmsaDS_FwY

They don't "always" favor the republican. That's just hyperbole. There have been widespread reports of Romney votes being altered -- days ago. I think our biggest problem is voter registration flaws and the lack of being able to identify that the person listed on the form is the actual one voting. We should also be dipping people's thumbs in ink like they do in Africa and Mexico to ensure that people don't vote twice…

Post by trhtrsh » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 11:29 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #69

mindstab wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have > 300 M people. That's a huge population Um, unless you're talking to India which manages to pull off votes with 1.2 Billion People. You are like 25% their population.

If you vote with paper, you don't worry at all if it's counted right. Note that this doesn't mean it's counted right: it just means you have no way to worry about it. Maybe election officials are debating whether that line for Joe is a mistake or not. Now the problems are seen immediately instead of unseen, which was one of the driving forces for people who didn't want to ever go through the hanging chad issue again.…

Post by trhtrsh » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 11:31 PM UTC

Firehed wrote: post #209

potatolicious wrote: post #68

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" 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.

With everyone and their dog carrying around a camera in their pocket by means of a cell phone? Hardly. Anyone interested in selling their vote could easily take a photo of their ballot (with some identifying info added to the photo as well to show it wasn't a copy from a friend) to prove they voted the way they were paid. Even if this theoretically did increase the chance of vote-buying, I think it's still a worthwhi…

Post by trhtrsh » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 11:34 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #334

danielweber wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you can prove to a third-party how you voted, you can sell your vote, or coerce someone else to vote a certain way. It's one of the biggest challenges in crypto-voting systems. And there are some solutions. But we need to hammer down on the "silly people, why not just print a receipt" idea really hard.

But I still would like to be able to have it proven to me that the way I voted matches what the system records. To me, that seems more important, but I also cannot say that it's more important than your points. Hm.