Wouldn't it be a good idea to have some sort of automated remote monitoring system which would randomly ping each machine for diagnostics data and shutdown machines if any issues discovered?
Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
561–570 of 659 posts
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're buying isn't a vote, but a receipt. What if we could increase the supply of valid receipts enough to make them effectively worthless? For example, voting machines could drop duplicate receipts into a bucket that voters are free to rummage around in.
Or just not have receipts and avoid the issue altogether.
Sure, but there's a benefit to receipts: you can verify that your vote was counted correctly.
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be absolutely clear, you are advocating for people to have their votes approved prior to them being allowed to be cast?
No, I believe they are advocating that the ballot be counted/approved or rejected in the presence of the voter. This way people will have an opportunity to fix any mistakes with the ballot itself. This wouldn't have anything to do with the votes, rather it would ensure that the intention of the voter was correctly captured. This is the way it worked when I lived in Indiana. We had paper/optical ballots that were scan…
Exactly. Tally votes with an electronic scanner in real time allowing the voter to fix any issues discovered by the electronic system. This is already done in some municipalities.
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. I'm totally, utterly against electronic voting of any form. I'll weakly support ballot optical devices at poll sites in many USA jurisdictions, because our ballots can be quite complicated, until someone shows me that hand counting is generally feasible. With 30 issues on a ballot, sort / stack / count can get ugly. Aside: Thank you for your work on elections. I wish more geeks would actually work an election, o…
The key observation is that, since counting votes is an inherently distributed problem (with a comparatively simple centralized step at the end), you can always deal with it by adjusting the number of polling stations. I can speak for what happens in Portugal. We use the d'Hondt system with paper ballots, and it is not uncommon to have around 15 candidates on a ballot in certain elections, though we have no write-ins…
It's not that simple.
In the US, I think most places let you write in whoever you want. If they get enough votes, they win. Google "Lisa Murkowski".
The other problem is that unlike parliamentary systems, in the US we vote for multiple things and not which party/who your MP is. These are some of the things on the ballot:
1. President & VP 2. Senator 3. Congress Representative 4. Judges 5. Ballot measures
Unless each of these is on a different sheet of paper, counting them might be hard. Don't get me wrong though. I think that we should be using paper ballots. What does it matter if it takes 2 days instead of 1 to figure out who won.
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you observed central count? I think you'll be less enthusiastic once you understand how it works. In my jurisdiction, ballots are stuffed into an image scanner (like a high speed fax) as they arrive, the votes are detected, any ambiguous votes are "electronically adjudicated" meaning workers alter the database to correct for voter intent or write ins. There's a nightly summary report, allowing people to peek at…
It's also true that vote by mail silently disenfranchises about the same number of people it enfranchises. That's a numerical statement. Can you provide the numbers behind it? How much is turnout increased, and where did you get the 1% figure for the USPS losing first class mail from? I would assume that mail going to central locations are more likely to be delivered than to individuals. Same with issues related to c…
No election official has ever disputed my 1% statement. They've had plenty of opportunity to refute it (e.g. hearings).
I filed FOIA requests with USPS, which they ignored. The metrics are done by a private third party, claiming the data is propriety (privatization allows govt to hide uncomfortable truths).
I got the numbers client lawsuit against USPS. Bulk mailers do their own metrics / tracking (using test mailings). They claimed USPS's "UAA rate" (undeliverable as addressed) was higher than claimed, so they shouldn't be charged as much.
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#566If there were one aspect of electronic voting I could change it would be the following: allow electronic votes to be reviewed by each individual at a later date, from two independent organizations. Each vote gets sent to two independent electronic counting organizations, and each let you verify your vote after the election, with an (anonymous) confirmation number issued at voting time. If enough people cry foul to ru…
Definitely not! It's a secret ballot -- you cannot have any way to prove which candidates you voted for.
Incorrect. You can combine a personal secret code with the output of the vote-teller in order to determine who you voted for. The vote-teller would have no way of determining who you actually voted for without your personal code. Even more secure would be to have two personal codes, one a "real" code, which outputs the actual candidate you voted for, and one "duress" code, which outputs a candidate you didn't vote for(in case someone is holding a gun to your head to confirm you voted for their candidate)
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voters can sell their vote with or without a receipt. Furthermore, they can sell with a reasonable degree of certainty (if the buyer demanded it) already by submitting to a lie detector test. There is no valid reason, moral or technical, for preventing voters from verifying their votes were accurately counted, and verification does not enable any new crimes – but it does prevent the current crime where someone's vote…
If voters are given a receipt, buyers of votes can demand to see said receipt to verify they voted the correct way. boss/abusive family member/mafia can demand to see the vote receipt on threat of your job/safety/family returning safely tonight. The potential for a vote receipt means that these 3rd parties can reward/punish you based on the way you voted. Without it, they have no way of knowing if their coercion/blac…
Without it, they have no way of knowing if their coercion/blackmail worked or not.
Sure they do: use a lie detector and ask them.
Honestly, the situation you describe is the problem, not the presence or absence of verifiable voting. If you've got the mafia threatening your family, voting is the least of your problems.
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
perhaps the best thing to do is to flip a coin Or have a runoff election, or have instant-runoff voting. Having elections determined by real or statistical coin-flips undermines the (important) story of self-rule.
You can't get rid of edge cases by moving the edge.
Maybe not, but you can lessen the real-world impact of edge cases by moving the edge.
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't even give obviously edited. Ever used a lower-end Android phone? I have, and this looks like a video directly from one. Jittery, frame skipping mess. Edit: Also, it's been verified and taken offline. http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/06/machine-turns-vote-for-obama-...
Obviously edited b/c of the distinct scene cut between the candidate selection that takes up the first half of the video, and the cast vote button which takes up the second half. All the commenter was saying was that whoever shot the video didn't share it before first splicing two different shots together.
"All the commenter was saying was that whoever shot the video didn't share it before first splicing two different shots together."
That's not all the commenter was saying. OP was claiming the original video was staged and fake. He was accusing the Redditor if deception.
Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you observed central count? I think you'll be less enthusiastic once you understand how it works. In my jurisdiction, ballots are stuffed into an image scanner (like a high speed fax) as they arrive, the votes are detected, any ambiguous votes are "electronically adjudicated" meaning workers alter the database to correct for voter intent or write ins. There's a nightly summary report, allowing people to peek at…
ballots are stuffed into an image scanner (like a high speed fax) as they arrive, the votes are detected, any ambiguous votes are "electronically adjudicated" meaning workers alter the database to correct for voter intent or write ins. Is this different than how the count works in states whose ballots are delivered via volunteers with ballot boxes?
To the best of my knowledge, there are no USA jurisdictions that manually count ballots for the first count. Manual counting is only triggered by mandatory recounts, and then limited to just the races affected.
Most central counts have been using optical mark sense scanners, which are those multiple choice test reader thingies. Douglas Jones has posted online an excellent survey and explanation of various election equipment used. http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/
My jurisdiction is very liberal about trying to count every vote marked, per voter intent. I understand that other jurisdictions will reject whole ballots if there's any problems scanning it.
With mark sense equipment, if I ballot doesn't read correctly, it's corrected. Ballots can be unreadable for all sorts of reasons, water damage, unfortunate paper fold, ballot printed askew, etc.
Full image scanner are newer. Votes are inferred using image processing (recognition), vs diodes firing off.
"Electronic adjudication" breaks the paper trail. To correct for voter intent, they're changing records in a database. Versus modifying / correcting ballots or ballot duplication (copying votes to a ballot which will then scan correctly).