Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 659 posts

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#641

Post by bobwaycott »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #394
bobwaycott wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but it is grounds to apply Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. Not many people seem to be aware of the second clause. Basically, it says that any state found to be denying citizens their vote will have their representation in Congress proportionately decreased in accordance with how many people were denied their voting right. All this nonsense about voter IDs, altering votes, making it difficult for peopl…

Your representation of that clause makes it seem the clause has it a bit backwards - how does reducing the representation of a state help to counter the reduced representation of the citizens of that state; doesn't the amendment then enforce the goals of those who're trying to remove representation of individuals at the _national_ level? If Florida is a state of party 2 voters then party 1 gains by preventing voting,…

The idea behind it isn't party focused at all. Each state is represented in the House based on population. If, according to the Amendment (and keep in mind when it was written and the reasons behind it), a state acts in a way that denies legal citizens the right to vote, its allocated number of representatives is to be decreased according to the population that was denied the vote. The effect is to then decrease the state's overall say in national governing, with the desired end being that no state would allow voting to be denied, else they lose whatever power they have in the House. This means fewer votes to help push an agenda, to earmark money back to the state, etc.

It's not meant to punish a party, as the House isn't organized to proportionally represent party membership. So, in effect, the amendment wants to ensure that if states deny the vote by N citizens, that they are then recognized as having T citizens (total population) - N citizens (who were denied).

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#642

Post by bobwaycott »

btilly wrote: post #417
bobwaycott wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but it is grounds to apply Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. Not many people seem to be aware of the second clause. Basically, it says that any state found to be denying citizens their vote will have their representation in Congress proportionately decreased in accordance with how many people were denied their voting right. All this nonsense about voter IDs, altering votes, making it difficult for peopl…

When the election is decided by under 2%, a targeted denial that is enough to swing the election is small enough that very few states would lose any representation at all in Congress. Besides, it is hard to convince a government to apply section 2 if the party in power is the one that was doing the disenfranchising.

I could be wrong, but the Congress does not and would not execute the amendment's clauses. That is the executive's job. Thus it'd pretty much be the DOJ, I'd think, stepping up to make the threat, calling the states' attention to the fact that there are consequences set forth in the constitution they cannot fight against.

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#643

Post by tomjen3 »

MartinCron wrote: post #374
Symmetry wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end, if one candidate got 100,000 votes and the other got 100,001 then to the extent that we randomly select between the two I'm not sure that it really makes a difference which one wins. In this case the will of the people is that the two candidates are equally good. "The greatest value of free elections is in all of the out-of-equilibrium outcomes that, because of the regularity of free elections, never come…

In this case the will of the people is that the two candidates are equally good That's a very positive way to look at it. The problem of reduced legitimacy persists, though. The disgruntled Coleman supporters will probably always have a sneaking suspicion that the election was stolen from them, which tends to poison actual discourse.

Sneaking suspicion? After the 2000 election you would be looked down on for calling Bush president in many demokratic circles.

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#644

Post by chimeracoder »

xxpor wrote: post #471
specialist wrote: post #451

Earlier 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…

That's how Washington works. The primary system is mail in, but walk in voting is also available.

I'm pretty sure most Washington counties voted to do away with walk-in voting.

Counties have the option to allow it, but most don't, so most individuals don't have this option.

Not that they seem to mind, though - I haven't heard of any complaints, anecdotally.

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#645

Post by jlgreco »

stevewillows wrote: post #332
regularfry wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume that the team developing the software consists of more than one person, and a hypothetical vote-stuffer wants to minimise the number of people who know about the vote-stuffing attempt, they might not have any choice about who on the team actually implements the stuffing. It might be that they only have influence over the guy doing the UI. Or it could be an attempt at plausible deniability. If all the ma…

In the video they should have tested for calibration. It suggests that the votes are being forced to Mitt when really the screen is just off. Further to this, why aren't the names randomized?!

> "Further to this, why aren't the names randomized?!"

Do you know how many millions of lines of code they would need to add to do this?

Voting machine manufactures have repeatedly proven themselves the most incompetent people in technology.

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#647

Post by gordonguthrie »

finnw wrote: post #640
gordonguthrie wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a candidate (in Scotland/UK). Here all rejected ballot papers are shown to all the candidates and their agents and if a paper is technically invalid (in the UK that means any mark other than a cross) but where the intent is clear (ie yes in the box against Mrs McGinty) are counted as if they were valid votes. Very rarely is there disagreement about what is a valid vote - but they can be very ambiguous. Th…

So what is to stop you making a deal with me, that if somebody writes "ARF" in your box on the ballot paper, that you will pay me £1000? It will obviously be disputed, so it will be shown to you as a candidate, and it is unusual enough that you can identify the vote as mine with >=90% confidence, but you have a good chance that if you show it to your opponents, they will agree that my "intention was clear." I was und…

Nothing, but to make that a practical vote buying scheme I would need to purchase 1,000 votes and maintain a list of the secret codes and then go to the count with this list.

Then, in the presence of all the other candidates and agents, I would have go through my list and check off my secret codes.

Guess what? It would kick off big style and suddenly consent to include my magic ballots would be withdrawn by everybody else - the Returning Officer would make a decision and probably have a word with the polis - who are present at, and supervise the ballot boxes.

Protecting the integrity of the ballot is like securing a computer system. Identify the core vectors of attack and lock them down. So it is about "what is the rate of postal votes?" "are the postal vote samples inline with the end-result?" "what is the turnout? relative to last time and other similar constituencies?" "what is the churn in voter registration?" "is the final turnout consistent with the reported turnout?" "is it easy to buy votes?" "is it easy to register fake voters?".

The core point is not to make fraud hard but to make it visible. Of course the basic 'don't make it easy' steps need to be taken - but after that it is all about 'don't let anybody get away with it'.

The problem on HN is that nobody coming up with suggestions on how to improve the ballot is doing any 'customer discovery' - going out to talk to actual people who stand for election and run elections and who are trying to ensure that the vote is fair. The computer pixie dust being scattered around is fixing non-problems.

BTW it isn't an X it is a St Andrew's cross - St Andrew being the patron saint of truth telling - it means 'I swear by St Andrew that this is my true intent'. The 'kiss' on a letter likewise meaning 'I swear by St Andrew that my love is true'. One of the perks of being Scottish is that our flag stands for truth, love and democracy :)

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#648

Post by jeltz »

h1srf wrote: post #564
tjgq wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Sweden people can also write whichever party they like and there are no problems counting those votes by hand. We get the preliminary result after 3 or 4 hours, and then they are all recounted the next day.

And, yes, we use one sheet of paper per election. On election day there are three separate elections (municipal, provincial, parliament) and optionally one or more referendums.

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#649

Post by rmc »

weaksauce wrote: post #546
rmc wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider some scenarios: Jim is not a nice man and is very demanding and abusive and goes to vote. He wants his wife to vote for X, but he suspects that she will vote for Y. Today, she can vote for X or Y and tell her husband that she voted for Y. He has no way to prove her wrong. With receipts, he can tell her, on no uncertain terms, that she is to show him her receipt afterwards. If she doesn't produce a receipt sh…

Cell phone video of the whole process would probably be enough to placate the husband and buy a vote though.

Yes, no system is perfect, and the current system does have that flaw. But "record yourself marking the paper and putting it in the box" doesn't scale. If lots of people in an area do that, someone'll figure out what's going on.

Re: Reddit user captures video of 2012 voting machines altering votes

#650

Post by rmc »

rmc wrote: post #407
pavel_lishin wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I missed the discussions in the thread; how is verifiability (is that a word?) a design flaw?

Consider some scenarios: Jim is not a nice man and is very demanding and abusive and goes to vote. He wants his wife to vote for X, but he suspects that she will vote for Y. Today, she can vote for X or Y and tell her husband that she voted for Y. He has no way to prove her wrong. With receipts, he can tell her, on no uncertain terms, that she is to show him her receipt afterwards. If she doesn't produce a receipt sh…

Other scenarios that would be possible with "verify you can

Employers could now request that employees tell/prove/check who they voted for.

Unions could now tell/prove/check who their members voted for.

Churchs could now tell/prove/check who their members voted for.

Post reply on HN