What is Digg?279 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+196Wonder why there are 0 reports of republican votes mysteriously changing to democrat votes?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+159sounds like a terrible mistake......*shifty eyes*
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -13/+108and so begins the "stunning" victory by republican candidates. i think i'm going to be sick.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+99So let me get this straight. First, I could go to any ATM machine do a transaction and get a receipt. But when I vote, which only happens every couple of years and is suppose to make a difference in my life, I get no receipt.
Then there are issues with the machines in Florida and now in Texas (both of which conveniently change votes from Democrat to Republican and not the other way around). And earlier this year, Princeton students uncovered a virus that can easily infect and change the outcomes of votes in Diebold machines.
Yet, not a single machine has been pulled. The Republican numb-nuts call Democrats whiners and conspiracy theorists. But God forbid if this was happening to them!
So I guess you have to do whatever you can to keep power,
right George W. Bush? Give me Liberty or give me Diebold ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/892364072/koy/846714 - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -8/+93It's a feature not a bug.
- HIPAA_Notic, on 10/12/2007, -10/+84And this is why "W" is so confident that they Republicans will sweep.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+79hey knupso, you should probably have read the article before making an ass of yourself.
FTA: "Saturday, KFDM spoke to another voter who says it's not just happening with straight ticket voting, he says it's happening on individual races as well, Jerry Stopher told us when he voted for a Democrat, the Republican's name was highlighted."
Ass. - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -13/+70No, it's not a dupe. The story you link to was about Florida, this is in Texas.
I also wonder why we haven't heard of a single case where computer errors were in favor of democrats. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+58I find it remarkable that you don't seem to care if Democracy is served, only that your side wins.
And so what IF the vote was rigged? Would you care, as long as you personally benefited from it? Or does the end justify the means? - jreno3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54I don't understand how these machines can be so inaccurate by "accident" I deal with point of sale systems for a billion dollar company. All of our systems use touch screens with 100% accuracy in transaction level detail. I agree with ahhell WTF
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -10/+62Red_Eye, that makes no sense. If one republican said their vote was recorded as democratic, faux news would have it as a featured story for at least 3 weeks.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -26/+75@knupso -
Dude. They voted straight ticket to validate results. It's a test. In case you hadn't noticed, election day is November 7th. Now shut up. - Gustomucho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51"Friday night, KFDM reported about people who had cast straight Democratic ticket ballots, but the touch-screen machines indicated they had voted a straight Republican ticket. "
Shut up and learn to read gojeda. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57Heh, KMFDM reported this 12 years ago in their song 'Terror':
"Day after Day innocent people are bing deported,
interrogated and tortured - put through the third degree.
Fundamentalist forces are undermining the intergrity
of liberal and democratic political structures." - rajkalex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46Not a "dupe". The other link is regarding voting fraud in Florida, not Texas. The problem is expanding. I'd say that's worth another Digg. Having said that, I'm skeptical. It would be an easy fix to change the vote counted while still showing the one actually cast on the screen. Why make it obvious? Could be a touch screen problem, I know how touchy those can be. Whatever it is, it needs some serious investigation.
- miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -19/+60gojeda - -1 digg for being a jackass.
- jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Simple solution: PRINT ME A GODDAMN RECEIPT that shows who I voted for that I can take with me.
ATM machines print thousands upon thousands of receipts - when's the last time you came across an ATM where the printer wasn't working and you didn't get a receipt? I never have.
Sandwich places such as Wawa let me use a touch screen to build my sandwich - guess what - I've NEVER accidently ended up with tuna instead of turkey either by fat fingering the wrong button or of a bug or glitch - and it spits out a receipt every time.
Are you telling me that sandwich ordering software is more important and more carefully debugged than voting machine software? - Azurensis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41if (random.Next(50) == 1 && Vote.Democrat == true) {
Vote.Democrat = false;
Vote.Republican = true;
} - picciano, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Clippy: I see that may have accidentally voted for a Democrat. Would you like to vote Republican instead?
- riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33if it's a bug how come it ALWAYS favors the Republicans and not the Democrats or some Independent for that matter?
- atgunning, on 10/12/2007, -15/+42I, for one, welcome our new Diebold masters......
- ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30You know, how hard is it to program a voting machine that prints out into a receipt that works reliably? Recently in engineering class we've been told to create some of our own voting machines as projects and we've come up with quite a few ideas that make it a bit hard to tamper with.
It turns out the software end is the easy part.
The hard part is preventing tampering.
So my thought was that if someone wanted to tamper with the machine, maybe the safety feature was to show the discrepancy in voting, like when you voted Democrat and got Republican.
I just feel either they're hiring amateurs on these machines or perhaps this was all done on purpose, or that someone was tampering with the machines. Either case this is unsettling. We cannot trust these machines.
Oh and one more thing, we learned in class that the best protection was a machine that was open source and transparent. Everyone who saw that our digital system was clear and open, was the best protection. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34No. Bugs don't work that way. Some bugs are very intermittent.
The thing about looking for consistency here is that if this is a bug, you should also see the RESULTS of the bug be inconsistent. So far, I haven't heard of a single case of a Democrat being selected by accident, only Republicans.
Now, I can see a software glitch always picking the first or last candidate from a list when the touch screen fails, but the GOP is not always first or last on the list. In fact, this same behavior has been noted in two different states (Florida and Texas) with two completely different ballots.
Find a single case of a Democrat being picked accidentally and I'll favor the bug theory in a jiffy.
The fact is, without being able to have independent source code audits of these machines, we just can't tell, except by the results. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+40knupso
99.999% of the time i would agree with you, but i have done my research.
the gop tottally oppose oversight and are for torture and have ruined americas name arround the world.
the other party could be communists but since there isnt an option to vote against all republicans, i think i will pull the lever to vote straight dem. Seriously the couldnt screw up this mess worse. - tuxthepenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Ok this is getting way out of hand. Seriously how ***** hard is it to write some damn software that accepts what you choose?
- DavidTrom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Maybe this is what K. Rove meant when he say he have "The Math"
He and Bush are the only Republican who are sure they are going to keep Congress.
It sounds DIEBOLic to me - ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Don't you get it? Liberals aren't only about "winning" or "losing." If we just wanted to "win" elections or "win" the war on terror, we would do so in the most fascist, most guaranteed way to ensure victory. The point of being liberal is saying that sometimes ideals hold a higher place than anything. It's why Dems and liberals in general aren't willing to forfeit our freedom just to "win" the war on terror. If you have to cheat, you've already lost. That's what being a liberal is all about.
- tclark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Oh good, this means everything is going as planned.
- archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26It would be very easy to have only some of the Democrat votes be recast as Republican - in fact, doing it any other way would be stupid (i.e. it would much too obvious). That would actually be trivial to do, and since the code for the voting machine is not open-source (which in itself is a complete absurdity) it's impossible to know for sure without extensive independent testing.
"Saying things like this make the Democrats look childish because its hard to believe."
It is not hard to believe at all, because there is no indepedent reviews of the code, and the owners of some of the companies that manufacture voting machines (such as Diebold) have made their political allegiance well known (and it ain't to the Demcrats).
The fact that there are no reports of Republican votes being wrongly cast as Democrat is a good indication that something fishy is afoot. I really hope someon will get sent to jail over this. - eggo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23It's sad when digg has a more accurate vote counting mechanism than these multi-million dollar machines do...
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23From the article:
"These machines are very sensitive" and
"Your fingernail might have hit the wrong button"
Voting machines should be able to withstand a directional explosive charge, not be so pansy that they could "accidentally" vote for the completely opposite person that you were trying to vote for. And someones FINGERNAIL can hit the wrong button? What's wrong with putting a huge freaking "DEMOCRAT" and "REPUBLICAN" button on the first screen, maybe even putting the donkey and elephant on the button as well and color coding them. Then on the other pages you can select individual candidates and then go back to the simple split button screen if you want to split your vote up for different members in different positions? Takes away pretty much all the possible "mistakes" that seem to be so conveniently common. - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Careful now, wouldn't want to let the sheeple know the repubs have become the party of Machiavelli and Mussolini. The dream combination that dictators throughout history would only dream about.
- kayjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22in germany we dont have "voting" machines. we do it the PROPER way: using a ballot box, our ID and a simple piece of paper. that way its harder to steal votes!
- archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30"Funny how many dead democrats vote in every election."
About the same number as dead republicans.
BTW, two wrongs do not make a right, but at least you're admitting that Republicans are cheating. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Silly conspiracies! Computers never go wrong. Come on..can someone give me an example the last time their computer did something weird? That's right...these new machines are built on Windows ME technology.....its infallible!
- ginty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22The fact is, without being able to have independent source code audits of these machines, we just can't tell, except by the results.
I agree with this.
Has there been any REAL authorities weigh in on this yet? Have there been any politicians talking about it, or is it all just media? - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Read my earlier post. Based on yesterday's digg post on the subject, the votes are changing after they're picked. If it was the touch-screen that was at fault, the little checkbox next to the name would go in the wrong place and the voter would see that instantly. In fact, it would probably be more difficult to press the "next page" button at the bottom. The votes are reportedly changing between the time the vote is cast and the final review page. That's not the touch screen.
- jreno3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20In addition to my earlier point, We run over over 1,000 touches a day per terminal, and only need to calibrate every quarter, sometimes even longer.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Anyone on this thread claiming that pointing out voting irregularities is whining need to grow up or find a new country. You may be better suited to living in a dictatorship, hopefully one which you like. You are truly unamerican.
There is no whining here, especially since the outcome of the election isn't even known. And it would be just as big as concern if votes were getting flipped the other way.
The means do not justify the end. In a Democracy, the means are often much more important than the ends. - webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22"The hard part is preventing tampering."
There's an easy way to avoid tampering with the voting machines.
Don't use them.
Although counting punched ballots seems open to interpretation, at least it's easy to debate between two people.
"*shifty eyes*"
Fly-hands? - velvethead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17OK, I live in Austin Texas, and this EXACT thing happened to me during the last Presidential election.
The morning of the election I started to hear a couple stories of votes being changed, then something was on the radio. So when I went in, I was determined to triple check everything. One of the first screens was the Prez vote, with two large boxes. I my case I choose Kerry, got the check mark, and then double checked again and hit OK. After going through all the other votes, I was given a summary screen. Sure enough it said I voted for Bush. I was stunned. There is NO WAY it was pilot error. I had to go page back to the original screen, and change my vote. When I got back to the summary, it showed Kerry.
I am not making this up. It creeped me out, and made me angry. I have lost all faith in our elections. Obviously, things have not changed. - webXL, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22" Early voting for the November election started Monday, and during this first week of it, Jefferson County has experienced high turnout.
By the end of Saturday, which was the sixth day of early voting, the Jefferson County Clerk's office was reporting that 7,416 had cast ballots. "
I hope NSMike misses election day. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"Do Democrat supporters honestly think that Republicans would conjur up a conspiracy AND act on it to compromise the software of voting machines to switch votes?"
Diebold refuses to let people know exactly how the machines operate.
Why?
What does that say?
For something important and potentially life changing like elections, your software better be available for inspection by the public.
Especially since the CEO has close ties to Bush and is part of his "Rangers and Pioneers" group.
I think people are reluctant to think these things for fear that it's a "conspiracy theory". These things add up all over the place, and can easily be solved if they just let people inspect their stuff. Easy! But they don't. - Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -23/+38Because to mention that would be to speak against the current administration which would call the men in black down on your head as a traitor.
- brbubba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Watch, they won't investigate this crap either. Anytime someone finds a valid reason to suspect vote rigging people dismiss it as some left wing conspiracy theory.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Be a patriot and make proper use of your Second Amendment right. Take your Second Amendment to the polls with you, smash the machines with a steel bat, demand a paper trail.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15If the Dems win by using rigged voting machines, then yes, you'll hear about it. If the Dems win DESPITE rigged voting machines, you may not. If you think the Dems have rigged any machines in their favor, you should point it out, preferably before the outcome is known.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Raybury, that makes a little more sense. Thanks. But here's the thing: if it was a calibration error, you'd see the checkboxes next to the wrong name with you initially vote, e.g., you click row 3 and row 2 gets the checkbox instead.
I agree, the bias/offset could happen the same way each time. But it's happening in two states now, and both would need to have their ballots laid out the same way. The odds are low. If we get a third state, they odds are ridiculous.
But what's been described sounds more like the checkboxes are landing next to the right names, but the results on the final page are wrong. With your vast touch-screen experience, please explain how a touchscreen can reach into the vote choices and change them, after the checkbox was placed correctly.
I agree it could be a bug, but it's been there a long time without being fixed. And if it was known and worked as you describe, there are two easy fixes to bad hardware:
1. require voters to test calibration by clicking blank boxes before beginning. If this fails, service the machine.
2. have the order of the names on each page appear randomly. This should already be good practice, as the layout of the ballots does imply some preference, visually speaking. Best to randomize.
Given it's not a new problem, why haven't either been done? - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12That is only the case in some states, not all. In states where it is not the case the screen will go blank once you have submitted your votes so you have no idea if it was registered correctly.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12what percentage of the voters, do you believe, are tech savvy?
i've never gotten an extra gallon of gas due to an error, i've never received an extra $20 from an ATM but somehow we're unable to come up with a machine that can accurately tally votes.
i'm not sure why we ever left the balloting system.
we keep hearing that bush is quietly enabling martial law, if this election manages to be a remarkable landslide to the republicans, maybe i can see why. -
Show 51 - 100 of 279 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is