Voting machines

[iago]

This was a lot of outrage over the electronic voting machines, and one show even went so far as to demonstrate how a trained monkey could exploit them.  Here's a post about it from elsewhere (not by me):

How can a system this badly broken still be in use and maintain control?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/08/politics/main1027281.shtml

Nobody bothers to even ask how many other votes there were already
in the system or what happened to them? Who was in charge of inputting
the votes, how many people's votes did he input, who did he have them
vote for and why didn't he purge them after the test?

http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html

The US elections are clearly invalid, even by the lowest banana-state standards. Why is no accountability taking place?

In this particular case, it seems that sample data wasn't cleaned out of the database.  They left fake votes in the database?

I'm just wondering how Americans feel about putting their votes into computers that are connected to the internet, that store votes in password-less databases that anybody who has access to the computers has access to, and then sending he votes over the Internet to the main collector?

<edit> also, the voting machines are made by a company with a really bad track record.  I don't have information on that handy, but I know I've read a lot of bad things about Diebold, especially because they have a strong political agenda. 

<edit2> Aha, here's the story I was looking for:
"Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years."
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf
Is that really the kind of person you want counting your votes?

[Arta]

It's the refusal to imlement a paper trail that confuses me. Obviously electronic voting is a great idea, but without a verifiable paper trail that records each vote, it'll never be trustworthy.

[powered by nissan]

americans 

[iago]

To resurrect this topic, blackboxvoting.org have recently sued (successfully) for audit logs on Florida's voting terminals. 

full story
More details

The internal logs of at least 40 Sequoia touch-screen voting machines reveal that votes were time and date-stamped as cast two weeks before the election, sometimes in the middle of the night.
....
several dozen voting machines with votes for the Nov. 2, 2004 election cast on dates like Oct. 16, 15, 19, 13, 25, 28 2004 and one tape dated in 2010. These machines did not contain any votes date-stamped on Nov. 2, 2004.

[DarkMinion]

Here we go...

[iago]

Here we go...

Hmm?

If your elections aren't being fairly performed, that's the type of thing that should be widely known. 

[DarkMinion]

Just IMO, this would've never been brought up had Kerry been elected.  Yes, I know you're Canadian.

[Arta]

I don't think that's true at all.

[DarkMinion]

You're entitled to your opinion.

[iago]

Just IMO, this would've never been brought up had Kerry been elected.  Yes, I know you're Canadian.

They were investigating the voting machines before the 2004 election. 

[hismajesty]

Just IMO, this would've never been brought up had Kerry been elected. Yes, I know you're Canadian.

They were investigating the voting machines before the 2004 election.

The lawsuit was for the 2004 election.

[iago]

Just IMO, this would've never been brought up had Kerry been elected. Yes, I know you're Canadian.

They were investigating the voting machines before the 2004 election.

The lawsuit was for the 2004 election.

They were still investigating the machines.  You can't have a lawsuit for nothing. 

[MyndFyre]

They were still investigating the machines.  You can't have a lawsuit for nothing. 

This is America!  Of course you can!

Bush won by ~400,000 votes.  Statistically speaking, that's extremely significant.  Statistically speaking too, any "misvotes" or such would get counted as the error term.  Statistically speaking, the error term is determined not to be the deciding factor when there is a statistically significant difference between the populations.

Sampling Error = sqrt(p x q / n) where n = total number of respondents, p = % for Bush, q = % against Bush
E = sqrt( .52 x .48 / 7609810)
   = sqrt( 3.279976766831234945419136614449e-8 )
   = 1.8110706134304192131005208672785 x 10^-4

I think it's pretty clear that even with statistically probable cheating on either side, the numbers speak for themselves.

[iago]

They were still investigating the machines.  You can't have a lawsuit for nothing. 

This is America!  Of course you can!

Bush won by ~400,000 votes.  Statistically speaking, that's extremely significant.  Statistically speaking too, any "misvotes" or such would get counted as the error term.  Statistically speaking, the error term is determined not to be the deciding factor when there is a statistically significant difference between the populations.

Sampling Error = sqrt(p x q / n) where n = total number of respondents, p = % for Bush, q = % against Bush
E = sqrt( .52 x .48 / 7609810)
   = sqrt( 3.279976766831234945419136614449e-8 )
   = 1.8110706134304192131005208672785 x 10^-4

I think it's pretty clear that even with statistically probable cheating on either side, the numbers speak for themselves.

So you can draw some conclusions from that:
a) It doesn't statistically matter if you vote.
b) If some people's votes are lost/wrong/not counted, it doesn't matter. 

Is that the logical conclusion of what you're saying?  Or did I miss something?

[Arta]

Either way, I don't think the last election is relevant at all. Kerry didn't even contest the result.

Even if you do consider the last election to be relevant, I see no reason why Republicans wouldn't kick up similar fuss if they had lost, and rightly so. The outcome of elections should not be influenced by the use or otherwise of voting machines. It's to everyone's advantage to make sure that these machines are open, verifiable and secure.