Skip to main content

View Diary: WI: GAB Failed to Review Minutes from Waukesha Before Certifying S.C. Election (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  sort of muddled (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Giles Goat Boy

    The machines aren't "inauditable." Most Wisconsinites voted on paper ballots, which can trivially be recounted. Yes, many of those ballots were recounted by machine rather than by hand -- dumb law, in my opinion, although there is a rationale -- but that isn't a property of the machines.

    Some Wisconsinites voted on DREs. Your comment appears to conflate the two voting methods. I guess that's fine for purposes of advocating "100% hand count or bust," but for people who are trying to understand what happened in Wisconsin, it seems suboptimal.

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      There were many, many problems reported.  However, I do equate all the voting machines whether touch screen or optical scan because they are all made by the same small handful of companies, NONE can be audited to verify that they worked properly on election day, and each and every one of them have proven to be not only extremely prone to failure in a number of ways, but also can be quickly and easily hacked by a single person and affect entire elections.  

      Since the only way to determine if the machines were hacked/tampered with or worked properly at all would be to audit the software before and after every election (which can't be done since the software is protected by law) there is literally no way to guarantee the results are real.

      Some may point to paper trails?  The same paper trails that in this election didn't work and nobody even noticed?  Or the paper trails dated BEFORE the actual election day?  

      Meanwhile, the handcount found close to 3,000 ballots that were improperly counted for whatever reason.   That is 3,000 ballots that the machines miscounted and, for whatever reason, nobody new about it until a HAND recount.  Since a hand recount of some or all of the ballots was only done in half the state, how many MORE miscounted ballots were refed into the same machines that already failed to work properly?   How many more miscounted ballots are out there?  Why didn't paper trails prevent those 3,000 mistakes?

      So the fact is that right now, there is no different between touch screen voting machines or the optical scan vote counting machines.  They are both garbage for the exact same reasons.  And with legislation in place that seemingly makes the paper ballot harder to count and less legitimate than what the machine tells us...something is very wrong.

      •  still muddled (0+ / 0-)
        Some may point to paper trails?  The same paper trails that in this election didn't work and nobody even noticed?  Or the paper trails dated BEFORE the actual election day?  

        As I pointed out, most of the "paper trails" are hand-marked paper ballots. Most of those, actually, were recounted by hand. Others were recounted by machine, but generally not the same machines that originally counted them. Also, we can compare the results in the jurisdictions where op-scan ballots were recounted by hand with the results where ballots were rescanned. I think all those ballots should have been recounted by hand, but it's kind of silly to talk as if the process was indistinguishable from having everyone vote on DREs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site