Jules Siegel wrote a good diary
here about the supposed situation in Texas.
This is bothering me, Kossacks. I've written my piece in that diary, only to get quickly dismissed. I need to explain my first hand account with these machines and how easy it is for user errors to happen based on the faulty design of the machines.
Let's start with the stipulations
1. The machines have serious problems with them. But they're related to their design and their ability to be hacked by a bad person.
2. I voted in Dallas County yesterday on an ES&S machine. It was my second experience with such a machine. The first one was in 2004.
3. I understand that not all counties in Texas are using ES&S machines. A poster on the Jules Siegel diary pointed out that Travis County is using a different vendor.
4. I'm not at all suggesting that we should not be talking about the problems inherient with electronic voting.
5. I do believe that the design of the ES&S machines will register overvotes for the incumbent, or whoever is listed first.
6. My experience on this issue applies to Texas and Dallas County. I don't know what machines Florida is using and that might be a totally different issue. I don't know.
Now that that ugliness is out of the way.
Kossacks, we've been warned. We've been warned by our own self-editing community not to inflame stories that have very little crediblity. Stories about Ken Blackwell purging voter lists, or suicide diaries that aren't. We've been warned not to take the bait, but we do...over and over.
I know how strong the temptation is to believe that something malicious is happening with our votes. This belief can be helpful or it can be damaging. It's helpful because we keep the conversation in the public eye - in mainstream dialouge. It's hurtful when people DON'T VOTE because they believe their vote won't be counted at all.
Let me relay my story and address some of the comments I've received.
My personal experience with ES&S Machines in Texas (Dallas County)
Yesterday I voted. I made a note of the layout of the electronic ballot while I was voting. To vote on an ES&S machine, you have to touch a little box (maybe 1cm square), you can NOT just touch the name of the candidate. The boxes are all lined up on the left hand side and they're all very close to each other.
I decided to test the machine. I voted "straight Democratic ticket" and then went through the review screen to the final step, where you press the VOTE button and cast your ballot. I then went backwards and removed the "straight Democratic" selection and made individual selections. There wasn't any flipping of any vote.
But I can see where there would be that perception
When I was making individual selections, I accidentally pushed the box for an (R) candidate instead of the (D). I thought I pushed (D), but I didn't. This was an accident, and I simply removed the check for the R and put it in for the D. I think I know why this is happening.
The design of the machines causes overvotes for the incumbent, or the first person listed on the ballot
Each race is broken up into it's own sub-category on the ballot. The two or three candidates are listed one after another with the incumbent on top. The boxes, as noted above, are small and too close together.
When you're trying to select the middle box, if you're going to miss, you'll probably miss "up" -- to the top listed candidate. I've been asked on the other diary where I'm getting this from... let me try to explain.
Your fingernail is on top of your finger (edit not hand - h/t topicalstorm). These screens are very sensitive and they will register slight touching. If your fingernail is longer, or if you're unsteady with your hand, or if you're hard of sight, or any number of reasons -- you'll likely hit high, and register a vote for the incumbent.
WHY DOESN'T THIS HAPPEN TO REPUBLICANS?
I too shared this question, but being in the voting booth yesterday it made perfect sense. On an ES&S machine, the incumbent is listed FIRST. If you're voting FOR the incumbent, your nail or whatever, isn't going to hit a candidate above the incumbent because there isn't a candidate above the incumbent. Trust me folks, if the Democrats gain majority power in Texas and Florida you're going to see Freeperville go absolutely bannanas about "vote flipping" (R) to (D).
Why am I marginalizing electronic voting problems
Quick answer.... I'm not.
I want this to be a reality-based thought provoking community. I think it has been, and I love this place. But seriously -- the diary Jules Siegel wrote went straight to the top with almost no critical looking at what the story said. Votes aren't being flipped. It's just not happening.
I'm not marginalizing the problem. I totally agree that the machines need to be re-designed or scrapped. I totally agree that the machines are tantamount to a modern-day butterfly ballot. I totally agree that a computer programmer can steal a vote and leave no trace whatsoever.
Which brings me to my next point
You have got to be A TOTAL MORAN [sic] to program election fraud this poorly
Think about the obvious. The whole Occam's Razor thing if you want. Put yourself in the shoes of a computer programmer who wants to steal an election. Remember the Princeton video about the Diebold machines? Why was that effective? Because it was invisible. The paper trail said one thing, while the vote said another thing. The screen said one thing, while the registered vote said another thing.
Election fraud doesn't work when you tell the person being de-frauded that they're being de-frauded. This is so obvious it hurts my head to think that people don't get this. Programmers can make any machine say anything they want it to say while doing something else. Do you really think that a programmer went to the trouble to reprogram the vote tabulation software without changing the display to indicate NO FRAUD took place?. Election fraud fundamentally relies on a veil of credibility. That veil would be blown if you TOLD the voter before they cast their vote that you had "flipped" it.
Focusing on user error and calling it a programmer's theft hurts our credibility
This goes without saying. By reccing a diary calling poor design and user error a programming hack we've hurt our forum's crediblity again. This takes away from legitimacy when we really do have to challenge programming issues with these machines. The diary is a good one, I'm not flaming the diary, the poster, or any of the commenters on that diary... I'm just asking y'all, PLEASE -- let's try to keep our language straight about the problems with these machines.
Sorry about the length. Sorry also about diaring in response to a diary. Fire away, I'll try to answer questions.
UPDATE #1 - It's been pointed out that my story is just another antecdotal story, just like the rest of them. This is true. Please keep in mind that I'm pleading with this community to be more skeptical in general about all issues. Question first, before jumping on board. Question THIS diary. There are a myriad of problems with electronic voting, which is why we MUST keep our issues straight and our credibility intact. I do not believe we retain our credibility when we call a design/user issue a programming issue. It takes away from our ability to later challenge legitimate programming issues.
Update #2 - I've been hit with so many "your title sucks" comments that I changed it. If the title of this diary is going to distract from the substance of this diary, then I'll just remove it from conversation.