When There Are So Many 'Human Errors' On Your E-Voting Machines, It's Your Problem

from the sequoia,-i'm-talking-to-you dept

Last week, we wrote about yet another problem with Sequoia e-voting equipment where the company was vehemently denying the problem was with the machines, even saying: "There's absolutely no problem with the machines in the polling places. No. No." Of course, this came right after a report revealing how easy it was to hack their machines, as well as numerous other problems with Sequoia machines. Yet the company consistently employs the same exact strategy: it couldn't possibly be the fault of the machines.

You may recall the story earlier this month about the Sequoia optical scanning machines in Palm Beach County that supposedly couldn't reach the same vote tally if different counting machines were used. At least that was the original claim -- but it was later changed when election officials admitted they had simply misplaced some ballots. Well, the latest report claims that the recount is now not showing lost ballots -- it's showing too many ballots. Fantastic. Election officials think they've traced the problem to the fact that some votes on Sequoia's e-voting machine cartridges weren't properly transferred, which kicks off Sequoia's standard PR response:

The company's representative, Phil Foster says "the cartridge is fine. Why it didn't read I do not know," suggesting another human error made on election night.

You know, when you keep saying that, and the problems keep occurring, at some point, people are going to stop believing you. Even if the problem really is human error every one of these times, people might begin to wonder why you don't design your systems to avoid such human errors.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Palm Beach County Lost 3,400 Votes; Claims Different Sequoia Scanners Count Differently

from the are-they-serious? dept

For all the trouble surrounding e-voting, some folks believe that optical scan technologies that simply count the paper ballot votes are a decent solution. Of course, those optical scan technologies are often made by the same companies that make the e-voting equipment, and have been shown to have numerous problems going back many years. And, as per usual with these e-voting companies, they've been highly resistant to independent inspection of the systems. Perhaps that's because the machines can't do the one thing they're supposed to do properly: count the votes.

Down in Palm Beach County, Florida (yes, the home of the infamous 2000 election year "butterfly ballot" with its hanging chads), officials are admitting that they've somehow lost about 3,400 ballots. But they don't seem to be saying they physically lost the ballots -- they're saying that the optical scan machines, provided by Sequoia Voting Systems (no stranger to e-voting counting problems) count the ballots differently when the same ballots are run through different machines. In trying to explain how come a "recount" showed 3,400 fewer ballots than the original count, a county official explained:

The seven high-speed tabulating machines used in the recount are much more "unforgiving" than those that process votes on election day

Does that not seem highly problematic to people? Isn't part of the point of these optical scan machines that they'll count the ballots consistently? If everyone seems to admit that there's an element of near total randomness (chalked up to how "unforgiving" the machines are) in these machines, isn't that reason enough to question their usage at all? As for the election in question, it appears that officials have decided to throw up their hands at the controversy and certify the election, despite the fact that this "unforgiving" recount changed the results of the election. Update: Well, now officials are claiming that it wasn't a technology problem but that they simply didn't feed ballots into the machine. That's not particularly comforting either -- and it's still troublesome that they would suggest that machines would count the votes differently in the first place.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..