Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Here is an example of what was being said about those stupid electronic voting machines.:neener:
Give me a paper ballot any time I vote.:)

Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041105/D865R1DO0.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct, Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told The Columbus Dispatch.

State and county election officials did not immediately respond to requests by The Associated Press for more details about the voting system and its vendor, and whether the error, if repeated elsewhere in Ohio, could have affected the outcome.

Bush won the state by more than 136,000 votes, according to unofficial results, and Kerry conceded the election on Wednesday after acknowledging that 155,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted in Ohio would not change the result.

The Secretary of State's Office said Friday it could not revise Bush's total until the county reported the error.

The Ohio glitch is among a handful of computer troubles that have emerged since Tuesday's elections.

In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did. And in San Francisco, a malfunction with custom voting software could delay efforts to declare the winners of four races for county supervisor.

In the Ohio precinct in question, the votes are recorded onto a cartridge. On one of the three machines at that precinct, a malfunction occurred in the recording process, Damschroder said. He could not explain how the malfunction occurred.

Damschroder said people who had seen poll results on the election board's Web site called to point out the discrepancy. The error would have been discovered when the official count for the election is performed later this month, he said.

The reader also recorded zero votes in a county commissioner race on the machine.

Workers checked the cartridge against memory banks in the voting machine and each showed that 115 people voted for Bush on that machine. With the other machines, the total for Bush in the precinct added up to 365 votes.

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a glitch occurred with software designed for the city's new "ranked-choice voting," in which voters list their top three choices for municipal offices. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes outright, voters' second and third-place preferences are then distributed among candidates who weren't eliminated in the first round.

When the San Francisco Department of Elections tried a test run on Wednesday of the program that does the redistribution, some of the votes didn't get counted and skewed the results, director John Arntz said.

"All the information is there," Arntz said. "It's just not arriving the way it was supposed to."

A technician from the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the problem.
 
The vote count in Ohio isn't final yet. This will be properly updated in the final numbers.

The machine recorded the votes properly, it just appears that the cartridge they are written to in order to get the numbers off the machine was faulty.

They caught the problem, and they can correct it without having an erronous count. I'm sure they'll investigate other machines of this type to make sure this is an isolated incident.
 
I work in the software field, I know how hard it is to produce a truly robust hardware/software solution for as mission critical a problem as voting.

This is why I strongly favor paper backups of any voting solution, and will request an absentee ballot if offered only the choice of electronic voting at my precinct.
 
Doc:

We know these machines have grievous problems. Our very own Jim March is about to buy a whole lot of guns with the hush money he's going to get out of Diebold.

Why is it that we scream bloody murder when there's an unconfirmed report that there are "too many" registered voters in a county (no doubt based on census data from 2000), or decry the terrible fraud in Chicago, even when nobody can seem to secure a conviction, but when it comes to our candidate, any suggestion of impropriety is an "hysterical accusation?"

1. Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
2. Both sides cheat. Neither side has clean hands. Don't trust anybody.
 
Flyboy said:
Doc:

We know these machines have grievous problems. Our very own Jim March is about to buy a whole lot of guns with the hush money he's going to get out of Diebold.

Why is it that we scream bloody murder when there's an unconfirmed report that there are "too many" registered voters in a county (no doubt based on census data from 2000), or decry the terrible fraud in Chicago, even when nobody can seem to secure a conviction, but when it comes to our candidate, any suggestion of impropriety is an "hysterical accusation?"

1. Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
2. Both sides cheat. Neither side has clean hands. Don't trust anybody.
I didn't mean it that way. I wasn't referring to that story or the posting of it as a hysterical accusation. What I meant was that the story would be used to fuel the fires of those who do make such accusations, and pointed to as proof that "Bush stole this one, too."
 
Doc:
My apologies. I guess I'm still a bit on edge from all the wailing and gnashing of teeth; I must be predisposed to thinking ill of people or something. I'll try to correct my attitude.

Where is that bottle of Jack, anyway? :cool:
 
Let me preface this by saying that I am NOT a computer programmer, but "some of my best friends" ARE computer programmers. I have no personal animus towards any computer programmers in general, and that I would really prefer all of my bank accounts to stay right where they are for the time being, thank you very much...

That having been said, and (I hope) clearly understood, ever since the one computer geek from FIU showed how he could untraceably alter the final vote tally, I have no faith that the results of the 2004 election are actually what the good citizens of our fair country intended...
 
When I voted touchscreen this time around, I noticed that there was a reel of paper coming out of the back of each machine. I have no idea what was printed on these.

Anybody have a clue?
 
Bush stole this one, too.
And for proof, check out Bloggerman, Keither Olbermann, at MSNBC, and be sure to bring your Reynolds Wrap.

Bloggerman

A paragraph from the article:
Thus the majority of the media has yet to touch the other stories of Ohio (the amazing Bush Times Ten voting machine in Gahanna) or the sagas of Ohio South: huge margins for Bush in Florida counties in which registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2-1, places where the optical scanning of precinct totals seems to have turned results from perfect matches for the pro-Kerry exit poll data, to Bush sweeps.
There is more, of course, this is but a sample.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top