Test Spits Out Wrong Results At Board Of Elections (OH)

[OhioChick]

And so it begins........

POSTED: 1:17 pm EST November 3, 2006
UPDATED: 1:33 pm EST November 3, 2006

CLEVELAND -- A problem has been discovered with the optical scanner in connection with one race at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Friday afternoon.

During a test using an optical scanner, officials discovered that the machine was providing incorrect election results for the race for the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

BOE officials said this is just one race out of hundreds in which a problem has been found.

Be sure to watch Live on Five and NewsChannel5 at 6 for more on this developing story.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10234918/detail.html

[elehhhhna]

1. US POstal Service Annouces new abbreviation for Ohio;

d'OH!

[suston96]

7. Oh, I thought it was going to be.....

"OY"!

[madmom]

18. LOL...love it!!!!!

[ShortnFiery]

2. What was so difficult with selling those machines with the capacity

to spit out a paper trail? :wtf:

[OhioChick]

4. A paper trail in

the "bluest" area in Ohio? Don't want that....

[jcv1]

12. CleveBurg may be "blue"

But Michael Vu, BOE director, serves at the pleasure of Bob Bennett, head of the Cuyahoga County BOE and Chair of the Ohio Rupuke Party. It's not the number of votes that count, it's who counts the votes......

[BruceMcF]

16. How does a paper scanner not have a paper trail ...

... actually its better than a DieBold paper trail ... the paper ballot is the original vote, not the output of the machine which the rushed or careless may skip checking.

[sandnsea]

21. Ballots are the trail with opti-scan

This is working exactly how it's supposed to. They do a trial run and if anything has been tampered with, they detect it. The number of ballots need to match the numbers on the poll tapes and the number shown to have been used in the ballot count. There is a lot of auditing with opti-scan. It is possible votes can be flipped if something is done to the machine between the intial test run and the last count, but that's the only way with the actual machines themselves.

If each precinct keeps a count of the vote from each individual machine, I don't see how the tabulator can be cheated either. Unless the election official doesn't bother to check and make sure it's correct at the state level.

[gully]

32. Good information.

Optiscan with testing/audits are likely the way to go.

[Toots]

24. Hmmm wonder what those machines were scanning any way??

:crazy:

[niallmac]

3. News Flash: Pen and Paper and Volunteers working just fine.n/t

[texpatriot2004]

5. K & R for Transparent Democracy nm

[Zodiak]

6. Forgive me if my English is rusty, but...

"BOE officials said this is just one race out of hundreds in which a problem has been found."

Does this mean only one problem was detected in hundreds of races?

Or does it mean that there are hundreds of races with problems, and this one is simply the tip of the iceberg?

Another thing. IF these "officials" want to remain anonymous, then fine. If they gave this excuse and were "officials", they should be named in the article.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

10. It means there are hundreds of problems they haven't found

I'm excited at the polls showing dems ahead, but this shit worries the hell out of me.

[BruceMcF]

17. Be worried, and get your neighbors out to vote.

It doesn't matter what the polls say, we need some extra votes just in case.

[partylessinOhio]

8. Screwed by Vu!

Yes we are!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

9. Let me guess...

it "accidentally" selects the republican candidate 90% of the time?

[purji]

25. nope

its 100% of the time.

[TankLV]

29. Gee - not according to our own "expert" Fredda!

According to her - it's all EQUAL when one out of THOUSANDS of votes switches to Democratic...

[MGD]

40. Oh come on, it's just a coincidence that the irregularities favor Republicans 90% ofthe time

like when you flip a coin a 100 times and it lands heads up 90 times. :sarcasm:

[driver8]

11. Whoa!! I never saw that coming!

Who would have thought that an electronic voting machine would provide the wrong results?

Let's get rid of these pieces of shit...NOW!!

[greccogirl]

13. I just voted early today

and had no problems whatsoever. Both machines were touch, and I was able to check everything on my ballot, nothing was changed. While chatting with the polls people though they did say there was some grumbling because there was no paper trail "receipt".

All in all in and out in less than five minutes.

[cui bono]

14. Nothing was changed....

yet.

[greccogirl]

26. I don't beieve

anything about the vote will be changed.

[cui bono]

31. Really? Have you seen the optical scanner trick? They can make it read

the wrong votes. So what goes in isn't what comes out. They had an example of it in Hacking Democracy.

[Stevepol]

15. But how can this be? We have election observers and

election workers don't we? Aren't they watching the machines to make sure they don't cheat?

[sandnsea]

22. Yeah, they observed a machine not working

That's what they're there for, right?

[roseBudd]

23. You can't see a cheating machine. In real voting there is ballot rotation of

candidates so there are for instance 4 possible places for a presidential race and they are rotated by precinct. There could be a million votes tabulated in Cuyahoga. I will be very curiuos to see how the precinct is communicated to the tabulation program. In 2004 all someone had to do is take punch cards from one precinct and tabulate them behind another precincts header card and you had flipped votes.

[demo dutch]

37. You're kidding right??

[mom cat]

19. Every one of us should demand an official paper ballot that will be hand counted that day!

I fully intend to do so!

[FernBell]

20. This curse just never seems to end.

[momzno1]

27. imagine if ATMs were this unreliable

then think if these errors could possibly be unintentional...

[FedUpWithIt All]

28. I don't think people realize...

i am a presiding judge in the Cleve area. I worked on the new machines during the primaries. The new machines have three "security" measures. There is a removable chip, a paper tally that stays in the machine (and is visible to the voter) and a paper print out that we run several times during the day.

Here is the problem. A person can vote for one candidate and be assured that their vote is marked on the screen as the correct candidate. BUT there is no reassurance that the machine itself will tally the correct vote in either it's printouts or in its data. It is the print outs and the data that are tallied with regard to the voting machines. Anyone with a vague knowledge of computers knows that you can create a program to have every fifth vote record as something other than it's intended vote.

My only experience on these new machines was during the primaries, which is not an apt representation due to the fact that a primary is already broken down by party. If i am not mistaken the machines should show the intended candidate ON THE paper that is in the machine. It is very important that the voters in this state who opt to use these machines actually watch this paper strip (it is under glass and runs right alongside the screen) and verify their vote. In a worst case scenario i would imagine that these paper tally's can be compared to the print outs done by the election officials.

No matter how many cautious and concerned workers there are at the polling stations the election can only be monitored to a degree. An election worker does not know how many votes are going in for each candidate and cannot possibly know from looking at the end printout if there is an inconsistency. A voter MUST be aware and watch not only the screen confirmation but the paper receipt running alongside it. If i am correct the voters intended candidate should show up on this paper receipt.

[Divine Discontent]

30. K&R this comment above mine

excellent info


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[sandnsea]

33. We have to have a mandatory sample

To me, that's the key piece missing in all this. It shouldn't be enough to have the paper just in case of a recount. There should be a test of every machine, AFTER the election, to make sure every machine counted correctly.

Then, every machine tally should be recorded so that the final tally sent to the state can be cross-checked too. And, of course, cross-checked agaisnt the poll tapes.

Even though these machines can be tampered with, a very strict audit would expose any irregularities.

Unless I'm missing something.

[FedUpWithIt All]

36. In this case, assuming the voter is able to verify the paper slip...

the paper will say what the voter intended.

If the machine and print out come up with a different voter tally than the verified slip we know there is a problem. The question would be then, what exactly are they going to refer to to establish if there is, in fact,an issue to even do a check. If the machine is programed to change a result, it would show only the changed result on the print outs and the chip. Neither of these would show an inconsistency. It would only be inconsistent when compared to the verified receipt that runs alongside the touchscreen. I am not sure, but i believe the receipt is only cross checked should concerns arise. If no concerns arise i am not sure they will do a check of all three. It is limited protection, under these circumstances, to have the receipt. But it is a start, IF people are aware of it and use it. That said there is a lot more that needs to be done.

[Doremus]

34. When I voted in the Cuyahoga primary, the paper receipt wasn't visible to the voter.

You could hear it printing, but you couldn't actually see WHAT it was printing.

Have they changed that or do they have different machines in different precincts?

[FedUpWithIt All]

35. I was under the impression that they are all the same machine...

On the ones i have worked with, near the screen there is a narrow glass sheet. Inside this glass there should be a visible paper. Some of the people had to bend to actually see the printed sheet. Due to the way the machine stands the sheet is vertical and lighting might make it difficult to see. I kept showing people this new feature. I had a sense that it might come in handy during future elections if they were aware of it and what purpose it serves.


I did a bit of research. Apparently, 10,000 of the new machines were bought for Ohio. I am not sure if they are all identical. I assumed they were.

http://www.selfserviceworld.com/article.php?id=3981&prc=282

It would seem according to this article that they are all the same machine. I would be VERY suspicious if the paper is hidden. There is no point in having it if the voter cannot see it to verify their vote.

[Doremus]

38. Thanks Fedup. Since I wrote my last post, I remembered something else.

That the machine prints the hard copy *after* you're finished voting, i.e. after you've made all your selections and are ready to exit the voting booth. There is a prompt along the lines of "The machine will now print your ballot" and then you can hear it printing.

Now that you've warned us what to look for (and I for one will be squawking if I can't see the paper again), it occurred to me that it might be difficult to keep track of all the candidates/issues, especially for us 'senior folk.' I do remember thinking, though, that the thing seemed to take a long time to print, so hopefully most of us will be able to keep up.

Thanks again for the heads up.

[FedUpWithIt All]

39. Your very welcome..

although i am afraid my reasons are a bit selfish. I want these destructive maniacs out of office. :D

[Doremus]

41. May it be so. Let's give 'em hell Tuesday in Cuyahoga County and all of Ohio!!