Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
...
|
| 9-10-08: Diebold 2-minute warning on ... |
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
| |
 . |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9717
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 6 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 2:43 pm: | 
|
TWO-MINUTE WARNING ON VOTING
USA - Diebold/Premier says too late to fix a new voting machine 2-minute warning and "time-out" feature which can kick voters off the machine, forcing them to accept a provisional ballot. "At least 15" voters were booted off the machine in Johnson County, Kansas recently, and Diebold/Premier says this is due to a software "upgrade" which sets a timer on voter inactivity. According to the company, the machines receiving the upgrade are used in 34 states and 1,700 jurisdictions.*
*This seems inflated, though. Unless the optical scan machines are also outfitted with a 2-minute warning, which doesn't make sense, it would seem that this should only apply to the DRE states and locations.
JOINING THIS PROBLEM TO MAKE IT BIGGER:
A study on DRE allocation from Ohio indicates that it takes an average of four to nine minutes per voter to cast an average-length ballot, and ballots in many locations will be longer than average this fall. Each additional ballot question can add 30 seconds to the time a voter must monopolize the DRE.
Diebold's 2-minute timeout kicks in when the voter does not make a selection quickly enough. (Welcome to 21st Century literacy tests: Speed reading.)
According to a Sept. 10 Kansas City Star Article, Johnson County upgraded touchscreen voting machines with a new software release from Diebold subsidiary Premier Election Solutions Inc. Buried in the release notes was a mention of a new "time out" feature that makes the voting machine eject a voter card if there has been no activity for 150 seconds. The machine emits a warning sound at 120 seconds.
You can read the full article here:
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14307
You can add your insights and ask questions here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/7659/78057.html
The Black Box Voting TOOL KIT 2008
( http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit2008.pdf )
recommends that citizens, like you, obtain the voting machine allocation plans for your jurisdiction. This is going to become critical for locations that use touch-screens, or DREs. Unlike optical scan voting machines, DREs require voters to monopolize a machine the whole time they are voting.
The Ohio study linked below provides concrete guidelines for how many machines are needed:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/OH/franklin/gen2008-voting-machine-allocation.pdf
(3,023 KB)
HAVE YOU BEEN TO THE SUPERMARKET JUST AS PEOPLE ARE GETTING OUT OF WORK?
They activate more checkout lanes, don't they? Retail outlets have developed methods to study how customer lines are affected by both number of items and volume of customers. The same kinds of analysis techniques were used to study DRE voting machine allocations with number of ballot questions (items in the cart, so to speak) and number of voters. Retail outlets learned the hard way that the wrong calculations on active checkout lanes can produce "exploding lines" and angry customers.
As the study points out, lines literally do explode when a certain threshold is met.
DRE voting machines take a time certain for each vote cast, and that time increases dramatically with each ballot question added. By all accounts, the November election will bring in record numbers of voters.
IT GETS WORSE
If 2-minute time-outs and record voter participation aren't challenging enough, try this on for size: The above study -- and all the others we've seen -- FAIL TO CONTEMPLATE THE EFFECT OF CLEANING THE VOTER LISTS.
In 2004, a list of 100 voters in a state like Indiana had only about 75 real, qualified, live and kicking voters on it. All over America, states have been cleaning the dead wood off their lists, with millions of purges in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Though the word "purge" has taken on an aura of disenfranchisement, and indeed purges have been used to disenfranchise eligible voters, what happened after 2004 was in large part cleansing the list of voters who had moved away or died. 2004 lists were chock-full of names that couldn't show up if they tried. Not so in 2008!
In 2004, 100 voters might really mean 75 people but in 2008, 100 voters means 100 people.
Add this increased density -- same number of registered voters = more people who actually exist -- into the mix of 2-minute time clocks and exploding DRE lines. The projections for how many DRE voting machines are needed to prevent long lines were based on 2004 voter list density, not 2008 voter list density.
This means the estimates for voting machine allocation are still too low.
SO HERE IT IS IN A NUTSHELL
The Help America Vote Act, HAVA, successfully strong-armed the nation into getting DRE voting machines. HAVA didn't cover the full cost, and costs keep coming, strapping local jurisdictions into killing off neighborhood polling places and dipping into the general fund to cover losses.
HAVA didn't fund buying more voting machines, so now that we have more voters headed to the booth, we can't buy more voting machines.
Now you know why elections officials are out there like contest hawkers at the carnival pitching absentee and early voting: There aren't enough machines for the voting population, they can't buy any more, and the only way to avoid the train wreck is to push people into absentee and early votes. Those have other problems, which we'll address in another article.
Welcome to SPEED VOTING. Aargh.
* * * * *
WISCONSIN VOTER LIST LESS NIMBLE THAN A BLOCK OF CHEESE
Section 4 of our concise TOOL KIT 2008 deals with the need to test out database quirks and matching problems in the massive new centralized voter list databases. Typos, variations in whether middle initial, Jr., and suffixes like "II" can affect whether the database can find you!
Officials in Wisconsin did just that, and here's what happened:
WISCONSIN - System fails to match voter registration info for more than half of Wisconsin's chief elections officials.
In fact, in a checkup five days before this week's election, four out of six members of the state Government Accountability Board's members failed when their names were run through new voter identification checks as a test, the board said.
You can read more about that here:
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/27912909.html
According to a release by the Brennan Center for Justice, Wisconsin has now dropped the match requirements.
You can read more about that here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/176/78042.html
We should expect to see similar problems in more states. At particular risk are states that require an exact match between the voter list and other government lists. Florida is one such state.
* * * * *
To obtain a copy of Tool Kit 2008, download for free here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit2008.pdf
or e-mail and we'll mail you a hard copy.} |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 952
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 4:57 pm: |
|
The two minute warning sounds like a new way to disenfranchise people with less education. I think I'd say no to the upgrade, or ask to have it undone before the election.
Provisionals - that's hand counting, isn't it? What a nightmare, both from chain of custody and work involved points of view. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9718
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 5:31 pm: |
|
They say they already put the feature in and can't roll it back to an earlier version (perhaps due to security defects in those versions) and can't put out a new version because there's no time.
I think this not only intimidates people with less education, but very much will make older citizens uncomfortable and mistake-prone. Who in the world thought a 2-minute warning was a good idea, with a feature to boot the person off altogether in 2 1/2 minutes? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 953
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 6:03 pm: |
|
That is not an upgrade, that is a feature that was not originally specified. Does it have to pass any EAC "scrutiny"?
I am puzzled about not rolling back upgrades. When computer owners got Vista and hated it, they got rid of it and went back to Windows XP. When you install new software, you can either uninstall the old software or hold it aside in a separate folder, and I think each file you mark with dollar signs to keep them from being read and executed by the computer. That's so if there are problems with the new stuff, you have the option to revert to the old stuff.
As to the software, can some technical person here tell me if they can deactivate certain parts of the code so it doesn't run in the new version? I can't imagine a buzzer being central to a program -- more like an add on, the way a peripheral or accessory would be in hardware.
Of course, I am not a programmer, so maybe I don't get it, but I'd like to hear from someone other than the company that this can't be done (and then I will be quiet!) |
Ross Jory
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rmjory
Post Number: 11
Registered: 5-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 8:37 am: |
|
I've done a little technical work, I'll see if I can get inside this.
- Can a single-feature change be rolled in successfully?
- What exactly triggers, or prevents, the time out?
- Can voters work around this?
- Why was this change (feature creep) added, who wanted it, and couldn't it have been done better?
- Not applicable to optical scan?
Usually a software roll-out has multiple fixes, feature changes, etc. For a SW vendor to roll out a fix just to disable the inactivity time-out should not be too difficult from an engineering point of view. Management has to make the call to create the new release, test, and support it. But, as has been discussed in many forums, even the slightest change to software is, well, a new version. Most states and counties will certify the "specific, exact" version they use for election night months in advance. Certifying a new version is going to be a burden born by customers all over, and we are short on time.
Can't a change be rolled in without affecting anything else? In principle, yes, you might think so. But, the software / hardware world is littered with "I only made one change" stories that had unintended consequences. I worked in this industry, and I saw it happen, the failures and successes. Thus it is best to re-certify when your vendor says, "here is a patch, it fixes only this one problem, everything else should be unchanged, good to go." If I was dealing with a reputable manufacturer with an excellent track record and had a prior history of product releases and feature-change success, sure. In this case, I think not.
That said, let's make sure we are clear what this feature is, and the exact wording used by the manufacturer makes all the difference. From the engineering discipline I learned, an inactivity time out, say 150 seconds, would take action if the machine sits there with no activity: no buttons pressed. So if the voter decides to pause to read, oh, a full page of ballot initiative literature in the booth (easily two minutes), this would trigger the warning at 120 seconds because I have not interacted with the machine. If pressing "resume / continue voting" does not take you to the exact point you were at, that would be a serious flaw; i.e. if I go two minutes without interaction, and want to continue at 130 seconds, I should not have to re-cast all my prior choices: that would be grounds for throwing the machine into the trash. Someone should test for this.
As a voter, the way I would sneak around this is look for some interactive feature that has no consequences: is there a "forward - backward" screen button, or a display brightness feature, that will not cast my vote but will still be counted as "activity" so the machine will shut up and go away for another 120 seconds. Problem solved, sort of? If I go forward, can I go backwards again and not skip an item (real important) ?
If the engineer designing this feature was either stupid, goal-oriented, or nefarious, maybe they did it differently. Maybe I have to actually cast a selection (vote choice) on something every 120 seconds to keep the time-out from warning me (think of the count-down clock on "Lost," gotta enter the code). This scenario would be drastically bad, because it means I cannot get around it. This would be a feature requested by an efficiency expert (keep the polling lines moving). Does the machine let me make a selection, then I can go back and un-make the selection and do it over? I don't know. Some folks on this forum should contact an election official to test this out.
I think the time-out is a drastically bad idea. We have polling places monitored by poll workers. They are the ones who should be knocking on the booth after someone's in there an hour and say, is everything OK in there? Isn't it part of the poll worker's responsibility to monitor that ballots are returned immediately as people leave the booths, and not allow ballots to be left in machines or taken off the premises? But the voting machine manufacturer in this case has decided to do some polling-place management. I wonder where they got the idea to add this feature, did it come from precincts who want to hurry the process up?
As a SW developer, I see this feature as described and think it could be done better. You could pop up a screen that says (in multiple languages), "your session has gone 2 minutes with no activity. Would you like more time? (yes, no). Pressing no means your ballot will be ejected." Pressing yes would add 2 more minutes to the standard time-out, the next time-out would be 4 minutes, and the machine will be less intrusive. People with special needs might still be hung up by this. If a deaf person is reading their ballot, they will miss the audible cue entirely, and they might not see the screen pop-up and act within 29 seconds. This feature could be seen as disenfranchising the hearing-impared. Other people with special needs may simply need more time to make selections, the arbitrary two-minute warning could really get them steamed.
Another thing introduced by this feature is the "failed user interface" scenario. A certain percentage (indeed) of touch-screen machines will have their screen's touch fail on election day. On those machines, the failure to touch the screen should activate the time-out, which should cast aside that ballot and force a provisional ballot. And how about auditing? When the touch-screen box records the ballot to the memory card, is there a record passed along showing how many time-outs were prompted? I'm not thinking of spying on voters, I just wonder if some data could be collected to see how often the time-out runs to the 120 seconds. Administrators should be able to gather data that lets them provide feedback to the manufacturer (too many time-outs, lengthen the time allowed, etc).
I think any responsible polling officials should notify their clients of this "feature" in advance at the polling place. To not do so would be just to invite voter frustration and anger. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9726
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 10:10 am: |
|
An exceptionally informative post, thanks Ross.
I received an e-mail pointing out that I had missed a major effect of this two-minute timeout, and he's right!
The DRE machines were mandated in as a necessity for the disabled. Now, which group do you think will be worst hit by the two-minute timeout feature?
That's right, the disabled.
 |
Jody Hoelle
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Chandidevi
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 11:53 am: |
|
This morning on the Thom Hartmann show on Air America Radio, there were reports of voters receiving mailers from the John McCain campaign that included an absentee ballot. They were sent to Democrats, and the return address included was invalid. There were callers from Pennsylvania and Florida who reported receiving these bogus ballots from the McCain campaign. This is voter fraud. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9727
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 11:55 am: |
|
I am aware of these reports and have requested a copy of the ballot (or sample ballot, sometimes people get confused about this) and envelope from someone who received it.
If what was mailed was a sample ballot, there is no illegality here, because a sample ballot is not an absentee ballot. If it does not say "SAMPLE" then this will move up to the next level. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2221
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 1:07 pm: |
|
First of all, is this 2 minutes to complete the ballot? This seems unlikely. I don't complete a fill-in paper ballot in 2 minutes, and it's easier/faster to navigate.
It seems more likely that if you go for 2 minutes after starting a ballot and then go without input for 2 minutes that this would kick in. And yes, this is still most disadvantageous to the handicapped.
Does anybody know for sure how it works? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 958
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Hi Brant, your description matches with the original description at the top of the post, and is encouraging as people could be given instructions on how to deal with it (press the same button again for the last vote you recorded and know your ballot before you get in line to vote), but ....I don't know for sure how it works. |
Karen Marie Kline
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Considerthis
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2007
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Because the national evening news never carries anything on these problems, I feel as if most Americans are in the dark, and the next election is already contrived for the Republicans.
Do you think there's any hope?
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com
Your fingernails reflect your health --
Learn some warning signs --
Karen Kline
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9767
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 11:20 am: |
|
Hi Karen,
We are a nonpartisan site. It is overly simplistic to assume that only members of one party wish to tamper with elections. It is reasonable to consider the possibility that efforts to tamper with the upcoming elections may already be in play. I believe that's likely.
Try to frame issues in terms of election procedures, fairness procedures, accuracy issues.
Thanks, and welcome to Black Box Voting! |
Katharine Rylaarsdam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Katharine
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 7:30 am: |
|
I am surprised the feature is described as new and think some previous posters have misunderstood in part. In Maryland, our machines have had the 2-minute timeout for several elections. It refers only to what happens if the voter makes no choices for 2 minutes; the machine then goes into a 30-second countdown which can be aborted by touching the Resume button. If that is not done in time, the card ejects as canceled. If a chief judge verifies, on reinserting, that it shows as canceled rather than already voted, a new card can be issued and the voter gets another try on the machine. Only if the card shows as already voted does the voter have to go to a provisional ballot. Again in Maryland, that is an optical-scan ballot, not hand-counted in normal circumstances.
I have no first-hand knowledge of the Wisconsin system but would imagine the machines are similar, whatever the provisional ballots may be. It should be possible to get clarification from the state board of elections, or whatever they call it there, and thus restrict yourselves to real potential problems. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9861
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 8:49 am: |
|
Katharine,
So you do not believe that kicking a voter off the machine after 2 minutes of inactivity is a problem? Aren't the machines originally designed to be used by the disabled? Doesn't this kind of feature particularly offend with these voters?
This is an example for why DRE machines are inferior to voting on paper ballots. People can take the time they personally need to read the ballot questions, even referring to their voter pamphlet when needed. I don't know about Maryland, but the wording on policy questions on our ballots is so murky it's like taking a multiple choice test with trick questions. Even after I have carefully read the voter's pamphlet, I am careful to take my time with those questions and I darn sure don't want a buzzer going off. |
Katharine Rylaarsdam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Katharine
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Bev
As I stated before, they are not "kicked off" after two minutes; they are requested to hit resume to continue. I agree the interruption can be EXTREMELY annoying, but it is not disenfranchisement. I am not personally aware of anyone having been unable to finish voting, though of course my sample is only a few thousand.
That is not to say I like the machines. I don't know anyone who does. Of course paper ballots are better; that goes without saying. Likewise, prudent voters study the ballot and make up their minds before they get to the polls. But in the real world of imperfect people and worse systems, it makes sense to focus first on the problems in vote recording and transfer, which can disenfranchise large numbers of voters and throw an election. If the primary function of the machines cannot be performed reliably, there is little benefit in making them seem more user-friendly. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9862
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Actually, they are kicked off after 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The machine shuts down and they are given a provisional ballot. The warning buzzer sounds at 2 minutes and at 2 1/2 they are indeed "kicked off".
This is apparently a feature that was added with an upgrade, and Diebold has admitted it. Johnson County, Kansas voters were kicked off and shoved over to provisional ballots.
As you can see, our Protect the Count program for locations like Maryland focuses on recording and transfer.
Simply reporting an issue is not preventing us from headlining and front paging the highest priority actions, which -- to keep things simple, and certainly this isn't comprehensive -- is to capture evidence of the results tape at the polling place with video and compare it with the formally reported results. Not by any means a complete answer, but can deter and catch most of the middleman and data transfer issues. |
aviva rosenthal
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Levari
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 11:22 pm: |
|
i must say--and i say this as a bona fide, real live disabled individual, wheelchair-bound, utterly pathetic space case and all--that if you're standing there picking your nose for two full minutes and can't be bothered to hit the space key to stay online while 800 people are freezing their asses off behind you, perhaps you should be disenfranchised. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9863
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 6:27 am: |
|
Katharine and Aviva,
Thanks for both of your insights. Am pleased to have you participating at Black Box Voting.
But Aviva, I have to say that the ballot initiatives we deal with on the West Coast must not be something you folks are contending with. The text on the ballot is a short, confusing paragraph. Truly, on many of these what looks like a "no" is often really a "yes" because of tricky wording. I think it's going to be stressful for people like my mother, who is in her 80s and won't touch a computer in daily life, to respond to a warning buzzer.
But I do appreciate the insights.
What this really says to me, though, is that states that permit voting on the DREs only for those with accessibility needs are on the right track. If there is little usage of the machines, there is little need for a warning buzzer, or at least the time limit could be extended to five or 10 minutes. |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 184
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 8:11 am: |
|
Aviva's comment Bev's reply shows the value of the frank friendly tone inviting disagreement w/o fear of flamewars here.
"The text on the ballot is a short, confusing paragraph. Truly, on many of these what looks like a "no" is often really a "yes" because of tricky wording."
...is an extremely important point that hadn't gotten into the discussion until Katharine & Avila argued the significance of this 2.5 minute timeout.
To my mind, this point of confusing propositions is more of an issue than the effect on all but a few disabled voters. ("All but a few" is still unacceptable IMO.)
Bev's original pt re: disabled voters in this context was
"The DRE machines were mandated in as a necessity for the disabled."
...w/ an implication (in my mind -- not to put words in her mouth) that politics operates via Trojan Horses, we are given positive "reasons" for doing things that are done w/ other purposes in mind --
often evidenced when such arrangements' have predictable effects opposite to announced positive "reasons".
This is a Standard Operating Procedure of flimflam legislation since the Civil War, & often the "reasons" are transparently thin right from the start.
"which group do you think will be worst hit by the two-minute timeout feature? That's right, the disabled."
...may have overstated the case, or not...
but the more important question remains...
is anyone disenfranchised by this.
There are good reasons such timeout features are used in so many interactive technologies, & Avila points to an especially good reason in elections...
but this discussion shows the value of debating a matter openly & cheerfully until every relevant point is evoked.
I felt ambivalent about this issue, see strong points on both sides, value the job Bev does pointing out every potential problem & welcoming every argument to give folks better opportunities to make up their own minds based on information & thorough debate.
But this last exchange, both Avila's pt & Bev's reply, focused this issue for me. Avila's right about some need for effective limits; but Bev's description fits me, & I'm not her 80yr old mother. Some years I haven't read through all the literature beforehand. My bad, but it does happen some extra-busy seasons.
In California, we've had 30+years of TrojanHorse propositions dressed up to look & sound in voter materials like the exact opposite of what they are. It's become another Standard Operating Procedure (tho' not every proposition fits this description, there are a few important ones on each ballot). All the more reason for me to do the work beforehand to be prepared. But often there are one or two I'm still trying to sort out as I stand in line -- asking other folk what they think of it and why.
I suspect two disabled friends who have passed on would have been effected by this issue. Perhaps there should be a separate voting station w/ a separate line for folk who feel they want extra time. I might choose to be in it some years. |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 185
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 8:36 am: |
|
Re-reading the opening paragraph of this thread, it seems to me our debate exchanging our anticipations & expectations is moot...
"Diebold/Premier says too late to fix a new voting machine 2-minute warning and "time-out" feature which can kick voters off the machine, forcing them to accept a provisional ballot. "At least 15" voters were booted off the machine in Johnson County, Kansas recently, and Diebold/Premier says this is due to a software "upgrade" which sets a timer on voter inactivity. According to the company, the machines receiving the upgrade are used in 34 states and 1,700 jurisdictions.*
*This seems inflated, though..."
""At least 15" voters were booted off"
...outranks my expectations, & yours IMO.
What's likely IMO to be far more important is,
"Diebold/Premier says too late to fix a new voting machine 2-minute warning and 'time-out' feature which can kick voters off the machine"
It is another StandOpProc to introduce such precedents in issues where the impact is less, or less apparent, & then -- once their 'acceptability' is established in less volatile contexts given little attention -- to apply the established precedent in other contexts w/ greater impact. Shall we agree to let Diebold introduce whatever features they want to introduce, so long as they do it suddenly, & close enough to election day, for a judge to say it is illegal but having an election outranks having a legal election?
...as seems to be the case if I understand the thread linked below...
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/132/77930.html?1220406708 |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 5:06 am: |
|
This is just the "Keystone Cops" defense for vendors, now. It seems there's a "Keystone Cops" defense for everything that goes wrong in an election. |
|
|
