Reply #26: Yes, it depends on the default behavior of the iVotronic [View All]

[Bill Bored]

when a straight party vote is applied to a race in which a candidate of another party has been previously selected. Since straight party controlling races are typically at the top of the ballot and the exploit puts them further down, it's anyone's guess whether the system will remove the previous vote or switch it. This is why these things need to be tested. There are NO standards for this unless it's specified in state law such as in Penn.

Also, you wrote:
"In fact, you would probably see a lower than expected rate of undervotes because the straight-party selection would fill in a vote in some cases when the voter had intentionally undervoted."

Actually in this scenario, intentional undervotes would only go to the Republican. (Did you know that in Georgia 2004, there were virtually NO undervotes for President on 26,000 DREs? I mean ZERO!)

So what I'm suggesting is that the default behavior is to cancel the vote if it was for Jennings and give it to Buchanan if it was an actual undervote. Since the actual undervote rate was relatively small, as seen on the paper ballots, this would only pad Buchanan's vote by a few percent, but it would remove double digit percentages of Jennings' votes, assuming of course that voters had difficulty noticing and/or correcting it.