How "accurate" does a voting machine have to be? I'd say 100 %

[life_long_dem]

If all of these claims that these voting machines are accurate then why is there ANY change in vote numbers in NH?
I thought every vote was supposed to count. Why does a recount have to be done to prove that a person's vote didn't count.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/11/19/so_far_nh_recount_reveals_no_surprises/?rss_id=Boston%20Globe%20--%20City%20/%20Region%20News
<snip>
Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese, who observed the recount, said there ''was no significant difference" in the results from one ward in Manchester and the nearby town of Litchfield. Democrat John F. Kerry, who carried the state by 9,274 votes out of 678,000 cast, gained six votes, President George W. Bush picked up three, and there was no change for Nader, Zeese said. Nader received less than 1 percent of the vote in the state. A recount of other Manchester wards was continuing into the early evening.
<snip>

[kitp]

1. Agreed

I totally agree. I sent them this:

I am writing in response to Brian Mooney's article "So far, N.H. recount reveals no surprises".

In this article he said "Preliminary results from the tally, however, showed virtually no change in the result." I am sorry to disagree, but is this not a surprise? These machines that tally our votes were incorrect. I does not matter if, in this particular case, the numbers were not large, this clearly demonstrates that the numbers returned by these machines do not match the actual votes cast.

How is this not a major story? How is this not shocking, let alone surprising? If the machine is anything but 100% accurate it is a complete failure. I for one do not like the idea of trusting a machine to calculate vote totals when this test of it's accuracy shows that it did not count all of the votes cast.

The numbers here may seem insignificant however, with hundreds of thousands of polling places, small errors in the machines' calculations can add up to massive numbers.

I just want you to know that I think you are being a little dismissive. Missing a 'few votes' is like being a little pregnant.

[life_long_dem]

2. Great idea. I will also send them a letter.

I agree with what you wrote: "The numbers here may seem insignificant however,with hundreds of thousands of polling places, small errors in the machines' calculations can add up to massive numbers".

[hippiegranny]

11. and especially since all those pesky "little" mistakes

benefitted Dumbya, this whole election should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Paper trails would insure it was 100%

can anyone refute that?

[lefthandedskyhook]

4. How about 110%?

There's a bad joke in there somewhere. :P

[MominTN]

5. How does a machine make a mistake?

If the vote count changes, why?

[The Flaming Red Head]

6. I wondered that too and tried to look it up

I went to the standards section mentioned to see if I could clarify what acceptable error rates were, but I couldn't get any of the applicable files to open. Are there acceptable error rates/standards? I was sure one of you guys would know or could open the corresponding files.

http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html

Subtitle A--Requirements

SEC. 301. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15481.>> VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.

1. Requirements.--Each voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet the following requirements:
1. In general.--

Error rates.--The error rate of the voting system in counting ballots (determined by taking into account only those errors which are attributable to the voting system and not attributable to an act of the voter) shall comply with the error rate standards established under section 3.2.1 of the voting systems standards issued by the Federal Election Commission which are in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Counting votes is not rocket science

the technology exists and the programming could be written by a 12 year old to get counts that are 100% correct. It's just that the voting machine makers don't want accurate results.

[rainbow4321]

8. Diebold is happy with less than 100%...

The meeting video is in the link below


http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/07/video_unmasks_c.html

Check out this amazing video from Texas Safe Voting in which a Diebold representative talks about various error and flaws in e-voting systems with Texas public representatives. Some of the dialogue is absolutely stunning.

Highlights include:

* Diebold acknloweding that they, and they alone, will decide when changes to their code are "significant" enough to disclose to public officials;
* A test run resulting in e-voting tallies that do not match;
* Admitting that some e-voting machines have trouble adding correctly; and
* Acknowledging that it is sometimes possible for voters to cast multiple votes on a ballot, and that those ballots may end up being throw out in court because of machine errors.

[On the Road]

9. In Manufacturing, the Goal is 1 Defect in a Million

Six standard deviations from the mean. At least according the quality movement of a decade ago.

The principle operating here is: "close enough for government work."

-----

It's said that "At Microsoft, quality is job one dot one." Microsoft has Diebold beat by a mile.

[Igel]

10. No guarantee that ...

... the machine and the people counted the same things.

If you use optical scanning in grading tests for large courses, you run across cases in which the little graphite blob isn't exactly what the machine wanted, the machine (for whatever reason) thought two blanks were filled in, or the students used (contrary to directions) something other than graphite for producing their blobs.

That's why I've always told the students afterwards that if there's a mistake due to machine error, to see me about it. (But if they used ink, not to bother.)

[newyawker99]

12. Hi igil!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: