Isn't "computer glitch" just the most outrageous euphemism for "rigged?"

How many times have you read a statement by an election official or a vendor: "Oh, it was just a computer glitch...not enough to change the outcome."

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002528.htm

FL Candidate Votes for Self, Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machine Flips Vote to Opponent!

From today's St. Petersburg Times...

When Cook tried to vote for himself, the machine defaulted to a vote for Taylor. A precinct worker finally moved Cook to a different booth.

Later in the day, Cook said he had other reports of voting machines malfunctioning in similar ways.


The flipping machines used in the Pinellas County, FL election were paperless touch-screens made by Sequoia Voting Systems -- the same paperless "Edge" touch-screen systems whose purchase and future use in New Mexico was recently banned in the state in light of a lawsuit where many voters complained of the same type of "vote flipping" on the machines during the 2004 Presidential Election.

Those are also the same machines which lost more than 12,000 votes in Bernalillo County, NM in 2002.

On the other hand, this is Florida, after all. So, as Pinellas County, FL Supervisor of Elections communications director, Nancy Whitlock says, there's nothing to worry about:

No one else complained, so it is unlikely the problem affected many, if any, other votes, she said.


We feel much better now. It was just "a glitch."


Electronic Voting System Adds 100,000+ Votes in One Texas County During Tuesday's Primary Election
Hart InterCivic Paperless Touch-Screen Systems Flat-Out Fail in Tarrant County, TX
Officials Ignored Prob on Election Night, Blame 'Program Snafu' the Next Day
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002526.htm


E-Voting Woes: You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet...
Texas Primary Augurs Upcoming E-Trouble in E-Merica...
Scores of E-Voting "Glitches" Reported Wednesday Morning (and many more today!)
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002522.htm

It's not like the election riggers tell the press what they've done. They may not have even told the BoE. Think about it.

And think about the possibility that it really is a "glitch", like an out-of-calibration touchscreen. These machine are not necessarily engineered or manufactured very well. It is truly another reason not to rely on them.

I always think about ATM's...funny how glitches in them are so rare, funny how eager they are to offer a paper reciept! :)

But please don't discount that these machines are unreliable.

The Reliability spec in the in the EAC Guidelines, and the process by which they remain, is suspect, and hopefully the subject of attention in the near future.
I doubt Hart/Intercivic rigged their equipment to flame-out during testing in CA. (Unless one of their competitors did it. :evilgrin: :tinfoilhat: )

ATM's are probably built a lot better. They're programmed for a few types of transactions for a given bank, not multiple races over multiple elections. And they, too, go out of service from time to time, but probably not as much.

evoting is riggable AND unreliable.

Let's walk and chew gum at the same time.

nearly enough. We can get a lot further in terms of framing by emphasizing this rather than the "rigged" arguement.

yesterday for the daily thread. Choice of language is very telling, when it is repeated by so many election workers...regardless of state. This year has all the makings of the 'year of the glitch'...

"There was a 'glitch'. Blame it on the computer."

No personal accountability + computer "glitches" (read: rigging) = stolen elections.

lacking in accountability. Whether it's due to rigging or unreliability, as long as it's being attributed to glitches, there is no assming responsibility for correcting the problem. The term almost implies "We can't do anything about it." The next logical conclusion rarely follows: that if there are so many glitches, then doesn't something need to be done about that?

And the other thing that really is bothersome is how frequently the phrase "not enough to change the outcome" follows. Therefore glitches are okay?
and how do you know it wasn't enough?

one problem is that people don't recognize the difference between HACKED and RIGGED.

Hack implies that the system was attacked by an outsider. Like a computer geek uses his wireless system to change the results.

Rig implies that DIEBOLD (or other voting system company) deliberately set it up to steal the election.

You hear a lot about hacking but the real concern is rigging. Even the Hursti Hack is more likely to take place as a RIG than a HACK.

I think most people here are more concerned about RIGGING than HACKING.

note, if Diebold set up a vulnerability so that there is a "back door" that purposely made it possible for people to hack in and do something, this would still be a RIG because it is there from the top, by design.

g