# Why don't voting Machine count properly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104 "2008-10-29T16:19:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/41 "2008-10-30T11:51:15Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > OR, they could just fix the problems with punch ballots. Punch ballots? with hanging chad and dimpled chad? where the machine recount can vary each time it’s run, because physically running the ballots through the readers dislodges hanging and dimpled chad each time? punch ballots that worked so well in Florida in 2000? ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/42 "2008-10-30T13:18:06Z")
I think its pretty funny that many Americans are so pre-occupied in making sure that thier vote ‘counts’\* that they wont vote for a 3rd party as it would be a waste or something, but they dont care enough to make sure that everything possible is done to make sure that their vote is counted and accurate ! \*there was a thread where a sibling was going to vote in a different district from where he lives - just so it would count . His district was a foregone conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/43 "2008-10-30T14:09:00Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > with respect to the discussion about the need for a speedy, transparent count - one of the first clear signs of vote-rigging in last spring’s election in Zimbabwe was the delay in announcing the results of the presidential vote. the longer it dragged out, the less confidence people had in the results, because it was assumed that the reason for the delay wasn’t that there were difficulties in counting, but that the results weren’t in favour of Mugabe and his supporters were busy stuffing the ballot boxes, post-election. > > speed and transparency are important factors in public confidence. But if the ballots are always in the public eye and all the counting is done in public with counterchecking from candidates’ representatives, people would actually be able to see whether there was any monkey business going on. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/44 "2008-10-30T14:47:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Punch ballots? with hanging chad and dimpled chad? where the machine recount can vary each time it’s run, because physically running the ballots through the readers dislodges hanging and dimpled chad each time? punch ballots that worked so well in Florida in 2000? Why yes, those are the very problems that need to be fixed. Instead, we threw the baby out and jumped into a new, far more complex, technology that is still buggy as hell. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I’ve worked in data processing for a large bank, and ATM’s are far from flawless. We had errors occurring nearly every week in our network of ATM’s. Wow, errors nearly every week? Out of how many thousands of transactions per week? With machines that were far from brand new and were iffily maintained, some of which were outdoors? Sorry, but that comes damned close to ANYBODY’s definition of “flawless.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/45 "2008-10-30T15:05:17Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] But if the ballots are always in the public eye and all the counting is done in public with counterchecking from candidates’ representatives, people would actually be able to see whether there was any monkey business going on. [/QUOTE] You ever seen one of those large magic shows where the magician makes something like the Statue of Liberty disappear in front of a live audience? Even leaving aside whether people want this, I’m not seeing how you could possibly eliminate ‘monkey business’ in this way. Any system you put in place to do so would either not work (because people will find a way around your safeguards) or would simply be too expensive and time consuming to make a difference. And all to eliminate what? 1% fraud? [QUOTE=dropzone] Why yes, those are the very problems that need to be fixed. Instead, we threw the baby out and jumped into a new, far more complex, technology that is still buggy as hell. [/QUOTE] Some of those old systems were in place for years…and they were STILL ‘buggy as hell’. And there was still voter fraud issues with them, despite the fact they didn’t have any software or scary computer screens. I think people have a rather rose colored view of how good those old systems were. Even the paper ‘fill in the bubble’ ballots used to have a percentage of votes that weren’t counted due to people being unable to fill in the stupid bubble correctly. And this doesn’t even get into the fraud aspects or other irregularities issues, which we all know happened fairly regularly. > [@](#): > > Wow, errors nearly every week? Out of how many thousands of transactions per week? With machines that were far from brand new and were iffily maintained, some of which were outdoors? Sorry, but that comes damned close to ANYBODY’s definition of “flawless.” And approximately how many errors are we talking about this these new systems? I’ve seen some headlines, but they seem to be pretty sensationalized…sort of like the headline grabbing story of a kid struck in the chest by a baseball who dies. Considering all the wonky analogue voting machines I’ve seen in my lifetime I’d be interested in seeing what the real percentage of failure is in the new machines in comparison…or even compare the actual number of votes tossed out in days passed using paper ballots vs problems with the new machines. I’ve never seen any proof that the new machines are any worse than what we had before…or that fraud is any more rampant today than it was in the past days of ballot box stuffing or accidentally losing a box of ballots that just happened to belong to one candidate or the other. -XT ---
**Author:** ![MeanJoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanjoe/32/5693_2.png) [@MeanJoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanJoe)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/46 "2008-10-30T15:08:19Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > They can make flawless ATM’s and electronic funds transfer systems. Why they choose not to when it comes to voting machines is an interesting question. There’s nothing complicated about a machine or the supporting software that only has to accurately record a choice. ATMs with touchscreens can (and do) have the exact same problem as shown in the video and explained by **Folly**. If the touchscreen is not calibrated, the screen will register the “touch” in the wrong position. MeanJoe ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/47 "2008-10-30T15:11:54Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’ve never seen any proof that the new machines are any worse than what we had before…or that fraud is any more rampant today than it was in the past days of ballot box stuffing or accidentally losing a box of ballots that just happened to belong to one candidate or the other. Well, when we get down to it, that’s the thing, isn’t it? Why we really need standards isn’t because of the equipment but because we keep having things like confusing butterfly ballots and ballots where a straight, partyline vote doesn’t include a vote for a president. Local yokels screwing things up either with or without malice aforethought. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/48 "2008-10-30T15:19:09Z")
[QUOTE=dropzone] Well, when we get down to it, that’s the thing, isn’t it? Why we really need standards isn’t because of the equipment but because we keep having things like confusing butterfly ballots and ballots where a straight, partyline vote doesn’t include a vote for a president. Local yokels screwing things up either with or without malice aforethought. [/QUOTE] I agree completely and you’ve pretty much put your finger on the answer to the OP’s question. Why can’t we make voting machines that work right? Because every state and county decides on it’s own what it wants and how it wants to do it. If we had a federal standard for voting machines (whether electronic or paper/analogue) then we’d have a better chance of having a working system. Of course, then you’d have other problems and other concerns about a single system…but it would eliminate THIS problem anyway. I’m not holding my breath for such a system… -XT ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/49 "2008-10-30T15:22:55Z")
Maybe we could just start voting at ATMs… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/50 "2008-10-30T15:25:14Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You ever seen one of those large magic shows where the magician makes something like the Statue of Liberty disappear in front of a live audience? So, we’re talking about a situation in which _all_ the candidates’ representatives are cooperating in fixing the vote? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/51 "2008-10-30T15:36:35Z")
No…we are talking about literally millions of votes and people being human. Since you are wanting to take 2 weeks to count all the votes that gives more time for things to go weird. Unless you are going to put all the ballots in the country under armed guard with constant video surveillance with motion detectors, infrared optical detectors and sharks with laser beams on their heads there is going to be the opportunity for misdirection or trickery. And having gone to all this trouble (and taking weeks to determine the election), I’d be surprised if looking at the statistics you managed to improve on the suspected fraud by enough to justify the time or expense. I’m guessing the same number of votes would be tossed out due to errors or mistakes as well. It’s clear that there is nothing I can say to convince you that your pet theory here would either work or be acceptable. How about we just agree to disagree and move on? Maybe you could start a thread on your vision of a new voting system and see if other 'dopers agree? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/52 "2008-10-30T15:50:49Z")
My “pet theory”? Would you care to describe it, since it seems to be so important to me? I’m not suggesting that we mandate that the count take two weeks. “Two weeks” is just a random figure that, personally, wouldn’t bother me. What I’m saying is that ensuring accuracy and verifiability is far more important than having immediate results. One possible method would be to have the count be conducted orally in public by people, not machines (and perhaps with constant video camera surveillance exported to the Internet, why not?), with representatives of all candidates confirming the counting of each ballot. I’m sure it would take far less than two weeks at most polling places. And you wouldn’t need armed guards, because everyone could see exactly what was going on at all times. Maybe it would go something like this: \*Election official 1, accompanied by representatives of all parties, goes to sealed ballot box, opens it, draws out one ballot and holds it up to the public and cameras. Official 1: “One vote for McCain” McCain rep: “Confirm one vote for McCain” Obama rep: “Confirm one vote for McCain” Official 2: Tallies one vote for McCain on a system that can be viewed by all present … and so on until all the ballots have been counted.\* This seems very much like the system in Denmark as described by **Mikkel** in this thread – [Let's come up with a foolproof voting method. - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=490167) > [@Mikkel](#): > > Here in Denmark there are volunteer members of every party paired, with every pair made from members of two different parties. There will be two people handing you the ballot, two people watching the sealed box you put the ballot in and when the vote is counted it will be done by two at each table with other people watching the counting. If you had a Democrat and a Republican counting the ballots together, any cheating would probably be stopped Counting in such a way will probably take longer than 24 hours, but so freaking what? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/53 "2008-10-30T16:11:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > No…we are talking about literally millions of votes and people being human. Since you are wanting to take 2 weeks to count all the votes that gives more time for things to go weird. Unless you are going to put all the ballots in the country under armed guard with constant video surveillance with motion detectors, infrared optical detectors and sharks with laser beams on their heads there is going to be the opportunity for misdirection or trickery. > > And having gone to all this trouble (and taking weeks to determine the election), I’d be surprised if looking at the statistics you managed to improve on the suspected fraud by enough to justify the time or expense. I’m guessing the same number of votes would be tossed out due to errors or mistakes as well. > > It’s clear that there is nothing I can say to convince you that your pet theory here would either work or be acceptable. How about we just agree to disagree and move on? Maybe you could start a thread on your vision of a new voting system and see if other 'dopers agree? > > -XT Somehow we all managed to hold elections before voting machines were invented without civilisation grinding to a halt or the stock market crashing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/54 "2008-10-30T16:15:44Z")
Well, to be sure. They had fraud too…and they just dealt with it and moved on. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/55 "2008-10-30T16:33:41Z")
> [@MeanJoe](#): > > ATMs with touchscreens can (and do) have the exact same problem as shown in the video and explained by **Folly**. If the touchscreen is not calibrated, the screen will register the “touch” in the wrong position. > > MeanJoe I presume **tagos** was talking about regular ATM’s, with a keypad, which seem to be pretty robust. Whilst these have their share of security holes, they’re also performing ten times as many functions as what a voting machine needs to do. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/56 "2008-10-30T17:40:31Z")
Election polling is very accurate. It has been used in many countries to dispute elections . The elections have been redone because of it. In America ,where we used paper ballots, it worked fine. Where there were voting machines the polling failed. Strange coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/57 "2008-10-30T17:57:53Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Election polling is very accurate. It has been used in many countries to dispute elections . The elections have been redone because of it. In America ,where we used paper ballots, it worked fine. Where there were voting machines the polling failed. Strange coincidence. Got a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/58 "2008-10-30T19:51:55Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think people have a rather rose colored view of how good those old systems were. Even the paper ‘fill in the bubble’ ballots used to have a percentage of votes that weren’t counted due to people being unable to fill in the stupid bubble correctly. But those are generally caught. We use those machines here, and they will kick the ballot back out if the bubbles are filled in improperly, and an election judge will offer to look at your ballot and explain what the machine sees as a problem. If you decline, and override the warning to feed your ballot in anyway, it’s still possible for humans to look at it, and often it’s clear what the voter intended. Only a much smaller percentage are truly unclear, like when the voter put an equal mark in both bubbles, or marked exactly halfway between them, or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104/59 "2008-10-30T20:10:51Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Got a cite for that? [http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/PopularVotePaper181\_1.pdf](http://www.freepress.org/images/departments/PopularVotePaper181_1.pdf) This discusses the methodology and the probability of polling being wrong. It was not wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-voting-machine-count-properly/470104.md?page=2)