selenite0: (software sucks)
[personal profile] selenite0
My county had some brand new software for running this election. And like any new software, it had bugs. Noticably one really big bug. Causing it to report three times as many votes as were actually cast. It looks like it's probably just a one line fix, though.

The problem was that the officials would run a "current total" of votes to see where the candidates stood in the votes that had been counted so far. They did this every hour or so to monitor the results. And the totals kept getting bigger and bigger. Turned out the software was supposed to report:

currentTotal = sum( precinctVotes )

but instead reported:

currentTotal = sum( precinctVotes ) + currentTotal

Count the same votes over and over and the totals just mount up. No real damage was done, since they had the real precinct results to go to. Presumably a coder at Hart InterCivic has already changed that routine to reinitialize variables as needed.

What bothers me about this is that it's such a blatant bug that any real full up test--such as a dress rehearsal of an election--should've caught it. So the county is just accepting delivery and using the stuff in blind faith. Meanwhile the vendor has demonstrated that they don't deserve any trust if they're letting stuff like that through.

Can I have a paper ballot next time?

Date: 2006-03-10 12:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thegameiam.livejournal.com
It's pretty creepy...

What I'd like to know is this: we have pretty darn effective ATMs which provide traceable results. Why are voting machines so hard?

-David

Date: 2006-03-10 03:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenite.livejournal.com
Banks which screw over their customers lose business, go bankrupt, and toss all their managers onto the street. Governments which screw over their residents . . . still have most incumbents re-elected.

Date: 2006-03-10 02:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kishiriadgr.livejournal.com
I don't know about Texas, but in California you can request to receive a permanent absentee ballot, so that they send you a paper one every election. I did that for the past presidential election because I am JUST THAT PARANOID. I'm going to continue to do so as things get worse, even though California does not have the corrupt Diebold system.

Date: 2006-03-10 03:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gridlockjoe.livejournal.com
even though California does not have the corrupt Diebold system

They do now.

Date: 2006-03-10 05:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kishiriadgr.livejournal.com
Great. I tend to read national and international news and forget about my own state. I'll be telling all family and friends to get those permanent absentee ballots then.

Dammit, WHY did I leave Canada again? Oh right, hubby couldn't take the winters. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID.

Date: 2006-03-10 03:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unwilly.livejournal.com
Hey, at least Pat Buchannan got elected this time!

Yes, it does seem that a simple dry run at the vendor, or voting end, should have caught that.

Date: 2006-03-12 04:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joyeuse13.livejournal.com
Software going out to end users untested? Goodness, that's familiar.

Profile

selenite0: (Default)
selenite0

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1234567
8910 11121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 13th, 2026 07:16 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios