Obviously, the camera used to record this was part of what Chuck Todd refers to as "conspiracy garbage."

So pay no attention to what you see on the screen.

Rethuglicans are now "reporting" that machines tried to switch their Romney votes to Obama in order to create a false "equivalency" about this problem. Strangely enough, they never seem to get any video of it or anybody to be able to actually confirm or replicate the problem. I guess those Rethuglcians can't afford smartphones with video, yeah, that's it.

I hope that more than the knowing choir is getting your information. The mainstream media has been reprehensible on this issue (or in on it), politicians ignorant, corrupt, or cowardly.

The story I heard on the great tele was that they removed that one machine.

Do they not realize that the software is cloned then generally put on all machines of that type?

All of them should be shut down and paper ballots used.

When I voted this morning I requested and was granted a paper ballot.

Here's some good news:
http://www.newjerseynews...-to-use-the-paper-ballot

Whoops, never mind. I misread. A single voter in New Jersey experienced problems voting with a voting machine, so used a paper ballot to vote instead. Just more bad news. Sorry.

Gosh, and here I thought that republicans had the market on anti-science and anti-intellectualism.

... Nick

Gosh, and here I thought that republicans had the market on anti-science and anti-intellectualism.

Who or what are you referring to?

Programmer here. You all are making a mistake if you think "flips" on screen are evidence of the program changing the vote. The device is not mechanical; if the program changes a vote, the screen does have to change to reflect the change. It would be sloppy and stupid, unthinkable, to forget to tell the screen to display the voter's intent while actually changing the vote internally. What is happening is probably worse; the programs running in the Windows environment are periodically failing to refresh their displays properly. If you've ever used a program and watch video artifacts pop up, you know what I mean. It's just bad coding running in a bad operating system. It means the coders are not very good.

BUT. The real cheating would not be done at the machine you are using. To many to manipulate easily, too many chances to be caught, too many ways to fail. To flip an election, you'd hit the accumulator systems that the individual voting PCs (and they are PCs!) are allegedly uploading their data to. Since recounts are impossible, there's no risk of discovery. The manipulation can be done from a central controller, say through a back door that was Trojaned in a couple of weeks back, maskerading as an election results upload enhancement. They don't have to hit many boxes, not in a close race. Just a few accumulators. A thousand or ten here, a few more thousand there, and they win the state of Ohio, let's just say.

Never understood screen "calibration". The screens are standardized, and the programs use the operating system and standard libraries to write to the displays. I never had to "calibrate" a screen on all the systems I wrote from scratch. The screen is not a physical plate or some movie screen you have to aim at. Your program runs or it does not run. And I don't see how a lack of "calibrization", whatever that hell that is, would make a vote bounce around the choices on the screen. It simply can't. Simply. Can. Not. You're being lied to. No one who writes code has to "calibrate" their screen. It's like a plumber telling you he has to "franchelize the coordinating lobe". It ain't true. The concept doesn't apply. Am I stating this forcefully enough??

Let me put it this way: has any web designer any of you have worked with ever - EVER - told you that your web page needed to be recalibrated? They don't because there is no damned such thing as calibrating a damned PC. This is infuriating. You might want to calibrate an automated manufacturing system, yes, in a thousand different ways. But not a glorified counting abacus using a standard OS and programming language. You ever see an ATM down for "recalibration"? Ever see ANY PC down for recalibration? Ever ask what the hell they mean by that, and what, exactly in the nine hells, would they be calibrating?

Did a peek at Slashdot about recalibration. Appears resistive screens of the old school require - occasionally - recalibration. But they do not float more than a few pixels, not inches of screen real estate. A screen may stop responding if you don't tap it just right - but, that doesn't mean that votes flip around the screen. And, it sure as hell means that the machines should be scrapped. Recalibration? My god. The ways these things can be broken are endless.

Well, that was educational. And frightening. I will admit I had no idea there was such a problem with screen calibration when one uses old resistive tech. So, rolling back the rage on the alleged BS about calibration; I was wrong. However: WHAT the hell?? Screen icons don't match what the computer senses? I can't process how bad this is.

Catbeller,

Thanks for the diversion on this strange, strange day. I went with you the whole way on that little odyssey. Enjoyed it all. Especially where you acknowledged your mistake after your considerable rant. Loved the rant, too, though. Baseline seems always to come back to--the machines are pure crap.

My guess (which I think is cynical enough for U.S. elections) is that the "calibration" is some kind of software setting. The intention would be that the voting machine company's customers would like the ability to adjust the area that corresponds to each candidate slightly, so one candidate gets more accidental votes. That machine in the video's calibration was set too obvious, so it really did need calibration. The preferred calibration would be maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the way down the Obama button. That way, if somebody tries to test the machine, it won't look blatantly rigged, as it would if it were made to report different votes than what was selected. If somebody tested the machine and hit a button a little bit off-center, got the wrong candidate, and tried again and it worked, they would just blame themselves. This kind of vote-rigging would only make a small difference in a few mis-votes
from not-very-attentive people, but it could make the difference in a close race.

CATBELLER @9 WRITES:

The manipulation can be done from a central controller

While wholesale election theft can be facilitated by insider access to the central tabulators, retail election fraud --- manipulating results on individual machines --- is not unheard of.

That was precisely what led to the election fraud convictions of eight Clay County election officials who received a combined sentence of 156 years.

The other strange thing about this machine was that Romney's button was ABOVE The President of the United States. Does R come before O in the alphabet?

A lady who called into the Diane Rehm show recently, noticed this on her ballot too. I didn't hear the show until after the Rehm show and didn't notice if the same anomaly appeared on my ballot.

How subtle.

Or Rather I should say:

I didn't hear the [Rehm} show until after I voted.

Oops.

What do you know, this exact problem, in Guilford County, NC ~ disgusting.

> The other strange thing about this machine was
> that Romney's button was ABOVE The President of > the United States. Does R come before O in the
> alphabet?

The ballot order gets randomized as part of normal procedure. Because of some trick of the layout, it was hard to pick out candidates.

Er... accidental submit...

It was tricky to spot Obama and Romney on the ballots where I was - not on the one in the video.