An observation regarding touchscreen voting machines

[Occulus]

I've seen this particular observation made on threads about touchscreen voting machines and their flipping of votes to and from candidates, but I've never seen it made as an OP. I think this particular observation deserves a big, bright spotlight.

Millions of people use touchscreens every day in the shopping lane. All those U-Scan systems, the ones where the customer scans the barcode on the item and pays for the grocery bill at the end, use touchscreens. These devices are used constantly, with relatively few errors when the customer selects what payment method they want, input the PLU number for items that the barcode reader cannot identify, and so forth. Even in grocery stores that do not use the U-San system (or a similar system), and have a cashier at every lane, devices are present for those who use bank cards to input their choices on a touchscreen- their PIN, whether they want cash back, etc.

These actions are performed by millions of people every day, yet there is no epidemic of inaccuracy, of identifiably altered items or prices (that does happen on occasion, but it is possible to fix it, and the method is always obvious), and so on.

It is therefore bewildering that we can't seem to get the touchscreen hardware on voting machines to function properly in a consistent manner. This is perfected technology. The software driving it, contrary to what naysayers may claim, is not in any way rocket science, and the OS itself is no "black box". It is, in fact, often the same OS that drives the grocery POS systems!

There is no legitimate excuse for touchscreen machines to be in any way inaccurate. The "argument" that too many people use them too quickly for the machine to remain in proper working order is outright laughable and anyone seriously claiming that should be ridiculed into silence. There is, simply put, no legitimate excuse for these machines to function as badly as they do.

These problems would be easy to avoid by simply using the exact same point of sale systems we use in grocery stores to cast our votes. The hardware and the software already exist and are so stable that we use them to spend our hard-earned cash without a second thought.

The only reason that makes any sense at all stems from intent to influence an election, and I don't necessarily mean by flipping votes to a desired candidate. The uncertainty that comes from using a system that has been proven eminently hackable must in some measure keep some people away from the polls, but those same people will go out later that day and use the exact same tech when they swipe their card and select "no cash back" on the touchscreen in the store.

I think we should try to focus on proving intent to commit election fraud, and concentrate on the companies that supply the machines, their employees, their investors, and their benefactors but that's only my opinion on one aspect of how to fix this problem. Touchscreen voting, as it is currently utilized, is completely compromised, and your local grocery store very well may be open proof of that, a proof so obvious that it doesn't even register.

[Travis_0004]

1. Computers are great, but I think the paper ballot is still king

Why switch to a 100% computer system? A computer system can be programed to count incorrectly, or can fail.

In my district we fill out a paper ballot, which is then scanned.

You have instant vote counting, so it doesn't take much labor, and if you ever have any question, you can pull out the paper ballots, and count it by hand. Seems much better to me.

[Occulus]

2. But that's my point.

Grocery systems are already computerized and use touchscreens; not only do you get a receipt (with another stored in the register, which can be verified against), but the system almost always works.

Yet our voting machines seem to have utterly mysterious gremlins.

I'm not being intentionally naive, here; just pointing out the dichotomy between the two.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. I've made this point before...

the same company that makes ATMs standing outside in rain and snow, and working well day after day, can't seem to make a voting machine that works properly four days a year.

I will say that once in a while the ATM touchscreen screws up and picks the choice next to the one you really want, but that's rare and happens after many more pokes than a voting machine gets.

[Occulus]

4. 'Zactly.

It's so, so obvious. In-your-face, even.

[BadgerKid]

5. When grocery scanners first appeared

in my hometown in the 80s, shoppers were very hawkish about being overcharged. Grease pens were available upon entering the store for customers to mark shelf prices on products for later reference. In the day, it was promised that the incurred savings of computerization meant "lower grocery bills for customers."

Today, our society generally seems to accepts computers and scanning devices, and so claiming that voting machines get it wrong may be viewed as tinfoilhattery. For something as important as elections, I find it very curious that the TPTB aren't making a priority to have verifiable voting.