kallend 2,027 #1 January 12, 2007 So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #2 January 12, 2007 >Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? Geez, what planet are you from? The new project-management paradigm is: 1) Have election 2) Test machines for accuracy 3) Get new machines Repeat as often as needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spudboy 0 #3 January 12, 2007 out of curiosity can you give the results of the tests? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #4 January 12, 2007 Quoteout of curiosity can you give the results of the tests? I don't have a clue - it's not my contract.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #5 January 12, 2007 Quote So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? It was. I guess someone decided that they needed more data for whatever reason. http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #6 January 12, 2007 Quote So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? It was done before the election. The machines ability to get it right under normal conditions is not in doubt, I think. The ability to easily alter the programming has been correctly identified. It was Dems that pushed so hard to eliminate punch card systems. It just had to be done as fast as possible or even faster no matter what. Do you remember that guy during the 2000 election, in one of the lawsuits where everything was broadcast, there was a supposed expert asserting that there was a problem with the rubber that the punch bottoms out against. They claimed that it would get hard from the repeated impact of the punch! Then, I think it was a materials engineer, was called by Bush's lawyer to testify, and made Gore's expert look like exactly what he was - an expert hired to testify to a conclusion based on 'seat of the pants' uninformed speculation. Sorry for the thread drift.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #7 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? It was done before the election. The machines ability to get it right under normal conditions is not in doubt, I think. The ability to easily alter the programming has been correctly identified. It was Dems that pushed so hard to eliminate punch card systems. It just had to be done as fast as possible or even faster no matter what. Do you remember that guy during the 2000 election, in one of the lawsuits where everything was broadcast, there was a supposed expert asserting that there was a problem with the rubber that the punch bottoms out against. They claimed that it would get hard from the repeated impact of the punch! Then, I think it was a materials engineer, was called by Bush's lawyer to testify, and made Gore's expert look like exactly what he was - an expert hired to testify to a conclusion based on 'seat of the pants' uninformed speculation. Sorry for the thread drift. I wonder why we have a contract, then, if it's not in doubt. Still "Hmmm"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #8 January 12, 2007 QuoteI wonder why we have a contract, then, if it's not in doubt. Still "Hmmm" Quote It could just be to verify the obvious for a normal machine, or perhaps tampering with those machines is suspected, or intentional tampering will be done for experiments.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #9 January 12, 2007 QuoteI wonder why we have a contract, then, if it's not in doubt. Still "Hmmm" Maybe you could find out more. You know like run a test or at least ask a few questions before you make an assumption? Hell, I would like to know what they find as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #10 January 12, 2007 Quoteout of curiosity can you give the results of the tests? And I'll take the source code and schematics! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #11 January 12, 2007 Once you introduce technology there will be no end to the "innovation", testing and controversy. It's politics, and in the USA you're led by the nose and riled up over all sorts of bullshit so you'll vote the desired way in future. Ballot Box, papers, pens, send that for engineering analysis. We're on the technology treadmill get your running shows on folks. FWIW if you're gonna sue Diebold out the wazoo you're gonna need some analysis, but I have mixed opinions, Diebold are trusted with your ATMs which are far more critical than an election between the Repubocrats and Demicans in the USA. Politicians here say anything, do what they like, screw the country and you're all to dumb to even notice. You're too busy following their lead over crap like this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #12 January 12, 2007 I ran into a situation several years back where I had to design a container for explosives to meet certain criteria, test to specifications, and submit results and test samples. Even after all that work the agency hired another independent facility to repeat the tests, as well as doing some testing themselves. This could be a similar situation. I wouldn't read too much into it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #13 January 12, 2007 Quote So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? Which election? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #14 January 12, 2007 Interesting, having academia "test their accuracy and reliability" Bet they get the machine back reprogrammed to vote straight ticket. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #15 January 13, 2007 QuoteInteresting, having academia "test their accuracy and reliability" Bet they get the machine back reprogrammed to vote straight ticket. We aren't computer science weenies - we don't do programming.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #16 January 13, 2007 I've never understood the use of punch cards or electronic voting machines. What was wrong with a cross on a piece of paper? No electronics to go wrong, no ambiguous bits of card, just a cross (and it even lets you protest by spoiling your ballot in all sorts of imaginative ways!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #17 January 13, 2007 QuoteI've never understood the use of punch cards or electronic voting machines. What was wrong with a cross on a piece of paper? No electronics to go wrong, no ambiguous bits of card, just a cross (and it even lets you protest by spoiling your ballot in all sorts of imaginative ways!) There are still "electronics to go wrong" with the optical reader systems that are used for paper ballots in Arizona, for instance.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #18 January 13, 2007 >There are still "electronics to go wrong" with the optical reader >systems that are used for paper ballots in Arizona, for instance. True. On the plus side, you can do a recount. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #19 January 13, 2007 Quote>There are still "electronics to go wrong" with the optical reader >systems that are used for paper ballots in Arizona, for instance. True. On the plus side, you can do a recount. A recount for punch cards is also possible, although some chads will supposedly fall off with each pass through the automated counters. If we really want to avoid intentional tampering, as was shown possible for the touch screen machines, then perhaps it is best to choose a system where any machines used apply the most antiquated technology, with the technology/software being removed physically from the voter. Punch cards seem to be a good method, if my rationale makes any sense. Nothing at all modern is needed to run that sort of system, probably no software updates will ever be needed.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #20 January 13, 2007 QuoteI've never understood the use of punch cards or electronic voting machines. What was wrong with a cross on a piece of paper? No electronics to go wrong, no ambiguous bits of card, just a cross (and it even lets you protest by spoiling your ballot in all sorts of imaginative ways!) 1) not enough money to be made from it. 2) you have to wait a few hours for the vote to be counted, ABCNBCSBCCNN can't have that! 3) Spoiling a ballot will only invite someone to interpret your intent in this contry and assign your vote where they KNOW you would have wanted it to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 January 13, 2007 QuoteQuote So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? Which election? The one that there WASN'T any fraud in, since the Dems won...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DaVinci 0 #9 January 12, 2007 QuoteI wonder why we have a contract, then, if it's not in doubt. Still "Hmmm" Maybe you could find out more. You know like run a test or at least ask a few questions before you make an assumption? Hell, I would like to know what they find as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #10 January 12, 2007 Quoteout of curiosity can you give the results of the tests? And I'll take the source code and schematics! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #11 January 12, 2007 Once you introduce technology there will be no end to the "innovation", testing and controversy. It's politics, and in the USA you're led by the nose and riled up over all sorts of bullshit so you'll vote the desired way in future. Ballot Box, papers, pens, send that for engineering analysis. We're on the technology treadmill get your running shows on folks. FWIW if you're gonna sue Diebold out the wazoo you're gonna need some analysis, but I have mixed opinions, Diebold are trusted with your ATMs which are far more critical than an election between the Repubocrats and Demicans in the USA. Politicians here say anything, do what they like, screw the country and you're all to dumb to even notice. You're too busy following their lead over crap like this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #12 January 12, 2007 I ran into a situation several years back where I had to design a container for explosives to meet certain criteria, test to specifications, and submit results and test samples. Even after all that work the agency hired another independent facility to repeat the tests, as well as doing some testing themselves. This could be a similar situation. I wouldn't read too much into it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #13 January 12, 2007 Quote So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? Which election? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #14 January 12, 2007 Interesting, having academia "test their accuracy and reliability" Bet they get the machine back reprogrammed to vote straight ticket. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #15 January 13, 2007 QuoteInteresting, having academia "test their accuracy and reliability" Bet they get the machine back reprogrammed to vote straight ticket. We aren't computer science weenies - we don't do programming.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #16 January 13, 2007 I've never understood the use of punch cards or electronic voting machines. What was wrong with a cross on a piece of paper? No electronics to go wrong, no ambiguous bits of card, just a cross (and it even lets you protest by spoiling your ballot in all sorts of imaginative ways!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #17 January 13, 2007 QuoteI've never understood the use of punch cards or electronic voting machines. What was wrong with a cross on a piece of paper? No electronics to go wrong, no ambiguous bits of card, just a cross (and it even lets you protest by spoiling your ballot in all sorts of imaginative ways!) There are still "electronics to go wrong" with the optical reader systems that are used for paper ballots in Arizona, for instance.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #18 January 13, 2007 >There are still "electronics to go wrong" with the optical reader >systems that are used for paper ballots in Arizona, for instance. True. On the plus side, you can do a recount. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #19 January 13, 2007 Quote>There are still "electronics to go wrong" with the optical reader >systems that are used for paper ballots in Arizona, for instance. True. On the plus side, you can do a recount. A recount for punch cards is also possible, although some chads will supposedly fall off with each pass through the automated counters. If we really want to avoid intentional tampering, as was shown possible for the touch screen machines, then perhaps it is best to choose a system where any machines used apply the most antiquated technology, with the technology/software being removed physically from the voter. Punch cards seem to be a good method, if my rationale makes any sense. Nothing at all modern is needed to run that sort of system, probably no software updates will ever be needed.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #20 January 13, 2007 QuoteI've never understood the use of punch cards or electronic voting machines. What was wrong with a cross on a piece of paper? No electronics to go wrong, no ambiguous bits of card, just a cross (and it even lets you protest by spoiling your ballot in all sorts of imaginative ways!) 1) not enough money to be made from it. 2) you have to wait a few hours for the vote to be counted, ABCNBCSBCCNN can't have that! 3) Spoiling a ballot will only invite someone to interpret your intent in this contry and assign your vote where they KNOW you would have wanted it to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 January 13, 2007 QuoteQuote So I went down to our "Engineering Measurements" lab this morning and there are 5 electronic voting machines set up on a bench. Apparently we have a contract to test their accuracy and reliability. Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE the election? Which election? The one that there WASN'T any fraud in, since the Dems won...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
