It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Texas County Switches to Paper Ballots after Electronic Voting Glitches

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Nice, in today's America we have to go to "Emergency ballots" to vote. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy.


A county in Texas has switched to “emergency paper ballots” after electronic voting machines in the region suffered technical glitches.

Chambers County Clerk Heather Hawthorne issued a press release Tuesday announcing electronic voting would be suspended until the glitches affecting voting machines could be corrected.



Just a little programming error, how many voters votes were incorrectly entered.



“The Straight Party vote for both the Republicans and Democrats did not automatically select one race on each ballot,” states the press release.

“The error was caused in programming by ES&S (Election Systems and Software Inc.), the vendor who programs the election software used in Chambers County.”


All is well, the programming is all fixed. The standard protocol of going to paper ballots worked.



Hawthorne claims she discovered the problem Monday morning after she cast her own vote and reviewed the electronic ballot.

“Moving temporarily to paper ballots in such a situation is standard protocol,” Hawthorne reportedly told 12NewsNow.

On Wednesday, Hawthorne issued another press release claiming the machines had been fixed.


I am very suspicious of the whole thing. How are can a voter be sure that their vote is counted correctly? We all can't review our electronic ballot like miss Hawthorn can. In my opinion it stinks.

www.infowars.com...
edit on 26-10-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Good.

Electronic voting should never have been a thing in the first place.

They should implement this Texas-wide and nation-wide.
edit on -050007pm10kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
This happened all over Texas.

These machines suck.

We need something on paper.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
No longer a conspiracy I guess.

The vote machine problems are real and "fixable" (pun intended)




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
This happened all over Texas.

These machines suck.

We need something on paper.


Guess who owns the machines... They were ES&S macines btw


truedemocracyparty.net...

ironic eh? That it's companies owned by staunch Republicans?

edit on 26-10-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12
When you take a minute and think about the implications, it's telling. If people loose faith in the vote, it won't end well.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
My county allows a choice of paper or electronic.

As for as votes, how do we really know if the tally is correct in the end regardless of method. Trust has seemed to be eroded.

If a government unit is engineering misuse of electronic machines then errors counting paper is to be expected also.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I`m not surprised, I`ve always suspected that the people running the voting process were just as incompetent as all the other government employees and government processes. I mean seriously, does anyone expect anything that the government has a hand in will not be a massive cluster f*%^?
edit on 26-10-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Still don't understand why provate corps can own the voting machines when they have a vested interest on the outcome, but then again the current govt owning and operating the voting machines is suss as well



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Electronic voting machines that switch votes, poll station workers caught on camera stuffing ballot boxes, dead people in their thousands voting.....etc.....etc!

Nothing to worry about though, it's all part of the democratic process and nothing nefarious is going on!


The words "Banana Republic" spring to mind.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Electronic might be fine but you need a printout of what you voted for. Or paper ballots




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Can someone logically explain to me how paper ballots that are hand counted provide more accuracy than a machine?



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
Can someone logically explain to me how paper ballots that are hand counted provide more accuracy than a machine?


I think the hand ballots are counted by machine. Ours are fed into a machine and the ballots have the bubbles that are filled in with pencil.


Optical Scan Paper Ballot Systems (including both marksense and digital image scanners), in which voters mark paper ballots that are subsequently tabulated by scanning devices. On most optical scan ballots voters indicate their selections by filling in an oval (on ES&S and Premier/Diebold ballots), completing an arrow (Sequoia ballots), or filling in a box (Hart Intercivic ballots.) Ballots may be either scanned on precinct-based optical scan systems in the polling place (Precinct Count) or collected in a ballot box to be scanned at a central location (Central Count.)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
Can someone logically explain to me how paper ballots that are hand counted provide more accuracy than a machine?


Machine scanning makes the process faster and the paper ballots make a recount possible. The instant gratification factor and purported lower costs of all electronic ballots is not worth the inability to recount hard copies. All electronic machines are rife with fraud possibilities and are not trusted by many voters.

I think that many counties will go back to paper in some form.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a glitch...I like that word.

A PC version of either "incompetence" or "fraud". Sometimes it can mean both.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Nothing about what you said provides accuracy. Faster? Redundant? Sure.

I'm calling bulls### that a machine makes more counting errors than a person.

I'm also calling bulls### that paper voting isn't susceptible to fraud, if not even the exact same types of Fraud.

My issue is that I see more potential in hand-counted votes being innaccurate. The Bush recounts were hand counted and they never came to the same count once. What the hell is the purpose of the 'scanning' if it doesn't even work?

If your issue is 'hard copies' what do you call the thing the machine prints at the end?
edit on 27-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: pteridine

Nothing about what you said provides accuracy. Faster? Redundant? Sure.

I'm calling bulls### that a machine makes more counting errors than a person.

I'm also calling bulls### that paper voting isn't susceptible to fraud, if not even the exact same types of Fraud.

My issue is that I see more potential in hand-counted votes being innaccurate. The Bush recounts were hand counted and they never came to the same count once. What the hell is the purpose of the 'scanning' if it doesn't even work?

If your issue is 'hard copies' what do you call the thing the machine prints at the end?


If it seems like I don't trust politicians and political parties, I don't. Your complete faith in electronics is noted. We all know that computers never fail or get infected by viruses.

Paper ballots are counted by a scanner but if there is a question, they can be counted by a different scanner or hand counted. People know who they voted for when they mark a paper ballot; something that cannot be said of an all-electronic system. Some electronic machines don't even record individual votes on paper and those are the machines that are least trustworthy.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

As long as it's viewed as the best option of two systems.

This topic otherwise has reeked of bias and ignorance for a while.

Just that loopy time of the election year where it feels like all forms of Technology, Science, Logic and Math are being abandon for essentially no reason in the name of Conservatism.

I honestly can't wrap my mind around how a machine printing your paper ballot and recording the print would be a bad system. Incorporating them both doesn't bother me as much as it sounds like people "hate the machines" like it's the Terminator coming for them or something. At the end of the day electronics will be used no matter what, even scanning the 'hand counted' votes. Using the "Tech is flimsy" argument isn't going to sell me on 'paper ballots', but to each his own.
edit on 27-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Well, as long as paper ballots exist, and are not destroyed after the votes are counted, they are available for a re-count, or multiple recounts.

Electrons can just dissipate after an electronic vote is counted, or become magnetically erased




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
My county allows a choice of paper or electronic.

As for as votes, how do we really know if the tally is correct in the end regardless of method. Trust has seemed to be eroded.

If a government unit is engineering misuse of electronic machines then errors counting paper is to be expected also.


There is a difference though - with counting written ballets you would need a much wider conspiracy and many more conspirators in order to effect a large enough change to effect the election.

With Electronic Voting you could have just a few bad actors affect a much large number of the electorate.




top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join