WINvote Electronic Voting Machine Quality Assurance Tests? FAILED!

[flapjack9999]

lol, did you bang on it like the Fonz would or Mike Tyson??

[douro20]

iVoTronic machines are manufactured to military specifications for shock and dust resistance, as well as having three processors, each having its own memory channel, and a cryptographic coprocessor which has met with NSA approval.

[onecuriousvoter]

This test was ad hoc in nature. I only began to double tap after seeing the first anomaly. The reason for using the side of my thumb was so that people could see that I wasn't secretly tapping the senate selection with my pinky. If you watch close enough, you will see that the anomalies were happening long before I began tapping with the side of my thumb. As far as tapping hard is concerned...I was tapping hard enough for it to recognize the tap.

15 minutes of fame? No thanks.

[frotz661]

The problem is sloppy programming If you don't keep track of buffers properly, mysterious things exactly like what you notice can happen. I have experience with a point-of-sale program that behaves similarly. Note the delayed reactions. The program has trouble getting out of its own way when you throw all that input at it. MSWord acts like this if you're a fast typer.

[dbmoore]

Maybe if you hit it harder, it will work better, dufus. If you smack a touch screen of that size, it will activate random touch points at other places on the screen. BTW, if you hit a paper ballot with the point of your pen that hard, it will fail too. Stop trying to manufacture conspiracies, and do some research ...

[Feeceesmmm]

Dude, while I sat here and thought of various retorts, i realized that the sheer stupidity of your comment doesn't even need a flame. You basically owned yourself. Gratz on looking like a tard. Teach us more, O guru of technology and conspiracy theories.

Oh BTW: OWNT

[dbmoore]

Of all the various retorts you thought of, I'm so impressed with the one you chose to go with. Congratulations! You have really cut me to the quick! Your rapier wit and keen insight really put me in my place. I definitely have much to learn from you, O guru of excellent put-downs and critical thinking. Please, post another of your brilliant thoughts when you finish cleaning the second floor toilets.

[Feeceesmmm]

lol....maybe you should read my comment, where i clearly state that you owned yourself in your own post and no retort was necessary.

After cleaning the third floor toilets(took me a little longer then expected, sorry I couldn't get back to YOU after teh second floor), here's me brilliant post: kindly diaf fgt.

HUNGRY FORUM TROLL HUNGRY, or btw lrn2flame nublet before you hurt yourself with your pathetic attempts and shift-F7s in MS Word lol

[onecuriousvoter]

I wasn't going to respond to you, but since you're still on my thread, I will. You were actually correct. I DID have to tap it harder for it to "work better, dufus." I don't quite understand your comment "If you smack a touch screen of that size, it will activate random touch points at other places on the screen." How is the SIZE of the touchscreen relevant? And, are you sure it will "activate random touch points at other places on the screen?" I'm not following your logic on that one.

[dbmoore]

Google "how touchscreens work." Hitting it harder produces fluctuations and flex. It will fail where the layers are weakly separated (and this will repeatedly activate one spot), or in random spots (depending on how you hit it and what types of flaws there are in the screen). The larger the screen, the more the flex (and the more likely there are defective or nearly defective zones). It's not a conspiracy, it's just the current state of technology.

[onecuriousvoter]

You are F O S.

[onecuriousvoter]

Seriously though, did you actually watch the video? You're claim of "random touch points at other places on the screen" doesn't hold much water because, in fact, those "random" places were always the same places. How do you explain that one? I have to agree with "Feeceesmmm" (although, not necessarily with the name chosen) but, you "basically owned yourself." Before suggesting I should do some research...maybe you should start by actually paying attention to the video.

[dbmoore]

Did watch the video. By "random," I meant both different spots on different screens, as well as the possibility that different spots will be activated on the same screen (less common). FWIW, you were almost certainly voting on a resistive touchscreen.

Feceseater pwned himself with his lame username, and his public display of dysfunction.

[onecuriousvoter]

To all those who watch this video:

Don't focus on the first half. The second half of the video is the most interesting. Specifically, the way in which the senate vote gets unchecked and checked at seemingly random times. Pay attention to when I check and uncheck Obama as the selection for president. Then, compare that to when I check and uncheck McCain for president. I am NOT trying to show vote flipping in this video. I'm showing the quirky functionality that seems to plague this system.

[xlinuks]

What company provides this shitty voting solution?? Given the importance of the voting system - such a company must be sued.

With such issues USA can't even *think* of being an advanced country.

[Feeceesmmm]

lol....voting machine fail

[garella]

It's not obvious right away, but selections in one column change votes in the other column.

But WHERE IS THIS HAPPENING?

Did you report it 1-800-OUR-VOTE or anywhere else?

Where is McNair?