New Voting Machine Application – Available Now

It took about five minutes to build this exciting new voting machine application, which is beyond the grasp of $4 trillion in government spending.

ScreenHunter_4177 Oct. 29 07.07

Confirmation dialog boxes are standard practice for transaction applications. Why don’t voting machines have them? It defies comprehension that they don’t.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to New Voting Machine Application – Available Now

  1. Steve Case says:

    I have just enough programming experience (Excel VBA) to know that most of the frustrations experienced by people with computer controlled equipment, which seems to be nearly everything these days, is a result of lazy programming. I get the feeling the the average programmer is more concerned about getting lucky with the new hire than producing a fully functional product.

    • It is up to customer to define the feature set, and accept the application before purchase and deployment. Blaming a developer isn’t going to fly.

      • nielszoo says:

        You forgot the part where the client ignores your initial recommendations as to that feature set, system flow and hardware, so you implement their requests exactly as they specified… and they hate it. Then you end up reworking the system into what you recommended the first time while gathering up emails and directives to prove that you did what they wanted the first time so that you can get paid for doing it over.

      • Steve Case says:

        The customer is the manufacturer of the device, the consumer doesn’t really get to try the thing out until he’s got it home and out of the box.

  2. thegriss says:

    But Steven, If they can’t recognise the correct vote,

    how will they differentiate between Yes and No ?

  3. Andy Oz says:

    In 1926, fixing Chicago elections required guns and gangstas! Doing it with a computer is so much easier.

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/29446807

  4. Tony, you’re a riot. Are you waiting to see how long it will take someone to notice that you programmed it to flip the vote in the dialog box?? :- D

  5. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Tony! “It defies comprehension that they don’t.”

    No, it only defies comprehension if we think that accuracy of results is the goal of the programming. Once you accept that the process is rigged, everything makes sense.

    By the away, Australia has been using electronic voting for some time. The software they run is open source, and anyone who wishes may examine the code. Here in the US, voting software is proprietary; even the various governments may NOT examine the code. Only the company which makes the machines has access to the program. About 12 or 14 years ago (if I remember correctly) the Australian government offered to give us (free!) their code for use in American machines. The offer was refused.

    • Looper says:

      So you can go look at source code on a web site? How do you know that’s what is actually in the voting machines?

    • Crowbar of Daintree Forest says:

      Jason… I’m an Aussie and I’ve never seen a voting machine in my life. We fill out sometimes huge pieces of paper to record our vote. Then the votes are sorted and counted in the presence of scrutineers, including representatives of the major parties. Do you perhaps mean Austria?

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Crowbar! I am somewhat puzzled… No, I meant Australia — at least that is what I remember, though I am always open to correction. The offer of free and open software made an impression in me at the time, and seemed like the bare minimum to do if we had to have electronic voting.

        I have not done a deep search, but here is a link to an article from 2003, reporting on the Australian open source software and giving a start date of 2001 for its development. http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/11/61045

        I thought at the time of the offer (2002 or so?) that the machines were in use — but perhaps they were only being developed. Is it possible that they were only placed in certain areas? Either way, you certainly have better knowledge of it than I do, and if you say that Australia does not use electronic voting I will certainly defer to your word. Regardless, I still want to point out that even if they were never put into use, the idea of open software (vs the US use of proprietary and secret software) is a MUCH better idea. Even better than open software is the use of paper ballots and on-site counting like you describe!

        My best to all the fine people of Australia!

        • Truthseeker says:

          Fortunately we use pencils and paper in Australia. At least there is an audit trail that can be re-counted when required.

        • philjourdan says:

          I would have scoffed at you a few years ago as being backwards. I no longer would.

        • Crowbar of Daintree Forest says:

          Hi Jason. Thanks for the link to Software Improvements. It seems that their software (eVACS) is used for the Australian Capital Territory only, a very small “state” that houses the country’s capital city (Canberra), the houses of parliament for the Australian federal government, and roughly 80,000 voters, a majority of whom are public servants… an ideal compact electorate in which to use electronic voting machines. I couldn’t find any evidence that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is considering using eVACS on a wide scale in federal elections. Since 2007, the AEC do appear to have offered eVACS for voting by the visually-impaired only.
          Full marks to Software Improvements for making it open-source.

  6. philjourdan says:

    End users hate them! Until it saves their bacon.

  7. tom0mason says:

    But Steven where are the pictures? You’ve made it far too difficult.
    People these days run on abbreviated text speak (in Spanglish) and images, all of that written in English stuff will confuse the sheeple. 🙂

  8. J says:

    You guys should’ve just stuck to the old pen/marker and paper.

  9. Bill Provinse says:

    because dialog boxes are racist

  10. Crowbar of Daintree Forest says:

    Here is my suggestion for electronic voting that can be programmed to work honestly.
    Firstly, the voting machine must give you a printed receipt showing where, when and how you voted, plus a unique encrypted receipt number. No personal identification is shown on the receipt.
    The electronic version of your vote must be remitted simultaneously to multiple vote-counting systems run by independent companies.
    Later, you can check on-line at home using your receipt number, that your vote is recorded as your receipt shows, at any or all of the vote-counting systems. You can mark your vote as verified, or enter a dispute transaction on-line if you find any disagreement.
    The various vote-counting systems must reconcile with each another in a big audit process (reconcile by receipt number), and any vote-counting system that deviates by even a minuscule % from the others automatically loses its contract to do the counting at the next election and is fined into oblivion.
    Now, to get the actual elected representatives to be free of donation- and lobbying-bribery, we are going to have to ban all donations and ban all advertising except one website where every candidate fills in the same pro forma, giving their life story, education, awards, their current life situation, family, policies, beliefs etc. If any deliberate errors are found in the information given, then the candidate is automatically banned. No social media is allowed by either the candidates or their parties.
    We need to cut the whole electioneering process back to basics. Force the candidates to win votes based on down to earth honesty – not who raises the most money, has the biggest budget, the best rah-rah rallies, the best TV ads etc. Maybe in the last week or two, every candidate is “given” a half page slot in all local newspapers in which to make their pitch – saying what they stand for. No negativity about other candidates or parties is permitted. Voters can go to the one website and study all of the candidates in their electorate and make an informed decision without being unduly influenced by attack-ads, or blatantly false social media messages.
    Views? Ideas?

    • Truthseeker says:

      You need to include an ID check of some kind to prevent people voting multiple times and/or stopping “dead” people from voting. Other than that, it sounds good to me.

      It will never happen.

  11. Bob Knows says:

    I’m sure Lady O’Dumbo’s college friends could handle that 5 minute programming assignment for only $1.5 Billion and 3 years. Plus another $500 million and 6 months to fix the flaws. And, of course, your vote would still be counted for the Democrap no matter what part of the screen you touched.

  12. B says:

    Voting is a ceremony where we give consent to be ruled. It really doesn’t matter how the machines work. It’s like the TSA and other government rituals.

  13. I made an improvement. Now it’s error free:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s