Share

Ohio Voting Machines Contained Programming Error That Dropped Votes

by: Mary Pat Flaherty  |  The Washington Post

photo
(Photo: PC World)

    A voting system used in 34 states contains a critical programming error that can cause votes to be dropped while being electronically transferred from memory cards to a central tallying point, the manufacturer acknowledges.

    The problem was identified after complaints from Ohio elections officials following the March primary there, but the logic error that is the root of the problem has been part of the software for 10 years, said Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Premier Election Solutions, formerly known as Diebold.

    The flawed software is on both touch screen and optical scan voting machines made by Premier and the problem with vote counts is most likely to affect larger jurisdictions that feed many memory cards to a central counting database rapidly.

    Riggall said he was "confident" that elections officials through the years would have realized votes had been dropped when they crosschecked their tallies to certify final elections results and would have reloaded cards so as not to lose votes. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has said no Ohio votes were lost because the nine Ohio counties that found the problem caught it before primary results were finalized.

    As recently as May, Premier said the problem was not of its making but stemmed from anti-virus software that Ohio had installed on its machines. It also briefly said the mistakes could have come from human mistakes. Further testing by Ohio elections officials and then high volume tests by Premier uncovered the programming error.

    "We are indeed distressed that our previous analysis of this issue was in error," Premier President Dave Byrd wrote Tuesday in a letter that was hand-delivered to Brunner. Premier and Brunner are in an ongoing court battle over the voting machines and whether Premier violated its contract with the state and warranties. Half of the Ohio's 88 counties use the GEMS system. Brunner has been a vocal critic of electronic voting machines,

    Both Brunner and Premier said that remedies to the problem will be in place for the November presidential election. A nationwide customer alert with recommended actions was issued Tuesday by Premier. Approximately 1,750 jurisdictions use the flawed system, Riggall said. Both Maryland and Virginia use it, he said, although Virginia does not relay its votes to a central counting point, which is where the problem surfaces, Riggall said. Maryland does use a central count, he said. The District of Columbia does not use the GEMS system.

    The problem is most likely to affect larger jurisdictions that upload multiple memory cards during counts, Riggall said. The GEMS system is supposed to save information from one card at a time to be counted in order as the cards are read by a database that Riggall described as the "mother ship." But a logic error in the program can cause incoming votes to essentially shove aside other votes that are waiting in the electronic line before they are counted. The mistake occurs in milliseconds, Premier's customer notice says.

    The mistake is not immediately apparent, Riggall said, and would have to be caught when elections officials went to match how many memory cards they fed into a central database against how many show as being read by that database. Each card carries a unique marker.

    Officials in Butler County, Ohio - north of Cincinnati - were the first to raise the issue when 150 votes from a card dropped in March. Brunner's office originally said that 11 counties had the same problem but has since revised that to nine. Her office was not able to say how many dropped votes were discovered in those jurisdictions.

    "I can't provide odds on whether dropped votes were not recognized" during the decade GEMS has been used, Rigall said, "but based on what we know about how our customers run their elections and reconcile counts we believe any results not uploaded on election night would have been caught when elections were being certified."

    In his letter to Ohio's Brunner, Premier's president said, "Voters in jurisdictions Premier serves, both in Ohio and throughout the country, can be assured that election officials employing standard canvass and crosscheck procedures will count their votes completely and accurately."

    Unlike other software, the problem acknowledged by Premier cannot be fixed by sending out a coding fix to its customers because of federal rules for certifying election systems, Rigall said. Changes to systems must go through the Election Assistance Commission, he said, and take two years on average for certification and approval - and that is apart from whatever approvals and reviews would be needed by each elections board throughout the country.

    Brunner said she appreciated "the forthrightness" of Byrd in his letter to her and commended Butler County officials "who went above and beyond the call of duty" to pursue the problem.

    "As far as I know, we have not seen that problem," with dropped votes, said Ross Goldstein, deputy administrator for Maryland's State Board of Elections. Maryland counties do upload results to a central system - which is what generates county vote totals on election night - but state procedures call for counties to reload every memory card the day after the election to doublecheck results, Goldstein said.

    The safeguards that Premier calls for its in customer alert, he said, already are in place in Maryland.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Do they just drop votes for

Do they just drop votes for one party, or is it equal?

If this error is more

If this error is more likely to occur in heavily populated districts, it's a good guess that more Democrats are voting there, i.e. Democrats are in urban areas, very often. Question:why does this error occur in heavily populated areas, not rural? I missed seeing the answer.

"... said Chris Riggall, a

"... said Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Premier Election Solutions, formerly known as Diebold." Riggall?? That's the problem, right there! --r.

The American people must

The American people must begin to hold public officials, corporations that count most of our votes, and others responsible for these so-called errors. I don't believe these are errors or glitches or flaws. If we accept the propaganda that these are errors, then we ultimately fail to hold anyone responsible for failed elections. We can refer to the circumstances under which votes are lost or dropped as crimes; we can even use the term felony if we choose to make laws that absolutely forbid the kind of programming of computers that leads to dropped votes that substantially affect the outcome of elections. I don't buy the argument that Premier (Diebold) programmers don't know what they are doing, and by the way, has Premier offered to fire these programmers? Or, does Premier know that the programming logic used to drop votes is intentional?

On the face of it, it looks

On the face of it, it looks equal between the political parties, but in use it may not be. Here is a scenario in which this problem can manifest where it wouldn't be equal: Lets say that the election officials are in a hurry to upload the votes from the cards to the database. They would more likely be in a hurry in more populous areas such as cities where there are more votes to upload. Lets say they upload the votes from the memory on the "cards" too fast so the problem with the voting system manifests, and groups of votes don't make it into the database. The election officials might do this because they have a lot of voting system cards to load and they have to get the votes uploaded off those cards to the database by a deadline. They might do it because they are tired and assume the system works and doesn't have this defect. Given that the manufacturer has represented that the system doesn't have defects this is a reasonable assumption if you are not a software expert. If you are a software expert then you know that almost all (if not all) systems have defects. I'm not expecting all election officials to be software experts, though I expect them to be election experts. Now, I'm not sure, but I have heard that in cities often one party is more prevalent (I'm not sure about demographics, but I seem to remember hearing Democratic voters are more prevalent in Ohio cities, but I could be wrong here - if someone else knows please speak up!). In this situation, where the scenario I describe above is manifesting, in cities which have more voters of one party than in lower populated areas, the system would lose votes for voters of that party, which would skew the vote disproportionately across the state. In a statewide election this would make a difference. In a close statewide election it could tip a balance. Elections for federal offices are done in statewide elections, so this defect in the system could decisively affect a federal election.

I suppose I'm a cynic, but I

I suppose I'm a cynic, but I find it difficult to think that the software isn't perfect just as it is. My scenario is that the "defect" was a planed part of the program right from the start.

So now Diebold is trying to

So now Diebold is trying to hide from view by changing its well known criminal enterprise's name to Premier? What a bunch of Bushite scam-artists these frauds are! Anyone ever investigate whether Diebold/Premier is just a CIA front organization? It's well known they hired much of their management and technical staff from convicted criminals in federal prisons doing time for things like "computer fraud". Give me a break! The guys who say the software is perfect - in terms of its intended purpose of dropping votes, etc. are absolutely correct. These guys should be hanged, not given billions of dollars in e-voting machine contracts. Why aren't they being criminally investigated?

Sounds like a problem with

Sounds like a problem with flushing the buffer. Yes, the problem will be worse in urban areas. Say that there is one machine per thousand voters and one card per hundred ballots. (Contrived numbers!) A rural precinct with 87 voters would have one machine and one card, but an urban precinct with 1253 votes would have two machines and 13 or 14 cards. Whether this favors one party over another is left to you, oh gentle reader. Why, oh why, oh why had the need for rapid reporting of results overridden the need for full participation and accuracy. One can look to Oregon and parts of Washington State (that vote by USnail) for prudent voters who prioritize the latter. I conjecture that Ohio precincts that adopted electronic voting early were overly enchanted with the former goal---but as time passed they switched their concern to the latter. This led those good-hearted poll workers recently to notice errors in totals that perhaps were overlooked in their previous haste to report . They may now be cursed with expensive equipment, but at last their blind trust in it has been shaken. It's amazing what you can buy for 42c!. (Cf. "The Firm".)

I suspect this is an actual,

I suspect this is an actual, nonpartisan bug, and that it has nothing to do with the vote-flipping, Democratic vote-dropping software that is deliberately installed on these machines.

This is why the source code

This is why the source code for election software must be freely available for review.