Discussion
RE: https://flipboard.social/@newsguyusa/117553467780059243
This is what a typical election mishap looks like, and the sort of thing that can easily be amplified and spiral into a conspiracy theory.
(But I'm puzzled how this could have happened given logic and accuracy testing, which should have easily caught ballot scanning issues).
@James Oh please. This is the America of fallible people who make mistakes sometimes.
Sure, I will give them grace, but come on.
@mattblaze I sadistically look forward to 16 hours from now reading your toot that says “Now I really really should be going to bed now but…”
@mattblaze @newsguyusa Both sides are going to claim fraud here, because the county is part of Mike Lawler’s district, a GOP representative whose seat is considered a toss-up.
@SteveBellovin @newsguyusa Fortunately, there's an easy (if suboptimal) remedy here of just securely holding the ballots for later tallying.
@mattblaze @newsguyusa Yes, and per the article they’re equipped to do that—but they also seem to be worried that people won’t vote because of the problem. And trying to count many races from that kind of “fill in many bubbles” ballot will *not* be easy. They’re going to have to figure out how to adjust the scanners, I suspect.
@SteveBellovin @newsguyusa It's quite possible that even if the precinct scanners can't read the ballots, the central batch scanners (used for mail-in votes) can.
@mattblaze 'Big Paper' strikes again.
@mattblaze One would think that they probably tested reading it off of paper and got it working just fine, and someone ordered a batch of slightly thicker paper not considering its impact. Or some other likely scenario. However instead the news outlets will focus on the viral social media posts from those that assume this is the Man or the Illuminati or whatever.
No one seems to think logically anymore. Or should I say no one logical tends to go viral on social media posting the obvious. (sigh)
@simplenomad @mattblaze It’s not unreasonable to think the vendor altered the paper while keeping the gsm weight or other specs the same. I know that the feel of the paper in my books shifts dramatically every few years and Wiley keeps assuring me it’s the same spec.
@adamshostack @simplenomad They should generally be testing with the actual ballots received. (Possibly printed in different batches or something).
@mattblaze @adamshostack @simplenomad My country in upstate New York does all print-on-demand ballots.
There are two stations: Check-in (where the voter is identified and signs their signature, and is then given a receipt from a little Zebra printer) and Ballot Pick-up, (where the voter exchanges the receipt for a ballot fresh out of a laser printer).
I believe the laser printers are largely standard off-the-shelf models, but I never looked closely. I voted early this year, and my ballot was awkwardly large because all races were printed on one side and the two ballot measures for county term limits were on the back. I suspect there are some standardized paper sizes the Board of Elections can choose from, but that’s just a guess.
After filling out the ballot, we have electronic ballot boxes that do some kind of check before marking the ballot as cast or rejecting it. They’re all locked and security-tagged. I world hope part of the process for opening the polling site would be testing the ballot boxes, but I’ve never seen it.
TLDR: My polling place doesn’t get a box of ballots, they get the components (paper, printer, toner, voter data) that are assembled on-site, on-demand. I do not know the supply chain or validations that happen before Election Day.
@mattblaze
Maybe a new contract for the paper used, and not even wondering if that might cause problems?
@mattblaze
Oof. Somebody didn't do their end-to-end test!
I try to drill into people, if you haven't done a full dress-rehearsal, what you have isn't a demo (launch, election day, etc); what you have is a test with witnesses.
@mattblaze
The printer used the wrong paper?
No one tested this out yesterday?
This is Trump’s America.