2nd Pennsylvania voting machine won’t let people vote for Obama

PA machine won't let vote for Obama

A man took a video of the machine
recording his Obama vote for Romney

Two now, we reported earlier on a second Pennsylvania machine that recorded votes for Obama as votes for Romney.

We’re to believe that this is a coincidence?  And the nonchalance of the folks working the polling booths is somewhat disturbing as well.  Even worse, they seemed to leave the malfunctioning machines in operation even though several people had complained.

Mother Jones now has a second incident – and video below.  Here are a few screen caps from the guy who took the video:

Yet the machine was left in place to keep tallying Democratic votes for Republicans.  Here’s the video the guy took of the machine in action.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

20 Responses to “2nd Pennsylvania voting machine won’t let people vote for Obama”

  1. Paul_lnk says:

    Oh yeah…. touch screens are finicky like that.  I have to have my cell phone recalibrated about once a week or all the buttons get mixed up.  Doesn’t everyone?

  2. Quilla says:

    Again, why are states controlling the voting?  Why can governors and even “lowly” election workers rig the system?  Why aren’t the Feds making rules, regulations, and  – when obviously needed – arrests?  American voter suppression sounds so, you know, “other country.” 

  3. Kathryn says:

    Are there ANY reports of this happening in the other direction?

  4. Tom Joad says:

    Put another way…there is NO WAY the area defined for any of the boxes should be OUTSIDE the boxes.
    The screen is a known size (matrix) and the code doesn’t have to be “calibrated”…it PAINTS the screen, knows where it painted it, and where the boxes areas are. It would be something else if the screen was defined wrong, etc. but that is not likely the case here. The box is in a known position, with a known size. ANY finger (eraser, whatever) touch of the screen outside the “defined area” should be treated (by any programmer) as invalid and treated as if no touch of the screen happened.

  5. Tom Joad says:

    Both cases we’ve seen (this video and the first one that reported this) “just happen” by chance to pick Romney OVER Obama. Both cases Romneys NAME is first in the list (why is that?).  They talk about calibration as if this were some precision instrument, it is not. The code defines sections of the screen being touched as belonging to a container (Romney, or Obama for instance) and define the area that having been touched will count. Obviously, the definition for Romney is MUCH larger, the screen area to pick Obama, is a sliver. This is intentional.

  6. DCinDC says:

    Why do private companies own and run our voting machines? 

  7. condew says:

     The boss or owner doesn’t have to corrupt the machine himself, if safeguards are not in place, his employees know what he wants and make it happen to please the boss.  If you had a news organization with many liberal reporters, all you need is a conservative owner or editor to make it a conservative medium.  Ambitious reporters figure out what is good for their career, the less ambitious do as they are told.  I think any business, including one that provides voting machines, can be the same.

  8. condew says:

    Here in Maryland, when we were about to use electronic machines for the first time, somebody brought a machine to our workplace to demonstrate how robust an foolproof it was.  Every vote is recorded 3 times, in an internal hard disk, on a removable flash memory card, and printed on an internal paper tape.

    Only problem, the representative could not provide any evidence that the vote that was recorded 3 times was the same as the vote I cast.

    When we see machines behave as in the video, at least the machine is making the voter aware that something is wrong.  These are computers that can run any procedure the programmer writes.  What of the machine that, say, after 1000 votes, starts to corrupt an occasional vote as needed to achieve a desired result?  What of the machine that always records the larger final tally for the Republican, and the smaller one for the Democrat?  Swapping the two numbers would look like a human error.

  9. FLL says:

    Tagg, Romney’s oldest son? The one who wanted to “take a swing” at Obama for questioning the veracity of Mitt Romney’s “facts and figures” during one of the debates? You’re actually saying that Tagg Romney is involved with the company that owns the suspect voting machines that switch Obama votes to Romney votes? Do you have any Internet links for any of this? I mean, Tagg Romney hacking voting machines for Daddy isn’t exactly cricket.

  10. UncleBucky says:

    What is the freaking brand of the machine???!!!!

    Then, WHO OWNS IT????

  11. UncleBucky says:

    What is the freaking brand of the machine???!!!!

    Then, WHO OWNS IT????

  12. bejammin075 says:

    I’m glad of the large number of cell phone cameras out there. For each one that someone records, there must be many many times more that don’t get recorded on camera.

  13. Tranquility7 says:

    This is totally unacceptable. Period.  We need to ban together to change the laws to outlaw these electronic voting machines entirely. They’re too risky. Foreign countries have banned them, we should too.  Why should private enterprises have privy to our voting.  It’s ridiculous. See the video of the investigation done in 2006 by HBO  “Hacking Democracy”  You can watch it in its entirety about 90 minutes.

  14. Kate says:

    This is absolutely unacceptable. 

  15. Radhika1226 says:

    The RICO Republicans have been doing this since 2000. Yet, no effective legal action has been taken, and no one is spending time in jail.

  16. CTAM says:

    This is insane! REGARDLESS of whose name is where this should NOT be happening!

  17. HereinDC says:

    And Flip, Toot, or what ever that Romney boy’s name is who now owns voting machines in Ohio is suspect.

    This is a scam the GOP…..yes the Republican Party is knowingly  let this happen.

  18. HereinDC says:

    THIS has got to be a major talking and action point of Democrats for the next 4 years to find OUT WHAT is going on.

  19. HereinDC says:

    THIS has got to be a major talking and action point of Democrats for the next 4 years to find OUT WHAT is going on.

  20. mf_roe says:

    2000 will look fair after the facts of this cluster fuck of an election are uncovered.  Electronic voting machines are scams, period.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS