<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Timely Article on Voting Machines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/10/29/a-timely-article-on-voting-machines/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/10/29/a-timely-article-on-voting-machines/</link>
	<description>Not blaming the user since 2007!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 12:27:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Sharek</title>
		<link>http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/10/29/a-timely-article-on-voting-machines/comment-page-1/#comment-392</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Sharek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=440#comment-392</guid>
		<description>One problem I remember reading about eVoting machines is that voting errors are factored into the design of the system. Think of it as a tolerance factor. Specifically, developers know that votes will be dropped, and they assume that those dropped votes at  an error rate of say, 4%, are evenly distributed across all candidates. Their rationale is that the even distribution will not really affect the outcome of the race - unless it is a very close race. The problem with that kind of developer apathy is that not everyone uses the same machine across the country so there is no even distribution of errors. Oh and wasn&#039;t last race decided on about 500 votes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One problem I remember reading about eVoting machines is that voting errors are factored into the design of the system. Think of it as a tolerance factor. Specifically, developers know that votes will be dropped, and they assume that those dropped votes at  an error rate of say, 4%, are evenly distributed across all candidates. Their rationale is that the even distribution will not really affect the outcome of the race &#8211; unless it is a very close race. The problem with that kind of developer apathy is that not everyone uses the same machine across the country so there is no even distribution of errors. Oh and wasn&#8217;t last race decided on about 500 votes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Election Factors &#171; Infinite User: a human factors and technology weblog</title>
		<link>http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/10/29/a-timely-article-on-voting-machines/comment-page-1/#comment-388</link>
		<dc:creator>Election Factors &#171; Infinite User: a human factors and technology weblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:41:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=440#comment-388</guid>
		<description>[...] an article on who to blame for electronic voting machine irregularities, as well as a recent tale of warning from elections in Finland.Â  Also, if you got a headache from watching any of those debates on TV [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] an article on who to blame for electronic voting machine irregularities, as well as a recent tale of warning from elections in Finland.Â  Also, if you got a headache from watching any of those debates on TV [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

