>>My conclusion is that if more people would take responsibility for voting accurately, then your point would be moot.
>
>But if one type of machinery habitually produces more ballots with problems than other types, isn't it reasonable to say that at least part of the problem is related to the machinery?
>

I heard an interesting Canadian Broadcast article last night - an interview with Prof. of Pyschology Robert St. Clair (St. Clare? Sinclair?) described a double-blind research experiment he performed twice (once w/students, again with random public) contrasting a linear ballot and a butterfly ballot. The latter proved problematic for in both experiments. Specifically, people had problems with the butterfly ballot when indicating a selection other than the first option listed. (I think this was "As It Happens" but I couldn't fine a reference at their web-site.)

I was not an issue of how responsible these people were. And when considering machinery, I suspect most here can can readily recognize (when not politisizing) that in a whole system - the instructions, the sample ballots published in the media, the previous method that people may have become accustomed to, the UI, the input device(s), the tabulation hardware - all parts are factors. It is disingenious to charachterize the accuracy issue as 'people vs. machine'.

I'm gonna call tech support right now because em=y my keybroad iss snot keyuing llike itt shuould - maybee they'oooll justs tellllll me thatt thee machinggggg does'tttt lieee aaaddnn that theyy havee anne 8 yeaaar oldd that coulldd do thiis....andd thaaaaaaaaat theyvv donee theere job adnn todaye iss payydayy ssso leetz go hommmmme ear-ly-