| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to Dominion Voting Systems has happened before. In 2019, during a small-scale test in Georgia, a software glitch in the electronic poll books caused delays in most of the six counties where the test took place [100891].
(b) Similar incidents related to ballot-marking systems have occurred in other states as well. For example, in Pennsylvania, multiple counties, including Philadelphia, experienced problems with the ExpressVote XL machines manufactured by Election Systems & Software during the 2019 off-year elections. Issues included faulty results, glitchy touch screens, and performance issues in over 40% of locations [100891]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in Georgia's voting system can be attributed to design factors introduced during the system development and rollout phases. The new voting system was criticized for being too convoluted, expensive, and insecure, with warnings about its perils being raised by good-government groups, election-security experts, and a federal judge [100891]. The system was described as a "Rube Goldberg contraption with way more components than are needed," indicating issues with the complexity of the design [100891]. Additionally, the system's design complexity led to problems such as machines requiring too much power for aging polling locations, workers struggling with setup, and delays caused by a software glitch in the electronic poll books during a small-scale test in 2019 [100891].
(b) The software failure incident in Georgia's voting system can also be attributed to operational factors introduced during the system's operation. Poll workers faced challenges with activating voter verification cards, freezing software, and user errors with the electronic poll books [100891]. Issues with the operation of the system were evident as workers were still being trained just days before the election, and some polling places did not receive the machines until the morning of the election, leading to delays and technical difficulties during the voting process [100891]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident in Georgia's voting system can be attributed to factors within the system. The incident was caused by a cascade of problems within the new voting system, including issues with the new voting machines, electronic poll books, and voter verification cards [100891]. The problems included software glitches in the electronic poll books, freezing software, user errors, difficulties activating voter verification cards, and a complex voting process involving multiple digital devices [100891]. Additionally, the incident involved issues with training, setup, and technical support for the new system, indicating internal challenges within the system itself [100891]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in Georgia's primary election was attributed to non-human actions such as a cascade of problems causing block-long lines, machines requiring too much power for aging polling locations, software glitches in the electronic poll books, freezing software, and user errors in the electronic poll books [100891].
(b) On the other hand, human actions also played a role in the failure, as there were issues with poor preparation at the county level, inadequate training of poll workers, difficulties in activating voter verification cards, and problems with setup due to workers being trained just days before the election [100891]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in Georgia's election system was attributed to hardware issues as well. The new voting machines required too much extra power for aging polling locations, causing fuses to blow and machines not to power on in some cases. Workers who were still being trained just days before the election struggled with setup, and some polling places did not even receive the machines until the morning of the election [100891].
(b) Additionally, the software failure incident in Georgia's election system was also linked to software issues. During a small-scale test in 2019, a software glitch in the electronic poll books caused delays in most of the six counties where the test took place. The new system was described as "way too complex" and a "Rube Goldberg contraption with way more components than are needed" by experts, indicating software complexity as a contributing factor to the failure [100891]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in Georgia related to the voting system can be categorized as non-malicious. The incident was primarily attributed to a cascade of problems caused by a combination of factors such as the complexity of the new voting system, inadequate training of poll workers, difficulties in activating voter verification cards, freezing software in electronic poll books, and a software glitch in the electronic poll books [100891].
(b) The incident was not reported to be malicious in nature, but rather a result of various issues stemming from the complexity of the new voting system and challenges in its implementation and operation. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident in Georgia's election system can be attributed to poor decisions made in the procurement and implementation process. The decision to purchase the new high-tech voting system was criticized by good-government groups, election-security experts, and a federal judge as being too convoluted, expensive, and insecure [100891]. The system was described as a "Rube Goldberg contraption with way more components than are needed" by an expert [100891]. Additionally, warnings about potential problems with the system were raised after a small-scale test in 2019 revealed a software glitch in the electronic poll books, causing delays [100891]. The decision-making process was influenced by heavy lobbying from vendors, including Dominion Voting Systems, which ultimately won the bid despite concerns raised by various groups [100891]. The complexity of the new system, lack of proper training for poll workers, and issues with equipment activation all point to poor decisions made in the adoption of the voting technology.
(b) The software failure incident in Georgia's election system also involved accidental decisions or unintended consequences that contributed to the failure. For example, the new voting machines required too much power for some polling locations, causing fuses to blow and machines not to power on [100891]. Workers who were still being trained just days before the election struggled with setup, and some polling places did not even receive the machines until the morning of the election [100891]. These issues indicate a lack of proper preparation and accidental decisions that led to the failure of the voting system. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in Georgia's primary election was attributed to various factors that could be categorized under development incompetence. The new high-tech voting system was criticized for being too convoluted, too expensive, and too big, as well as being insecure [100891]. The system's complexity led to a cascade of problems, including block-long lines, equipment delivery delays, struggles with system activation, and running out of provisional ballots. Issues such as blowing fuses due to excessive power requirements, lack of proper training for poll workers, and difficulties with setup were also reported. Moreover, a software glitch in the electronic poll books during a small-scale test in 2019 caused delays, indicating a lack of thorough testing and quality assurance [100891].
(b) The software failure incident in Georgia's primary election also had elements of accidental factors contributing to the failure. Problems with the new voting system included freezing software in electronic poll books, user errors, and difficulties activating voter verification cards [100891]. These issues were not necessarily intentional but rather arose from the complexity of the system and the challenges faced during the rollout process. Additionally, the article mentions that the errors in Northhampton County's election results were attributed to human error in formatting the ballot and improper configuration of machines at the factory, indicating accidental factors playing a role in the failure [100891]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Georgia elections voting system can be categorized as a temporary failure. The incident was caused by a cascade of problems, including issues with new equipment, hasty training, a crush of tasks, and a perfect storm of factors such as the complexity of the voting system, lack of training, and difficulties in setup [100891]. These contributing factors introduced by certain circumstances led to the temporary failure during the primary elections in Georgia. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, byzantine, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in Georgia's voting system involved crashes where the voting machines failed to work as intended, requiring technicians to fix them. For example, at Cross Keys High School, the voting machines failed to boot up, and poll workers had to call in a technician to address the issue [100891].
(b) omission: The software failure incident also involved omissions where the new machines omitted to perform their intended functions, leading to delays and problems during the election. For instance, in some polling places, the new machines required too much power for aging locations, blowing fuses and not powering on, while in others, workers who were still being trained struggled with setup [100891].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident was also a significant issue. The incident involved the system performing its intended functions, but either too late or too early, causing disruptions during the election process. For example, some polling places never received the machines until the morning of the election, leading to delays and chaos [100891].
(d) value: The software failure incident included failures where the system performed its intended functions incorrectly. This was evident in difficulties activating voter verification cards, which are inserted into the machines to start voting. Many problems were related to issues with the activation of these cards [100891].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident exhibited characteristics of a byzantine failure, where the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The incident involved a cascade of problems, freezing software, user errors, and a series of interlocking digital devices that experts described as dizzying in complexity, leading to widespread issues during the election [100891].
(f) other: The software failure incident also involved other behaviors not covered by the specific options listed. This includes problems such as the system being too convoluted, too expensive, and too big, as well as difficulties with training, setup, and the overall complexity of the voting system. The incident was described as a "perfect storm" of new equipment, hasty training, and a crush of tasks associated with the election process [100891]. |