Kristus@Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:03 pm :
BNA!@Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:25 pm : You forgot option #3: retarded machines!
zeh@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:06 am : Apparently (from reading several similar complaints) it's more like the touchscreen is not calibrated on certain machines, so it's not just the users' fault.
pbmax@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:20 am : Karl Rove is behind this.
Burrito@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:00 am : Quote:
"People make mistakes more than machines," said Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright.
What an educated statement! Maybe let machines vote then?
iceheart@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:25 am : It is said that you should never attribute to malice, that which can be attributed to incompetence
.
Use3d@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:14 am : zeh wrote:
Apparently (from reading several similar complaints) it's more like the touchscreen is not calibrated on certain machines, so it's not just the users' fault.
What's more shocking is why after the last two elections are these pieces of crap still in service? You would think having a voting machine that actually works would be a top priority.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:27 am : What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
The Happy Friar@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:57 am : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
what's the rush to upgrade a pentium 3 to a quad fore core 2?
These machines are faster when you've got a lot of voters. In my town we've, at most, had ~1000 people vote @ one time. The old machines work just fine for that: fast to count, in working order, etc. The people who work on the machines can't rig them because they don't know exactly where each candidate will be listed in the booth.
same thing happens with non-digital machines, just nobody notices because there's no immediate notification. BUT, (at least near me), if you have a question about the machine, WITH THE CURTAIN OPEN someone on the vote committee can show you how things work. Saying it didn't work & NOT asking for help BEFORE you push the button is you're own fault.
imho, if they're going with digital vote counting then all the electoral college crap should be dropped & all votes counted.
Kristus@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:18 am : In Sweden we vote by taking one paper for the party we vote for and putting it in an envelope and then into the slot. So, unless there's actual fraud at work. Then there'll be no mishapps with teh machinez.
But of course, we're only 9 million people. Not quite the same amount of paper going around there.
BNA!@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:20 am : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
Gives you a statistical average 3% of miscounted votes to maneuver around. The last Bush election was won by less than 3% difference.
The Happy Friar@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:55 pm : Kristus wrote:
In Sweden we vote by taking one paper for the party we vote for and putting it in an envelope and then into the slot. So, unless there's actual fraud at work. Then there'll be no mishapps with teh machinez.
do you have people complain they weren't explain how the pen/pencil works?
Kamikazee@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:42 pm : Electronic voting around here happens with a camera "pen": bringing it close to the screen moves an on-screen cursor and tapping the screen then "clicks" on the selection.
The voting process works mostly wizard like: pick your choice first in a radiobox / checkbox like manner, then tap "Next".
Your vote is registered on a magnetic card which you trade for your ID card. You can verify your vote by re-inserting the card into the machine.
When you go back to pick up your ID card, your vote is read out with a card reader. This is probably about the only place you can rig the system except from messing with the whole voting sofware on the computers (which is a risk in any setup).
In the end, it all boils down to trust: there are so many chain links in the voting process where someone could mess with it, but we can only hope that there is always someone doing "the right thing" to keep it working correctly.
zeh@Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:39 pm : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
Cheaper *to manage*, much faster to count, harder to cause trouble (you can't "steal the votes" during transportation, replace ballots, doesn't depend on human counting, etc).
Here in Brazil we usually took around one week to count the vote on federal elections. Now by the end of the election day you already have 90% counted. But of course, we have a system that works, so it makes a difference.
Of course going electronic needs a series of security countermeasures too (redundant systems, opening the source of the voting software, random machine result checking by officials), but all in all it's just way more controllable this way.
KC Clark@Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:37 am : Do an internet search on "votescam" and see what you get.
asmodeus@Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:15 am : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
To prevent future "hanging chad" arguments, to give Richard Stallman and other GNU zealots something more to complain about, and to allow the eventual take over of the planet by skynet in a more efficient manner.
Kristus@Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:55 pm : The Happy Friar wrote:
do you have people complain they weren't explain how the pen/pencil works?
We don't use that kind of modern technology. :p Just the paper. Actually, you will have a list of names on the paper that will allow you to vote on specific party members to take seats in the respective branches.
Kristus@Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:03 pm :
BNA!@Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:25 pm : You forgot option #3: retarded machines!
zeh@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:06 am : Apparently (from reading several similar complaints) it's more like the touchscreen is not calibrated on certain machines, so it's not just the users' fault.
pbmax@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:20 am : Karl Rove is behind this.
Burrito@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:00 am : Quote:
"People make mistakes more than machines," said Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright.
What an educated statement! Maybe let machines vote then?
iceheart@Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:25 am : It is said that you should never attribute to malice, that which can be attributed to incompetence
.
Use3d@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:14 am : zeh wrote:
Apparently (from reading several similar complaints) it's more like the touchscreen is not calibrated on certain machines, so it's not just the users' fault.
What's more shocking is why after the last two elections are these pieces of crap still in service? You would think having a voting machine that actually works would be a top priority.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:27 am : What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
The Happy Friar@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:57 am : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
what's the rush to upgrade a pentium 3 to a quad fore core 2?
These machines are faster when you've got a lot of voters. In my town we've, at most, had ~1000 people vote @ one time. The old machines work just fine for that: fast to count, in working order, etc. The people who work on the machines can't rig them because they don't know exactly where each candidate will be listed in the booth.
same thing happens with non-digital machines, just nobody notices because there's no immediate notification. BUT, (at least near me), if you have a question about the machine, WITH THE CURTAIN OPEN someone on the vote committee can show you how things work. Saying it didn't work & NOT asking for help BEFORE you push the button is you're own fault.
imho, if they're going with digital vote counting then all the electoral college crap should be dropped & all votes counted.
Kristus@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:18 am : In Sweden we vote by taking one paper for the party we vote for and putting it in an envelope and then into the slot. So, unless there's actual fraud at work. Then there'll be no mishapps with teh machinez.
But of course, we're only 9 million people. Not quite the same amount of paper going around there.
BNA!@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:20 am : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
Gives you a statistical average 3% of miscounted votes to maneuver around. The last Bush election was won by less than 3% difference.
The Happy Friar@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:55 pm : Kristus wrote:
In Sweden we vote by taking one paper for the party we vote for and putting it in an envelope and then into the slot. So, unless there's actual fraud at work. Then there'll be no mishapps with teh machinez.
do you have people complain they weren't explain how the pen/pencil works?
Kamikazee@Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:42 pm : Electronic voting around here happens with a camera "pen": bringing it close to the screen moves an on-screen cursor and tapping the screen then "clicks" on the selection.
The voting process works mostly wizard like: pick your choice first in a radiobox / checkbox like manner, then tap "Next".
Your vote is registered on a magnetic card which you trade for your ID card. You can verify your vote by re-inserting the card into the machine.
When you go back to pick up your ID card, your vote is read out with a card reader. This is probably about the only place you can rig the system except from messing with the whole voting sofware on the computers (which is a risk in any setup).
In the end, it all boils down to trust: there are so many chain links in the voting process where someone could mess with it, but we can only hope that there is always someone doing "the right thing" to keep it working correctly.
zeh@Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:39 pm : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
Cheaper *to manage*, much faster to count, harder to cause trouble (you can't "steal the votes" during transportation, replace ballots, doesn't depend on human counting, etc).
Here in Brazil we usually took around one week to count the vote on federal elections. Now by the end of the election day you already have 90% counted. But of course, we have a system that works, so it makes a difference.
Of course going electronic needs a series of security countermeasures too (redundant systems, opening the source of the voting software, random machine result checking by officials), but all in all it's just way more controllable this way.
KC Clark@Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:37 am : Do an internet search on "votescam" and see what you get.
asmodeus@Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:15 am : rich_is_bored wrote:
What's the rush to switch to electronic voting systems anyway? Saving paper?
To prevent future "hanging chad" arguments, to give Richard Stallman and other GNU zealots something more to complain about, and to allow the eventual take over of the planet by skynet in a more efficient manner.
Kristus@Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:55 pm : The Happy Friar wrote:
do you have people complain they weren't explain how the pen/pencil works?
We don't use that kind of modern technology. :p Just the paper. Actually, you will have a list of names on the paper that will allow you to vote on specific party members to take seats in the respective branches.