Why Is It So Difficult to Record Votes Correctly?

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » November 5, 2004, 7:04 pm

I just read this article. Has anyone ever heard of quality control and rigorous testing methods? There is no excuse for the amount of errors we see in elections. Would this have affected the outcome of the election? I don't know but it certainly can help make a case for recounts in some areas.

Judge for yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/ ... index.html

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 5, 2004, 7:10 pm

it's... over...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 5, 2004, 7:14 pm

Akaran_D wrote:it's... over...

i mean the result may not have gone your way, but i think we'll have more elections in the future you know.

it might... i dont know...be a good idea to be amenable to making the process work as well as possible.

in fact, independent of one's party affiliation, i dont understand how any rational person can think there are not serious problems with the manner in which our voting occurs. In fact the Supreme Court alluded as much in Bush v. Gore 2000.

it isnt a Republican or Democratic issue to have elections work as smoothly as possible. I think we can all be glad this election wasnt marred by irregularities, but the potential for one to be marred by irregularities is far too large.

Mawafu · Post by **Mawafu** » November 5, 2004, 7:17 pm

No, it's not over...

These same machines will be used in future votes so this is an issue that should be taken care of now.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2004, 7:20 pm

Jeb, tear up them nigra ballots, boy!

noel · Post by **noel** » November 5, 2004, 7:29 pm

I'm fairly certain our country is over 200 years old, and it doesn't look like we'll be absolving the constitution any time soon. It stands to reason that we might want to continue to have elections in the future, so no, it's not over.

Given that Adelrune voted for Bush, it should have been pretty clear that this wasn't a partisan issue from the first post.

I think the people on this forum who are gloating about voting for Bush as though it somehow validates their existence are as stupid as the people who voted for Kerry who are threatening to leave the country for the next four years.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 5, 2004, 7:31 pm

....I didn't know Adel voted for Bush, my bad.
Knee jerk reaction.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » November 5, 2004, 7:53 pm

Yes, I voted for Bush. In fact, I have been a lifelong republican, even a member of the College Republicans and the California Republicans and have attended 1 State convention.

However, I believe in being fair and I believe in those that have a right to vote to be able to vote and have their vote mean something. And the issues with voting irregularity just piss me off.

Technology is supposed to help us. It seems in the recent past we have had more issues of voting technology biting us in the ass than actually doing its job.

Whatever system we use should be rigously tested and also tamper-resistant. I don't want to go so far as saying tamper proof as I think everything can be manipulated given the right amount of time and effort. I just want to see it be very difficult to get away with it by utilizing a system of checks and balances.

If these voting machines are failing and are reporting the wrong votes, remove them from service. And as much as I would dislike to see Kerry as President, if he actually won but we didn't know it because of faulty machines we are doing a greater disservice to our country.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 5, 2004, 7:54 pm

I'm all for improving the process. More efficiency is always a good thing.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 5, 2004, 8:15 pm

It will not get fixed for the same reason it has not in the last four years, it is not in the vested interest of either the Republicans or the Democrats to actually have the system work smoothy, because it allows them to use lawyers to obtain office.

Don't those of you who are anti Bush or Pro Bush kid yourselves, neither of your parties give a fuck about the citizens of this country

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 5, 2004, 8:27 pm

I think the KISS principle works best for elections.

A sheet of paper and a pencil. Write down your X next to the name of the person you wanna vote for.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 5, 2004, 8:39 pm

This is shitty work done by the pogrammers. I know as a programmer, if my code has flaws in it, I don't release the product. In fact, everything I write goes for weeks of testing to make sure nothing can interrupt it. Someone should pass on the words "due process" to these idiots.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 6, 2004, 1:55 am

Sounds to me like SoE's been doing the testing for this.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » November 6, 2004, 2:38 am

If you think about it, the margin that was won by was around 0.1%, with that small of a percentage, you could expect a margin of error around that area.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » November 6, 2004, 7:43 am

If you think about it, the margin that was won by was around 0.1%, with that small of a percentage, you could expect a margin of error around that area.

Maybe Im reading you wrong. But since I read some article about this, about something in Ohio?

Lets look at the real numbers, not numbers one may want to imagine. This wasn't even close to Florida in 2000, and wasn't even close to a auto recount if it fell within a margin of error.

2,796,147 Bush votes
2,659,664 Kerry votes
14,331 Badnarik votes
11,614 Peroutka votes

total votes=5,481,756

Bush%=51.008%
Kerry%=48.518%
%difference=2.49%
Bush/Kerry vote difference atm.=136,483

Even if was talking about national total to Bushes Total in Ohio: (2,796,147/116,000,000(est))*100=2.41%

Or ya meaning the entire vote count in the nation to the difference between Bush and kerry in Ohio? Cause thats the only margin I see that matches yours of .1:
(136,483/116,000,000)*100=.118% rounded down to .1.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » November 6, 2004, 1:02 pm

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:If you think about it, the margin that was won by was around 0.1%, with that small of a percentage, you could expect a margin of error around that area.

That's the thing.. there *shouldn't* be a margin of error at all.

Rivera Bladestrike · Post by **Rivera Bladestrike** » November 6, 2004, 1:11 pm

There shouldn't be but obviously we can clone cats but we can't add.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 6, 2004, 3:35 pm

I will miss all the potential that Terezza Heinz Kerry would have brought to the WHite House.

She would be the first fucking insane First Lady since Mary Lincoln.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » November 6, 2004, 3:44 pm

Wish there wasn't a margin of error either, but Ive never seen a perfect election and a perfect vote count on a mass scale. I agree we need to always keep trying to improve the voting system to make it as accurate as possible.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » November 6, 2004, 3:49 pm

Seebs wrote:I will miss all the potential that Terezza Heinz Kerry would have brought to the WHite House.

She would be the first fucking insane First Lady since Mary Lincoln.

Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton weren't both totally batshit insane?

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 7, 2004, 1:49 am

Nancy was getting horoscopes from the Inquirer and Hillary was strolling in the park with her lover before she blew his head off and started eating out Dee Dee Meyers.

Both as nutty as a Stuckey's Log, but not insane.

I think Terezzzza would be talking to plates and flashing dignitaries while eating her own eyelashes.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » November 7, 2004, 2:38 am

I think the KISS principle works best for elections.

A sheet of paper and a pencil. Write down your X next to the name of the person you wanna vote for.

This is quite literally what we do north of the 49th and although you guys are dealing with 10 times the population it makes me wonder, with the headaches you are experiencing, if it couldn't be part of a more fool-proof model. I am not claiming the electoral process is entirely flawless or, on the whole, better than what you guys are dealing with, however one thing I do see (call it my cultural bias) is a lack of central authority and standardization.

First of all a question: does a mistake anywhere on the ballot disqualify the entire thing? If this is the case, what about making the ballot into 3 (part 1 is the presidential ballot, part 2 is the congressional ballot, part 3 can be the propositional ballot) to ensure that votes are not being ruled ineligible by possible transgressions on one part would be irrelevant to the other parts.

Up here we usually only vote on one candidate during Federal or Provincial elections, thus there isn't a lot of risk that the "extras" will screw up the ballot and disqualify it, as there are literally no extras. (Personally the fact that you guys do vote on the various propositions is something I like in your process, in that it is a way of directly addressing some issues that I feel we lack)

I know this is something many of you guys would never consider but what about a federal government standard for the ballots as well? Toss the 30 different methods and choose one way to vote. I do see problems here as your states hate giving up anything that resembles a threat to their autonomy, but why should the process be different in New Jersey, Michigan, South Dakota or Florida for Federal elections, as it currently appears to us outsiders?

The other thing is voter registration, particularly the listing of party affiliation on the forms (from what I am told, to allow participation in the primaries of your respective party). IMO this is ASKING for partisan interference. Again up here, its a bit different, but to take part in the leadership selection process of a party you must purchase a party membership. You must use this membership to take part in the process to select your candidate. Elections Canada (our body overseeing the elections) has no dealing with party affiliations: it deals only with the issue of are you or are you not elligible to vote and with non-partisan election issues.