Slashdot Mirror
Monitoring the U.S. Elections Online?
shahman wonders: "I'll be on the road all day this election day, so the only access I'll have is through my PDA/Phone. I was wondering if any Slashdot readers know of WAP-enabled services or low-bandwidth sites that are providing (semi) real-time election coverage?" Nobbin has a similar, but less bandwidth-restrictive question: "I was wondering where I could find live results for the coming U.S. election, online. I live in Australia so I can't get them through watching CNN and so forth. I'm looking for something similar to the Austalian Electoral Commission's virtual tally room. So far, Google hasn't turned up much."
US election data doesn't compress into simple numbers very easily. I'd recommend those traveling use either a car-mounted or handheld radio... using the radio in AM mode would be highly recommended in most areas because news format stations are typically found there, although there are a few FM news/talk stations in existance.
First off. Expect to know nothing useful until polls close. It's US media tradition not to release exit poll data or make winner projections until the polls in any given state are closed under the theory that early victory news might discurage turnout and affect the outcome. Therefore, don't bother looking for results during the daytime. Nobody's going to be projecting a winner until well into primetime. The only major site that might break this tradition is The Drudge Report, but its unknown what kind of info Drudge will get.
Then there's the complexity of the Electoral College system. Really, there isn't one election happening tomorrow, there's fifty state elections plus one more for D.C. over which slate of electors to send forward. Having a running total of the national popular vote is not useful data because that's data that doesn't lead to anything.
Further complexing things is that there's also hundreds of Congressional races tomorrow because every seat in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate come up for re-election as they do every two years. The control of the majority of both of those bodies will be in play tomorrow as well. And let's not forget that many states have ballot question issues and local offices in play as well.
So... when you add it all up there's over 500 seperate races of national importance to consider tomorrow. No small text screen can do it justice... use radio and TV and let them explain it one by one. Sit back, and relax... the pundits will be on all night because there's going to be a lot for them to talk about.
This same technique of delayed gratification has served me well for lots of things.
The resultes don't change by knowing them sooner.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Why does real time monitoring matter, I mean look at the last presidential election. I think all this polling and up to the second exit polls are only adding to the problem. In the grand scheme(sp?) does it affect you if you know today or three days from now who the president will be. Look at the days before internet before tv, before radio, before wire service when information took days to get across country. The world still worked. Life will go on. Besides I doubt there will be a conclusive answer for weeks.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
I personally wish I could just crawl into a cave and leaving a wake-up call for inaguration day. I can't IMAGINE wanting to keep up with the minute-by-minute details of what'll doubtless be only the beginning of a weeks-long debacle. Put it another way - do you really need to go out of your way to get "information" of questionable relevance a few seconds before you would anyway? It's the Presidential election, you'd have to be pretty careful NOT to find out about anything really significant.
Relax. Get a book-on-tape of something you've always wanted to read for your journey. Use the time wisely instead of suckling at the mass-media tit because they've told you that you MUST be INFORMED every MINUTE of the DAY, by US!
Perfectly Normal Industries
It's the need for insta-polls and immediate results and such on the part of the voting populace that, in part, caused the mess of the 2000 election. Everyone wanted to know NOW who won each state, so the networks call elections the instant the polls close. Of course, they forgot that some of Floria's polls close later. Did that affect the turnout in those areas? Maybe. But it also meant that suddenly everyone ASSUMED Gore carried Florida.
Then when Fox News decided to call Florida for Bush instead, just to be biased about it, everyone suddenly reversed it and called the election for Bush, and with it the national results. So everyone ASSUMED that Bush was President-Elect.
Then the recount mess began, and it APPEARED that Gore had lost but was whining about it. In fact, THE ELECTION WAS NOT OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED YET. But because people wanted a reality TV show instead of real news, and the networks of course gave it to them, public perception was screwed to hell. That's what caused the mess in 2000, more than anything else.
You'll find out who won tomorrow morning. Or more likely, you'll find out which states are being contested due to election fraud tomorrow morning. Don't encourage the 3 ring circus.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
I don't think the reporters being honest matters when the ballot counters aren't.
"What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos"
The user is "admin" and the password is "password". Just set the winner by state and percentage. There are a few bugs that make things unpredictable, however. Now that you know, I'm going to have to kill you.
I only wish that I was joking. Try this on for size:
The central servers are installed on unpatched, open Windows computers and use RAS (Remote Access Server) to connect to the voting machines through telephone lines. Since RAS is not adequately protected, anyone in the world, even terrorists, who can figure out the server's phone number can change vote totals without being detected by observers. The passwords in many locations are easily guessed, and the access phone numbers can be learned through social engineering or war dialing.
Unpatched Winblows, RAS, modems? Un-#######-believable!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Most all vote returns used to be processed with the night / next day after the Presidential election.
... but it seems various parts of American (U.S.) society are going backwords; how is it that many "third world" countries, some with populations rivaling that of the U.S., can conduct an election on ONE day (as opposed to the 30 days some Americans have; totally unnecessary - whatever happen to voting being a civic duty in which one dedicated part of their day to perform, but I digress) and have most, if not all, votes counted within a day or two. For example, the recent election in Afganistan (with a population of about 28 million) didn't take weeks to count despite how primative the country is - how did they do it so fast? Well, the same way many other countries do ... simple ballots, and a lot of people counting (or machines for scan countable ballots) - simple, fast, and verifiable.
... yep, a whole whopping night ... and they thought that was slow. In 2004, it will likely take much, much longer to determine who the President is than it did in 1948 or maybe even longer than in 1888!
Now it takes weeks? Welcome to the 19th century - though I think by the tail end of that century (late 1800s), votes were counted relatively quickly compared to how long votes in 2004 will likely take to count.
Digressing a bit here
Voting in the U.S. has degenerated into something that even a decade or so ago was unimaginable to most folks - vote monitors from other countries watching our elections, allowing people to vote over many weeks instead of one day, numerous flawed/corrupt voting systems, and vote counting that take weeks, and possibly longer...
This is progress? And to think many older people still speak of the Dewey / Truman election and how long it took to get results
Ron Bennett
Uhh...Fox News is owned by an Aussie, Rupert Murdoch. So don't generalize and label Americans as stupid just as I'm not generalizing and labelling all Australians as conservative propagandists.
Ugh, your site gives me a headache. I'm sorry, I really wanted to read the article, but the ugly font, white text on black, and dark blue links on top of black that highlight with puke flourescent green... I just couldnt handle it after about 30 seconds :(
:P
Its too bad because I was interested in what you had to say
Joseph?
Actually there's this assumption that the US news tends to be a lot worse than the rest of the world's; I mean -- it's bad, but it's mostly just notable because it's so exported.
I mean -- Fox News, as bad as it is -- is still quite a step up from Germany's most popular newspaper, Bild Zeitung ("Picture Times"), or how about England's most read paper, The Sun ?
It's easy to look at Fox from inside the US and think, "Wow, this is terrible..." and it is, but that's not a unique phenomenon to the US and just as the UK tends to export The Guardian, the BBC, the Economist -- or Germany the Frankfurter Algemeine, Speigel or Die Zeit the US tends to export CNN, Newsweek, the New York Times, the New Yorker and so on. That's not to say that any of those are perfect, but they're markedly better.
In short, if you are making an informed decision on the ballot, by all means vote away. If not, please leave democracy in the hands of those who are competent to vote. Thank you.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
People have been getting slammed recently for mentioning there are very valid reasons not to vote. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. The right to bear arms is supposed to come with the responsibility to take up those arms to defend this country against attack. The right of free speach adds the responsibility to defend the right to speak words that offend you. Freedom of religion makes us responsible to defend all against persecution as well as using our religion to strengthen and comfort the poor, weak, and downtrodden. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to educate yourselves. Quite frankly some people ignore this responsibility to the point they really should forfeit their right to vote.
If you blindly believe everything EITHER candidate says, stay home today.
If you think CNN is the word from on high and Fox is the devil, or the other way around, please stay home.
If you believe either candidate is A) planning on using the draft or B) unwilling to use the draft if they have to, stay home today.
If you think Kerry plans on only taxing the rich, or Bush plans on only taxing the poor, stay home today.
If you believe Kerry that the top 20% paying 67% of the governments tax revenue constitutes "the middle class paying the highest burden", please stay home today.
If you believe Bush that Kerry voting against tax breaks is the same as Kerry voting for raising taxes, please stay home today.
If you think Bush is right in making a political issue of a religious commitment to marriage, for no other reason than it's wrong for gays to get married, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote for Kerry because Edwards is young and Cheney is old, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote democrat because they somehow care about your ethnic group without any specific plans on what they will do to help you personally, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote republican because they somehow care about your ethnic group without any specific plans on what they will do to help you personally, please stay home today.
If you think the "major tax break" of not having to pay FICA on overseas workers is the reason that companies save millions of dollars a year paying Achmed 12k a year over paying John 60k a year, please stay home today.
Finally, if you think T. H. Kerry is an attractive women, please gouge your eyes out.
Never confuse volume with power.