Slashdot Mirror


Man's Vote for Himself Missing In E-Vote Count

Catbeller writes "The AP is reporting that Randy Wooten, mayoral candidate for Waldenburg Arkansas (a town of eighty people) discovered that the electronic voting system hadn't registered the one vote he knew had been cast for him ... because he cast it himself. The Machine gave him zero votes. That would be an error rate of 3%, counting the actual votes cast — 18 and 18 for a total of 36." From the article: "Poinsett County Election Commissioner Junaway Payne said the issue had been discussed but no action taken yet. 'It's our understanding from talking with the secretary of state's office that a court order would have to be obtained in order to open the machine and check the totals,' Payne said. 'The votes were cast on an electronic voting machine, but paper ballots were available.'"

6 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Please note by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if it changed the fucking outcome! The point is that VOTES WERE NOT COUNTED!

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  2. Re:Please note by LuckyLefty01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if it was abject fraud or not. Either way it needs to be determined why his vote wasn't counted, and then the issue needs to be fixed. Just because it's not intentional doesn't mean it's okay for votes to go AWOL.

  3. Why would you need a voting machine for 80 votes? by ozzee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but who in their right mind would blow money on a voting machine for 80 votes.

    Our election officials have gone mad !

    I think I can tally 80 votes in less than 15 minutes so it's not as if "time to tally" is at issue.

    Accuracy is certainly not at issue either.

    I think the US must stop having elections driven by locals and have a federally mandated independant voting "authority" that answers only to the judicial branch. Politicians must not have any say in the way it is run and the legal standards must be very stringently applied.

    The HBO special really did shock me more than I expected it to. Unless we have utmost confidence in our voting system, we will alienate our society.

    Oh, while we are at it, we should also go to a preference system as this two party system just means can never hit your own party where it counts without voting for the dark side.

  4. Re:Please note by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Had his vote, and the votes he assumes had been cast for him (because his friends said they did), he still wouldn't have received enough votes to win the election. Further, it's not clear he would have received even enough votes to change the *outcome* of the election (there will be a runoff due to two other candidates having won the same vote count).

    As others have pointed out, who cares that he wouldn't have won? The votes should be accurate purely out of principle. Even if the leading candidate is winning with 99% of the votes and the losing candidate is 1 vote off, we must know what happened to that one vote so that the system can be improved.

    However, in this case I think those missing votes certainly did change the outcome. The other two candidates got 18 votes each. If there are several votes missing for Wooten, which candidate got the benefit of those misplaced votes? This results in a runoff election on November 28th instead of declaring a clear winner already.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  5. Re:You do not know that. by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Which brings up two fundamental questions all election officials must ask:
    1) Did this error change the outcome of a race? That is the first consideration, because if it didn't then the severity of the error is vastly reduced.
    2) If this error changed the outcome of a race, was it intentional? That is, was the outcome of democracy subverted, and done so with fraudulent intent?

    I would have to say that the first question you really ought to be asking is:

    1) What caused this error, and could the problem be systemic?

    Until you have answered that question adequately then you can't really say whether the error changed the outcome of the race. Perhaps it was a simple screw-up that just meant this single vote didn't get counted, but perhaps it was a systemic error that means that none of the counts are valid. Dismissing this until the nature of the error has been adequately determined is remarkably premature. It probably is nothing of consequence, but there is every reason to go to the trouble of finding out that that is the case.
  6. You're both wrong... by JamesTRexx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, the word here is scary.
    If things go wrong with just 36 votes in a town of 80 people, what do you think this means for an entire country voting electronically?

    --
    home