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.'"

21 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. the funny thing by f1055man · · Score: 5, Interesting

    about the article is that his wife was the one who told him he got zero votes. She asked him if he had voted for himself to make sure it was wrong....err, someone's going to be sleeping on the couch.

    1. Re:the funny thing by casings · · Score: 5, Funny

      women voting?!?!

      thats preposterous!

  2. What happened to his wife's vote? by Nick+Gisburne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So he voted for himself, but his wife went to check the vote for him. Okay, so who did his WIFE vote for?!

    --
    Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. Re:In one word... by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Funny

    no, I believe the word is:

    PWNED!

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  8. Cthulhu for California Governor by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wrote in "Cthulhu" for Governor and the optical scan machine was jammed so
    the poll worker--some asian dude--told me to put the ballot in the lockbox
    slot. I had trouble getting it in because one of the pages was bent so the
    guy grabbed the ballot and moved them. On top was my write-in: CTHULHU
    in big black letters. He paused. Looked at it, looked at me. Swallowed. And
    I said "Thank you" and left.

    "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."

  9. Re:Please note by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a trade secret, you can't look inside the voting machines.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  10. 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.
  11. Re:Please note by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's not meant to be funny. It's true. The software and insides of the machine are considered trade secrets, and nobody can look at either.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  12. The system works fine by Subm · · Score: 5, Funny

    The system works fine. I voted for the other guy 18 times and each time the machines worked perfectly.

    And the count came out correct. I don't see the problem.

  13. Re:Please note by slughead · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    NO freakin kidding.

    We had the same thing happen in Arizona a while ago--the guy voted for himself, and his wife voted for him too.

    Final count: Zero.

    We don't even have electronic voting here.

    I should point out that nothing came of it, either.

  14. Re:Why would you need a voting machine for 80 vote by ozzee · · Score: 5, Informative
    The U.S. voting system does not meet international mandated guidelines for a "democratic" election yet we say we are the "greatest democracy on earth", go figure ....

    Until there is a viable independantly managed standard, it's impossible for citizens to truly trust the outcome of elections. Given that fellow citizens have died to save our democracy, anything less that the utmost trust in our voting system is to show fallen the utmost disrespect.

    Other countries have very strict voting rules. If the shennanigans on the HBO special were to have happened in any other true democracy, they would have been rounded up in election fraud arrests the next day. It's that serious.

  15. Re:Why would you need a voting machine for 80 vote by ozzee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... Mandated by the USA !

    see http://www.afsa.org/fsj/feb01/carter01.cfm

    We mandate the democratic election standards through aid funding to needy countries, yet we don't meet the same standard ourselves.

    Go figure.

  16. 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
    1. Re:You're both wrong... by feepness · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

      Even more scary... why is a town of 80 using electronic voting at all? Shouldn't they get a gas station first?

    2. Re:You're both wrong... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Even more scary... why is a town of 80 using electronic voting
      > at all? Shouldn't they get a gas station first?

      We have cleanest prostitutes in region.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:You're both wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually, if errors are random, the more votes involved, the lower the expected error. Statistical variance.

      If the errors are random then it doesn't matter how many votes there are, the expected error is the same. Statistical variance affects the actual error.

  17. Re:Please note by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, really, it's not funny. Stop modding it funny.

    If I said "the sun is bright" would that be modded as funny?