When Vote Counting Goes Bad

ZipK writes "Television singing competition The Voice disclosed on Wednesday 'inconsistencies' with the tallying of on-line and SMS-based voting. Although host Carson Daly claimed the show wanted to be 'completely upfront,' the explanation from their third-party vote counter, Telescope, was anything but transparent. In particular, Telescope claims that disregarding all on-line and SMS-based voting for the two nights in question left no impact on the final results, but they haven't provided any detail of the 'inconsistency' or their ability to predict a complete lack of impact. Sure, it's only The Voice; but tomorrow it could be American Idol, and by next month, America's Got Talent."

Comments

News for nerds

[Ironchew]

Sure, it's only The Voice; but tomorrow it could be American Idol, and by next month, America's Got Talent."

And nothing of value was lost?

Re:News for nerds

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Thank you. I came to post exactly this.
Without the question mark.

Re:News for nerds

[gstoddart]

Well, admittedly, I don't care about the reality shows.

But since there are laws about how you have to handle contests and the like, they need to really be able to prove that ignoring those votes had no effect on the outcome, or they could open themselves up for lawsuits.

Basically they'd have to show that the votes they ignored occurred in exactly the same distributions as the other voting methods.

And, since there's potentially a cost with voting, I have no idea if that even further mires things in.

I think they really do need to be able to explain this, and demonstrate that it didn't affect any outcomes. And if you've got several million people watching and voting, if they suddenly find out their voting is being ignored, will they keep watching?

Re:News for nerds

[Zephyn]

And that, boys and girls, is how CowboyNeal wound up with a recording contract. The end.

Re:News for nerds

[vux984]

Well, admittedly, I don't care about the reality shows.

"admittedly" you don't care? I'd not just admit it, I'd proudly proclaim that they are worthless trash and a complete waste of time that just leaves you dumber for watching them. :)

But since there are laws about how you have to handle contests and the like...

If they were legitimate contests they might actually be more watchable. But if you read the fine print...

Half the time there's stuff that often amounts to the equivalent of "The producers reserve the right to override viewer votes whenever they want, because they're more interested in finding conflict and drama than talent."

Reality shows are a farce.

Half the time there's stuff about scenes being "re-enacted" based on something actually happened.

Participant release forms often include terms to consent to having personal, embarrassing, information disclosed. That information may be factual or fictionalized. ... ie; if the producers want to give you an embarrassing and untrue "backstory" about you, they can and will.

There was a recent incident where an Obama speech pre-empted a few reality shows so there was a disclaimer that "although the show was not broadcast in its entirety in some markets, it has not affected the result."

Yeah. That's credible. A whole state missed 20 minutes of the show; but that didn't affect anything.

I presume that's because voters don't really matter anyway and we just pull numbers out of our ass anyway.

nt

[shentino]

The sad news is that people are probably going to rage more about this than they would for REAL politics that choose who gets into office.

Re:nt

[dkleinsc]

Network television is one of the best means of social control invented so far, second only to religion. Think about how many people really care about who wins American Idol, and think about how many people really care about who is elected to their local government. Who the American Idol winner is has no real effect on my life, whereas my local city council does when they decide whether to put money into repairing nearby streets or changing the zoning to accommodate a CVS in my neighborhood.

Re:nt

[TWiTfan]

That's because people actually feel like they have a real CHOICE when voting on American Idol.

Re:nt

[operagost]

Sometimes it does, actually. I'll tell you what doesn't: voting for the school board. Not a single candidate ever runs on the platform of not raising property taxes. As expected, this means your property taxes go up every year, even though you aren't earning more and your property is worth about the same. It's sad when someone loses their house not because they couldn't pay the mortgage, but because they COULDN'T PAY THE PROPERTY TAX.

Re:nt

[dkleinsc]

I'll tell you what doesn't: voting for the school board.

Tell that to the citizens of Dover, PA and the several other places that have pushed intelligent design into public school classrooms.

As a sibling pointed out, if you really are upset, why not run yourself? Or why not recruit a friend or neighbor to run, and help with his campaign? In many places, you can get elected to local government (in what is frequently a non-partisan election) by doing a door-to-door canvas all by your lonesome, because a few hundred votes may be all it takes.

Re:nt

[PoolOfThought]

Sadly, this is already what we do! The people vote in real elections just like they do on these TV shows. Who looks like me? Check. Who makes me FEEL like they're on MY side? Check. Who says they'll protect me from the boogie man? Check. Who would I want to have beer with? Check. Who wants to be my Santa Clause? Check.

You'd end up with the same people in charge because those people ARE smart - politically or "socially". They ARE calculating. Many of them are eloquent and if given time to actually prepare a speech on each topic would be even more so. I don't think your method changes anything... which is quite sad to actually think about.

They reversed the charges though, right?

[FatLittleMonkey]

I can only assume they did the right thing and cancelled the charges for all the votes that weren't counted? They surely wouldn't profiteer at the expense of true fans.

Re:They reversed the charges though, right?

[sa1lnr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00k96j4/features/mobile-short-dial-codes-faqs

Still more transparancy...

[Dartz-IRL]

That's still more transparancy and objectivity that most US elections that use electronic voting machines.

Re:The Voice?

[stinkbomb]

Apropos

Reality shows are absolutely real and honest.

[wcrowe]

You mean people actually think the voting is honest and real? That the TV execs don't advance the contestants that they think will be better for ratings?

Re:Reality shows are absolutely real and honest.

[gstoddart]

You mean people actually think the voting is honest and real? That the TV execs don't advance the contestants that they think will be better for ratings?

Actually, given the number of scandals which have happened over the years from people fixing game shows and the like, and the laws which followed ... if the TV execs were really fiddling with the outcomes, there would be legal fall-out as it's considered to be a contest.

So, by law, that voting on the outcome legally better be honest and real. And if people believed the shows had no integrity in the voting, the shows would tank pretty quickly.

Re:Reality shows are absolutely real and honest.

[wcrowe]

I see, so you're sure it's a contest? And not just a show that appears to be a contest?

Re:Reality shows are absolutely real and honest.

[gstoddart]

You don't have to say anything about the tastes of the voters (which from what I've seen is questionable).

It's not about better, it's about favorite.

And that still needs to be held to an objective standard by law. It's a contest, there are winners, and people vote on it -- that part is still covered by laws.

Re:Reality shows are absolutely real and honest.

[Zero__Kelvin]

The contract is between the contestants and the producers not the producers and the viewers. Have you read it, or have you just decided you already know what it must say? They may say in their advertisements that "Your vote helps decide decide", but does it say anything about them being weighed equally with the network executives votes?

Re:Reality shows are absolutely real and honest.

[gstoddart]

No, I'm basing it entirely on knowledge of things like this where the $64,000 question and other shows were rigged.

I'm simply pointing out that, since there are laws surrounding how this is supposed to work, I therefore assume they're in compliance with those laws. If discounting those votes truly didn't affect the outcome, then it's fine.

I really don't care about the outcome, I'm just saying they might need to demonstrate their claim it didn't affect anything -- not to me (because I don't care), but possibly to the FCC or something. What they can't do it just make up their own results.

Re:The Voice?

[X0563511]

Looks like the damage to your lingual center was already done.

Where are the Storage Wars posts?

[dstyle5]

Slashdot mods, come on, where are they. I could also use some Jersey Shore, Teen Mom or Fix This Kitchen related posts.

I only wish DICE would've bought /. sooner to give us great content like this.

here's my logic

[slashmydots]

I still think it's all fake. The 3rd party vote company wants money. The show wants money. Whatever result would make the show get more money is the one they're both going to make happen, one way or another. It's not like there's some public notary from the government verifying every vote. Third party companies spring up out of nowhere and usually service primarily one giant company for the majority of their income.

Re:Mod parent up!

[AK Marc]

Karl was just mad because he was beat at his own game. He rigged the election in Florida 8 years prior. We haven't had a "valid" election since Clinton (which had shenanigans, but the popular vote was lopsided enough that it didn't matter).