Re:19,000 Botched Votes?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Can you site anything that holds up your claim that every voter requested a brand new ballot? And got one?
This is (was) one of the major points of contention in this thread on eLection '04 - would electronic voting (not electronic vote counting) offer any qualitative improvement to the electoral process in the USA? Would electronic voting reduce/remove the opportunity for all this fuss being made over botched ballots - re-voted or not?
Regardless of where you stand on this (slightly off topic) question of the ~19,000 votes tossed out in FL, you should agree that the very issue is divisive and fundamentally harmful to the electoral process, as it weakens the faith of the voting population in the very concept of representative democracy.
While some interesting points have been raised today re: potential for trouble with electronic voting, one I have not seen addressed (perhaps below my filter?) is that of the USA's traditionally piss-poor turn out at the polls.
How many of today's posters voted? How many voted last (non-presidential) election? And how many would vote given the potential ease of access that would without question come from a network connected electronic voting system?
With only ~1/2 of the populace voting in the first place, these (statistically) little snags are as potentially deadly as an unseen carpet tack to a new pair of hose. I've read more than a few complaints posted today re: the idiocy of some voters, but let me ask you: how low does the actual voters/elegible voters ratio have to fall before you find yourself living in the shameless autocracy we all know our fine country aspires to be? (B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Florida Lottery Protest
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Dear Florida Lottery Commissioner:
I am writing to protest the results of the recent lottery drawing. The winning numbers were 07-12-23-29-36-42.
Of course, these were the numbers I intended to play, however your lottery card was so confusing that I accidentally filled in circles for 02-09-16-27-35-49.
As you can imagine, I was quite surprised when the numbers I meant to play won, but I was told that the numbers in my possession were not winning numbers. This is completely unacceptable and I ask that you immediately declare me a winner and send me a check for my winnings. I believe that being the sole winner, I am entitled to the full 63 million dollars in this drawing.
My attorney feels that there is an excellent precedent (set by your election commissioner) for me to file a claim for damages since your card is not easy to understand.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. (B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Uh...one half of the population didn't vote! So only one quarter of the population will be pissed off by the election results. Oh wait, what % of our population is under 18? There hasn't been a clear (read: popular majority) mandate to rule in the cuntry for more than a quarter of a century. (B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:yes wierd knobs are needed to weed out idiots
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
PUHLEEEZ! Do the words "universal sufferage" mean ANYTHING to you? (B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:what the electoral college REALLY means...
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
I believe this IS allowed, just not done. I agree, it would bring the EC vote closer (in proportion) to the popoular vote.
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:What Is He Talking About?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm...must be a Marion County thing. UniGov blew the voting dumb terminal $$ on a big pretty new STADIUM. Whooooo-hoooo!
OK, no more Indiana specifics. But it is interesting to notice the correlation of posts to the poster's level of available voting (low)technology at home... (B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Actually, the only thing a judge can do is force (or not) a re-vote. Not that THAT wouldn't be a tempting career-booster for some poor FL justice wanting to run for office some day ("Remeber ME? I gave you the chance to VOTE again!") And even this requires that the judge uphold the concept that the vote does not accuratly reflect the WILL of the people - a very ballsy concept indeed!
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:What Is He Talking About?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
What part of Indiana are YOU voiting in? I'm in the freakin' CAPITOL of the state, and we still have those funny little levers you pull to the right (no, wait, is it the left?) of the candidates name. The last modern thing we did here in the Hoosier state was touch screen driving tests - are you sure you didn't just elect a stop sign for president? (B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Marked incorrectly as in "invalid markings," not incorrectly as in "whoops - I thought HE was the jewish candidate." As mentioned, an interface which DOESN'T take invalid input (the double-punches that got the 1900 ballots thrown out) seems inherently better than one that does.
Let me spin your question: If they COULDN'T mark them INcorrectly, there would be no need for another method. (B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you site anything that holds up your claim that every voter requested a brand new ballot? And got one?
This is (was) one of the major points of contention in this thread on eLection '04 - would electronic voting (not electronic vote counting) offer any qualitative improvement to the electoral process in the USA? Would electronic voting reduce/remove the opportunity for all this fuss being made over botched ballots - re-voted or not?
Regardless of where you stand on this (slightly off topic) question of the ~19,000 votes tossed out in FL, you should agree that the very issue is divisive and fundamentally harmful to the electoral process, as it weakens the faith of the voting population in the very concept of representative democracy.
While some interesting points have been raised today re: potential for trouble with electronic voting, one I have not seen addressed (perhaps below my filter?) is that of the USA's traditionally piss-poor turn out at the polls.
How many of today's posters voted? How many voted last (non-presidential) election? And how many would vote given the potential ease of access that would without question come from a network connected electronic voting system?
With only ~1/2 of the populace voting in the first place, these (statistically) little snags are as potentially deadly as an unseen carpet tack to a new pair of hose. I've read more than a few complaints posted today re: the idiocy of some voters, but let me ask you: how low does the actual voters/elegible voters ratio have to fall before you find yourself living in the shameless autocracy we all know our fine country aspires to be?
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Dear Florida Lottery Commissioner:
I am writing to protest the results of the recent lottery drawing. The winning numbers were 07-12-23-29-36-42.
Of course, these were the numbers I intended to play, however your lottery card was so confusing that I accidentally filled in circles for 02-09-16-27-35-49.
As you can imagine, I was quite surprised when the numbers I meant to play won, but I was told that the numbers in my possession were not winning numbers. This is completely unacceptable and I ask that you immediately declare me a winner and send me a check for my winnings. I believe that being the sole winner, I am entitled to the full 63 million dollars in this drawing.
My attorney feels that there is an excellent precedent (set by your election commissioner) for me to file a claim for damages since your card is not easy to understand.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Uh...one half of the population didn't vote! So only one quarter of the population will be pissed off by the election results. Oh wait, what % of our population is under 18?
There hasn't been a clear (read: popular majority) mandate to rule in the cuntry for more than a quarter of a century.
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
PUHLEEEZ! Do the words "universal sufferage" mean ANYTHING to you?
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
I believe this IS allowed, just not done. I agree, it would bring the EC vote closer (in proportion) to the popoular vote.
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Hmmm...must be a Marion County thing. UniGov blew the voting dumb terminal $$ on a big pretty new STADIUM. Whooooo-hoooo!
OK, no more Indiana specifics. But it is interesting to notice the correlation of posts to the poster's level of available voting (low)technology at home...
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Actually, the only thing a judge can do is force (or not) a re-vote. Not that THAT wouldn't be a tempting career-booster for some poor FL justice wanting to run for office some day ("Remeber ME? I gave you the chance to VOTE again!") And even this requires that the judge uphold the concept that the vote does not accuratly reflect the WILL of the people - a very ballsy concept indeed!
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
What part of Indiana are YOU voiting in? I'm in the freakin' CAPITOL of the state, and we still have those funny little levers you pull to the right (no, wait, is it the left?) of the candidates name. The last modern thing we did here in the Hoosier state was touch screen driving tests - are you sure you didn't just elect a stop sign for president?
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Marked incorrectly as in "invalid markings," not incorrectly as in "whoops - I thought HE was the jewish candidate." As mentioned, an interface which DOESN'T take invalid input (the double-punches that got the 1900 ballots thrown out) seems inherently better than one that does.
Let me spin your question: If they COULDN'T mark them INcorrectly, there would be no need for another method.
(B.)
----
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.