Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2004 Election Weirdness Continues

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the stuff-to-think-about dept.

United States 2013

I've read dozens of submissions about election anomalies in the last week and they show no sign of slowing so I've decided to post a few of the main ones here to let you all discuss them. The first is the Common Dreams report that shows that optically scanned votes have a strange anomoly in florida: the Touchscreen counties roughly matched up to party registration numbers, but optically scanned paper ballot counties showed strangeness like one county where 69.3% registered democrat, but only 28% of them voted for Kerry. Palm Beach County, Florida logged 88,000 more votes than there were voters; that machines in LaPorte, Indiana discounted 50,000 voters; in Columbus, Ohio voting machines gave Bush an extra 4,000 votes; in Broward County, Florida voting machines were counting backwards; Lastly, precincts in New Mexico gave provisional ballots that will never be counted to as many as 10% of all their voters.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757892)


False Alarm (-1, Troll)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757895)

I almost jumped out of my body when I read "Weirdness", "Dreams", "Optically", "Anomaly" and "Votes".

I thought voters who optically identified themselves via retina scanners have been fed subliminal messages which voted for candidate opposite of their registered party, and have had weird dreams since then.

But ain't those October Surprises like Bin Laden, same-sex marriage sort of swung the votes? Although the percentage changes in E-Touch Voting and Op-Scan are too irregular.

I guess the main question is whether or not these differences are enough to change the outcome. Even Kerry admitted those 150,000 provisional ballots wouldn't help.

Play iCLOD Virtual City Explorer [] and win Half-Life 2

Re:False Alarm (1)

satmech (153155) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758030)

hoy, and with the overwhelming amount of geeks that polled R... I thought that the D's would be hacking the Diebolds. D's hack & R's have the weapons....

Re:False Alarm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758046)

I was wondering what happened to the site it seems to have been surruptitiously censored from the net hmmmmm......

It wouldn't affect the outcome of the election (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758047)

Kerry conceided, and there's no take-backs.

Re:It wouldn't affect the outcome of the election (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758094)

Actually "concession" doesn't mean anything legally. Look it up :-)

Re:False Alarm (0, Troll)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758071)

I guess the main question is whether or not these differences are enough to change the outcome. Even Kerry admitted those 150,000 provisional ballots wouldn't help.

Of course a mere 150000 wouldn't help, not after 1000000 votes were probably rigged to go to the other side :(

Re:False Alarm (5, Informative)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758080)

There's a good discussion over at Kuro5hin [] about the same issue.

In particular, tmoertel published a pretty good statistical smackdown on the theory of electronic irregularities in Ohio (this isn't my analysis - so I don't take credit for it):

Thanks for sharing the data. Looking at it, I don't see any indications of Republican foul play. My analysis follows.

First, I loaded your data into R from The R Project for Statistical Computing [] :

> ohio
county reg.voters precincts evoting turnout.2004 turnout.2000 bush.swing
1 Adams 17696 35 FALSE 65.94146 60.77620 -0.00219
2 Allen 68174 139 FALSE 69.60278 65.05813 -0.03396
3 Ashland 34847 65 FALSE 69.36322 69.49464 -0.01306
4 Ashtabula 62926 127 FALSE 70.18720 60.81940 -0.01259
5 Athens 45100 69 FALSE 60.49002 53.53627 -0.06889
6 Auglaize 33094 39 TRUE 66.97891 70.44227 0.01753
7 Belmont 44452 83 FALSE 73.18231 60.26522 0.03944
8 Brown 28922 35 FALSE 67.55411 62.55611 0.00865
9 Butler 238117 289 FALSE 67.58022 64.26633 0.07879
10 Carroll 20076 26 FALSE 68.34529 65.92923 -0.01509
11 Champaign 25376 29 FALSE 71.65826 59.84996 0.01343
12 Clark 89683 100 FALSE 75.00641 65.74651 0.03348
13 Clermont 125823 191 FALSE 69.15429 62.39119 0.08463
14 Clinton 25092 32 FALSE 71.21393 63.96370 0.02330
15 Columbiana 78536 103 FALSE 61.24070 60.96343 0.01846
16 Coshocton 22679 43 FALSE 70.03836 68.79806 -0.01573
17 Crawford 29591 46 FALSE 71.95769 62.60209 0.00060
18 Cuyahoga 1005807 1436 FALSE 64.51397 58.06637 -0.43531
19 Darke 38290 43 FALSE 66.68060 65.90556 0.02968
20 Defiance 25847 42 FALSE 68.48377 64.42229 0.00557
21 Delaware 100676 123 FALSE 78.19937 69.83352 0.04064
22 Erie 55517 62 FALSE 69.65614 64.24870 -0.01385
23 Fairfield 91498 118 FALSE 72.54585 67.34156 0.00302
24 Fayette 16093 38 FALSE 71.24215 64.46000 0.00296
25 Franklin 845720 788 TRUE 60.27633 61.26558 -0.68834
26 Fulton 28561 35 FALSE 75.42103 68.82543 -0.00806
27 Gallia 23567 35 FALSE 57.31744 60.89664 -0.00163
28 Geauga 65393 96 FALSE 75.73899 68.72101 -0.03420
29 Greene 105079 142 FALSE 72.50735 67.70133 0.03101
30 Guernsey 27129 37 FALSE 59.59306 64.84132 0.00374
31 Hamilton 573612 1013 FALSE 70.88328 65.58803 -0.54742
32 Hancock 49607 62 FALSE 69.09307 66.81487 -0.00663
33 Hardin 18921 38 FALSE 68.23107 61.67072 0.00914
34 Harrison 11769 24 FALSE 69.18175 66.77524 0.00746
35 Henry 19685 33 FALSE 75.16891 69.13808 -0.00666
36 Highland 28243 31 FALSE 63.31834 63.88105 0.00927
37 Hocking 18369 32 FALSE 70.15080 65.36343 -0.01329
38 Holmes 18089 19 FALSE 60.37371 59.26876 0.00001
39 Huron 37436 55 FALSE 66.53221 58.05025 -0.01538
40 Jackson 23997 38 FALSE 57.92807 55.87854 0.01179
41 Jefferson 49655 91 FALSE 71.61615 64.12859 0.02110
42 Knox 36971 56 TRUE 71.10979 61.14969 -0.00844
43 Lake 160165 217 TRUE 73.72772 67.60981 -0.05749
44 Lawrence 41424 84 FALSE 65.30514 57.18568 0.03291
45 Licking 111387 122 FALSE 69.52517 64.26959 0.03209
46 Logan 29406 52 FALSE 70.48902 61.72690 0.00504
47 Lorain 196601 239 FALSE 69.30941 61.55434 -0.05374
48 Lucas 302136 495 FALSE 70.92137 62.36231 -0.03023
49 Madison 23477 44 FALSE 72.45815 64.42444 0.00847
50 Mahoning 194673 312 TRUE 66.50537 65.10254 0.02792
51 Marion 43323 84 FALSE 65.14092 60.71360 0.02260
52 Medina 118330 149 FALSE 70.33212 66.17253 -0.02282
53 Meigs 15205 27 FALSE 68.99046 62.97254 -0.01275
54 Mercer 31306 37 FALSE 63.71303 75.15451 0.02520
55 Miami 72169 82 FALSE 69.38990 65.23628 0.06205
56 Monroe 10350 29 FALSE 72.79227 66.12585 -0.00401
57 Montgomery 391914 588 FALSE 69.65253 63.90166 0.01822
58 Morgan 9358 22 FALSE 69.51272 65.47581 -0.01046
59 Morrow 24249 36 FALSE 65.83364 62.05155 0.01163
60 Muskingum 51552 85 FALSE 73.61693 61.66866 0.00735
61 Noble 8879 27 FALSE 72.27165 73.85823 -0.00383
62 Ottawa 30251 78 FALSE 75.15454 70.26735 0.00666
63 Paulding 14226 30 FALSE 67.60860 65.32898 0.00562
64 Perry 23480 46 FALSE 63.76491 72.62733 -0.00187
65 Pickaway 30045 53 TRUE 74.06224 61.43715 0.00823
66 Pike 19661 24 FALSE 62.30609 54.34399 0.00006
67 Portage 109565 129 FALSE 68.42422 63.67325 -0.02013
68 Preble 28137 45 FALSE 73.48687 66.76528 0.00985
69 Putnam 24572 35 FALSE 75.46801 73.60714 -0.01619
70 Richland 95359 126 FALSE 63.24416 65.91355 0.00864
71 Ross 43463 76 TRUE 70.49905 66.87310 0.01454
72 Sandusky 39408 72 FALSE 80.52426 64.85565 0.01435
73 Scioto 48012 106 FALSE 71.59877 61.90754 -0.01839
74 Seneca 37974 54 FALSE 69.50545 69.41281 -0.00827
75 Shelby 28460 35 FALSE 77.87070 66.50213 0.04347
76 Stark 267939 364 FALSE 67.98338 67.71805 -0.11342
77 Summit 368858 475 FALSE 72.94975 65.57290 -0.17169
78 Trumbull 142548 274 FALSE 74.03892 67.88076 0.04793
79 Tuscarawas 55656 81 FALSE 75.13835 66.46161 0.00921
80 Union 30200 46 FALSE 73.30795 66.54093 0.02228
81 VanWert 21100 39 FALSE 68.76777 61.67758 0.01939
82 Vinton 8527 20 FALSE 68.08960 60.31414 -0.00447
83 Warren 125919 157 FALSE 73.00090 72.62472 0.10811
84 Washington 40881 56 FALSE 71.34366 66.09876 -0.02080
85 Wayne 69672 97 FALSE 73.03938 69.15779 -0.02746
86 Williams 26772 44 FALSE 66.72643 60.60038 0.00132
87 Wood 91492 105 FALSE 66.44297 62.36440 -0.02708
88 Wyandot 15834 24 FALSE 66.37615 66.48381 0.00180
Then I tested whether the average "Bush swing" from 2000 to 2004 was significantly different between the evoting and non-evoting counties. The bush.swing variable is somewhat normally distributed, and so I used a t-test and, just to be safe, a non-parametric test. Neither showed any significant difference:
> t.test(bush.swing ~ evoting, data=ohio)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: bush.swing by evoting
t = 0.8851, df = 6.111, p-value = 0.4096
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.1542010 0.3301874
sample estimates:
mean in group FALSE mean in group TRUE
-0.01001395 -0.09800714

> wilcox.test(bush.swing ~ evoting, data=ohio)

Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction

data: bush.swing by evoting
W = 300, p-value = 0.8051
alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0
A rough interpretation of the t-test result is that there is a 41 percent probability of observing a difference this extreme or greater from chance alone, i.e., without any influencing factors like foul play. Typically, the threshold at which we begin to suspect something other than random chance is 5 percent, and our observed significance of 41 percent is far outside of that suspect region. No news here.

Moving on, is evoting a factor for turnout?

> t.test(turnout.2004 ~ evoting, data=ohio)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: turnout.2004 by evoting
t = 0.2043, df = 6.949, p-value = 0.844
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-4.114643 4.891555
sample estimates:
mean in group FALSE mean in group TRUE
69.41123 69.02277
Again, it would seem not. Maybe evoting is a factor for change in turnout?
> t.test(turnout.2004 - turnout.2000 ~ evoting, data=ohio)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: turnout.2004 - turnout.2000 by evoting
t = 0.281, df = 6.62, p-value = 0.7873
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-4.741840 6.003902
sample estimates:
mean in group FALSE mean in group TRUE
4.813784 4.182753

Now let's consider Franklin county, alone. Note that it is the 25th row in our data set. Is the change in turnout in Franklin country significantly different from that in the other counties?

> tdiffs <- ohio$turnout.2004 - ohio$turnout.2000
> pnorm(tdiffs[25], mean=mean(tdiffs[-25]), sd=sd(tdiffs[-25]))
[1] 0.0980752
Again, it falls outside of the 5 percent threshold of significance.

To summarize, the data do not provide significant evidence to support any of the following claims:

  • Evoting is a factor that "swings" voters toward (or away from) Bush
  • Evoting is a factor that influences turn-out
  • Evoting is a factor that influences change in turn-out w.r.t. the 2000 election
  • Franklin county's change in relative turnout is unusual

However, Franklin county is signifiantly different when it comes to "Bush swing":

> pnorm(ohio$bush.swing[25], mean=mean(ohio$bush.swing[-25]),
[1] 1.335855e-16
What makes this especially interesting is that Franklin county's "Bush swing" is significantly biased in favor of not Bush but Kerry:
> ohio$bush.swing[25]
[1] -0.68834
Remember that "negative numbers mean pro-kerry...." However, many things besides foul play could explain this difference. Maybe, for example, the Franklin-county Democrats worked extra, super hard to get out the vote there.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing the data.


Re:False Alarm (5, Insightful)

mar1boro (189737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758115)

You are right. The outcome of the election will never be changed. It will never be allowed to. We can't allow this to continue though. The electoral process in this country should be as close to flawless as possible.

It is time to take the manufacture of voting devices and the auditing process out of the hands of partisans. And to all of you out there saying, "Boo hoo, Kerry lost. Get over it." How is it that Democracy in America is being hijacked, and you don't seem to give a shit? I'd wager you are the true anti-Americans. You do a lot of name calling, but when the shit hits the fan you show your true natures. Sunshine Patriots. Educate yourselves, and stand up for the Constitution you so loudly claim to believe in. Stop being little automatons.

Liars (5, Funny)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757896)

It's all a democratic ploy to discredit or dethrone our duly elected Pope. The first rule of the Democratic process is: Do not talk about the Democratic process. The second rule of the Democratic process is: Do not question the Democratic process...

Re:Liars (1, Funny)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757956)

It's all a democratic ploy to discredit or dethrone our duly elected Pope

So umm, how many electoral votes does our representative Jesus get?

Re:Liars (4, Funny)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758007)

So umm, how many electoral votes does our representative Jesus get?

A third of them, duh. You obviously don't know religion!

Re:Liars (1)

F34nor (321515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758035)

Christian governments are as frank today, as open and above-board, in discussing projects for raiding each other's clothes-lines as ever they were before the Golden Rule came smiling into this inhospitable world and couldn't get a night's lodging anywhere.

-Mark Twain

Re:Liars (3, Interesting)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758031)

Well, to start you can look at all the red states occupying the middle of America where religion and vales matter more than facts. It still amazes me that people are willing to cast a vote based on religious reasons. I mean, it's not like a Christian ever did anything immoral, illegal, or just plain mean; it's statistically impossible. A mans religious beliefs are a good indicator of his ability to rule justly.... Right.

Re:Liars (3, Insightful)

F34nor (321515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758072)

When you're dealing with a religous son of a bitch, get it in writing. His word ain't worth shit, not with the good lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal.

-W. S. Burroughs.

Re:Liars (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758121)

I'm an agnostic, a computer engineer with both a B.S. and M.S. from top engineering universities, and a current candidate for a J.D. in intellectual property. I work for a defense contractor and make a pretty decent living. I'm also only 23, so I'm part of the younger crowd that tends to vote for the blue. I hate NASCAR and the thought of watching cars going around in an oval for hours on end bores me to tears. I'm from Northern Virginia.

I voted for Bush. I was able to reasonably come to the conclusion that he had my interests at heart. I don't give a flying fuck what Bush thinks about his God. All I know is that his policies work.

Get over it -- people with completely different backgrounds than what you try to pigeonhole republicans as are still able to conclude that the GOP has their interests in mind.

Re:Liars (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758032)

We have a pope?

Re:Liars (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758040)



(awee c'mon lameness filter, foild again!)

Re:Liars (1)

LaCosaNostradamus (630659) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758111)

What, did you want me to send you a memo? You decide your level of involvement! Now you've had as new experience!!

Frost Pist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757898)

Frost Pist!!!


Re:Frost Pist (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757909)

Don't you mean, "First Vote!"

Re:Frost Pist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758070)

Frost Pist!!!


Oh for the love of Pete (-1, Flamebait)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757899)

Your guy lost. Your reported anomilies aren't going to change that. Get over it.

Re:Oh for the love of Pete (5, Insightful)

VultureMN (116540) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757948)

It's not about trying to get Kerry into office. It's about the fact that the voting system is flawed.

I believe Bush won fairly (even though I despise his policies), but I also believe we need to work on getting the most accurate vote count possible, and that's only possible when we admit there are flaws. Geesh.

Re:Oh for the love of Pete (3, Insightful)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758087)

I fully agree that the voting system should be as fair and accurate as possible, and is currently in need of improvement, but people do need to put things in perspective. Voting has always been a somewhat inaccurate process. I'd say there were more problems years ago when technology wasn't as advanced. But it only becomes a big issue when the election will be close. Nobody disputed Clinton's reelection victory over Dole because everyone knew Clinton would win; he was way ahead in the polls. With the 2000 fiasco in recent memory, a lot of focus was put on the 2004 election being as accurate as possible. Inevitably, there were some mistakes, as there always will be, but I'd say that compared to previous elections, this one was surprisingly accurate. The people who are complaining the loudest about problems seem to be primarily the ones who are simply not satisfied with the outcome.

Re:Oh for the love of Pete (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757993)

I dont really think it is about "Getting over it". The election was very close. I would say close enough that if these anomolies hold any truth, then the election may have had a different turnout without them.

I prefer to have it done right vs. just letting an undeserving candidate take a job that shouldnt be theirs.

(yes, my spelling is crap)

Re:Oh for the love of Pete (5, Insightful)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758022)

Your guy lost. Your reported anomilies aren't going to change that. Get over it.


All anonmilies should be investigated, even the ones that don't have a chance of changing the outcome.
If cheating is going on, then it should be stopped. No exceptions.
Even if it's just stupidity and not malice, it should be stopped.

-- should you believe authority without question?

Re:Oh for the love of Pete (2, Insightful)

cyberwitz (767170) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758037)

my guy did lose, i don't agree with your "get over it" comment. but, your opinion doesn't make you a troll - that's just bad modding.

Re:Oh for the love of Pete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758095)

exactly... he's clearly Flamebait

Big fucking suprise (1, Insightful)

Dotp (829237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757902)

I don't trust this government.

Re:Big fucking suprise (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757967)

Can you hear us knocking on your door?

-Anonymous Blacksuit

Re:Big fucking suprise (5, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758006)

I don't trust this government.

I hereby revoke your membership in the tinfoil hat club. The correct phrasing is I don't trust government.

Your statement implies there is/was/will be a government you trust. That thought is just plain scary.


1st (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757906)

sorry :(

What is being alleged, here, exactly? (2, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757912)

Are you actually alleging that ALL THREE e-voting vendors - ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia - have found some way to add votes only to the Republican candidates, undetected?

Do you think Kerry's $300M campaign, and the hundreds of experts who worked it for the better part of two years, just said "Oh, well! Guess we lost, even though there's proof of widespread fraud! Let's just throw in the towel and not say anything about it!" Wake up.

These are EXACTLY the kinds of problems, i.e., errors and failures in equipment (and setup) that we aim to prevent. But it is not possible for a central entity to control the vote.

We do need verified voting, but I'm sorry to say that there was no widespread fraud in all e-voting states. It's just not possible. There are thousands of people involved, thousands of pieces of equipment, many, many, many election and other government officials at all levels in extremely disparate jurisdictions with different ways of doing things, with no way for any central entity to reach these machines after the fact. (And no, they don't come "preloaded" with votes for Republican candidates; the logistics of the way they're set up and the diversity of the the configurations also makes that impossible.)

Bush won. Again. Get over it.

H.R.2239 [] and S.1980 [] , discussed further here [] [], will amend the Help America Vote Act (an act designed to ensure consistent voting systems that meet certain standards be available to ALL voters in ALL jurisdictions), such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter.

Please, simply support this legislation.

Additionally, the electronic voting manufacturers, such as Diebold, already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products .[1] Don't believe people who make it seem like companies like Diebold are resisting. They aren't. They'll build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

The roadblock, as it turns out, is often local election boards. First, the new paper verification systems NEED to go through the government certification process - remember, it's the e-voting watchdogs who are chastising non-certified patches/updates being put into place; the paper audit systems need to go through the same certification process. Further, many municipalities can't understand why they should be forcing paper audit trails; after all, they think, they are just getting away from paper ballots - why should they be arguing for paper ballots (and all the headaches that go along with them, ON TOP of the headaches they already have from learning to deal with e-voting), so why should they go back to them?

Folks, so many people are involved in elections at so many different levels that there is literally no way that any central entity could rig an election across an entire state. Experts dealing with e-voting don't even have this on their radar. [] Their concern is more errors and failures. E.g., most of Ohio is still punchcard as it is (the majority of the 35 counties moving to e-voting pushed off the transition until AFTER the election because of problems), and someone like Diebold doesn't even have access to this equipment after the fact. Yes, an unscrupulous election official or enterprising hacker might be able to breach individual machines and potentially even a county - it's possible. But the likelihood of something like that happening on any significant scale, ESPECIALLY without being caught (the articles we're talking about here actually prove that the audit processes, be they what they are, do work) is very, very low.

That said, we absolutely should be ensuring that there is a permanent, voter-verified, paper record. It is absolutely critical to our voting process, even if the software is still proprietary on these systems (though it, too, should be open for public inspection). But the permanent voter-verified paper record alone eliminates the chances for any widespread fraud with the counting process itself, and at the very least makes any fraud easily reversible and/or detectable.

Contact your representative and senators, and urge them to support the above bills. It will be a lot more productive that imagining fantasies about Diebold "handing" Bush the election. (If ANYTHING remotely like that happened, there are a shitload of professors, campaign staff, scholars, journalists, and researchers who know a LOT more than you do who would be all over this in a heartbeat. Kerry's $300 million, two-year campaign didn't just roll over for no reason. Bush won, whether anyone likes it or not, and it wasn't because electronic voting handed anyone anything. The POINT here, is that instead of inventing wild conspiracy theories, we should be ensuring that there is voter verification and a permanent paper record for all future elections, because HAVA will require a shift to electronic voting for everyone - before that happens, we should make sure that it's verifiable. Fraud isn't even the biggest problem. It's just downright user error, setup problems, and the normal gremlins that go along with computers.)

Here's yet another person who is an expert in political polling and exit polls, talking about why the polls were wrong (hint: it's not because electronic voting machines were rigged): []

Notable quote [] :

I think the important thing about exit polls is they show us why people won and the dynamics of the race. The mistake most people make is they see polls as a horse-race, but they are actually the explanation of what happened.

The polls may have been wrong about who won, but they were right about explaining why people voted the way they did. If you don't have polls, you allow the elites and candidates to interpret the elections in their own interest. Polls, in many ways, are crucial to democracy.

If you look at previous elections, you can see that exit polls are always different the day after the election. Exit polls ultimately are always right, though they are never right originally. This is because polls have to be weighted with the actual vote to be completely accurate. The vote, of course, can't be factored in until the election is completed. If the exit polls are not "corrected" in this way, then the analysis of the election will always be flawed. So after the polls have closed, exit polls are always weighted for demographics and for the actual votes.

Don't you think that a person like this, and all the other veteran people who have devoted their lives to politics and elections, even SUSPECTED that there might be fraud on a scale that "handed" someone an election, that they have access to all sorts of connections, resources, and tools far beyond the lame (sometimes fabricated) charts (with no attribution whatsoever) that are being emailed around supposedly "proving" that exit polls only didn't match in states that use e-voting?

The reason why the mainstream press isn't talking about it isn't because they "don't want to touch it", or that they haven't picked up on it. It's just not true.

Stop focusing on really, really stupid comments [] that Diebold's CEO made in the capacity of a GOP campaigner (as if he can magically have a 13,000 person company rig elections in 88 counties and thousands of polling places around the states, on machines over which they have no control), and instead focus on what's important, which is ensuring that as the Help America Vote Act moves forward, and more and more electronic machines get installed everywhere in an effort to make voting fair and consistent for every American citizen, that we have a permanent voter-verified paper trail associated with every individial vote in every election. The e-voting manufacturers already have this capability. All we have to do is make it an umbrella federal law that ALL municipalities implement such technology, whether they want to or not.

[1] A spokesperson for Diebold told the Toledo Blade that it currently has the receipt-printing technology, but is waiting for governments to certify the new version. []

(Disclaimer: this was taken from a couple of my previous posts on this topic.)

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757961)

You either copy-pasted that from somewhere, or were writing that up when the story was up for subscriber preview - because it's been just a minute and you've typed up so much.

Care to explain?

Yeah. Read the post. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757988)

I said, right at the bottom, that I took much of that from a couple of my previous posts on this topic. And I also am a slashdot subscriber, so I had time to put it together beforehand.

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757990)

(Disclaimer: this was taken from a couple of my previous posts on this topic.)

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757998)

Perhaps you'd care to look at the star next to his name, as well as the last line of his post that EXPLAINED THE DAMN POST.

Geez. Get some reading comprehension, will you?

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (1)

over_exposed (623791) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758019)

See that little '*' by his name? That means he is a subscriber and as such, has the time to write up a lengthy post. Get over yourself.

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (5, Interesting)

Angry Black Man (533969) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757997)

what is being alleged is that the E-voting machines are buggy at best, registering obvious erros with no paper trail to offer an alternative counting method.

John Kerry's name is mentioned nowhere in the article. Its just about the quirks of the voting system, which should by and large be fixed. Stop being so defensive, not everything centers around Bush stealing an election.

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (-1, Flamebait)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758082)

John Kerry's name is mentioned nowhere in the article. Its just about the quirks of the voting system, which should by and large be fixed. Stop being so defensive

Aah the classic pseudo-pundit defense. Because you imply something in a story by spinning the facts, but never actually say what you're implying, you can deny holding the position you advocate when the facts later prove not to support you.

Go listen to Daniel Schorr and keep pretending that people should be held accountable for what gets said between the lines.

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (4, Interesting)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758105)

H.R.2239 and S.1980, discussed further here [], will amend the Help America Vote Act (an act designed to ensure consistent voting systems that meet certain standards be available to ALL voters in ALL jurisdictions), such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter.
The EFF has made it easy to send an email, fax, or letter to your senators [] , encouraging them cosponsor the Senate bill.

Re:What is being alleged, here, exactly? (1)

itwerx (165526) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758118)

First, let me just say I agree with most of what you posted.
However, one phrase caught my eye:
And no, they don't come "preloaded" with votes for Republican candidates

Why not? There's no technical reason why they couldn't.
Quite simple really, if machines are going to then add code to a percentage (all?) of them such that if the ratio of Republican to Democratic votes shows less than a 2% (or whatever) lead for Republicans then drop a few Democratic votes.
(Hmm, maybe that's how that Florida county gained so many voters, they added instead of dropping :).
I would actually be very interested in taking some of the machines in suspicious areas and testing them. But not in "demo mode" of course, load 'em like it was for real and see how the numbers come out...

By Weirdness, Taco means (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757915)

We can't accept the fact that Kerry lost... by 3.5 million votes.

You know why Bush did so well in Florida? The hurricanes. He was able to travel down there and be the hero with the federal aid.

If you read Slashdot, it should be pretty clear that not all the l33t crackers out there are Republicans. If there was so much hacking going on, why were all these liberal crackers out there working to give Kerry votes? Or maybe they were! Maybe they just didn't give him enough. I'd also expect the Libertarian to pick up a huge number of votes if cracking was involved.

Oh, and I notice he forgot to make mention of the Pennsylvania voting problems, but I guess since those were in Kerry's favor, they don't count. []

Re:By Weirdness, Taco means (1)

Drasil (580067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758117)

So Bush, instrumental in not acting on climate change, gains votes as the result of the increased frequency of hurricanes in Florida? Am I the only one to see a hole in this logic?

Fair points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757920)

But all of this does not change the fact that at least a substantial part of the nation voted for Bush. Don't forget that.

No kidding!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757925)

This is not surprising; as the Diebold CEO has pledged to give Shrub the votes.

And the republicans are precisely the kind of people who would not hesitate to cheat in order to win.

Re:No kidding!!! (1, Insightful)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757971)

something tells me that either party would "not hesitate to cheat in order to win"...

Re:No kidding!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758017)

Go fuck yourself you Canadian piece of shit.

Re:No kidding!!! (2, Informative)

danheskett (178529) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758024)

This is not surprising; as the Diebold CEO has pledged to give Shrub the votes.

The Republicans faked 90% of every poll leading up to election day that showed Bush narrowly winning. And on election day they covertly added over 3 million votes to Bushes totals without anyone being caught red-handed, despite thousands of laywers and activists all over the country begging to catch someone in the act.

Re:No kidding!!! (1, Flamebait)

achesloc (697690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758033)

Referring to anyone as "the kind of people" makes you look like a douchebag. You are the tart cart conspiracy theorist talking about the CEO of Diebold. Go get a new tin foil hat and learn to lose with some dignity.

I. Florida (3, Funny)

BobRooney (602821) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757926)

Clearly the voting machines in my home state of FL were deployed pre-programmed to elect the Governor's Brother...until they took on a life of their own and started killing people.

That is all.

Re:I. Florida (1)

porkUpine (623110) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758011)

No, that was P-Diddy. He was out killing all those who didn't vote. VOTE OR DIE!!!!!

Re:I. Florida (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758027)

Now the old people have to come to Canada to buy their medicine. Damn those voting machines!

Re:I. Florida (1)

hexhacker (599187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758036)

I, for one, welcome our new evil voting-machine overlords.

Just guessing.... (4, Insightful)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757927)

...but i'm thinking that statistically there were probably annomalies in favor of both candidates...we're just only hearing about the one's that helped bush and hurt kerry because they make for the most sensationalistic story...

Re:Just guessing.... (4, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758052)

Which certainly could be true. But if they are indeed this widespread, I would have to say the election couldnt have reflected accurately what the people voted. With an election as close as this, wouldnt you feel better if they did it again and found Bush still won, rather then not approaching it, and wondering for the next 4 years...?

Random noise? (4, Interesting)

October_30th (531777) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757929)

Yes, but are any of these anomalies statistically significant? If not, it's just random noise regardless of the source.

Re:Random noise? (4, Insightful)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758066)

It's the election not some radio receiving test, there should be no anomalies.

I'm guessing... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757933)

I'm guessing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable"

Surprised? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757934)

... And people are actually surprised at this after last election's fiasco? You didn't all actually think that war-mongering moron won *fairly*, did you?

Yay! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757940)

Thanks to Evangelicals, we're facing a theocracy. All liberals are enemies according to Evangelicals and that includes the educated. People fell for that "values" crap and elected a President that fully supports Evangelicals. From now on, we have to fight for our most basic human rights.

New for Democrats... (-1, Redundant)

glenrm (640773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757943)

Stuff for Lawyers? Whatever I was hoping for getting back to technology and geeks stuff ya know... Guess I have to keep my freedom sig for a little while longer...

Before you ask, the 4000 votes don't change Ohio. (1, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757945)

Bush won that state by ~136,000 votes, and the 4000 + however many absentee ballots are for Kerry probably still wouldn't be enough.

Who will be the first (5, Insightful)

Zeromous (668365) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757947)

to put me down for pointing out the glaringly obvious. Democracy is easily stolen, but I was ridiculed for mentioning that last wednesday. Dont you realize this isnt about Bush? I dont care who won! Its about E-voting removing your right to affect change in your country by making a democratic choice.

you know the voting system is flawed when... (4, Insightful)

megarich (773968) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757950)

You go to vote and your not even id. "Name, adress....ok go ahead."

Simple question (3, Interesting)

kippy (416183) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757953)

Can the potential difference in votes amount to a larger number than the margins by which either candidate won in a given state?

If not, the only concern should be to correct the problems and not to overturn the election right?

Re:Simple question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758050)

If not, the only concern should be to correct the problems and not to overturn the election right?

Right... it has nothing to do with principles and having a dishonest administration in office.

Re:Simple question (5, Insightful)

calibanDNS (32250) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758097)

One thing to bear in mind is that more than just the presidential election was on the ballot. Lots of state and local elections may have been affected by these anamolies and may have had their outcomes changed.

To All American Liberal Democrats (0, Flamebait)

Swamii (594522) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757962)

Your party lost the 2004 Presidential Election by nearly 4,000,000 (Four Million) votes. Please stop whining. Thank you.

Something new? (4, Insightful)

jstave (734089) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757964)

Does anyone else get the impression that this kind of crap has been going on since day one? At least now we're paying more attention and noticing it -- that's a good thing.

Saw this earlier (5, Interesting)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757968)

The Florida Election "inconsistencies" page was emailed to me earlier. Here's what I sent to my friend in reply:

Well, it's interesting, but that's not a useful study, just a dump of a bunch of numbers. There has been at least one serious documented instance of major electronic voting machine failure/fraud in Ohio (the precinct that counted 4,000 too many Bush votes), but this isn't even an analysis let alone proof of anything in Florida.

They list number of registered Republicans and Democrats, but don't show how those same countries voted in the last Presidential election, and more importantly, they don't show any exit poll results.

Exit polls, bitching aside, are probably the most important way we have of validating actual voter result numbers county-by-county and precinct-by-precinct. The best way to flag fraud is to note when the exit polls are substantially out of line with actual returns, and particularly if they are out of line in a systematic (and unpredicted) way.

Beyond that, I have several questions about these numbers shown.

While I have every reason to distrust Diebold given their atrocious history of faulty machines and rabid partisanship, it's hard to believe that a conspiracy of three vendors, all of whom sold optical scan machines to different precincts, worked together to create this fraud.

Furthermore, the most rural counties seem to be the ones that had the most radically Republican results, despite Democratic voter registrations. This just seems to be in pattern with the rest of the South - the thing about Florida as any long time resident will tell you is that southern Florida, and its urban parts in general are culturally much closer to the Northeast, while the rest of Florida is culturally much closer to the South (the accents follow the same pattern too - they speak with a Southern drawl in a lot of the rest of the state).

And registered Democrats voting Republican in a Presidential election en masse is not news to the South.

So to demonstrate anything meaningful - show me the exit poll numbers side by side, and then let's see if there is any consistent and suspicious looking discrepancy not explained by the major cultural divides within Florida, or the extensive attention paid by Republicans to the I4 corridor area in their campaigning.

How not to write voting software (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757970)

Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward.

Rule #1: Do not use signed shorts to count the total number of votes.

Don't forget this... (3, Funny)

funny-jack (741994) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757972)

What about the real story, that George Bush is attempting to eliminate his enemies? [] This should be front-page news.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758023)

If Bush has the ability to cause cancer when he wills it, the poster should take that down if he wants to keep his testicles.

I hope we all continue to investigate this. (2, Insightful)

jeoin (668566) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757979)

This issue is a central issue to insure that democracy is treated a valid type of government. Everyone must feel that the effort they put forth to vote is respected and heard. The only way we can lead the world on this is to set a good example and to purse with vigilence all reports of vote counting error.

This JUST in!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Onimaru (773331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757987)

Widespread questionable activity in the electoral process! And it overwhelmingly favors Republicans!!! HOLY COW!!!

Nothing for you to see here, please move along. And take your "First Ammendment" crap with you...

Democrats (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757991)

It is funny how the county clerks in all the problem counties are democratic hacks. If there is a problem it is with the CLERKS in those counties and with the idiot voters in those counties.

The problem with issues such as these, especially with the Diebold machines is such that the person who CHOSE them should be sacked (IE the Democratic County Clerks).

I am sorry, but I don't feel sorry for anyone. NO, I didn't vote for BUSH either. Both are losers.

Next time, vote LIBERTARIAN (or some other third party) and have your votes count less.

Bad data (1)

boatboy (549643) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758000)

I'm the first to say Diebold needs to be shot and some good, old-fashioned design time needs to be dedicated to electronic voting. But one word of caution: alot of these theories are based on comparing tabulated data to exit polls. Now as bad as the machines may be, I hardly think CNN's interns represent a more secure system of determining the election outcome.

The core problem, at least in my area, is that 1)it is considered "racist" to identify a voter by anything other than a simple "state your name and address" and 2) it is "racist" to purge the rolls of dead voters, etc. It is typically the Democrats that make these arguments.

Paranoia (1)

b0lt (729408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758002)

It's over for this election, but what will stop it from happening next election? We need to fight for legislation to stop election fraud, or else anomolies like this may affect the 2008 election. -b0lt

Black Box Voting (5, Insightful)

cardmagic (224509) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758009)

Please watch this free 30-minute film [] about black box voting machines.

We have all been scared about Diebold and other black box voting [] machines, and for good reason [] . Apparently one of the central machines from Election Systems & Software Inc. tallied 115 votes for Bush in a certain county, while another machine tallied 365 votes for that same county. Which one was right? There is no way to tell, because "it is too hard" to add a printer to a counting machine. It is not like they have been doing that for 30 [] years [] . But who needs to do a recount when the machines are infallible, right?

Most infuriating of all is that Republican Senator Hagel, the former Senate Ethics Director, resigned after admitting that he owned Election Systems & Software [] ! That's right, the same voting machine maker that 60% of ALL VOTES in the U.S. are counted on, the same one that provably miscounted votes in Ohio and other states, and the same one that refuses to print receipts to recount these votes. No wonder legislation [] trying to require printers on voting machines is taking so long to get through congress when congressmen can vote themselves into office without a paper trail.

Counting backwards? (2, Interesting)

Whispers_in_the_dark (560817) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758025)

Secretary of State spokeswoman Jenny Nash said all counties using this system had been told that such problems would occur if a precinct is set up in a way that would allow votes to get above 32,000. She said Broward should have split the absentee ballots into four separate precincts to avoid that and that a Broward elections employee since has admitted to not doing that.

Signed 16-bit short anyone?

I can understand using signed numbers here -- at least the error would be obvious -- assuming noone just absolute values away the sign thinking they're clever. But how memory-limited are these systems not to at least use 24-bit or better yet 32-bit ints here? Is it really that much of a space savings to warrant districts subdividing becase the companies can't afford a little more memory in these things?

Or, is there something else I'm missing here...

Tinfoil hats (5, Funny)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758043)

Is there anywhere I can invest in tinfoil futures?

Sufficient condition for election fairness (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758053)

Your side wins.

I especially like (1)

captnitro (160231) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758056)

The machines where the software stored votes per precinct in an integer [] , causing the votes (having hit 32,767) to overflow.

I haven't written much code in a while, but I can figure out 'square peg, round hole'.

grrr politics (1)

natgeek (797802) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758059)

Ok, why does slashdot have to become a damn politics website. Why can't it just stay on the topic of technology and etc. For one it's leaning very much to one side so people who don't agree will probably just get annoyed and stop coming to the site all together. Hey there's a good way to keep your site popular. It's just really annoying.

Hey that was my vote! (1)

rxiv (724256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758061)

Actually, it's La Porte County Indiana, Michigan City is the city. I voted there - figures we would screw something up.


How hard is it to write software that counts votes (1, Funny)

nickmacey (600280) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758064)

int douche = 0; int turdSandwich = 0; if(voteFor = 'BUSH') douche++; else turnSandwich++;

Re:How hard is it to write software that counts vo (0)

Kredal (566494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758091)

Warning: turnSandwich not defined.

Obviously, harder than you think. (:

ENOUGH ALREADY (2, Insightful)

Oz0ne (13272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758065)

Voting irregularities happen all the time. When dealing with so many from so many places.. it's hard to do the job right. New systems, old systems, operator error, etc... these all go into effect. What purpose is posting an article like this with so little information about WHERE the votes were cast, or which votes were suppressed? It means NOTHING! Suppose all votes suppressed were for kerry, and all "extra" votes were for bush? Ok then you'd have an article! As it is you've got nothing more than sensationalist CRAP to stir up impressionable people that don't have the time to do the research on their own. Posting such drivel is highly irresponsible.

Did anyone here the call for unity by John Kerry? How about the one from Bush?

Kerry was a big man conceding as early as he did, he didn't have to, but he chose to make a difference in the best way he could... trying to help unify the nation after such a bitter election.

Apparently no one listened.

Stop B****ing and Make a Difference []

Get over it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758073)

from the stuff-to-think-about dept.

More like "from the get over it and try again in 4 years."

We've heard every single excuse possible already, for all of the weak consperacy theories about Republicans, the democrats were the ones out slashing tires the night before the election, and assaulting people in line during the election.

I hope you are happy too. With all of the propaganda you fed the American people about this election, you managed to kill one of the weak willed people over the weekend [] who really believed all the BS you spout about Bush being "evil". Your party really needs to tune down the "Bush is the Anti-Christ" retoric. You would be a lot better off taking a moderate position. In case you haven't noticed, the Republican party ignores/kicks out it's extremists (ie Pat Buchanan) while the democrats embrace theirs.

Hey there! Wait a minute! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10758074)

You call yourselves the greatest democracy on earth, you are proud of it, you try to push this "value system" down other countries throats, but don't you see how flawed the actual implementation of these values of which you stand are? Go learn about the world, about how democracy is really done. About governments gaining and leaving power by the decision of the citizens, the majority.

America, OPEN YOUR EYES! Change things! Stop being naïve! Wake up! The worst kind of blind man is the one who doesn't want to see!

Fear of change? Or real? (2, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758078)

One problem with these types of events is that nobody can say whether something happened or not. All you can say is that "the numbers don't fit a mental model of normalcy." The problem is that model may be wrong, or that something unusual happened.

If something unusual happened, well, statistically you can try and figure out how unusual the event was, but could you actually figure out if it was a "normal but unusual" event or a "fraud-related unusual" event?

Just because an event is extremely unlikely doesn't mean that it can't happen. People win the lottery every day, even though those events are highly unusual.

Can someone with some knowledge of statistics chime in?

BTW, palm beach found and corrected the 88k discrepancy.

But would it have mattered? (1)

Viperion (569692) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758084)

Certainly, voter fraud is a problem. But let's look at it this way. Bush won the popular vote by ~2-3 million votes (I don't rememeber number exactly). Even if all of the numbers thrown around in the post are valid, would you have said that a president that received a majority of the vote should not win?

Of course, if I had disliked Bush, my answer might be yes, but be honest here. Even if 300,000 votes were fraudulent, that doesn't change this election.

I fail to understand the point. (1)

Trevoke (821533) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758086)

After all, Kerry conceded. That's the end of it. The votes matter not.
Sad but true. Now, the fact that people don't know how to keep paper trails is another matter... Why haven't they hired a BOFH? Sure, everyone gets hurt, but the computers get the job done!

One thing's for sure... (1)

dep01 (730107) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758089)

Well one thing's for sure... If there WAS mass election fraud, there would be no way to find out.

All count mistakes benefit Bush? None for Kerry? (5, Insightful)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758090)

Notice there are NO reports in the media of ballot count mistakes, or diebold glitches which gave Kerry votes. Hmmm Of all the precincts in the US, not one can be found to have one count mistake in Kerry's favor to report on.

Robbed Again... (0)

phobos13013 (813040) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758098)

Bush Hijacked the election and we have to live with the consequence for Four More Years because nobody is going to anything to fight it. What else is there to say...?
The most infamous one so far is Kerry Won. [] I live in the state of flordia and i know how floridians think. This state is democrat period. The polls on the last week even showed it. [] And so did the Exit Polling. [] And please save me the Liberal Whining as the former site is non-partisan, and of course the liberals will show that this election was robbed again because they would be the only ones who have interest to prove it!

WHy (1, Flamebait)

UncleScrooge (827071) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758109)

Here in Holland we have been using electronic voting machines for YEARS and nothing EVER went wrong. WHy can't the US with all their supreme technology not make a fail safe system like we have here?

Actually, it's not that bad (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 9 years ago | (#10758112)

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised at the lack of any earth-shattering voter irregularities reported.

Sure, plenty of hickups, a few thousaand votes lost or misrepresennted here and there, but on the whole, nothing to really put any legitimate dispute as to the overall effect on the outcome of the Presidential Election

So while the system may not be perfect, it works for the most part and hopefully by 2008, we'll have better software in place.

The downside is that the lack of any real major problems reported will weaken arguements fort the adoption of OSS standards for voting software as well as ironing out some of the problems we still see with voter blacklists in Florida and elsewhere.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?