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!

Voting Machines Receive New Scrutiny (but not from the government)

monkease (726622) writes | about 2 years ago

Government 6

monkease writes "The cover story of this month's Harper's, "How to Rig an Election," (excerpt, subscription required) examines in incredible depth the use of voting machines in today's elections, statistical discrepancies in polling and election results, and the unwillingness of the political and journalistic establishment to address what are, at best, gross security flaws and conflicts of interest. This has been covered on Slashdot for about the past decade, but never that I've seen with such a broad lens."
Link to Original Source

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

Full title of article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41725327)

An Excerpt From “How to Rig an Election: The G.O.P. aims to paint the country red”

Any guesses about its position? Meanwhile, denial of actual voter fraud [] continues despite evidence [] .

Re:Full title of article (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#41726241)

I haven't read "Who's Counting" but every time the author talks about his favorite example (I saw him on Bill Maher's show and then went googling for details) - the 100,000 fraudulent votes in 1982 in Chicago he's always super-vague. After about an hour of digging I could not find anyone saying that any significant number of those 100,000 would have been prevented with voter-id. I got a vibe that it was primarily ballot-stuffing, not voter impersonation, that happened there.

If you have "Who's Counting" maybe you can check to see if the author spells out exactly how many of each type of voter fraud occurred.

As for the Franken's case, similar vagueness seems to apply. The "watchdog group" consistently refers to "felons" voting. Nevermind the assumption that these people voted for Franken, the big problem with that vagueness is that felons are allowed to vote in Minnesota. They have to make parole and complete probation, but then they can vote. There is no mention of that nuance in any of the reporting I could find. Which, given the massive politicization of the issue, I expect means that it was completely glossed over with the hope that most people will just take the accusation at face value.

Re:Full title of article (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#41727561)

I have seen it noted in other stories. I take it you noticed that some of the felons who voted in Minnesota were prosecuted? That means that they didn't qualify.

A bit more info: []

Minnesota Majority says it has been "stonewalled" by Hennepin County officials to whom it presented its findings. But in neighboring Ramsey County, Phil Carruthers of the local District Attorney's office says he takes the charges "very seriously" and found that Minnesota Majority "had done a good job in their review." His office has asked for 15 investigators to be hired to pursue the information. "So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open," he said. "And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed [Minnesota Majority's] numbers."

Minnesota Majority's Mr. McGrath says Minnesota Secretary of State Dan Ritchie, a Democrat elected in 2006 with the support of the discredited voter registration group ACORN, has been derelict in his duties. "It is the job of the secretary of state to flag felons on the voter rolls so local election workers can challenge them. In 90% of the cases, the felon records were not flagged."

One possible reason for that failure might be pure politics. Academic work by Jeff Manza and Marcus Britton of Northwestern University and Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota has shown that a large majority of felons routinely vote Democratic. The two academics estimated that Bill Clinton pulled 86% of the felon vote in 1992 and 93% in 1996. Statistician John Lott's own work in Washington State found that felons were 37% more likely to be registered Democrats even when accounting for race, gender, education level, religious habits, employment, age, and county of residence. No one knows for sure how the felons tagged by Minnesota Majority voted, but a thorough review of records in all of Minnesota's 87 counties seems in order. The state's voter rolls need to be cleaned up before another Coleman-Franken fiasco takes place.

Re:Full title of article (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#41731801)

Thanks for that. For some reason I did not key on the name "Minnesota Majority" the first time around. Googling for that brings all kinds of info to light. Most relevant of which is that none of the cases were the kind of thing that voter-id would fix - they all registered and voted as themselves, no double-voting or impersonatio. It also appears to have simply been an error on their part, they just didn't realize they were ineligible to vote, it wasn't a conspiracy.

Re:Full title of article (1)

monkease (726622) | about 2 years ago | (#41726709)

I did not mean to obscure the magazine's perspective in my description; Harper's is for sure a "left"-leaning mag, just one that's been around way, way, way, way longer than the modern notion of "left".

Question (1)

jjjiii (2758399) | about 2 years ago | (#41734261)

FTA: "In a 2007 Dan Rather exposé, The Trouble with Touch Screens, seven whistle-blowers at Sequoia charged that company executives had forced them to use inferior paper stock for ballots during the 2000 election. What’s more, said the whistle-blowers, they had been instructed to misalign the chads on punch cards destined for the Democratic stronghold of Palm Beach County."

I'm not sure how this wasn't big news and Donald Trump still is. But the trouble with whistleblowers is they have perhaps never had a bigger foe in the White House than Barack Obama. Remember right after he got elected and he let search engines index I was so pleased!

Is the danger of being associated with a "conspiracy theory" enough to stop Democrats from investigating legit claims?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?