You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #31: It's not simple and not doable. If it were, someone would do it. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-23-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. It's not simple and not doable. If it were, someone would do it.
Edited on Tue Nov-23-10 12:48 AM by Bill Bored
To date, there hasn't even been a pilot of the audit you're advocating, and besides, it's very susceptible to fraud by faulty aggregation of either the machine tallies or the audit tallies. In theory, I agree it's OK though. I wouldn't be against it in principle, but it's not going to happen. Neither are risk-limiting audits based on machines or precincts, at least not on a large scale.

Like I said, the PTB want to trust the machines they've spent millions of our taxpayer dollars on, and that's the story they're sticking to.

We've got crucial elections here in New York right now that would have been decided by non-computerized lever machines, and hand counts of absentee ballots. Instead, so far we've got lots of software-based results, hand counts of 3% of the computers, and in the closet races, hand counts of the absentee ballots that account for about 5% of the vote. If that's how we're determining our election results, clearly the lever and hand-count system would have been far superior.

The courts may decide that 3% of scanners is a good enough hand count because the idiots in the NY Legislature decided that it would be enough a few years ago.

There is only one thing that is likely to save us and that's the state constitution. If that fails, or no one uses it in court, we're done for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -ERIE COUNTY NY: The problem wasn't the memory cards -- just the software that READS them! Bill Bored  Nov-18-10 12:09 AM   #0 
  - I live in Buffalo, looks like voting was a waste of my time, soon NY will go RED  Dragonfli   Nov-18-10 10:53 AM   #1 
  - Voting is not a waste of time. There's a chance our votes may be counted as cast - just no proof. nt  Bill Bored   Nov-18-10 01:49 PM   #3 
  - Without proof, money gets to win. They are only kept honest by proof  Dragonfli   Nov-18-10 02:05 PM   #4 
     - Don't get me wrong. Proof is good! LOVE THE PROOF! But if you don't vote...  Bill Bored   Nov-19-10 12:31 AM   #8 
  - Paranoid much?  TheWraith   Nov-18-10 02:18 PM   #5 
  - I'm a programmer, is knowledge paranoia? I know what can be done with the software.  Dragonfli   Nov-18-10 07:20 PM   #7 
  - Thanks, but I've been working with computers for about 20 years now.  TheWraith   Nov-19-10 03:27 AM   #11 
     - Silly assumption: Anything wrong in the software count will show up in the 3% canvass. nt  Bill Bored   Nov-20-10 12:42 AM   #13 
     - Silly assumption: that 2 plus 2 equals purple.  TheWraith   Nov-21-10 02:21 AM   #15 
        - The effects of cluster sampling would invalidate what I think you're trying to say.  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:25 PM   #21 
     - its about Public Confidence in Outcome of Election  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-20-10 08:20 PM   #14 
  - Paranoid NOT! "Paper ballots for recounts and auditing" = bait and switch!  Bill Bored   Nov-19-10 12:47 AM   #9 
     - Okay, how much knowledge do you have about statistics and the Board of Elections?  TheWraith   Nov-19-10 03:25 AM   #10 
        - Thanks for being a poll watcher but the 3% audit is bullshit. Read and learn:  Bill Bored   Nov-20-10 12:37 AM   #12 
           - Your link is irrelevant.  TheWraith   Nov-21-10 02:28 AM   #16 
              - 3% Audits are ok  BeFree   Nov-21-10 09:42 AM   #17 
              - that isn't "what the experts all say" at all  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-21-10 07:57 PM   #19 
                 - well  BeFree   Nov-21-10 09:32 PM   #22 
                    - A 10% audit of each and every machine...  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:44 PM   #24 
                    - 90% confidence  BeFree   Nov-21-10 10:18 PM   #25 
                       - Your math is not right for all elections because 10% is not right for all elections.  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 11:34 PM   #26 
                          - well Bill  BeFree   Nov-22-10 12:24 PM   #28 
                             - It's not simple and not doable. If it were, someone would do it.  Bill Bored   Nov-23-10 12:42 AM   #31 
                    - OK, now I know what you're talking about  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-22-10 07:00 AM   #27 
              - actually, think about this some more  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-21-10 07:53 PM   #18 
              - You are not very well informed. Try this:  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:13 PM   #20 
              - You're the one who clearly doesn't understand how a 3% audit works.  TheWraith   Nov-22-10 10:18 PM   #29 
                 - Dude, sorry to break this news to you but NY Election Law says to audit 3% of SCANNERS! nt  Bill Bored   Nov-23-10 12:28 AM   #30 
                    - Crickets. nt  Bill Bored   Nov-27-10 01:28 AM   #32 
                    - definitely NY needs better audits if using computer vote counting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-27-10 07:30 AM   #33 
                       - As I understand it, NC does full hand counts for the closest races.  Bill Bored   Nov-27-10 10:17 PM   #34 
                          - there's an IF in here  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-28-10 09:35 PM   #35 
                             - It seems hard to get if it relies on finding problems in a 3% sample.  Bill Bored   Nov-29-10 02:09 AM   #36 
              - More links (this time from the American Statistical Association):  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:34 PM   #23 
  - low turnout a really bad idea. Consider Bell, California  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-18-10 03:03 PM   #6 
  - oh oh!  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-18-10 11:55 AM   #2 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC