OHIO: Computer error at voting machine gives Bush 3,893 extra votes

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur
The good thing is this one incident was caught but what are they going to do to correct or to look for other locations where similar errors may have occured?

its sort of like what happened in PA...some machines had votes on them before voting started....

do they go look at every machine? maybe...but do you count it as part of a recount? the margin didnt call for it, and neither did the candidates.

Perhaps we look at it as a lesson to be learned to make it better by next time.

personally, the machines shouldnt be that hard to code....heck..look at the polls here...you cant vote more than once...unless you really try I suppose...but to the average poster, they dont.

Anand...you need to come up with the new election system!

There were no machines in PA that had votes already in them. Even FOX News put the smackdown on Drudge for that erroneous report.


But, our election system is in dire need of a complete overhaul. Seriously, how hard is it for the government to develop an open-source system for use in our elections?

really...its hard to keep all this s*** straight

That it is.

However, since States do have their rights, can the Federal goverment implement something nationwide? Or, at the least, can the Federal government create some standard with which the States must comply?

Drop the hatred, CPA, and stick to the topic, ok? Care to answer this, perhaps?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: conjur
Give it a fvcking rest you sore winners. Jesus Christ!

the hate, the hate....I only thought repubs were hatemongers.

No, just liars, thugs, cheats and murderers. Get it straight.

 

[glugglug]

I'm confident that those 3,000 votes are NOT an error. Nor is it an isolated incident.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: chess9
I'd suggest you follow Ciba's lead. He appears to have his head screwed on in the forward-i.e. thinking-position.

Wow, thanks!

Conjur: I wouldn't necessarily call it an error until the votes are certified. The fact that it was caught shows that people are double-checking results. This is a GOOD thing.

The rest of you: Yes, Bush won. I like that. Don't take every post pointing out election flaws as "OMG BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION AND KILLS KITTENS!!!!11!!11oneoneone" This error is worthy of discussion.

Originially posted by: Conjur
However, since States do have their rights, can the Federal goverment implement something nationwide? Or, at the least, can the Federal government create some standard with which the States must comply?

The federal government can strongarm the states like it did with the drinking age. If the feds pay for it, plus more, I don't see why the states wouldn't. Now, I'm opposed to this type of bribery, but it happens regardless of my opinion on it.

 

[MonkeyK]

I find the OP interesting.
I see subsequent posts saying that "of course you are disregarding errors in the other direction". I say come up with them.

Remember that we are looking at a new and controversial method of voting. Any errors are an indication that we need to look further into just how accurate the method is in practice. Furthermore, seeing errors in one direction behooves us to look for those balancing errors in the other direction.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur
The good thing is this one incident was caught but what are they going to do to correct or to look for other locations where similar errors may have occured?

its sort of like what happened in PA...some machines had votes on them before voting started....

do they go look at every machine? maybe...but do you count it as part of a recount? the margin didnt call for it, and neither did the candidates.

Perhaps we look at it as a lesson to be learned to make it better by next time.

personally, the machines shouldnt be that hard to code....heck..look at the polls here...you cant vote more than once...unless you really try I suppose...but to the average poster, they dont.

Anand...you need to come up with the new election system!

There were no machines in PA that had votes already in them. Even FOX News put the smackdown on Drudge for that erroneous report.


But, our election system is in dire need of a complete overhaul. Seriously, how hard is it for the government to develop an open-source system for use in our elections?

Computers should not be used for an election. With paper ballots I can go down to my local voting place and watch every signle person put there paper ballot into the box. I can also see before the election starts that the box is empty and I can watch the people count the ballots and make sure that no fraud occurs. There is no possible way for me to see each vote cast with electronic voting, their is no way to see if the machine starts at zero, there is no way I can confermine the vote.

 

[chess9]

Spencer, I agree with you. I do not trust pixels and electrons to do my bidding. They never have in the past, that's for sure! (May I share my video card problems with you? )

-Robert

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: conjur
Give it a fvcking rest you sore winners. Jesus Christ!

We're sore winners because nobody is buying into your "voter fraud" conspiracy? lol :roll:

That's because their stupid.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Oh, the irony!

 

[Shame]

Conjur. What part of YOU LOST don't you get? Give it a break...

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: chess9
Spencer, I agree with you. I do not trust pixels and electrons to do my bidding. They never have in the past, that's for sure! (May I share my video card problems with you? )

-Robert

I trust the pixals it is very rare that a computer will do anything that it isn't told to do. I just don't trust the man tell the computer what to do.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Oh, the irony!

Ha ha I was thinking the same thing.

 

[chess9]

Spencer:

You are such a literalist.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Shame
Conjur. What part of YOU LOST don't you get? Give it a break...

Shame, what part of MACHINE ERROR don't you get? Keep on supporting fraudulent results. It becomes you.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Shame
Conjur. What part of YOU LOST don't you get? Give it a break...

Shame, what part of MACHINE ERROR don't you get? Keep on supporting fraudulent results. It becomes you.

Conjur...fraud has yet to be proven.

There is no question errors took place.

The difference is negligence vs intent.

I would like to say it was an honest error but if its not, the smack down needs to be placed on those who did it.

 

[StageLeft]

Interesting...makes things a bit closer. Wonder how many other "errors" like this have occurred?

True. Now if only it could happen another 50 times, then it would have been a tie afterall!