_imran_ ([info]_imran_) wrote,
@ 2004-11-03 21:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
ohio result

  • Some of Ohio used Diebold machines.
  • Diebold machines don't produce a paper audit trail.
  • Ohio electoral law requires a paper audit trail for electronic voting systems.

Yet Kerry still chose to concede although a legal challenge on this basis would almost certainly have been valid. Would Bush have done the same in his position ?

(Post a new comment)


[info]baljemmett
2004-11-03 03:08 pm UTC (link)
Although it might be tempting to speculate on such matters, it's all academic; I'm hugely suspicious of systems such as the Diebold machines (based on what I've read), but what's done is done.

One thing I've been wondering; is the British X-in-a-box system really not scalable to a given electorate size? Seems to me that you just need to increase the number of wards such that each ward contains a manageable number of voters, then possibly add a level or two of indirection. Once you have the individual votes counted, the higher levels consist of "when all subsidiary wards report, add votes and report". You only need to add additional leaves...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]baljemmett
2004-11-03 03:11 pm UTC (link)
Ah, brainfart (or brain-constipation?). I forgot that we run a first-past-the-post system as opposed to proportional representation. Still, I'm not sure that increases complexity by a huge amount.

Free warning to anybody considering visiting my part of the world -- there's a really nasty cold doing the rounds, my head seems to be encased in gunk right now. Can't think for toffee...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]squiggydaspcdog
2004-11-03 06:19 pm UTC (link)
some of the machines had problems before and during the election. some of the machines had at least 500 plus votes for Bush before the election. And where I live people started to find out that some votes weren't even counted around the Galveston area. Then some of the voting machines didn't work either.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]_imran_
2004-11-04 01:26 pm UTC (link)
I think it was stupid that they were using machines that have known problems, it doesn't really make much sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]squiggydaspcdog
2004-11-05 02:14 pm UTC (link)
Agreed. Plenty of people are bent out of shape about the election.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]pyxiwulf
2004-11-04 06:52 am UTC (link)
I have to say that the American electoral process is completely broken and something has to be done, but get the dang politicians out of the process!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]squiggydaspcdog
2004-11-04 11:17 am UTC (link)
hahaha good one.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]seth_death
2004-11-04 05:09 pm UTC (link)
two things:

a great expose of diebold machines is here

http://movies11.archive.org/1/movies/VotergateTheMovie/votergatethemovie.mpg

you can actually see hands-on demonstrations of how easy it is to change results, as well as hands-on demonstrations of machines which were likely rigged making "errors" at a post-election inspection station. some very funny moments, but depressing and frightening overall.

completely unrelated... i tried using your cgi or whatever to see which of my friends have the most common interests, and it said that i am my own bestest friend, which i already know'd, but then i removed myself from my friends list [a tough choice] to see one more result, and i am still listed as my own bestest friend, but the results were different, because i have two who are tied for 4th place and it changed from one to the other.

suggestion: have the script ignore the username being analyzed, because most people are on their own friends list, and everybody is going to have 100% common interests with themselves. also, i have 150 interests listed, so it should have said i had 150 common interests with myself, but it only came up with 15 or so, which means the error rate, as calculated by ommision, is in the realm of 90%, making your scripty script only marginally more accurate than diebold vote-o-matic [tm] machines. but it's still interesting and fun, so i am not demanding a refund at this time.

(Reply to this)

[info]davidkevin
2004-11-05 11:52 am UTC (link)

I think it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't.

An additional interesting commentary is at http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php.

I've added you to my Friend-list. If after looking at my journal you wish to reciprocate, cool. If not, I understand, no problem.

(Reply to this)

[info]dixii
2004-11-10 06:46 am UTC (link)
:-O

(Reply to this)

wingedsoldier
2004-11-11 09:46 pm UTC (link)
dude can i add you :p i love your memes :)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]_imran_
2004-11-16 12:52 pm UTC (link)
sure go ahead, sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]aricadavidson
2004-11-15 10:43 am UTC (link)
Had Kerry contested Ohio, there were states much closer that went to Kerry... Bush should and I hope would have contested those.

(Reply to this)

[info]piddyx
2004-12-11 04:44 pm UTC (link)
Kerry's concession doesn't mean he can't win later. The Green and Libritarian parties are contesting the results so that the Democrats won't look bad. He could still win, (or even better, Bush could be eaten by a bear!)

(Reply to this)

[info]sir_quirky_k
2004-12-23 02:15 am UTC (link)
I presume he conceded to avoid looking dogmatic as Gore perhaps did in 2000... or because he expected Bush's cronies in the Supreme Court to screw him.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…