Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   After recounts, lawsuits and whining about voting machines fails to overturn an election, Democrats want a judge to nullify the results because they don't match a statistical model they pulled out of someone's butt   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
73
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

510 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Dec 2006 at 12:59 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



73 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-12-01 12:04:55 PM  
You won. Get over it.
 
Technoblake [TotalFark]
2006-12-01 12:12:14 PM  
This commentary is deeply flawed. The writer states that the audits turned up no evidence of tampering, yet during the audits, where trained election workers repeated voted, many of the votes failed to turn up on the tally. Additionally, the reason for this audit is that 18,000 undervotes were reported in this contest which is many times higher than normal outcomes. The machines need a paper trail.
 
eggrolls
2006-12-01 12:14:08 PM  
All I had to see was that the contested election occured in Florida to know that everybody involved is an asshat.
 
BobtheFascist
2006-12-01 12:19:03 PM  
Good to see the Dems are doing their part in justifying the Florida Tag.
 
timmy_the_tooth
2006-12-01 12:39:57 PM  
Dear assmitter,

Three things I'd like to mention. The first is that I am proud of anyone who wants to make sure that the 35% of us or so who do bother to vote have our votes counted and only someone who is un-american, authoritarian, and anti-democracy would wish otherwise.

The second is that according to the author of the opinion piece posted for our perusal "such liberal partisans as People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union" are partially to blame. I was unaware that the constitution had a liberal bias, but if it does, I would proudly put myself in that category. Would that mean that conservatives are anti-constitution? Judging solely by the acts of the republican controlled government of the last 6 years, I guess the answer would be yes. That doesn't bother you at all?

Finally, there is direct evidence that those machines are fark-ed up. Even the anti-democracy cronie writing the opinion piece included that tidbit. What, then, is wrong with holding the election over again?

In conclusion, I'm very sorry that the team whose cock you gobble lost in the last election. Stop acting like a Seahawks fan and get over it.

Sincerely,

Mr. _the_Tooth
 
RocketRod
2006-12-01 12:54:44 PM  
Good to know the election lawyers aren't hurting for work in Florida.
 
Scooby's'pawn
2006-12-01 12:55:02 PM  
The Dem lost. Get over it. As long as Florida Election law was followed and there is no provable cheating. It's over. One seat won't make a damn bit of difference either way.
 
the_sky_is_falling
2006-12-01 1:06:18 PM  
At least it's not like the Republican's challange in King County Washington:

"The state GOP sued in January to overturn the results of the November 2004 election for governor, in which Democrat Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes after two recounts of more than 2.8 million ballots statewide."

...oh wait.....

...pot meet kettle....

...oh yeah...suck it subby....
 
TofuTheAlmighty [BareFark]
2006-12-01 1:11:12 PM  
[image from artsci.wustl.edu too old to be available]
 
MindStalker
2006-12-01 1:11:55 PM  
Scooby's'pawn: Sure, by election laws she lost, because the election laws don't really require an accurate vote. What I would love to see if the Demo giving one up for the team and offering to "concede" in turn for a compete investigating into the problems with these machines. Meaning, declare the other guy a winner no matter what happens in the investigation so no one can scream that shes being a sore loser, but make the winner contractually promise to ensure a full investigation.

Or something to that effect. Bottom line is the machines need to be fixed and this is what is important, the winner of a tight race... not so much.
 
moops
2006-12-01 1:17:17 PM  
assmitter,

Several things are amiss here. An entire county had undervotes of 18+% (3% for absentee), and there are numerous allegations of voters' selections for the Jenkins-Buchanan race not registering.

Those wonderful computerized voting machines left no papertrail.

Combine that with the fact that in their "simulated election", several things went wrong and the elections board attributed it to "unknown human error".

Thus there is evidence that for an entire county, a large proportion of the voters' intention permanantly disappeared.

Computerized voting makes as much sense as computerized shoes or computerized backscratchers. I hope Jenkins keeps fighting this, further uncovering the folly of Diebold et al. Hoepfully now that Congress isn't run by GOP crooks, we can put an end to the use of these idiotic machines.

Those of you who say "get over it" need to be punched hard in the face.
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2006-12-01 1:18:22 PM  
Here's an Idea. How about they invalidate the results because of what happened at yesterday's test?

Sarasota County election officials just completed a "test" election designed to show how reliable the machines were. They used their own employees as the "voters", and gave then a script on who to vote for. Depite all of this Serious problems the results showed up, and the vote trallies didn't match. Of Course the County election official immediately blamed this on "Human Error" even though that couldn't possibly explain 8 of the ten problems found.

Now last time I checked the Scientific method was a still valid way of resolving questions like this and if we apply it to this test vote we get an incontovertable result:

Hypothesis (the Machine is fine)
Experiment (the Test vote)
Results (the Vote tallies didn't match)
Conclusion (the Machine is F*cked)

Therefore, there is no way that Democracy can be served by anything other than a re-vote with paper ballots. If you want to be supremely fair, restrict particpation to only those who actually showed up to vote the first time.
 
timmy_the_tooth
2006-12-01 1:19:40 PM  
Corvus: Science = pulling out of someone's butt

lol

religion = putting it into someone's butt
 
ericjohnson0
2006-12-01 1:19:42 PM  
Gotta love them 'Crats...
They make everyone else look sooooo good.
 
tical
2006-12-01 1:19:56 PM  
Submitter apparently failed Statistics
 
timmy_the_tooth
2006-12-01 1:21:24 PM  
ericjohnson0: Gotta love them 'Crats...
They make everyone else look sooooo good.

cmon ej0 this is particularly weak Troll, even for you.

man up nancy boy.
 
NittLion78
2006-12-01 1:21:53 PM  
You know, 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
 
sacrileg
2006-12-01 1:26:09 PM  
you guys really don't care if the vote is accurate do you?
 
ericjohnson0
2006-12-01 1:30:27 PM  
timmy the tooth
cmon ej0 this is particularly weak Troll, even for you.

man up nancy boy.

Yeah, you're right. It's Friday... just not in the mood to bring my 'A game.'

Sorry... :)
 
Skleenar
2006-12-01 1:37:24 PM  
timmy_the_tooth: Stop acting like a Seahawks fan and get over it.

As an individual very happy with the overall results of the last election and who resides in Seattle I am somewhat conflicted by your sentiment.
 
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer
2006-12-01 1:48:42 PM  
"I was unaware that the constitution had a liberal bias"

Then you need to read it. Why Conservatives hate the Costitution so much, yet claim they love it, is one of those wonderful mysteries, like why Conservatives hate Conservation.
 
timmy_the_tooth
2006-12-01 1:52:19 PM  
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Then you need to read it. Why Conservatives hate the Costitution so much, yet claim they love it, is one of those wonderful mysteries, like why Conservatives hate Conservation.

yes .

i was being facetious.
 
Skleenar
2006-12-01 1:55:50 PM  
Anyone else getting kind of tired of the scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrellness of the current crop of "OMG tha DemoncRats R bad!" greenlights recently?

I mean, really. Come on. Using the desire for accurate elections in a race where there are 18K disputed ballots to tar the reputation of an entire political party is kind of, well, lame.

/Don't make me pull out my Abramoff links
 
squegeebooo
2006-12-01 1:57:34 PM  
the_sky_is_falling

At least it's not like the Republican's challange in King County Washington:

"The state GOP sued in January to overturn the results of the November 2004 election for governor, in which Democrat Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes after two recounts of more than 2.8 million ballots statewide."

You mean how the democrats lost, there was a recount, the dem still lost, so they called for another recount and won? And with certifiable voter fraud, such as dead voters? Where the GOP called for a new election, as opposed to a 3rd recount, due to the amount of flaws/errors that were found?
 
ericjohnson0
2006-12-01 1:58:36 PM  
Skleenar
Anyone else getting kind of tired of the scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrellness of the current crop of "OMG tha DemoncRats R bad!" greenlights recently?

No. Everytime I see that the truth is getting out there, I get wood...
 
anrwlias
2006-12-01 1:59:27 PM  
One more time:

I don't care who wins or who loses, these machines are a bad implementation.

I want: 1) A paper trail, 2) An open architecture, and 3) Independent audits of all voting machines.

This is NOT about my team vs. your team, this is about making certain that the core mechanism of our democracy is not corrupted either by malice or incompetence.

Black boxes should not be part of any democractic system, period.
 
BuckTurgidson
2006-12-01 2:01:04 PM  
TFA: ...such liberal partisans as People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union...

Oh, brother. ESAD, WSJ editorial stooge.
 
ericjohnson0
2006-12-01 2:01:47 PM  
squegeeboo
You mean how the democrats lost, there was a recount, the dem still lost, so they called for another recount and won? And with certifiable voter fraud, such as dead voters? Where the GOP called for a new election, as opposed to a 3rd recount, due to the amount of flaws/errors that were found?

Now, now... that isn't fair... calling those nice, tolerant, kind, accepting, honest Leftwingers Liars and Hypocrites... telling the truth isn't popular, you know.

Why, some of those good treehuggers are liable to kick you with their Birkenstocks and throw a mean, nasty cup of Starbucks on you...
 
I_C_Weener [TotalFark]
2006-12-01 2:03:10 PM  
So, they used an American Idol winner predictor to choose their candidate...and reality bit them in the ass. Sounds like the Democrat way...the world is what we want...not what we've got.
 
ericjohnson0
2006-12-01 2:05:01 PM  
I C Weener
and reality bit them in the ass. Sounds like the Democrat way...the world is what we want...not what we've got.

I may hang that on my wall.

Barvo... Golf Clap... free pics Eva Green... yay.
 
Sloth_DC
2006-12-01 2:08:38 PM  
timmy_the_tooth: What, then, is wrong with holding the election over again?

And we'll keep holding elections until the Party wins, at which point we won't need any more elections.
 
Sloth_DC
2006-12-01 2:10:56 PM  
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Then you need to read it. Why Conservatives hate the Costitution so much, yet claim they love it, is one of those wonderful mysteries, like why Conservatives hate Conservation.

Or why "Liberals" hate Liberalism (letting people do what they will with minimal governmental interference or power).

I keep hoping both parties will implode...
 
AgeOfReason
2006-12-01 2:17:06 PM  
timmy_the_tooth:

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Then you need to read it. Why Conservatives hate the Costitution so much, yet claim they love it, is one of those wonderful mysteries, like why Conservatives hate Conservation.

yes .

i was being facetious.

This long on the Fark and you guys don't know each other?
 
timmy_the_tooth
2006-12-01 2:30:10 PM  
Sloth_DC: And we'll keep holding elections until the Party wins, at which point we won't need any more elections.

OR

we'll get rid of the machines that are obviously and scientifically proven to be flawed, and have elections that are fair and accountable.
 
abb3w [TotalFark]
2006-12-01 2:40:24 PM  
Conclusion (the Machine is F*cked suspiciously unreliable).

Fixed that for you, Magorn.

My suggestion: retest, using employees as voters, but with each "voter" being watched by one registered Democratic observer, and one Republican observer. If the tally doesn't match the script at that point, yeah, it's time to call in the cops AND a professional computer forensics team with criminological experience to find out WHY the machines don't work the way they're expected to.

One of the troubles with getting away with any electronic vote tampering schemes is that your black hat has to be good enough to hide ALL of the evidence. Many of them lack the subtlety to hide ANY of the evidence, and the ones who are good enough to even try are expensive, and might not consider everything... like making sure the machine reverts to an apparently untampered state after the elections.

/Not convinced it was tampering
//Convinced it was bad design by someone
 
Hang On Voltaire
2006-12-01 2:43:19 PM  
timmy_the_tooth [TotalFark]
we'll get rid of the machines that are obviously and scientifically proven to be flawed, and have elections that are fair and accountable.

fair meaning the democrat candidate wins
 
AgeOfReason
2006-12-01 2:47:30 PM  
Hang On Voltaire:

fair meaning the democrat candidate wins

Fair meaning that 18,000 votes are not "lost", no matter who wins and loses. What do you have against every vote counting? Oh that's right statistically the fewer the votes the better for your team.
 
Skleenar
2006-12-01 2:49:21 PM  
ericjohnson0: Now, now... that isn't fair... calling those nice, tolerant, kind, accepting, honest Leftwingers Liars and Hypocrites... telling the truth isn't popular, you know.


You do, of course, realize that the WA governor's recount proceeded completely within the bounds of the state law and that the final recount was paid for in advance by the Democratic party? (and was refunded by the state, according to state law, when the results overturned the first count).
Oh, and that there was no clear pattern of irregularities in the ballots that favored one party or another.

/the more you know!
 
Hang On Voltaire
2006-12-01 2:49:27 PM  
AgeOfReason
Fair meaning that 18,000 votes are not "lost", no matter who wins and loses. What do you have against every vote counting? Oh that's right statistically the fewer the votes the better for your team.

How were 18k votes "lost"?
 
Skleenar
2006-12-01 2:51:09 PM  
abb3w: /Not convinced it was tampering
//Convinced it was bad design by someone

in either case the result is inaccurate.
 
timmy_the_tooth
2006-12-01 2:52:00 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: fair meaning the democrat candidate wins

i'd say this suggestions is fair:

abb3w: My suggestion: retest, using employees as voters, but with each "voter" being watched by one registered Democratic observer, and one Republican observer. If the tally doesn't match the script at that point, yeah, it's time to call in the cops AND a professional computer forensics team with criminological experience to find out WHY the machines don't work the way they're expected to.

One of the troubles with getting away with any electronic vote tampering schemes is that your black hat has to be good enough to hide ALL of the evidence. Many of them lack the subtlety to hide ANY of the evidence, and the ones who are good enough to even try are expensive, and might not consider everything... like making sure the machine reverts to an apparently untampered state after the elections.

I called for fair and accountable elections, you assume it means I want Democrats to win. ergo, you're a partisan asshat. congrats on that Hang On Voltaire
 
AgeOfReason
2006-12-01 2:53:43 PM  
Hang On Voltaire:

How were 18k votes "lost"?

18,000 votes for that race were missing from the totals.
 
Hang On Voltaire
2006-12-01 2:55:25 PM  
AgeOfReason
18,000 votes for that race were missing from the totals.

How do you know?
 
AgeOfReason
2006-12-01 3:00:18 PM  
Hang On Voltaire:

How do you know?

You are now being obtuse as usual. You know very well there are 18,000 missing votes.
 
Bored Horde
2006-12-01 3:03:29 PM  
Hang On Voltaire

You're that dude that just walked into the middle of a long and heated discussion. Without taking time to do research, you start jumping in.

Kinda sounds tool-esque doesn't it? Hit the google search, come back. Don't be lazy and expect people to fill you in.
 
Hang On Voltaire
2006-12-01 3:04:21 PM  
AgeOfReason
You are now being obtuse as usual. You know very well there are 18,000 missing votes.

"missing" means something was there and now it is not. So I am asking how you know that the votes were there and now they aren't
 
Skleenar
2006-12-01 3:06:21 PM  
Bored Horde: You're that dude that just walked into the middle of a long and heated discussion. Without taking time to do research, you start jumping in.

My guess is that he knows perfectly well about the 18,000 undervotes.

I would say HOV is making the point that just because they aren't there doesn't mean that 18,000 people didn't just decide not to vote in that one race.

He is also, unwittingly, making the point that electronic voting machines are complete crap for the very reason that we don't know this.
 
Hang On Voltaire
2006-12-01 3:07:03 PM  
Bored Horde
You're that dude that just walked into the middle of a long and heated discussion. Without taking time to do research, you start jumping in.
Kinda sounds tool-esque doesn't it? Hit the google search, come back. Don't be lazy and expect people to fill you in.

Could you be more specific?
 
Skleenar
2006-12-01 3:07:32 PM  
I guess I was right.

/darn thinking-and-typing takes longer than just typing.
 
Bored Horde
2006-12-01 3:09:20 PM  
Skleenar

Really?

Some parts of Canada use Diebold voting machines, incidentally they produce a paper trail. I've never heard of anyone having any issues with them either.

Sounds like you guys went for the cheapest model and got farked. Thats why you buy a VW over the Kia.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come on, it's $10 a month, just do it.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.