A Question for Pinheads.....

who cares whether or not opinion polls are precisely accurate or not anyway? On any given day, you can find a variation of percentages based upon the polling source. Go to www.pollingreport.com .... look at presidential approval ratings...they are all over the map - and who gives a fuck? the ONLY poll that matters is the one taken by all the voters on election day at the polling places in the voting booths. THAT is the only poll that MUST be accurate. WHy is that such a difficult concept for blustering neocon gadflies to comprehend?
 
Damocles said:
Receipts can be used to verify a vote sold to a bidder. Voters do not get a receipt that shows how they voted.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

What I said was that the system would print out a verifiable list of votes by the voter that stays with the system showing who the vote was cast for. This printout stays with the system and a random sampling of the precincts should be taken to check on the accuracy of the system count.

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

What I said was that the system would print out a verifiable list of votes by the voter that stays with the system showing who the vote was cast for. This printout stays with the system and a random sampling of the precincts should be taken to check on the accuracy of the system count.

Immie
Click to expand...
Those printed receipts will never have any value at all until such time as the machine manufacturers are forced to open up their source code for review. Until that happens, none of these half-measures mean squat.

I recommend voting absentee. It's more secure -- and more convenient.
 
I recommend voting absentee. It's more secure -- and more convenient.
//

Yep me too, and it works best for the dead as they are pretty well absent ;)
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Those printed receipts will never have any value at all until such time as the machine manufacturers are forced to open up their source code for review. Until that happens, none of these half-measures mean squat.

I recommend voting absentee. It's more secure -- and more convenient.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you take random samples of precincts and compare the electronic count to the printout of the machines you would know if there had been any source code problems which would lead to investigations and major troubles for the culprit.

For example say they sampled 1500 precincts in the next presidential election. The machines showed significant errors in 800 of those precincts. It would lead to an investigation and I am sure a review of the source code.

I have no problem with reviewing the source code, but I am not sure that, that alone is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the system.

Immie
 
uscitizen said:
so why should the media get all the money spent to "buy" elections ? ;)
Click to expand...

it is a double roll tape, the recipt that is spit out for the voter, states the people they voted for....the carbon copy of thier receipt, is the receipt roll that stays with the machine and is ready to use as an Auditable paper trail.

Unless you can figure out a way for a register to print an audit tape that is different than its carbon copy receipt....the audit tape is auditable, just as with the 24hour computerized bank tellers.....

The voter's recept does not have their name on it, it may have a number, for how many voters used this machine and what number you were in that process....which could be matched up with the auditable carbon copy if need be...but I do not see this a necessary or even feasible if wanted, because of our vote's privacy and because surely many people will lose their receipts...

But if the voter reviews their receipt to make sure their votes were recorded properly, then the carbon copy tape will be auditable, and legit.

This STILL does not prevent any shennanigans from happening with the electronic end of the voting....unless we always use the auditable tape to verify the machine's count tally....

Or maybe as Immie has stated, random machines are chosen to audit with the corresponding tapes?
 
Immanuel said:
I disagree. If you take random samples of precincts and compare the electronic count to the printout of the machines you would know if there had been any source code problems which would lead to investigations and major troubles for the culprit.

For example say they sampled 1500 precincts in the next presidential election. The machines showed significant errors in 800 of those precincts. It would lead to an investigation and I am sure a review of the source code.

I have no problem with reviewing the source code, but I am not sure that, that alone is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the system.

Immie
Click to expand...
You're right in that source review alone isn't sufficient. I'm just saying that it's a necessary part of any effective evaluation and enforcement strategy.

Given your scenario -- a good one, BTW -- access to the source code is still a necessary component. As of now, the companies that produce these machines are adamant about NOT submitting their code to review under any circumstances. That is the obstacle that has to be overcome.
 
How about a mechanical punch machine. lets the voter review his votes before commiting them to punch. to eliminate or virtually so hanging chad problems. not the little pokey pin thing, but more of an IBM punchcard type of electro mechanical machine. No programming to mess up. KISS.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, but you are avoiding my question. Why are polls viewed as absolute, while elections are suspect? How come polls can't be manipulated and rigged just like you think the elections are? It just seems to me, the logic applies both ways, especially since we know for a fact, popular polls do not require any sort of ID or verification, nor do they require certification or judicial oversight, like elections. On the surface, it appears it would be easier to manipulate a popular poll than a national election, given the safeguards in place for voting and lack of confirmation with polls.
Click to expand...

I am answering you Dixie...Polls are NOT CONSIDERED ABSOLUTE, just fairly accurate....and they can be audited by their peers and competition....

Voting should be ABSOLUTE....no margin of error and there is no reason why it can not be if we took the appropriate measures.

-------------------------------------------------

Prak
As far as polls that are singularly off.... like the right wing example mentioned above, while 5-10 other private polsters had similar polling results that did not match the Right Wing Polster's "positive for their candidate" results, then the right winger had a definate PROBLEM with their polling....and should not be used as a close to accurate poll within the status quo 3% margin of error imo....in other words, something went terribly wrong by mear accident...;), ;) or they intention tried to deceive.....but competition will out them or rather will out the mistake, as they did.
 
I prefer optical scanners to punch cards. The ballot itself allows for easy checking on your votes.
 
Yep optical scanners would work as well. But the same concept. no programs just electro mechanical in operation. KISS.
 
So why do all of us (except maybe Dixie ;) j/k Dixie) want a system with more integrity but the politicians of both sides seem to drag their feet on the issue? Could it be that they figure they are better cheaters than their opponents?

Immie
 
I just don't understand it... We have an election system that seems to have relatively little room for fraud, being that results have to be certified, voters have to be registered, and ID's have to be checked... Sure, there are some dead people who still vote, and I suppose a machine could have a glitch, but for the most part, our election process is fairly accurate and safe.

Nevertheless, we have pinhead morons who insist that it isn't, can't be, Bush wouldn't have won the election if it had been, so that proves it. These very same people will break their necks to post the latest Gallup poll as if it's empirical fact, and never question the results. I just wondered what gave them so much more faith in the polls, which have far less safeguard against fraud than the election system?
 
That's so stupid, nobody said polls are infallable. Though I didn't notice any republicans taking issue with them when Bush was riding high in them.

I think that overall, taken all together, over months, they can give a decent indication of whether or not a politician, or an issue, enjoys majority support. But no one, or two, polls can be taken as indication of anything. They have to hold steady, and over a long period of time. And this still gives little, if any indication of what issues are really driving the polls. Is it really Iraq? Or is it gas prices? When Americans say they are against or for something, the obvious follow-up question is, how much do you care? Is this issue enough to change your vote? How often is this question asked? Rarely I think, except possibly in the two party's internal polls.

When Bush was riding high in the polls, I just remembered Twain, and he had this right, "Ain't we got all the fools on our side, and ain't that a majority in any town?"

So now all the fools are possibly, on "my side", except they're still fools, and not really on my side at all.

And so, I don't care about polls. They must bug the crap out of you though.
 
The actual questions asked in the polls have a big impact on the outcome.
I could imagine a Dixie poll.
Q.
Are you a commie democrat that supports terrorism or do you support the american way. liberty, and Bush ?
 
uscitizen said:
The actual questions asked in the polls have a big impact on the outcome.
I could imagine a Dixie poll.
Q.
Are you a commie democrat that supports terrorism or do you support the american way. liberty, and Bush ?
Click to expand...

LOL

That is very true. They can defintely be manipulated so that they come out the way you want them to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top