551–560 of 659 posts
I would be more outraged if the video actually showed him tapping the other candidates to prove that they worked correctly. He says that tapping the others worked fine but there is no proof of this in the video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an aggravating, ignorant, and ahistorical comment. Besides the responses nearby taking you to task for the sophistry of your last sentence, I feel like it's worth highlighting the very real history of vote suppression in the South under Jim Crow. That's decades of violence, physical intimidation, bogus literacy tests, and a host of other tactics, directed at suppressing the vote of blacks and the poor. At every…
Ah yes, the fun of politics. As soon as someone says something that you disagree with, just flip your emotional switch and let the rant flow. I actually am quite aware of that history. I am also aware that of dozens of efforts in the last several years to change voting rules, every Republican effort has been to make it harder in the name of reducing fraud, while every Democratic effort has been to make it easier in t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What if the bubble isn't fully filled in? What if it's 50% filled in? What if it there is a stray mark in another bubble? Count it before the voter leaves, reject any ambiguous ballots with feedback about what's wrong and have the voter fix it before they leave. Repeat until it's accepted.
One of the core principles of the US system is that no one knows how a specific individual voted. This system (if I understand you correctly) requires the voter to confirm his vote to another human, which breaks the anonymity.
The suggestion is that, when the machine is scanning the ballot, if it finds something ambiguous it immediately rejects the ballot, returns it, and doesn't count anything, the voter gets it back, fixes the issue (or returns the ballot as spoiled and gets a fresh one they can mark correctly), and you repeat.
Nowhere in that does anyone else see the person's votes (except potentially on returning a spoiled ballot, but that's no more true under this system than the existing one if someone notices they mis-marked something, and they can always just mark more to obscure their original intent before handing it back).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there is no real evidence. He shows a video of a garden variety bug/error with resistive touch screens, then makes some sensationalist claims in his comments that are completely unsubstantiated.
Here's a video from 2008 of the exact same problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MHwNZkNFlI Is there any video of these sorts of "garden variety" bugs happening in favor of Democrats?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's from krdo. and there is also a video. http://www.krdo.com/news/Pueblo-GOP-Machines-switched-Romney...
There is a video, but it doesn't demonstrate anything. Did you even watch it??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The short answer is you can buy votes then. If you can prove to me who you voted for, I'll give you $5 or whatever.
What you're buying isn't a vote, but a receipt. What if we could increase the supply of valid receipts enough to make them effectively worthless? For example, voting machines could drop duplicate receipts into a bucket that voters are free to rummage around in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The arrow-thing is also confusing to people. I guarantee you that election officials have had to make a judgment call about them. EDIT : Out of 1000 people, how many will get confused by this design? http://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/polk.pdf SECOND EDIT : misaligned arrows were also a problem in Florida in the 2000 election
It just seems more natural to fill in a line than to fill in a circle. Your wrist is more stable and less shaky to make a couple straight lines with a marker.
However, that kind of efficiency isn't required at all in a ballot. Making a couple of crosses instead of lines isn't going to make a big absolute difference in terms of the entire voting process. You want to maximize other things, first and foremost making it easy to understand and easy to recognize clearly for both the voter and the people/entities who count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly, allowing easier access to voting is evil. No, definitely we should make it harder for those least able to afford it....working class people... to take time off from work and stand in line to vote. /sarcasm
Polls are generally open 12 hours, plus there's early voting and absentee voting. "Working class" people have no less opportunity to vote than anyone else. Stop with the class-warfare nonsense.
Stop with the naive "we're all in this boat together" bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MSNBC confirmed the machine was defective in the article.
And MSNBC is credible? http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-02/entertainment/ba...
Call me when they verifiably lie, ala Fox, and then we'll talk.