Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Trends Electionland

electionlandtrends.appspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 178 posts

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#141

Post by alexbeloi »

folksinger wrote: post #88
nostromo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's meaningless. Near Seattle there are trends reported for "voter intimidation" and "long wait times" and "voting machine problems." Those trends make no sense for a region that votes by mail.

The reports of "voter intimidation" on the electionlandstrends map matches the boundary of this racial demographic map. http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhwhite.gif Here's those two maps combined: http://i.imgur.com/eKT5s0h.png

The boundary is where racial demographics are closest to the national average, are you arguing that voter intimidation is more likely in places demographically similar to average national demographics and less likely in places statistically further from the average (either higher % white people or higher % non-white people than national average)?

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#142

Post by folksinger »

idanoeman wrote: post #116
folksinger wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I already did the work I'm willing to do on my end. Further research would obviously have to take in to consideration deviations from general population density, but just looking at the map, there's a lot of voter intimidation being reported in the south that clearly has nothing to do with population density. Also, there's no correlation with voter intimidation and population density for cities in the midwest. S…

I'm not sure why you're pretending that it should be someone else's job to prove the point you're trying to make. You threw up a graph which looks identical to a population-density graph and are pretending you gave us evidence of your assertion.

No, I'm saying that he has to provide a better refutation of my point.

I do not agree that the graphs look identical.

What point am I trying to make, BTW?

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#143

Post by wesnerm2 »

bronson wrote: post #137
jdormit wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that 87% is an unacceptable margin of error given that we are talking about the presidential election.

That margin of error is across the whole country. Vote checking would run over a much smaller area.

It doesn't matter if it's across the whole country because the identification incorporates zipcodes. All ambiguities are local to a single town.

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#144

Post by jimktrains2 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #98
biot wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't eligibility automatic? Whether state of federal, doesn't the government already know whether or not you qualify to vote?

That would make rational sense, but strangely no. Unfortunately the US is setup in such a way so that individual states get to decide who is eligible to vote. This is a state right defined in the constitution[0]. In practice the vast majority of states have similar voting requirements. But because, in theory, they could all differ then no unified automated system is possible, it would have to be per-state. Of course…

In PA, when you change your address with PennDOT (who runs our DMV), there is a checkbox to update your voter registration. It's not the most obvious connection, but it seems to work pretty well.

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#145

Post by folksinger »

arcticfox wrote: post #117
folksinger wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I already did the work I'm willing to do on my end. Further research would obviously have to take in to consideration deviations from general population density, but just looking at the map, there's a lot of voter intimidation being reported in the south that clearly has nothing to do with population density. Also, there's no correlation with voter intimidation and population density for cities in the midwest. S…

Except your graph doesn't seem to support your point...IMO it's your word vs. your graph.

Prove it.

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#146

Post by folksinger »

idanoeman wrote: post #116
folksinger wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I already did the work I'm willing to do on my end. Further research would obviously have to take in to consideration deviations from general population density, but just looking at the map, there's a lot of voter intimidation being reported in the south that clearly has nothing to do with population density. Also, there's no correlation with voter intimidation and population density for cities in the midwest. S…

I'm not sure why you're pretending that it should be someone else's job to prove the point you're trying to make. You threw up a graph which looks identical to a population-density graph and are pretending you gave us evidence of your assertion.

BTW, I feel fully justified for calling out all of this lazy-ass thinking... posting links to comics as rebuttals... WTF is this, 4chan?

Ya'll need to embrace empiricism. Ya'll call yourselves engineers?

It "seems like" and it "looks like"? That's the evidence you provide?

I don't give a shit if you prove me wrong. I hope you do. I just want to see the evidence. I care about the truth, not some bullshit.

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#147

Post by [deleted] »

Pigo wrote: post #121
nostromo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's meaningless. Near Seattle there are trends reported for "voter intimidation" and "long wait times" and "voting machine problems." Those trends make no sense for a region that votes by mail.

I'm going to search for intimidation and see if it pops up on the map, sorry everyone

[deleted]

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#148

Post by mistermumble »

tmaly wrote: post #136
takeda wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really (or at least you would lose privacy part), one reason why voting is anonymous is to prevent 1) intimidation 2) paying people to vote in favor of specific issues. If block chain would be used it would be easy for someone buying votes to verify that the people who got paid voted in certain way.

I only mentioned it because I saw a post on HN the other day that mentioned zcash which is suppose to add anonymity to what bitcoin does. We get a lot of people claiming the machine switched their vote etc. Over the years, there have been stories of people forging paper ballots etc. I just wanted to raise the issue for discussion, why all the down votes?

I don't understand why you were downvoted. Your question is valid and relevant. There are problems with the current election process, that were evident in the primary elections. There are many manufacturers of e-voting machines, but these are opaque, proprietary and possibly hackable (as has been demonstrated in past years by security researchers). With current wave of interst in blockchain technology, there are several new ventures that are exploring blockchain as an immutable, authoritative record or log that cannot be hacked. The problem is that it is too transparent (people may see who you voted for, not just that you voted). But I think this problem can be solved, and will likely be solved. It may take a few years.

Here's an answer from Quora that I found helpful: https://www.quora.com/Can-blockchain-technology-be-used-in-s...

Re: Google Trends Electionland

#150

Post by hvoiiita »

mangeletti wrote: post #45

I just had to vote "provisional" myself (Palm Beach County). I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of fraud reports against the Florida Board of Elections. We registered almost 2 weeks before our Oct 11 deadline, yet neither my wife nor I were in their system - we received no mail or anything from the BoE. My vote, I'm absolutely certain now, will be thrown in the trash. Even if it isn't, the election will be o…

Same thing happened to me in Ohio. I had moved nearly two months ago and changed my voting registration almost immediately. Still had my old address listed.

Hopefully, theres nothing that goes wrong with the provisional votes.

Post reply on HN