|Which voting system is most accurate?||ClydeTri|
Sep 18, 2003 5:26 AM
|from boortz online:
Two respected institutions, The California Institute of Technology and MIT, conducted a study of error rates with various voting machines. Would any of you care to guess the results? Well, you don't have to ... because I have them right here. Here are the error rates .. the percentages of votes cast with errors, using different types of machines:
Optical scanners have an error rate of 3.3%
Touch screen systems have an error rate of 3.0%
Data Vote systems have an error rate of 3.2%
Punch Cards? They have an error rate of 2.5% ... the best of the bunch.
|re: Which voting system is most accurate?||ClydeTri|
Sep 18, 2003 5:30 AM
|So, the ACLU which claims that minorities will be "disenfranchised" becuase they are a majority where the punch card ballots are still in use is in error.
With the punch card ballots I have used in the past ( I have lived in Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Missouri and Alabama so I have used most every system) it was clearly evident when you punched through the "chad". There was no mistaking it when the stylus broke through it. The concept of "pregnant chads" was a total farce.
|I prefer the town-meeting method (nm)||TJeanloz|
Sep 18, 2003 5:42 AM
|That way you can glare at your neighbors when they raise their hands to vote in favor of school tax increases.|
|Yep, old-style New Left/SDS participatory democracy,||OldEdScott|
Sep 18, 2003 5:58 AM
|You get to wag your finger in someone's face and say things like: "You better get your politics straight, a-hole" and shout "Provocateur! Provocateur!" when someone suspiciously straight and FBI-looking (but really a mole from Progressive Labor, God love them) suggests "direct action."
Ah yes. Lovely.
|All in favor, please stand and remain standing. (nm)||53T|
Sep 18, 2003 6:35 AM
|I like the Survivor method||mohair_chair|
Sep 18, 2003 7:04 AM
|Write your choice on a piece of scrap paper, show it to the camera, make some b!tchy comment, then throw it in the bowl. I think this would make voting a lot more fun, and would greatly increase it's appeal to the 18-24 crowd. Plus, the error rate would be zero, because there's built-in error checking: you wrote down your vote, showed it to the camera, and said it out loud. It's the perfect system!|
|I prefer the "Stalin" method.||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 18, 2003 8:01 AM
|Everybody gets to vote, but if you vote unwisely, you are deemed "unpatriotic", and taken out and shot.|
|This is in PATRIOT II? nm||OldEdScott|
Sep 18, 2003 8:19 AM
|And think about what that means.||dr hoo|
Sep 18, 2003 8:05 AM
|any vote closer than the margin of error is actually a statistical tie! So if the error rate is 2.5%, and the vote is 51-49%, then we don't really know who won!
Opscans errors also depend on the method. The "mark with black in a line here" is pretty good. Those old pencil - fill in the circle tests have a higher rate, approaching 5%.
BTW, other studies show different results, with better results for opscans:
"Using data from the last four general elections, researchers examined the relationship between "residual votes" -- uncounted, unmarked or overvoted ballots -- and equipment, and found that optical scanning machines based in precincts (not county polling stations) produced the fewest uncounted votes, at a rate of 1.5 percent. These machines actually fared better in the analysis than did existing electronic voting systems -- those on which voters push buttons to register their choices -- which had a rate of 2.3 percent of uncounted votes. "
this study also was done by MIT and cal tech.