Al Franken...is this for real? - Page 13

Urbane Guerrilla · 02-16-2009, 09:56 PM

Oath Of Fealty, by Niven & Pournelle. "Think of it as evolution in action," as a graffito near a ledge popular with jumpers in the arcology.

It's gotta be twenty years at least since I read it, and I had to google.

tw · 02-20-2009, 01:34 AM

Examples of why voters make vote counting so difficult - from The Economist:

classicman · 02-20-2009, 08:04 AM

Where is the difficulty?

piercehawkeye45 · 02-20-2009, 08:50 AM

Completely fill in the bubble, do not use checks, x's, and do not make any other marks in other boxes.

It must be the North Dakota immigrants...

classicman · 02-20-2009, 10:58 AM

I got that PH, but seriously - is there ANY DOUBT about the intent of either of those ballots. I'm sure there are much better examples of confusion, but those two appear very clear.

Shawnee123 · 02-20-2009, 10:59 AM

That's why that dude only got a 2 on his SAT...bubble filling challenged.

classicman · 02-20-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Examples of why voters make vote counting so difficult - from The Economist:

Of course they are both voters for Franken -no wonder they couldn't follow the directions....

JUST KIDDING

glatt · 02-20-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Examples of why voters make vote counting so difficult - from The Economist:

These were the best examples of how messed up the ballots can get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barefoot serpent

and here they are

plus the 'lizard people' ballot

piercehawkeye45 · 02-20-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

I got that PH, but seriously - is there ANY DOUBT about the intent of either of those ballots. I'm sure there are much better examples of confusion, but those two appear very clear.

There is no doubt for anyone with common sense. There is doubt for politicians that are trying to win an election.

classicman · 02-20-2009, 12:12 PM

The ones in tw's link are quite clear - Those in the other link are pretty obvious too, for the most part. This seems like a bunch of BS to me.

Shawnee123 · 02-20-2009, 12:13 PM

Clearly you've never dealt with the general public in matters of forms and publications...you'd be amazed!

tw · 02-20-2009, 02:03 PM

If the machine cannot read it, then it is not obvious and must be reviewed.

Better voting machines read your ballot, tell you what it could not read, and ask you if that mistake is OK.

Obviously, MN has better voting machines than those bought by bean counter intelligence who saw the word 'computer' and then knew it must be better (ie customers of Diebold).

But do MN voting machines ask the voter if that is what he intended? If yes, then the reason to accept or reject a paper ballot completely changes. It has a check mark. The voting machine says that entry for Senator is empty. The voter says yes. Then the check mark is a blank - voter voted for nobody. If the machine sees he voted, then says nothing - machine accepts the check mark as a vote. No problem. No challenge.

We don't know if voting machines read and asked the voter about vague intents. Therefore we don't know the criteria used to recount those votes. Not at all obvious until we first know if machines asked voters about vague intents.

Shawnee123 · 02-20-2009, 02:10 PM

Still, you can't un-stupidfy people.

There is an edit when filling out the fafsa when the student enters taxes paid as equal to adjusted gross income (say they made 25000, and they enter that they paid 25000 in taxes.) A box pops up and says "dude, you just said you paid out your entire income in taxes. Are you really sure?" More often than not, they will say "yes, I'm sure...hmph." Then again "are you surely sure?" "YES I'm surely sure you damn computer." Then they bitch when selected by the feds for verification.

I can't imagine voters are a smarter population, on the average, than students.

classicman · 02-20-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

We don't know ~snip~ Therefore we don't know

We are way past the machines - we are at the review stage. So we have a bunch of people looking at these things and trying to determine if the intent was for candidate (A) or (B) or unknown. It is that simple. They are making a mountain out of this. Oh and somewhere somehow a mountain of money too.

02-20-2009, 04:23 PM

The states have election laws that includes processes for reviewing election results. Many "good government" organizations have recognized MN as having one of the most thorough and open processes.

The attempt is to avoid or prevent disenfranchising a voter for being stupid at the polls (or machine malfunctions).

In any case, I read recently that Coleman, if/when he loses the final state review, will attempt to take a "fast track" to the US Supreme Court, claim a violation of his 14th amendment due process rights, and suggest that a new election should be ordered by the Court.

02-16-2009, 09:56 PM	#181
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Oath Of Fealty, by Niven & Pournelle. "Think of it as evolution in action," as a graffito near a ledge popular with jumpers in the arcology. It's gotta be twenty years at least since I read it, and I had to google. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

02-20-2009, 01:34 AM	#182
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Examples of why voters make vote counting so difficult - from The Economist: Attached Images

02-20-2009, 08:04 AM	#183
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Where is the difficulty? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

02-20-2009, 08:50 AM	#184
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Completely fill in the bubble, do not use checks, x's, and do not make any other marks in other boxes. It must be the North Dakota immigrants... __________________ I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.

02-20-2009, 10:58 AM	#185
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	I got that PH, but seriously - is there ANY DOUBT about the intent of either of those ballots. I'm sure there are much better examples of confusion, but those two appear very clear. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

02-20-2009, 10:59 AM	#186
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	That's why that dude only got a 2 on his SAT...bubble filling challenged. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

02-20-2009, 12:12 PM	#190
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	The ones in tw's link are quite clear - Those in the other link are pretty obvious too, for the most part. This seems like a bunch of BS to me. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

02-20-2009, 12:13 PM	#191
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Clearly you've never dealt with the general public in matters of forms and publications...you'd be amazed! __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

02-20-2009, 02:03 PM	#192
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	If the machine cannot read it, then it is not obvious and must be reviewed. Better voting machines read your ballot, tell you what it could not read, and ask you if that mistake is OK. Obviously, MN has better voting machines than those bought by bean counter intelligence who saw the word 'computer' and then knew it must be better (ie customers of Diebold). But do MN voting machines ask the voter if that is what he intended? If yes, then the reason to accept or reject a paper ballot completely changes. It has a check mark. The voting machine says that entry for Senator is empty. The voter says yes. Then the check mark is a blank - voter voted for nobody. If the machine sees he voted, then says nothing - machine accepts the check mark as a vote. No problem. No challenge. We don't know if voting machines read and asked the voter about vague intents. Therefore we don't know the criteria used to recount those votes. Not at all obvious until we first know if machines asked voters about vague intents.

02-20-2009, 02:10 PM	#193
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Still, you can't un-stupidfy people. There is an edit when filling out the fafsa when the student enters taxes paid as equal to adjusted gross income (say they made 25000, and they enter that they paid 25000 in taxes.) A box pops up and says "dude, you just said you paid out your entire income in taxes. Are you really sure?" More often than not, they will say "yes, I'm sure...hmph." Then again "are you surely sure?" "YES I'm surely sure you damn computer." Then they bitch when selected by the feds for verification. I can't imagine voters are a smarter population, on the average, than students. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

02-20-2009, 04:23 PM	#195
Redux Guest Posts: n/a	The states have election laws that includes processes for reviewing election results. Many "good government" organizations have recognized MN as having one of the most thorough and open processes. The attempt is to avoid or prevent disenfranchising a voter for being stupid at the polls (or machine malfunctions). In any case, I read recently that Coleman, if/when he loses the final state review, will attempt to take a "fast track" to the US Supreme Court, claim a violation of his 14th amendment due process rights, and suggest that a new election should be ordered by the Court.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)