Touchscreen Voting Troubles Reported

edited November 2004 in Science & Tech
Voters nationwide reported some 1,100 problems with electronic voting machines on Tuesday, including trouble choosing their intended candidates.
The e-voting glitches reported to the Election Protection Coalition, an umbrella group of volunteer poll monitors that set up a telephone hotline, included malfunctions blamed on everything from power outages to incompetent poll workers. But there were also several dozen voters in six states -- particularly Democrats in Florida -- who said the wrong candidates appeared on their touchscreen machine's checkout screen, the coalition said. In many cases, voters said they intended to select John Kerry but when the computer asked them to verify the choice it showed them instead opting for President Bush, the group said.
Source: CNN

Comments

  • MedlockMedlock Miramar, Florida Member
    edited November 2004
    ...particularly Democrats in Florida...
    :grumble:
  • edited November 2004
    That caught your eye too eh? ;D
  • CycloniteCyclonite Tampa, Florida Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    I think it was incompetent voters. Haha. I had a touch screen at my precinct, and it was the simplest thing a person could use.
  • CammanCamman NEW! England Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    KingFish wrote:
    Voters nationwide reported some 1,100 problems with electronic voting machines on Tuesday, including trouble choosing their intended candidates.


    OH NO! 1,100 problems! Out of over 106 Million voters...lets see that's less than 0.00001% And for sake of argument, only about 1/3rd of voters used electronic voting equipment, so we'll round it to 33 Million and it still stays well within thousands of a fraction of 1%, pretty good I'd say.
  • me
    edited November 2004
    camman: you sir are ignorant...the 2000 election was decided with only 537 votes.....oh and he didnt actually win either :P
  • me
    edited November 2004
    edit: bush didnt win in 2000 that is :)
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited November 2004
    Whether he won the popular vote is immaterial; under the current system, all that matters is the electoral college. Bush won the 2000 election fair and square. If you don't like how he won, push for a change in the system. I for one don't really like the idea of the electoral college anyhow. But you can't say that he didn't win because you don't like the outcome. He won; whether it was fair or not that he won is debateable, but under the system the way it is set up now, he won fair and square.
  • me
    edited November 2004
    geeky1: im not sure if you've been in a coma the last couple of years...but anyway yes bush didnt actually win in 2000 because a year after the election it was discovered that some 2000+ people was ILLEGALLY barred from voting because they were falsely accused of being criminals. This is not a simple guess from my part, a court in the usa said so !!! The troubling part is that 99 % of these voters voted democratic in the last election. Oh by the way this happened in the 537 vote state :)
  • me
    edited November 2004
    i suggest watching this documentary http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346091/
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited November 2004
    Whether they were barred from voting or not is immaterial. You're ignoring one minor detail: under the current system, your vote is worthless. The popular vote counts for nothing.

    In most states, the members of the electoral college are not required to vote the same way as the popular vote. Therefore, who wins the popular vote is immaterial. Granted that the person that wins the popular vote generally wins the election, but they don't have to.

    Bush won the electoral college vote, which is the only thing that matters under the current system. Don't like that, change the system. Don't make moronic statements like "bush didn't actually win in 2000".

    I'm not saying that Bush necessarily SHOULD have won in 2000, although I'm glad he did. What I'm saying is that with the system set up the way it is set up now, he won. There was never any debate about whether he won or not. The issue was created by the mass media and the democratic party. And I repeat; if you don't like the fact that you can lose the popular vote and still be elected president, change the system. The system worked in 2000, but that doesn't mean that the system can't be flawed. You're confusing a flawed system with a broken one. The two are not the same thing.
  • DOSMANDOSMAN Grand Rapids, MI
    edited November 2004
    The electoral college consists of real people who actually, physically vote for president. And they most certainly voted for Bush, which makes him president, liberal propoganda aside.
  • me
    edited November 2004
    You obviously fail to grasp what im saying so im going to try again: 2000+ people who should have been able to vote in california, the state who decided the election in 2000, did not get to vote because a database had registered them as felons, as in not allowed to vote. Had they been able to vote gore would have won, because he would then have gotten the electoral votes from that state. Is that simple enough for you ? :) How can the system have worked if this was allowed to happen ?
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited November 2004
    Florida decided the election in 2000, not California.

    And Gore would not necessarily have won, because the popular vote counts for nothing. Florida could very well have gone to Bush even if the popular vote had been for Gore, just as Ohio could very well have gone to Kerry although the popular vote was for Bush earlier this week.
  • me
    edited November 2004
    ok sorry bad memory i guess :) florida sounds right. And no im not talking about the popular vote im talking about the vote in the state of florida,if the 2000+ people had been able to vote gore would have been the president.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    I have trouble even sympathizing with your argument, considering you can't even remember the location of your topic's occurrence. :wtf:
  • me
    edited November 2004
    I suppose arguing semantics is better ? :P That it happened in florida is beside the point, any number of states could have been the deciding one. The fact that people who are "criminals" cant vote, and the fact that election officials requested a "broad and all encompassing" list of "felons" for use in the election is the point. The names in the list only had to "barely" match the actual person !!! WTF
  • me
    edited November 2004
    some interesting facts about the electoral college http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/faq.html#popular

    By the way 27 states require electoral votes to follow the popular vote, while 24 do not.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited November 2004
    You know, it's blatantly obvious that you don't have even a basic grasp of how the system works and how it's supposed to work. I get the feeling that you're sore because your guy lost in 2000 and 2004 and the fact that you haven't got anything to back up your position doesn't phase you in the least.

    Either that or you're just a troll; possibly both. Whatever it is, you're wrong, and since it's obvious that logic and fact have no effect on you, you're not worth wasting any more of my time on.
  • LincLinc Owner Detroit Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Glad to see we were able to keep our discussion focused on the subject...
This discussion has been closed.