h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Roy, Person A walks into voting booth, attempts to vote and leave. The machine or system used to tally Person A's vote fails in some way (eg misread by human counter, not correctly punched by machine, Diebold CEO erases vote b/c it was for democrat, etc..).

As a result that person's intention (to vote for X) was not accurately counted. The result tabulated is that the person didn't show up.

Accuracy can then be defined has how much that happens as a percentage of votes cast. That's a fair layman's definition.

That is the *point*. Plain and simple. It remains that the machines were less accurate than hand counting - one of the exceptions being Georgia. Of course no one here was talking about Georgia voting irregularities - we were concerned with Ohio and Florida. How much of improvement did the voting technology make in Florida, Roy?


About scientific calculations - Roy, are you asking me to beleive that a small research facilities would spend money on buying properietary ATM software, rather than spend the money on buying additional processing power? What is your definition of small research facility? BTW, the two facilities at MIT that I'm familiar with are linux clusters, not supercomputers.

When I was at Kodak we just wrote a shell script to organize our job queue. Kodak was in the middle of lockdown mode b/c trade secrets were getting sent to Fuji - and yet there was never any mention of this for any of the computational people I worked with - let alone the system I was working on.

What exactly do these computation-protecting ATMS do? What is their exact purpose? How do the people running calculations use them? For what do they use them?

From the MIT\CalTech report - << The residual vote is not a pure measure of voter error or of machine failure, as it reflects to some extent no preference. >> & << Many other factors may explain under and over voting beside machine types. Other prominent offices on the ballot, such as senator or governor, might attract people to the polls who have no intention to vote for president. >>

Person B follows Person A into the polling booth and votes. Person B opts to vote for Governor C, but does not intend to vote for any of the presidential candidates. Person B casts their vote and it is recorded accurately.

The vote of Person A does not, therefore, accurately reflect the voters intention, but in the case of Person B the vote *does* accurately reflect the voters intention. Both presidential votes, however, will be recorded as Residual Votes (except, possibly, in the extreme scenario put forward where the Diebold CEO erases the vote) but only the vote of Person A was unintentional.

In the residual vote figures, or even on the physical ballot itself, there is no way to ascertain the voters intention, so the resultant percentage of residual votes can not be said to accurately reflect voter intention. It's not a measure of accuracy and, hence, you cannot draw the conclusion that the machines were less accurate than hand counting. Your point, plain and simple as you might think it to be, is wrong.

I have no idea whether the residual rate improved in Florida or not, the figures from Georgia were all I could find. They were included to illustrate how a uniform electronic voting system could substantially reduce the residual vote rate (to a figure approximately one third of that recorded, on average, by paper ballots in the 2000 election).

I'm heading out to a bbq now, so i'll address the rest of your post when I get the chance.

Evil Roy, having a snarky personality can actually be an asset. I tend to be a bit snarky, myself.

Mostly with stupid people, true enough. And I've yet to meet a stupid person in Lil's. Well, okay, there was one guy, but he left pretty quick....

I am most emphatically NOT saying you yourself are stupid. Far from it, in fact.

I was reminded today that religion's role in politics isn't all that different today than it was in the 15th or 16th centuries.

Roy, the residual vote doesn't have to be the "end all, be all" determinant. But it could be used as an indicator. It should be used as an indicator. So as a stand alone absolute, yes its wrong. But it's a good starting point. Taken with other indicators, it can paint a picture. And the fact remains that there is a higher incidence of residual votes with *MACHINES* than with hand counting.

Furthermore, the really important thing isn't what happened in Georgia, as laudable as that is, but what happened in the "swing" states of Ohio and Florida. Florida is famous for it's machines which had massive glitches (reporting negative votes for Gore, etc.) So all of the great things you can say about voting machines in Georgia are largely irrelevant.

So, MR, what was religion's role in politics in the 15th and 16th century?

re: the parts of Post 381 relating to scientific calculations.

I'm going to go with my initial reaction when I read your post, dave, and it goes something like this. Where did you come up with a question about proprietary ATM software being used to organise calculations when all questions and answers, in this line of discussion and up to that point, were about the use of comparable hardware?

The discussion wasn't quite that rigorous, Evil Roy. When we were talking about voting machines, we were, I think, including the software. Much as, when you buy a Dell, you get the OS and a suite of programs with it, it's assumed that the electronic machines came with some kind of OS/app package. I have a habit of referring to computers as machines. I don't know where I got it or how long I've been doing it, but I'm aware, in these days when other appliances (like voting machines) are being made intelligent, that this is sloppy language.


During the so-called recount in Ohio, technicions suddenly appeared at some precincts, saying that they had to make adjustments to the computer's contents. The recount was just for the presidential vote, so they were going to disable or somehow remove the other tallies. I don't remember exactly what the justification was.

Anyway, at one precinct, the workers watched as the tech announced that there was a glitch with the machine and a battery would have to be replaced! The software was DOS-based, according to the tech. So he replaced the battery -- we all know the consequences of that -- reset the BIOS, did what he came to do, and left, all without anyone in the precinct understanding what he was about.

There's no telling how many precincts experienced something like this; this was the case that was reported by one of the workers, who actually kept watch on the techie. My point is, I am cynical about voting machine tallies.

As am I, Lil.

New link:

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2005/pr_01-13-05.html

the use of religion as both a tool of oppression and as a means to claim underdog status while behaving in ways that are contrary to the word of god, dave.

I still think the inauguration should have been scaled WAY back out of respect for both the tsunami victims and the fumbling foreign policy of the shrub.

Roy, are you being deliberately obtuse? Or can't you remember what you yourself said on the last LED?

post 377 (by Roy)
"Most ATMs available these days run on Windows-based PCs. In this particular case, the Diebold ATM-style voting machines run on Windows-based PCs. They do not physically *look* the same, but that is what they are. (Sources: Diebold and NCR websites"

If the ATMS are just windows based PCs, then what makes them special is the propietary software...HARDWARE ISN'T AN ISSUE ANYMORE, IS IT ROY?!?! IT WOULD BE F*****G STUPID TO TALK ABOUT HARDWARE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE SAME AS ANY OTHER SYSTEM. WHAT MAKES AN ATM DIFFERENT FROM MY DESKTOP IS THE SOFTWARE!!!!!

Furthermore, WHY THE F**K WOULD ANYONE USE AN ATM "PC" TO RUN A CALCULATION WHEN THEY COULD JUST BUY A REGULAR PC, INSTALL LINUX, BE SECURE AND FAST FOR FREE?!?!!?!?!?

My question for you MR, is who judges the actions to be contrary to the word of god? I mean, I agree with you - I beleive that Shrub/republican actions are contrary to the word of God, and I think a lot of people would agree with that as well. But does Shrub beleive that? Is he really that tricky?

Hmm, at first I didn't beleive it, but now I'm starting to think it might be true...

In the 15th & 16th century, did they beleive they were acting in "good faith"? Were they deliberately using religion as propoganda, or were they zealots?

Regarding the role of religion in today's politics and Shrub, two weeks ago I watched an episode of Frontline on PBS called "The Jesus Factor". It was about Bush's "conversion" (frankly, I'm suspicious, I don't think he's a believer, he just uses Christianity to win votes with the far right, but that's neither here nor there right now) and how he deliberately uses religion to shape American domestic and foreign policy. One interesting point brought up in the program was about how Bush misquotes the Bible--on purpose--to boost American patriotism. Where in a quote the original text reads "God" or "the Lord" he substitutes "America" or "democracy" to make it seem as if justice and might will always be on our side. It's base jingoism, and it infuriates a lot of sincere theologians. One theologian interviewed by Frontline said that this practice leads directly to the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib. If God is on Bush's side, then he can do whatever he wants to "non-believers". Human rights be damned. Literally.

I quickly tried to look for that FG, but couldn't find it. I'm sorry I missed it - sounds good. Yeah, I have to beleive/agree with you now. I wasn't sure - I assumed Bush was just stupid. I guess it's more of a simple cruel cunning.

Oh, by the way Roy, you are also dead wrong in your comparison of computer calculations on supercomputers vs. personal computers. You claimed that 1) the perceived benefit of using a supercomputer is increased accuracy and 2) that this perception is false - PC's provide just as much accuracy.

The main benefit of supercomputers isn't increased accuracy, its increased size. If I can simulate a sample of a 1000 gas atoms on linux box at home, then in the same time I can simulate 1,000,000 gas atoms on a linux cluster/supercomputer.

This is a very general statement. It could be electrons in semiconductor, photons in a laser, or matter approaching a blackhole - the advantage of the supercomputer is the same: a larger system can be simulated on the supercomputer/cluster than on the isolated PC.

Thanks, dave. You can get a transcript of the program or listen to the interviews here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/

[GDZ]

Shrub uses religion both as a tool of oppression, as in his inherent understanding of Islam as a radical, anti-American religion that must be inferior to Christianity, and as a way in which to rally nationalist sentiment (as in the jingoistic patriotism FG cited above).

A couple of late medieval/early early modern examples:

In the beginning of the 14th century, there were two types of Hussites, radical and moderate. The moderates included the barons and the university faculty, both of whom had a nascent nationalism that was founded primarily on not being German. They saw religion as a way to rally nationalist sentiment, and used Hus' death at the hands of the council of Constance to rally support. Equally important was that he had been given a safe-conduct by the Emperor, a German by the name of Sigismund. Religion and national identity were therefore bound up together into a patriotic ideal. The radical Hussites, on the other hand, used religion as a tool to liberate themselves, while at the same time inciting the poor to violence.

Another prime example of the ways in which religion has been used to further national agendas is Henry VIII's break with the Catholic Church. Sure, on the face of it, it was because he wanted a divorce, but really, it was about centralizing power in case he didn't have an heir (which, in the end, he did, but he was none to happy about having it be a girl!). It was also about Woolsey's desire to head the church himself, and the lock held on the papacy by the Italians and French did not bode well for an Englishman.

cool.


Who exactly were the Hussites? Where were they from? And who was "Hus"? Was there a "Hus" down in "Hus-ville"?

I guess "la plus sa change, la plus la meme chose" is especially fitting then.

So historically, how did people overcome these situations? Did they just have to wait for them to die out, or were there people who actively opposed this abuse of religion?

I think the people who actively opposed this abuse disappeared one way or another

You're quite right, Lil. When we were originally talking about the vote count machines we were discussing the hardware\software combination. In Post 309 I pointed to the most likely cause of errors as coming from the software and we eventually came to this.

Post 326 (dave)
<< Not that it really matters, but what evidence do you have to indicate that it was faulty software and not faulty hardware? >>

Post 328 (Evil Roy)
<< the simple fact that, for example, science and scientists have been relying on similar computer hardware and more highly developed software to manage complex calculations for decades now, etc >>

Post 331 (dave)
<< I've never heard of this practice (I work in science myself) - using an ATM like machine to organize calculations? >>

Post 356 (dave) is interesting because it is at this point that it changes from being an "ATM like machine" to an actual "vote counting/ATM machine". It is also the point at which dave suddenly had the vote counting/ATM machine organising supercomputer calculations.
<< btw, you never gave me an example of a vote counting/ATM machine that was used to organize supercomputer calculations. >>

Post 377 (Evil Roy)
<< Most ATMs available these days run on Windows-based PCs. In this particular case, the Diebold ATM-style voting machines run on Windows-based PCs. They do not physically *look* the same, but that is what they are. (Sources: Diebold and NCR websites). >>

Post 381 (dave)
<< Roy, are you asking me to beleive that a small research facilities would spend money on buying properietary ATM software, rather than spend the money on buying additional processing power? >>

Post 386 (Evil Roy)
<< Where did you come up with a question about proprietary ATM software being used to organise calculations when all questions and answers, in this line of discussion and up to that point, were about the use of comparable hardware? >>

And all that daves angry outburst in Post 391 has done is confirm what I stated in the first place, and which he questioned. And that is that "in an instance where the hardware/software combination is giving inaccurate results, it is highly likely that the (new and developing) software is the cause of the error" (Post 328).

Post 391 (dave)
<< IT WOULD BE F*CKING STUPID TO TALK ABOUT HARDWARE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE SAME AS ANY OTHER SYSTEM. WHAT MAKES, etc >>

Yes dave, I totally agree, mainly because that is the point I made in Post 309. But then *you* were the one who, in Post 326, wanted a clarification about why I didn't suspect the hardware as being at fault.

One of us is having trouble remembering what we said, dave, but it certainly isn't me. And one of us is having trouble keeping the topic of discussion clear in their head, dave, but again that's not me.

I may have been "snarky" at times, but I have never resorted to the level of abuse and SHOUTING that dave has done.

In future don't even bother addressing me, dave.