4 ms·

>appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting m

>appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting machines. (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.) The headline is incorrect. The turnout was 18 percent.

ggggtez 8y ago
I think the point is that the system thought there was 276 registered voters. The system was clearly wrong, and was only corrected after the lawsuit.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  But that system is not the one who cares about if the voter is registered, nor does it know who has arrived in front of it - that's checked by the officials before that. It only counts anonymous votes. The only reason why it "needs" to know the number of registered is for cosmetic reasons, to display some statistics , i.e. to go from "x people voted" to "x% of expected people voted" that are nice to have but don't affect the integrity of the votes in any way.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Perhaps, though it’s not a good sign and we don’t have all the details.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, the headline is correct in that the issue is that it was reported to be 243 percent.
cmiles74 8y ago
In my opinion, the headline did not intend to reflect the actual number of voters who turned out to vote. Instead, the headline highlights the shocking disparity between the data reported by the voting machines and their supporting software compared to the actual data. I suspect it will be clear to the majority of readers that 243% turnout is unreasonable and impossible.
- nerpderp83 8y ago
  America goes big, I am proud of our 243% turnout. Why be satisfied with 100%? This great country wasn't built by standing around or sticking with the status quo. No Old-European socialist has managed to break a 100, but we did and we should be proud.
HelloMcFly 8y ago
This is the best comment on the reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_defends_voting_system_despite_243percent/e3u7lqg/?st=jklqd4h6&sh=b379e73f https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_def... It's not exactly a "nothing to see here" issue just because the issue was fixed. Further, I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that the new numbers themselves are accurate. Why should I be?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  That's kind of the issue. The suit is alleging that the system is prone to error. To say that there is no problem, and no need for a suit, because - um - we simply made a fairly common error and now we fixed it ??? I mean, that's what these people are alleging. That the system is prone to errors. So whether you believe the original numbers are correct, or you believe the new numbers are correct, or you believe there are likely a different set of numbers altogether that better reflect the reality, the premise underlying your belief has to be that numbers have been reported in error. Logical consistency for adherence to any of the possible positions demands a concession that either the first set of reported numbers were erroneous, or the second set of reported numbers were erroneous. Or, indeed, both sets of reported numbers were erroneous.
monkeydreams 8y ago
Thank you. I'm one for thinking the Republicans are crooked but the headline claim borders on tinfoil-wearing conspiracy.

ggggtez 8y ago

I think the point is that the system thought there was 276 registered voters. The system was clearly wrong, and was only corrected after the lawsuit.

PeterisP 8y ago
But that system is not the one who cares about if the voter is registered, nor does it know who has arrived in front of it - that's checked by the officials before that. It only counts anonymous votes. The only reason why it "needs" to know the number of registered is for cosmetic reasons, to display some statistics , i.e. to go from "x people voted" to "x% of expected people voted" that are nice to have but don't affect the integrity of the votes in any way.
- Retric 8y ago
  Perhaps, though it’s not a good sign and we don’t have all the details.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

No, the headline is correct in that the issue is that it was reported to be 243 percent.

cmiles74 8y ago

In my opinion, the headline did not intend to reflect the actual number of voters who turned out to vote. Instead, the headline highlights the shocking disparity between the data reported by the voting machines and their supporting software compared to the actual data. I suspect it will be clear to the majority of readers that 243% turnout is unreasonable and impossible.

nerpderp83 8y ago
America goes big, I am proud of our 243% turnout. Why be satisfied with 100%? This great country wasn't built by standing around or sticking with the status quo. No Old-European socialist has managed to break a 100, but we did and we should be proud.

HelloMcFly 8y ago

This is the best comment on the reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_defends_voting_system_despite_243percent/e3u7lqg/?st=jklqd4h6&sh=b379e73f https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_def... It's not exactly a "nothing to see here" issue just because the issue was fixed. Further, I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that the new numbers themselves are accurate. Why should I be?

bilbo0s 8y ago
That's kind of the issue. The suit is alleging that the system is prone to error. To say that there is no problem, and no need for a suit, because - um - we simply made a fairly common error and now we fixed it ??? I mean, that's what these people are alleging. That the system is prone to errors. So whether you believe the original numbers are correct, or you believe the new numbers are correct, or you believe there are likely a different set of numbers altogether that better reflect the reality, the premise underlying your belief has to be that numbers have been reported in error. Logical consistency for adherence to any of the possible positions demands a concession that either the first set of reported numbers were erroneous, or the second set of reported numbers were erroneous. Or, indeed, both sets of reported numbers were erroneous.

monkeydreams 8y ago

Thank you. I'm one for thinking the Republicans are crooked but the headline claim borders on tinfoil-wearing conspiracy.