techies please.

[SmallTown]

I'm having troubles understanding the little problems we had this year with the electronic voting machines.

1) The machines that people thought could handle like 10000 votes could only hold 3000 or so votes. When you consider the very LIMITED amount of data that has to be stored, WHY oh WHY is there such a small limit of votes? Are they running these voting machines on old TRS-80s?! Come on people. Get with the 21st century!

2) The issue in Ohio today where Bush won a particular precinct with the count of something like 4200-265. Only problem is, only about 650 people actually voted there
How hard could it possibly be to take the information, and store it? No need for calculations or anything. Just store the data where it needs to be stored. Plain and simple.

I dunno. Being a developer, maybe I'm the only one who thinks these problems are so stupid and simple.

And on another note, there were a few recounts today and the result the same - Al Gore lost.

 

[Toxick]

I dunno. Being a developer, maybe I'm the only one who thinks these problems are so stupid and simple.

No.

You are not the only one.


They don't even have to get with the 21st century. How hard would it be to give a person an envelope, and a sheet of paper with two (or 10) names on it. You tear off the name you like, stick it in an envelope and shred the remaning names into dust, and drop the envelope into a locked box.

At the end of the night, you hire some goons who know how to string numbers together, and hire some other goons to watch and make sure the bean-counters aren't fenagling with the outcome.


It's as simple as banging two rocks together.

This should not be a difficult process.

 

[rhumbpunch]

Have you considered the format the vote data is stored in ? Possibly a .pdf format for recored keeping.

This would consume more storage space than "raw votes" ?

Was some oposition to the Digital Machines, vice punch cards, and the fact of no paper trail.