Georgia defends voting system despite 243-percent turnout in one precinct

30 comments

  1. APartyInMyPants

    |Author

    Ok. This was rather click-baity. It’s not that there were 600-odd votes cast in a precinct with 240 people. It’s that, for some reason, the machines didn’t recognize that there were actually a few *thousand* registered voters in that precinct.

    So the problem is not if dead voters, but of the system not recognizing all of the living voters.

  2. Elevenxray

    |Author

    Highest upboated comments are for the misinformed.

    “Controversial” comments are for the people who read the article.

    “Misleading headlines” are going to lead to a literal war lmao.

  3. somedood567

    |Author

    How do they defend this headline given that the article itself acknowledges the headline is completey wrong?

    “McClatchy’s data comes from a federal lawsuit filed against the state. In addition to the problem in Habersham County’s Mud Creek precinct, where it 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.)”

  4. Oknight

    |Author

    > …Habersham County’s Mud Creek precinct, where it appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots… **(In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.)**

    So, no. Not a 243-percent turnout

  5. Skeptable

    |Author

    Ummm did nobody read the correction? There was over 3000 registered voters… Yet the headline still is promoting a false narrative… Although I believe that some of this may have actually gone on… This fake BS article is destroying any credible arguments towards that cause

  6. SilkPajamas00

    |Author

    According to the AJC, there were 3,941 registered voters in the Mud Creek precinct in Haversham county, GA.

    So the voter turnout was not 243 percent, as reported by McClatchy and Ars Technica. AT even noted this error as a typo in their article, and yet we still find people touting this mythical “243 percent” turnout rate as a slight against the GA system of elections.

    To continue to claim this turnout rate in the face of this acknowledged typo is irresponsible.

  7. cr0ft

    |Author

    There are some things that shouldn’t be fixed with technology.

    Voting is the primary one of these. You cannot make an electronic voting system safe and almost unhackable the way you can a paper based system. It literally cannot be done.

    And it absolutely shouldn’t be done. Electronic voting equates to basically giving away democracy. The people who control the machines, or key people in the chain, absolutely can manipulate one vote of a million votes with just a few keypresses.

    This is still a good summary of why: [Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea – Computerphile](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI)

    And this is coming from a guy who works with technology every day and has been a technology nut since childhood.

    Electronic voting should be banned, full stop. Democracy (what’s left of it) is worth a little work-intensive paper ballot handling.

  8. seraph1441

    |Author

    > it 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.)

    I don’t doubt that Georgia’s voting system has issues, but this statement seems to contradict the title. 670 ballots out of 3704 registered voters is an 18% turnout… Am I missing something?

  9. Sambam18

    |Author

    The title is **bullshit**, from the article:
    > here it 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.)**

    So, no, there wasn’t “243% turnout”, there was 18%. Do people even read the article?

    Edit: this is textbook fake news

  10. PeterGibbons316

    |Author

    > it 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.)

    Sounds like they just got the number of registered voters wrong, not that more people were voting than should be allowed. Is this really a big deal???

  11. jmmiles70

    |Author

    So everybody ignores the fact that is was not a error in letting unregistered people vote, it was the fact that the secretary of states website listed the wrong number of voters in the precinct

    The Sec of State website incorrectly listed the number of registers voters in the precinct at 276. It was later corrected to 3704. So they actually 670 votes out of 3704 registered voters not 276.

    But it makes for a much better headline to say they had a 243 percent turnout…despite the fact that is not a true statement.

  12. GravityReject

    |Author

    Title is very misleading. This article clearly states that the turnout number was just an error:

    > it 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.)**

    Which means that there was actually only an 18% voter turnout in that county.

  13. BonzoBonzoBomzo

    |Author

    The diebold voting machine in the photo is super hackable. Some kids from Yale (i think) hacked it in like 5 minutes and made it flip votes and do
    Other crazy stuff. That was in like 2006 I think

  14. SilverIdaten

    |Author

    Yet another example to me why the grass isn’t greener when it comes to ‘But it’s cheaper to live in -insert state here-!’ At least in my state, I take a paper ballot, bubble my vote in with a marker, and insert it into a machine. Not perfect, but I absolutely do not trust a fully electronic ballot under any circumstances whatsoever.

  15. Sanhen

    |Author

    For an article with such a depressing headline, it does end on a somewhat optimistic note:

    > Georgia is one of four states in the US that continues to use voting machines with no ability to provide voters a paper record so that they can verify the machine counted their vote correctly.

    > There is a ray of light, however. In January a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill to ban insecure paperless voting machines. Additionally, the legislation would implement many reforms that the security community has been calling for. While it is still far from being passed into law, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee recently held two hearings to collect testimony.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.