This video shows that every time the voter touches "Obama" the voting machine selects "Romney" instead. As the comments on the Redit post show, this cannot be a simple "calibration" issue. Is this proof of a malicious intent to change the vote?
Maybe, but maybe not.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, November 05, 2012
Theory: “impact on the crowds”
Intrade allows people to bet on the election. Right now,
Intrade gives Obama a 66% chance of winning vs. 33% for Romney. This is called
the “wisdom of the crowds”. The idea is that if somebody has some private
information, they’ll profit it from that information by going to Intrade and
buying/selling shares, moving the price. Thus, the final price encapsulates
everything known about the election. Thus, according to this theory, the best
anybody knows about Obama winning the election is 66%. I use this theory in my
previous post.
Hack the vote
Dan Gillmore has an article on choosing the lesser of twoevils to vote for. He’s wrong. You’ve got more than two choices. The Green
Party and Libertarian Party are two viable alternatives. If you want to change
things, you’ll do more voting for these guys than the mainstream candidates.
A lesson in math … and risk
Today is the eve of the US presidential election. I propose the following hypothetical scenario. A friend and I are talking. I think Obama is going to win the election. He thinks Romney will. He is so sure, he bets me $100. So we agree on the bet. The election comes around, and to my surprise, Romney actually wins. I fork over the $100, and my friend gloats over his winnings, saying I was stupid to have bet him, because he knew the outcome all along.
Nope, in fact, I won $33.
Nope, in fact, I won $33.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Sandy and the tragedy of collectivization
After the “we-built-that” controversy of this election, Democrats are using hurricane Sandy to refute Republicans, pointing out all the good that government is doing to help victims. For example, the Department of Defense has responded to the fuel shortage by sending in soldiers with 5000 gallon fuel trucks to distribute 10 gallons of gasoline free per person. Isn’t this proof that government helps?
No, it isn’t. The fuel shortage is caused by government to begin with. The government has “price gouging” laws that prevent the price from rising. That means those in nearby states can’t ship gasoline to the region, because they can’t cover their costs. Government licenses who can handle gasoline and dictates its precise formula, likewise making it difficult to bring in extra supplies from other places.
No, it isn’t. The fuel shortage is caused by government to begin with. The government has “price gouging” laws that prevent the price from rising. That means those in nearby states can’t ship gasoline to the region, because they can’t cover their costs. Government licenses who can handle gasoline and dictates its precise formula, likewise making it difficult to bring in extra supplies from other places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
