decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Voting machines have bad security due to laziness | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Voting machines have bad security due to laziness
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT
There are obviously limits to how effective voting fraud can be. In a typical
U.S. senatorial election, you'd be doing well to steal 3-4 seats. House seats
are more likely to be up for grabs: in particular, there are redistricting
projects every 10 years; the party that DOESN'T control the redistricting has
better-than-usual chances of picking up a few new seats--and voting fraud may
occasionally be a viable way of enhancing those odds.

Large-scale vote fraud simply isn't practical, because it's too noticeable. It's
much better to focus on the close districts.

If one party is consistently better at voting fraud, you will notice that the
very close elections are consistently won--if both parties are evenly
matched--either at committing fraud or being honest--then over time, the close
elections will fall 50-50.

Check the close elections for the last 50 years. I think you'd find the numbers
very interesting.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )