首页> 外文期刊>The economist >Good intentions, bad technology
【24h】

Good intentions, bad technology

机译:好的意图,不好的技术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Another election year, another recount fiasco in Florida. On January 6th, a local election was held for a seat covering parts of Broward and Palm Beach Counties. A total of 10,844 votes were cast, and Ellyn Bogdanoff won by a margin of just 12 votes. There were also 137 under-votes, in which voters' choices failed to register. Under state law, there must be a manual recount of all undervotes and overvotes (ballots marked more than once) in any election where the winning margin is less than 0.25%. But no recount is possible, because the votes were cast using touch-screen voting machines whose only paper output is the final tally. The machines can be asked to print out the same result again, of course. But as Robert Wexler, a Democratic congressman, likes to point out, "a reprint is not a recount". He has just filed a suit arguing that the machines violate state law, and asking a judge to order that they be equipped with printers, so that voters can verify their decisions on paper. The paper copies would then be placed in a ballot box, for recounting if necessary.
机译:又是大选之年,又一次讲述了佛罗里达的惨败。 1月6日,举行了一次地方选举,席位覆盖了布劳沃德县和棕榈滩县的部分地区。总共进行了10,844票,而Ellyn Bogdanoff仅以12票的优势获胜。还进行了137次投票不足,投票者的选择没有得到记录。根据州法律,在获胜保证金少于0.25%的任何选举中,必须手动重新计算所有欠票和过票(多次标记的选票)。但是无法进行重新计票,因为投票是使用触摸屏投票机进行的,其唯一的输出是最终的票数。当然,可以要求机器再次打印出相同的结果。但是正如民主党国会议员罗伯特·韦克斯勒(Robert Wexler)指出的那样,“重印不是重述”。他刚刚提起诉讼,辩称这些机器违反了州法律,并要求法官下令为他们配备打印机,以便选民可以在纸上验证他们的决定。然后将纸质副本放入投票箱,以便在需要时重新点票。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The economist》 |2004年第8359期|p.42-43|共2页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 经济;各科经济学;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 23:32:43

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号