Why is counting election totals more difficult than lottery administration?
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
This may seem like a rant. But I will show a few point of similarity which will show that it is an actual question.
First, states administer lotteries. Just as states administer both state and federal elections.
Second, there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings to a wrong ticket. And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Third, most lottery tickets are bought anonymously and the anonymity of the purchasers seems to be preserved even though it is known which ticket was bought at which location. So the anonymity of individual voters should be preservable even if it is known which vote is cast at which location.
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
Fifth, states don't have to hire (or elect) lottery officials for each location where a lottery is purchased. Lottery is sold through private merchants. So states actually have less control over how the lottery sales are conducted. And yet they seem to have better control over the security of lottery sales than they do over the security of the votes cast.
And yet every election (nowadays) there seems to be a mess made somewhere when it comes to accurately tallying the election totals.
What is preventint states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?
united-states election lottery
|
show 14 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
This may seem like a rant. But I will show a few point of similarity which will show that it is an actual question.
First, states administer lotteries. Just as states administer both state and federal elections.
Second, there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings to a wrong ticket. And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Third, most lottery tickets are bought anonymously and the anonymity of the purchasers seems to be preserved even though it is known which ticket was bought at which location. So the anonymity of individual voters should be preservable even if it is known which vote is cast at which location.
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
Fifth, states don't have to hire (or elect) lottery officials for each location where a lottery is purchased. Lottery is sold through private merchants. So states actually have less control over how the lottery sales are conducted. And yet they seem to have better control over the security of lottery sales than they do over the security of the votes cast.
And yet every election (nowadays) there seems to be a mess made somewhere when it comes to accurately tallying the election totals.
What is preventint states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?
united-states election lottery
3
What is the point of your third numbered paragraph? Planty of election systems are able to track votes back to an individual polling place or voting machine.
– origimbo
yesterday
40
It's less anonymous in at least one important way. I can come away from buying a lottery ticket with a full authenticatable record of what numbers I picked (the ticket). This is generally considered a bad thing in an election, because it's precisely the system you need to start selling your vote. This is often brought up as an argument against vote by mail or internet voting.
– origimbo
yesterday
11
"there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings" - depends on what you mean by "mistake". Every (?) state has pages like this: mnlottery.com/winners/unclaimed-prizes
– user4556274
yesterday
9
They are not the same. You can buy more than one lottery ticket. Almost anyone can buy lottery.The lottery institution does not win the price while the counting of vote is done by the people trying to win the price.
– the_lotus
yesterday
4
@DavidGrinberg No they don't. US Reps and Senators are up for election on even-numbered years. But what is the point in dismissing my note about local elections if you'll also concede special elections happen?
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
|
show 14 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
This may seem like a rant. But I will show a few point of similarity which will show that it is an actual question.
First, states administer lotteries. Just as states administer both state and federal elections.
Second, there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings to a wrong ticket. And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Third, most lottery tickets are bought anonymously and the anonymity of the purchasers seems to be preserved even though it is known which ticket was bought at which location. So the anonymity of individual voters should be preservable even if it is known which vote is cast at which location.
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
Fifth, states don't have to hire (or elect) lottery officials for each location where a lottery is purchased. Lottery is sold through private merchants. So states actually have less control over how the lottery sales are conducted. And yet they seem to have better control over the security of lottery sales than they do over the security of the votes cast.
And yet every election (nowadays) there seems to be a mess made somewhere when it comes to accurately tallying the election totals.
What is preventint states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?
united-states election lottery
This may seem like a rant. But I will show a few point of similarity which will show that it is an actual question.
First, states administer lotteries. Just as states administer both state and federal elections.
Second, there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings to a wrong ticket. And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Third, most lottery tickets are bought anonymously and the anonymity of the purchasers seems to be preserved even though it is known which ticket was bought at which location. So the anonymity of individual voters should be preservable even if it is known which vote is cast at which location.
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
Fifth, states don't have to hire (or elect) lottery officials for each location where a lottery is purchased. Lottery is sold through private merchants. So states actually have less control over how the lottery sales are conducted. And yet they seem to have better control over the security of lottery sales than they do over the security of the votes cast.
And yet every election (nowadays) there seems to be a mess made somewhere when it comes to accurately tallying the election totals.
What is preventint states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?
united-states election lottery
united-states election lottery
edited yesterday
asked yesterday
grovkin
2,46711037
2,46711037
3
What is the point of your third numbered paragraph? Planty of election systems are able to track votes back to an individual polling place or voting machine.
– origimbo
yesterday
40
It's less anonymous in at least one important way. I can come away from buying a lottery ticket with a full authenticatable record of what numbers I picked (the ticket). This is generally considered a bad thing in an election, because it's precisely the system you need to start selling your vote. This is often brought up as an argument against vote by mail or internet voting.
– origimbo
yesterday
11
"there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings" - depends on what you mean by "mistake". Every (?) state has pages like this: mnlottery.com/winners/unclaimed-prizes
– user4556274
yesterday
9
They are not the same. You can buy more than one lottery ticket. Almost anyone can buy lottery.The lottery institution does not win the price while the counting of vote is done by the people trying to win the price.
– the_lotus
yesterday
4
@DavidGrinberg No they don't. US Reps and Senators are up for election on even-numbered years. But what is the point in dismissing my note about local elections if you'll also concede special elections happen?
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
|
show 14 more comments
3
What is the point of your third numbered paragraph? Planty of election systems are able to track votes back to an individual polling place or voting machine.
– origimbo
yesterday
40
It's less anonymous in at least one important way. I can come away from buying a lottery ticket with a full authenticatable record of what numbers I picked (the ticket). This is generally considered a bad thing in an election, because it's precisely the system you need to start selling your vote. This is often brought up as an argument against vote by mail or internet voting.
– origimbo
yesterday
11
"there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings" - depends on what you mean by "mistake". Every (?) state has pages like this: mnlottery.com/winners/unclaimed-prizes
– user4556274
yesterday
9
They are not the same. You can buy more than one lottery ticket. Almost anyone can buy lottery.The lottery institution does not win the price while the counting of vote is done by the people trying to win the price.
– the_lotus
yesterday
4
@DavidGrinberg No they don't. US Reps and Senators are up for election on even-numbered years. But what is the point in dismissing my note about local elections if you'll also concede special elections happen?
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
3
3
What is the point of your third numbered paragraph? Planty of election systems are able to track votes back to an individual polling place or voting machine.
– origimbo
yesterday
What is the point of your third numbered paragraph? Planty of election systems are able to track votes back to an individual polling place or voting machine.
– origimbo
yesterday
40
40
It's less anonymous in at least one important way. I can come away from buying a lottery ticket with a full authenticatable record of what numbers I picked (the ticket). This is generally considered a bad thing in an election, because it's precisely the system you need to start selling your vote. This is often brought up as an argument against vote by mail or internet voting.
– origimbo
yesterday
It's less anonymous in at least one important way. I can come away from buying a lottery ticket with a full authenticatable record of what numbers I picked (the ticket). This is generally considered a bad thing in an election, because it's precisely the system you need to start selling your vote. This is often brought up as an argument against vote by mail or internet voting.
– origimbo
yesterday
11
11
"there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings" - depends on what you mean by "mistake". Every (?) state has pages like this: mnlottery.com/winners/unclaimed-prizes
– user4556274
yesterday
"there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings" - depends on what you mean by "mistake". Every (?) state has pages like this: mnlottery.com/winners/unclaimed-prizes
– user4556274
yesterday
9
9
They are not the same. You can buy more than one lottery ticket. Almost anyone can buy lottery.The lottery institution does not win the price while the counting of vote is done by the people trying to win the price.
– the_lotus
yesterday
They are not the same. You can buy more than one lottery ticket. Almost anyone can buy lottery.The lottery institution does not win the price while the counting of vote is done by the people trying to win the price.
– the_lotus
yesterday
4
4
@DavidGrinberg No they don't. US Reps and Senators are up for election on even-numbered years. But what is the point in dismissing my note about local elections if you'll also concede special elections happen?
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
@DavidGrinberg No they don't. US Reps and Senators are up for election on even-numbered years. But what is the point in dismissing my note about local elections if you'll also concede special elections happen?
– Azor Ahai
yesterday
|
show 14 more comments
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
up vote
37
down vote
States administer election rules and aggregation, but local municipalities handle voter registration, management of voting locations, and vote collection and tabulation. Each one can have their own separate rules or nuances, which have to conform to overall state regulation, but still allow for variation. With variation and lack of standardization, you get the possibility of variation and error in the process.
Lotteries generate revenue. A lot of revenue. As such, they are able to fund having uniform, standard, state of the art equipment and systems. Elections do not generate any revenue, and having the best equipment and systems is often seen as a luxury or largess. Machines are often old, malfunctioning, and there is a huge amount of variation within a state, let alone between states, in the types of machines that are used.
Lottery sales are pretty constant, and all the employees at outlets have to do is push a button on a machine and collect money. Election polling places are manned by volunteers who then have to answer questions in legal grey areas or help people with problems that exceed the volunteers' expertise or knowledge, and they have to call upon this expertise very infrequently, often for different types of elections when they do.
Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them. They have a vested interest in the elections not working properly for those selected populations. If I'm in charge of a system that I don't want to work optimally, it should not be surprising that the system does not work optimally.
Finally, a purchaser of a lottery ticket has zero personal input on the lottery ticket, itself. Yes, they often can choose their own numbers, but the ticket that is produced is a standard, controlled document that is produced by the system. If I mis-mark my number selection form, the ticket will reject, just like a ballot might, or it will record my input incorrectly on the produced ticket, just like a voting machine would. In this regard, it's not that different.
Those mistakes are more prominent in voting systems because each entry is noted and recorded. In a lottery system, it only becomes a large issue on a one in a hundreds of millions basis, and any kind of issue at all on a very infrequent basis, and mostly at a very trivial level. If there is a problem where I think my desires were not handled properly, my participation in the lottery is entirely discretionary on my part, subject to the terms and conditions set up by the lottery, so rejection of my complaints that my wishes were not properly followed allows for less recourse or potential mitigation than a system where I am exercising a fundamental right in society.
MegaMillions: How to Play (winning odds)
Powerball: Main Page (odds of winning link at bottom of page)
To sum up - there are vast differences between how the systems are set up and operate, and to the degree that they are similar in important ways, the frequency problems are noticed and importance of problems, between the systems, is also different.
There's not a lot that is equivalent or comparable there.
6
Additional points: A) Requirements for participation in any lottery is being of legal age and having enough money, for voting you need to be pre-registered.
– SJuan76
yesterday
21
Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
– Carduus
yesterday
3
@grovkin - Yes and no. Voting does not generate revenue. If I have all expensive state of the art machines and efficient processes run by professionals that allow 95% of the voters to turn out and accurately cast their votes, or if I spend zero on technology, have a scrap of paper and a crayon, and use unmotivated prisoner labor to tally the votes, and suppress the vote so only 2% of the eligible population ultimately determines who runs government, the government will still be able to levy taxes and raise revenue, just the same.
– PoloHoleSet
yesterday
4
"Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them." - speaking as a British citizen, this is very weird to me. In the UK elected politicians are allowed nowhere near the administration of elections (to prevent exactly this sort of perverse incentive). Returning Officers are paid council employees who act as impartial arbiters.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
9
Also, the vote is secret; not even the voter is allowed proof of what vote he did cast(for good reasons), while the lottery buyer is expected to keep the proof of what his bet was. This means that you need more safeguards with votes, as this "anti-tampering" mechanism is missing. And of course, you may buy as many lottery tickets as you want but vote only once (repost because of grammar).
– SJuan76
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
up vote
36
down vote
PoloHoleSet has an excellent answer. But I thought I'd mention one other bit that wasn't as prominently featured there:
Problems in a lottery tend to be for individuals and are resolved at the individual level ("My ticket won. Fix it"). The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status of a winning ticket. There's a separate source of truth (the draw) that you're matching entries to.
Problems in an election tend to be over populations and cannot be resolved at the individual level ("My candidate didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, they won 25 003 to 25 001 Fix it"). The bulk of entrants (votes) has a critical effect on the status of a winner. There's no way to resolve this issue by looking at one ballot. There's no separate source of truth, just an aggregate one.
New contributor
1
Yet another issue is that the people running the lottery have no personal interest in who wins, and have no interest in trying to discredit anyone's victory. Someone whose precinct failed to yield as many votes for their preferred candidates as they expected might feel that there "must" have been something wrong, but that doesn't mean there was actually any problem beyond their preferred candidates' failure to convince people to vote for them.
– supercat
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
When doing something consistently, weekly, after some time you work out all the kinks, and system works like well oiled machine.
If you do something every other year, with volunteers, some of them new new and never done it, and with law and/or technology possibly changed from the one used previous time - you are doing it for the first time, going live with little preparation. In such situation, Murphy's law applies with the full strength: anything that can go wrong, will (in some of the places).
If we had elections every week, like lottery does, glitches will be eventually worked out (but turnout would be abysmal :-) )
2
+1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
– Kelly Thomas
yesterday
I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Lotteries and elections differ in one crucial respect: lotteries validate a small number of winning tickets in an easily verifiable way: either the ticket is legitimate or not, and its either a winner or it isn't. You can verify whether a lottery ticket is a winner or not independent of the other lottery tickets sold. The Powerball states can sell a billion (or more) tickets without increasing their cost of validating the winners substantially.
With elections, you have to validate that every ballot cast is legitimate before you can determine (with certainty) who won the election.
Imagine a lottery in which all people who buy tickets check off a red box or a blue box, and the color that gets checked off most pays off a prize to all people who have a ticket with that color checked off. The lottery officials have to count the individual tickets to see which color won before they can pay out, and you can bet that the ticket holders would raise a stink if the margin of victory for one color was small. To paraphrase @BowlOfRed's answer: "My color didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, it won 25 003 to 25 001! Fix it!"
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
A few things that I don't see being answered in other answers make elections very complicated, and these are the things that delay results:
Mail-in ballots I'm not sure how it works in other jurisdictions, but in mine (Dallas County, TX), when you mail in an absentee ballot, you fill in your ballot, put it in an envelope with no markings on it. Then you put that envelope in a second envelope that has your information, information about your ballot request (barcoded) and your signature on it. On election day, the outer envelopes are checked (to make sure that the information is on the up-and-up) and that you didn't also vote in early voting or on election day). Then the envelope is emptied putting its contents (the inner envelope in a separate bin). Once that step is done, then the inner envelopes are emptied and the ballots are counted. This assures anonymity during the actual counting. This is my understanding, not the documented procedure. In some jurisdictions (like Oregon), all ballots are mail-in. In others (CA and AZ, for example), there's a substantial percentage of ballots that are mailed-in.
Deadlines In some jurisdictions, mail-in ballots must be received by election day. In others, they must be postmarked by election day. In Florida, for example, overseas and military mail-in ballots can be received up until Nov. 16 (Friday). You don't normally see this as a delay in "calling the winner" because usually, the margin of victory is such that everyone knows that the mail-in ballots will not affect the eventual outcome. However, in just about every jurisdiction, the final published vote totals differ significantly from the day-after-the-election totals. However these differences don't generally affect the overall outcome.
Provisional Ballots If there is a hang-up at the voting booth (for example, a question about voter ID), the voter may cast a Provisional Ballot. They have a similar two envelope system to mail-in ballots. Sometimes, it's the voter's responsibility to cure the hang-up. In any case there is usually a specified time period for these things to get settled.
Insane Politics Lawyers are everywhere and the stakes are high. Candidates will file suit for just about any cause. Look at how easy it was to setup the Florida recount this year. In 2000 it went all the way to the Supreme Court. As part of this process, PR folks on the candidates team send out messages that the elections office is run by idiots and the other candidates team is made up of scurrilous cheaters.
All in all, the 95% of ballots that follow the standard process get processed (and recounted) easily. However, if there's only a 0.5% difference between the candidates, the edge cases predominate. There are no edge cases with lotteries (in general).
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
In addition to other fine answers:
If people lose faith in the lottery...
then ticket sales will fall, tax revenues will drop, and the persons running the lottery will be replaced.
If people lose faith in elections...
fewer votes will be cast, political elites will gain even more power, and the persons running the election will keep their jobs.
So OP, don't lose faith in elections.
2
Your points might point towards a possible answer (something about there not being much motivation to make sure elections work perfectly, perhaps?), but your conclusion of "don't lose faith in elections" is not an answer to the question asked.
– NotThatGuy
14 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I have worked in the election field in New York and I believe I pick up a lot of info listening to the news because of it.
First I would challenge your statement and ask for you to provide valid, credible sources.
And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Next I would say that lottery tickets are much simpler than election ballots. If you look at how many different ballots are available in a particular state you will see that it is at least 100:1 in terms of permutations.
Then you can look at how lottery works. It is tightly controlled, nobody has a right to play and you pay money for a ticket. You can also play as many tickets as you please. Compare that to voting where many people have the right to vote and depending on the jurisdiction the ability to register to vote is much more lax than buying lottery tickets.
If I had a choice to administer a 50 lottery systems vs an election system in one state I would choose lottery all day long.
I could add more but those details are somewhat covered in other answers. I believe what I have stated should make clear
Why is counting election totals more difficult than lottery
administration?
I am sorry, but your answer provides no new information. You are neat-picking some assumptions and restating the others. But that's not informative. The randomness of who buys and who doesn't buy lottery tickets makes it more difficult to control from the administrative point because there is less predictability of the players. The frequency of the lotteries makes their administration a more intensive information-processing endeavor. There is simply more information to process. And yet the same institutions (states) are more capable of administering more difficult task.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
This is a key factor (ability to get things right v.s. likelihood of mistakes).
Lotteries are a permanent, ongoing operation happening all the time, which warrants full-time staffing of management/oversight positions. Sales of tickets, drawings of winning numbers, payment of prizes, distribution/maintenance of equipment, printing/shipping/sale of scratch tickets, etc. are happening every day (or close to it) on an ongoing basis. You can hire people to do these jobs. They can continue to do these jobs for a long time.
Elections happen once every four (or two) years (or more frequently, depending on local laws/processes). It's highly unlikely anyone will be printing and distributing ballots, operating a polling location, or counting votes in March 2019 (barring any special elections). There are various types of oversight (depends on city/town/county/state etc.), some of which are permanent, long-term employees, and some of which are elected officials (who may change due to execution of an election, and may have a vested interest in non-legitimate outcomes), but you can't really hire a full-time ballot counter (or ballot printer, or voting location staff), unless you want to waste a lot of money paying them when there is no election.
Public reporting/discussion/opinion is another factor.
Lotteries are generally self-funded revenue generators, and the only people affected by them are those that choose to participate (can't lose if you don't play). Lottery fraud can and does happen (citation needed - there've been a few pretty public cases), but a lot of people just don't really care, because it doesn't affect them.
On the other hand, elections can affect everyone, so the general public has a vested interest in the outcome. If the election results in a particular law going into effect (either directly by ballot measure, or indirectly by electing officials who put it in place), everyone is subject to that law, regardless of whether or how they voted. This leads to more coverage and public discussion of any election issues.
Anonymity
Many (most?) U.S. states do not allow anonymous lottery winners; winners' names are public information. Votes are completely anonymous. My polling location will have a record that I showed up, received a ballot, and placed a ballot into the ballot machine. There is no record of how I voted, or which races I did or did not vote in. There is no way to verify that my vote in particular was counted, other than a verification that all votes cast at my location are accounted for.
Regarding examples of lottery fraud, how about 1) a cashier stealing a winning ticket or 2) a ticket sale to a minor miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article196375744.html lbpost.com/news/…
– origimbo
yesterday
@origimbo was thinking more of the insider that fixed the winning numbers, but haven't had a chance to look up anything to cite
– yoozer8
yesterday
1
Nothing to See Here: People Who Sell Lottery Tickets Are Just Really Lucky, concerning a convenience store owner who sold himself 28 winning tickets, including one for $1 million.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The other aspect of the Lottery not mentioned is that the winning ticket is a bearer item, meaning that the identity of the winner is only tied to the individual who's name is on it. Find a stray ticket with the winning number of the big jackpot in the gutter? It doesn't have anyone's name signed to it... You're even luckier than the guy who purchased a winning ticket!
Ballots are anonymous for various good reasons, but that causes a lot of problems when you have to validate the ballot as legitiment or not... the 2000 problem from Florida was attributed to "Hanging Chad" where the hole punch removed the paper in such a way that the whole damaged both check boxes and with no way to tell who the voter actually wanted, it became a big fight over what to do with the ballots... cast them for candidate A, candidate B, or invalidate someone's vote?
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ 11 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
37
down vote
States administer election rules and aggregation, but local municipalities handle voter registration, management of voting locations, and vote collection and tabulation. Each one can have their own separate rules or nuances, which have to conform to overall state regulation, but still allow for variation. With variation and lack of standardization, you get the possibility of variation and error in the process.
Lotteries generate revenue. A lot of revenue. As such, they are able to fund having uniform, standard, state of the art equipment and systems. Elections do not generate any revenue, and having the best equipment and systems is often seen as a luxury or largess. Machines are often old, malfunctioning, and there is a huge amount of variation within a state, let alone between states, in the types of machines that are used.
Lottery sales are pretty constant, and all the employees at outlets have to do is push a button on a machine and collect money. Election polling places are manned by volunteers who then have to answer questions in legal grey areas or help people with problems that exceed the volunteers' expertise or knowledge, and they have to call upon this expertise very infrequently, often for different types of elections when they do.
Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them. They have a vested interest in the elections not working properly for those selected populations. If I'm in charge of a system that I don't want to work optimally, it should not be surprising that the system does not work optimally.
Finally, a purchaser of a lottery ticket has zero personal input on the lottery ticket, itself. Yes, they often can choose their own numbers, but the ticket that is produced is a standard, controlled document that is produced by the system. If I mis-mark my number selection form, the ticket will reject, just like a ballot might, or it will record my input incorrectly on the produced ticket, just like a voting machine would. In this regard, it's not that different.
Those mistakes are more prominent in voting systems because each entry is noted and recorded. In a lottery system, it only becomes a large issue on a one in a hundreds of millions basis, and any kind of issue at all on a very infrequent basis, and mostly at a very trivial level. If there is a problem where I think my desires were not handled properly, my participation in the lottery is entirely discretionary on my part, subject to the terms and conditions set up by the lottery, so rejection of my complaints that my wishes were not properly followed allows for less recourse or potential mitigation than a system where I am exercising a fundamental right in society.
MegaMillions: How to Play (winning odds)
Powerball: Main Page (odds of winning link at bottom of page)
To sum up - there are vast differences between how the systems are set up and operate, and to the degree that they are similar in important ways, the frequency problems are noticed and importance of problems, between the systems, is also different.
There's not a lot that is equivalent or comparable there.
6
Additional points: A) Requirements for participation in any lottery is being of legal age and having enough money, for voting you need to be pre-registered.
– SJuan76
yesterday
21
Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
– Carduus
yesterday
3
@grovkin - Yes and no. Voting does not generate revenue. If I have all expensive state of the art machines and efficient processes run by professionals that allow 95% of the voters to turn out and accurately cast their votes, or if I spend zero on technology, have a scrap of paper and a crayon, and use unmotivated prisoner labor to tally the votes, and suppress the vote so only 2% of the eligible population ultimately determines who runs government, the government will still be able to levy taxes and raise revenue, just the same.
– PoloHoleSet
yesterday
4
"Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them." - speaking as a British citizen, this is very weird to me. In the UK elected politicians are allowed nowhere near the administration of elections (to prevent exactly this sort of perverse incentive). Returning Officers are paid council employees who act as impartial arbiters.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
9
Also, the vote is secret; not even the voter is allowed proof of what vote he did cast(for good reasons), while the lottery buyer is expected to keep the proof of what his bet was. This means that you need more safeguards with votes, as this "anti-tampering" mechanism is missing. And of course, you may buy as many lottery tickets as you want but vote only once (repost because of grammar).
– SJuan76
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
up vote
37
down vote
States administer election rules and aggregation, but local municipalities handle voter registration, management of voting locations, and vote collection and tabulation. Each one can have their own separate rules or nuances, which have to conform to overall state regulation, but still allow for variation. With variation and lack of standardization, you get the possibility of variation and error in the process.
Lotteries generate revenue. A lot of revenue. As such, they are able to fund having uniform, standard, state of the art equipment and systems. Elections do not generate any revenue, and having the best equipment and systems is often seen as a luxury or largess. Machines are often old, malfunctioning, and there is a huge amount of variation within a state, let alone between states, in the types of machines that are used.
Lottery sales are pretty constant, and all the employees at outlets have to do is push a button on a machine and collect money. Election polling places are manned by volunteers who then have to answer questions in legal grey areas or help people with problems that exceed the volunteers' expertise or knowledge, and they have to call upon this expertise very infrequently, often for different types of elections when they do.
Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them. They have a vested interest in the elections not working properly for those selected populations. If I'm in charge of a system that I don't want to work optimally, it should not be surprising that the system does not work optimally.
Finally, a purchaser of a lottery ticket has zero personal input on the lottery ticket, itself. Yes, they often can choose their own numbers, but the ticket that is produced is a standard, controlled document that is produced by the system. If I mis-mark my number selection form, the ticket will reject, just like a ballot might, or it will record my input incorrectly on the produced ticket, just like a voting machine would. In this regard, it's not that different.
Those mistakes are more prominent in voting systems because each entry is noted and recorded. In a lottery system, it only becomes a large issue on a one in a hundreds of millions basis, and any kind of issue at all on a very infrequent basis, and mostly at a very trivial level. If there is a problem where I think my desires were not handled properly, my participation in the lottery is entirely discretionary on my part, subject to the terms and conditions set up by the lottery, so rejection of my complaints that my wishes were not properly followed allows for less recourse or potential mitigation than a system where I am exercising a fundamental right in society.
MegaMillions: How to Play (winning odds)
Powerball: Main Page (odds of winning link at bottom of page)
To sum up - there are vast differences between how the systems are set up and operate, and to the degree that they are similar in important ways, the frequency problems are noticed and importance of problems, between the systems, is also different.
There's not a lot that is equivalent or comparable there.
6
Additional points: A) Requirements for participation in any lottery is being of legal age and having enough money, for voting you need to be pre-registered.
– SJuan76
yesterday
21
Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
– Carduus
yesterday
3
@grovkin - Yes and no. Voting does not generate revenue. If I have all expensive state of the art machines and efficient processes run by professionals that allow 95% of the voters to turn out and accurately cast their votes, or if I spend zero on technology, have a scrap of paper and a crayon, and use unmotivated prisoner labor to tally the votes, and suppress the vote so only 2% of the eligible population ultimately determines who runs government, the government will still be able to levy taxes and raise revenue, just the same.
– PoloHoleSet
yesterday
4
"Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them." - speaking as a British citizen, this is very weird to me. In the UK elected politicians are allowed nowhere near the administration of elections (to prevent exactly this sort of perverse incentive). Returning Officers are paid council employees who act as impartial arbiters.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
9
Also, the vote is secret; not even the voter is allowed proof of what vote he did cast(for good reasons), while the lottery buyer is expected to keep the proof of what his bet was. This means that you need more safeguards with votes, as this "anti-tampering" mechanism is missing. And of course, you may buy as many lottery tickets as you want but vote only once (repost because of grammar).
– SJuan76
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
up vote
37
down vote
up vote
37
down vote
States administer election rules and aggregation, but local municipalities handle voter registration, management of voting locations, and vote collection and tabulation. Each one can have their own separate rules or nuances, which have to conform to overall state regulation, but still allow for variation. With variation and lack of standardization, you get the possibility of variation and error in the process.
Lotteries generate revenue. A lot of revenue. As such, they are able to fund having uniform, standard, state of the art equipment and systems. Elections do not generate any revenue, and having the best equipment and systems is often seen as a luxury or largess. Machines are often old, malfunctioning, and there is a huge amount of variation within a state, let alone between states, in the types of machines that are used.
Lottery sales are pretty constant, and all the employees at outlets have to do is push a button on a machine and collect money. Election polling places are manned by volunteers who then have to answer questions in legal grey areas or help people with problems that exceed the volunteers' expertise or knowledge, and they have to call upon this expertise very infrequently, often for different types of elections when they do.
Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them. They have a vested interest in the elections not working properly for those selected populations. If I'm in charge of a system that I don't want to work optimally, it should not be surprising that the system does not work optimally.
Finally, a purchaser of a lottery ticket has zero personal input on the lottery ticket, itself. Yes, they often can choose their own numbers, but the ticket that is produced is a standard, controlled document that is produced by the system. If I mis-mark my number selection form, the ticket will reject, just like a ballot might, or it will record my input incorrectly on the produced ticket, just like a voting machine would. In this regard, it's not that different.
Those mistakes are more prominent in voting systems because each entry is noted and recorded. In a lottery system, it only becomes a large issue on a one in a hundreds of millions basis, and any kind of issue at all on a very infrequent basis, and mostly at a very trivial level. If there is a problem where I think my desires were not handled properly, my participation in the lottery is entirely discretionary on my part, subject to the terms and conditions set up by the lottery, so rejection of my complaints that my wishes were not properly followed allows for less recourse or potential mitigation than a system where I am exercising a fundamental right in society.
MegaMillions: How to Play (winning odds)
Powerball: Main Page (odds of winning link at bottom of page)
To sum up - there are vast differences between how the systems are set up and operate, and to the degree that they are similar in important ways, the frequency problems are noticed and importance of problems, between the systems, is also different.
There's not a lot that is equivalent or comparable there.
States administer election rules and aggregation, but local municipalities handle voter registration, management of voting locations, and vote collection and tabulation. Each one can have their own separate rules or nuances, which have to conform to overall state regulation, but still allow for variation. With variation and lack of standardization, you get the possibility of variation and error in the process.
Lotteries generate revenue. A lot of revenue. As such, they are able to fund having uniform, standard, state of the art equipment and systems. Elections do not generate any revenue, and having the best equipment and systems is often seen as a luxury or largess. Machines are often old, malfunctioning, and there is a huge amount of variation within a state, let alone between states, in the types of machines that are used.
Lottery sales are pretty constant, and all the employees at outlets have to do is push a button on a machine and collect money. Election polling places are manned by volunteers who then have to answer questions in legal grey areas or help people with problems that exceed the volunteers' expertise or knowledge, and they have to call upon this expertise very infrequently, often for different types of elections when they do.
Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them. They have a vested interest in the elections not working properly for those selected populations. If I'm in charge of a system that I don't want to work optimally, it should not be surprising that the system does not work optimally.
Finally, a purchaser of a lottery ticket has zero personal input on the lottery ticket, itself. Yes, they often can choose their own numbers, but the ticket that is produced is a standard, controlled document that is produced by the system. If I mis-mark my number selection form, the ticket will reject, just like a ballot might, or it will record my input incorrectly on the produced ticket, just like a voting machine would. In this regard, it's not that different.
Those mistakes are more prominent in voting systems because each entry is noted and recorded. In a lottery system, it only becomes a large issue on a one in a hundreds of millions basis, and any kind of issue at all on a very infrequent basis, and mostly at a very trivial level. If there is a problem where I think my desires were not handled properly, my participation in the lottery is entirely discretionary on my part, subject to the terms and conditions set up by the lottery, so rejection of my complaints that my wishes were not properly followed allows for less recourse or potential mitigation than a system where I am exercising a fundamental right in society.
MegaMillions: How to Play (winning odds)
Powerball: Main Page (odds of winning link at bottom of page)
To sum up - there are vast differences between how the systems are set up and operate, and to the degree that they are similar in important ways, the frequency problems are noticed and importance of problems, between the systems, is also different.
There's not a lot that is equivalent or comparable there.
edited 2 hours ago
answered yesterday
PoloHoleSet
10.7k12651
10.7k12651
6
Additional points: A) Requirements for participation in any lottery is being of legal age and having enough money, for voting you need to be pre-registered.
– SJuan76
yesterday
21
Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
– Carduus
yesterday
3
@grovkin - Yes and no. Voting does not generate revenue. If I have all expensive state of the art machines and efficient processes run by professionals that allow 95% of the voters to turn out and accurately cast their votes, or if I spend zero on technology, have a scrap of paper and a crayon, and use unmotivated prisoner labor to tally the votes, and suppress the vote so only 2% of the eligible population ultimately determines who runs government, the government will still be able to levy taxes and raise revenue, just the same.
– PoloHoleSet
yesterday
4
"Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them." - speaking as a British citizen, this is very weird to me. In the UK elected politicians are allowed nowhere near the administration of elections (to prevent exactly this sort of perverse incentive). Returning Officers are paid council employees who act as impartial arbiters.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
9
Also, the vote is secret; not even the voter is allowed proof of what vote he did cast(for good reasons), while the lottery buyer is expected to keep the proof of what his bet was. This means that you need more safeguards with votes, as this "anti-tampering" mechanism is missing. And of course, you may buy as many lottery tickets as you want but vote only once (repost because of grammar).
– SJuan76
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
6
Additional points: A) Requirements for participation in any lottery is being of legal age and having enough money, for voting you need to be pre-registered.
– SJuan76
yesterday
21
Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
– Carduus
yesterday
3
@grovkin - Yes and no. Voting does not generate revenue. If I have all expensive state of the art machines and efficient processes run by professionals that allow 95% of the voters to turn out and accurately cast their votes, or if I spend zero on technology, have a scrap of paper and a crayon, and use unmotivated prisoner labor to tally the votes, and suppress the vote so only 2% of the eligible population ultimately determines who runs government, the government will still be able to levy taxes and raise revenue, just the same.
– PoloHoleSet
yesterday
4
"Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them." - speaking as a British citizen, this is very weird to me. In the UK elected politicians are allowed nowhere near the administration of elections (to prevent exactly this sort of perverse incentive). Returning Officers are paid council employees who act as impartial arbiters.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
9
Also, the vote is secret; not even the voter is allowed proof of what vote he did cast(for good reasons), while the lottery buyer is expected to keep the proof of what his bet was. This means that you need more safeguards with votes, as this "anti-tampering" mechanism is missing. And of course, you may buy as many lottery tickets as you want but vote only once (repost because of grammar).
– SJuan76
yesterday
6
6
Additional points: A) Requirements for participation in any lottery is being of legal age and having enough money, for voting you need to be pre-registered.
– SJuan76
yesterday
Additional points: A) Requirements for participation in any lottery is being of legal age and having enough money, for voting you need to be pre-registered.
– SJuan76
yesterday
21
21
Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
– Carduus
yesterday
Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
– Carduus
yesterday
3
3
@grovkin - Yes and no. Voting does not generate revenue. If I have all expensive state of the art machines and efficient processes run by professionals that allow 95% of the voters to turn out and accurately cast their votes, or if I spend zero on technology, have a scrap of paper and a crayon, and use unmotivated prisoner labor to tally the votes, and suppress the vote so only 2% of the eligible population ultimately determines who runs government, the government will still be able to levy taxes and raise revenue, just the same.
– PoloHoleSet
yesterday
@grovkin - Yes and no. Voting does not generate revenue. If I have all expensive state of the art machines and efficient processes run by professionals that allow 95% of the voters to turn out and accurately cast their votes, or if I spend zero on technology, have a scrap of paper and a crayon, and use unmotivated prisoner labor to tally the votes, and suppress the vote so only 2% of the eligible population ultimately determines who runs government, the government will still be able to levy taxes and raise revenue, just the same.
– PoloHoleSet
yesterday
4
4
"Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them." - speaking as a British citizen, this is very weird to me. In the UK elected politicians are allowed nowhere near the administration of elections (to prevent exactly this sort of perverse incentive). Returning Officers are paid council employees who act as impartial arbiters.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
"Elections are often managed by public officials whose continued success as public officials depends upon their systems not working optimally for selected portions of the population who are likely to vote against them." - speaking as a British citizen, this is very weird to me. In the UK elected politicians are allowed nowhere near the administration of elections (to prevent exactly this sort of perverse incentive). Returning Officers are paid council employees who act as impartial arbiters.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
9
9
Also, the vote is secret; not even the voter is allowed proof of what vote he did cast(for good reasons), while the lottery buyer is expected to keep the proof of what his bet was. This means that you need more safeguards with votes, as this "anti-tampering" mechanism is missing. And of course, you may buy as many lottery tickets as you want but vote only once (repost because of grammar).
– SJuan76
yesterday
Also, the vote is secret; not even the voter is allowed proof of what vote he did cast(for good reasons), while the lottery buyer is expected to keep the proof of what his bet was. This means that you need more safeguards with votes, as this "anti-tampering" mechanism is missing. And of course, you may buy as many lottery tickets as you want but vote only once (repost because of grammar).
– SJuan76
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
up vote
36
down vote
PoloHoleSet has an excellent answer. But I thought I'd mention one other bit that wasn't as prominently featured there:
Problems in a lottery tend to be for individuals and are resolved at the individual level ("My ticket won. Fix it"). The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status of a winning ticket. There's a separate source of truth (the draw) that you're matching entries to.
Problems in an election tend to be over populations and cannot be resolved at the individual level ("My candidate didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, they won 25 003 to 25 001 Fix it"). The bulk of entrants (votes) has a critical effect on the status of a winner. There's no way to resolve this issue by looking at one ballot. There's no separate source of truth, just an aggregate one.
New contributor
1
Yet another issue is that the people running the lottery have no personal interest in who wins, and have no interest in trying to discredit anyone's victory. Someone whose precinct failed to yield as many votes for their preferred candidates as they expected might feel that there "must" have been something wrong, but that doesn't mean there was actually any problem beyond their preferred candidates' failure to convince people to vote for them.
– supercat
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
36
down vote
PoloHoleSet has an excellent answer. But I thought I'd mention one other bit that wasn't as prominently featured there:
Problems in a lottery tend to be for individuals and are resolved at the individual level ("My ticket won. Fix it"). The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status of a winning ticket. There's a separate source of truth (the draw) that you're matching entries to.
Problems in an election tend to be over populations and cannot be resolved at the individual level ("My candidate didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, they won 25 003 to 25 001 Fix it"). The bulk of entrants (votes) has a critical effect on the status of a winner. There's no way to resolve this issue by looking at one ballot. There's no separate source of truth, just an aggregate one.
New contributor
1
Yet another issue is that the people running the lottery have no personal interest in who wins, and have no interest in trying to discredit anyone's victory. Someone whose precinct failed to yield as many votes for their preferred candidates as they expected might feel that there "must" have been something wrong, but that doesn't mean there was actually any problem beyond their preferred candidates' failure to convince people to vote for them.
– supercat
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
36
down vote
up vote
36
down vote
PoloHoleSet has an excellent answer. But I thought I'd mention one other bit that wasn't as prominently featured there:
Problems in a lottery tend to be for individuals and are resolved at the individual level ("My ticket won. Fix it"). The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status of a winning ticket. There's a separate source of truth (the draw) that you're matching entries to.
Problems in an election tend to be over populations and cannot be resolved at the individual level ("My candidate didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, they won 25 003 to 25 001 Fix it"). The bulk of entrants (votes) has a critical effect on the status of a winner. There's no way to resolve this issue by looking at one ballot. There's no separate source of truth, just an aggregate one.
New contributor
PoloHoleSet has an excellent answer. But I thought I'd mention one other bit that wasn't as prominently featured there:
Problems in a lottery tend to be for individuals and are resolved at the individual level ("My ticket won. Fix it"). The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status of a winning ticket. There's a separate source of truth (the draw) that you're matching entries to.
Problems in an election tend to be over populations and cannot be resolved at the individual level ("My candidate didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, they won 25 003 to 25 001 Fix it"). The bulk of entrants (votes) has a critical effect on the status of a winner. There's no way to resolve this issue by looking at one ballot. There's no separate source of truth, just an aggregate one.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
BowlOfRed
44114
44114
New contributor
New contributor
1
Yet another issue is that the people running the lottery have no personal interest in who wins, and have no interest in trying to discredit anyone's victory. Someone whose precinct failed to yield as many votes for their preferred candidates as they expected might feel that there "must" have been something wrong, but that doesn't mean there was actually any problem beyond their preferred candidates' failure to convince people to vote for them.
– supercat
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Yet another issue is that the people running the lottery have no personal interest in who wins, and have no interest in trying to discredit anyone's victory. Someone whose precinct failed to yield as many votes for their preferred candidates as they expected might feel that there "must" have been something wrong, but that doesn't mean there was actually any problem beyond their preferred candidates' failure to convince people to vote for them.
– supercat
yesterday
1
1
Yet another issue is that the people running the lottery have no personal interest in who wins, and have no interest in trying to discredit anyone's victory. Someone whose precinct failed to yield as many votes for their preferred candidates as they expected might feel that there "must" have been something wrong, but that doesn't mean there was actually any problem beyond their preferred candidates' failure to convince people to vote for them.
– supercat
yesterday
Yet another issue is that the people running the lottery have no personal interest in who wins, and have no interest in trying to discredit anyone's victory. Someone whose precinct failed to yield as many votes for their preferred candidates as they expected might feel that there "must" have been something wrong, but that doesn't mean there was actually any problem beyond their preferred candidates' failure to convince people to vote for them.
– supercat
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
When doing something consistently, weekly, after some time you work out all the kinks, and system works like well oiled machine.
If you do something every other year, with volunteers, some of them new new and never done it, and with law and/or technology possibly changed from the one used previous time - you are doing it for the first time, going live with little preparation. In such situation, Murphy's law applies with the full strength: anything that can go wrong, will (in some of the places).
If we had elections every week, like lottery does, glitches will be eventually worked out (but turnout would be abysmal :-) )
2
+1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
– Kelly Thomas
yesterday
I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
When doing something consistently, weekly, after some time you work out all the kinks, and system works like well oiled machine.
If you do something every other year, with volunteers, some of them new new and never done it, and with law and/or technology possibly changed from the one used previous time - you are doing it for the first time, going live with little preparation. In such situation, Murphy's law applies with the full strength: anything that can go wrong, will (in some of the places).
If we had elections every week, like lottery does, glitches will be eventually worked out (but turnout would be abysmal :-) )
2
+1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
– Kelly Thomas
yesterday
I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
When doing something consistently, weekly, after some time you work out all the kinks, and system works like well oiled machine.
If you do something every other year, with volunteers, some of them new new and never done it, and with law and/or technology possibly changed from the one used previous time - you are doing it for the first time, going live with little preparation. In such situation, Murphy's law applies with the full strength: anything that can go wrong, will (in some of the places).
If we had elections every week, like lottery does, glitches will be eventually worked out (but turnout would be abysmal :-) )
When doing something consistently, weekly, after some time you work out all the kinks, and system works like well oiled machine.
If you do something every other year, with volunteers, some of them new new and never done it, and with law and/or technology possibly changed from the one used previous time - you are doing it for the first time, going live with little preparation. In such situation, Murphy's law applies with the full strength: anything that can go wrong, will (in some of the places).
If we had elections every week, like lottery does, glitches will be eventually worked out (but turnout would be abysmal :-) )
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
P.M
901510
901510
2
+1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
– Kelly Thomas
yesterday
I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
2
+1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
– Kelly Thomas
yesterday
I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
– Mark
yesterday
2
2
+1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
– Kelly Thomas
yesterday
+1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
– Kelly Thomas
yesterday
I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
– Mark
yesterday
I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
– Mark
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Lotteries and elections differ in one crucial respect: lotteries validate a small number of winning tickets in an easily verifiable way: either the ticket is legitimate or not, and its either a winner or it isn't. You can verify whether a lottery ticket is a winner or not independent of the other lottery tickets sold. The Powerball states can sell a billion (or more) tickets without increasing their cost of validating the winners substantially.
With elections, you have to validate that every ballot cast is legitimate before you can determine (with certainty) who won the election.
Imagine a lottery in which all people who buy tickets check off a red box or a blue box, and the color that gets checked off most pays off a prize to all people who have a ticket with that color checked off. The lottery officials have to count the individual tickets to see which color won before they can pay out, and you can bet that the ticket holders would raise a stink if the margin of victory for one color was small. To paraphrase @BowlOfRed's answer: "My color didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, it won 25 003 to 25 001! Fix it!"
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Lotteries and elections differ in one crucial respect: lotteries validate a small number of winning tickets in an easily verifiable way: either the ticket is legitimate or not, and its either a winner or it isn't. You can verify whether a lottery ticket is a winner or not independent of the other lottery tickets sold. The Powerball states can sell a billion (or more) tickets without increasing their cost of validating the winners substantially.
With elections, you have to validate that every ballot cast is legitimate before you can determine (with certainty) who won the election.
Imagine a lottery in which all people who buy tickets check off a red box or a blue box, and the color that gets checked off most pays off a prize to all people who have a ticket with that color checked off. The lottery officials have to count the individual tickets to see which color won before they can pay out, and you can bet that the ticket holders would raise a stink if the margin of victory for one color was small. To paraphrase @BowlOfRed's answer: "My color didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, it won 25 003 to 25 001! Fix it!"
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Lotteries and elections differ in one crucial respect: lotteries validate a small number of winning tickets in an easily verifiable way: either the ticket is legitimate or not, and its either a winner or it isn't. You can verify whether a lottery ticket is a winner or not independent of the other lottery tickets sold. The Powerball states can sell a billion (or more) tickets without increasing their cost of validating the winners substantially.
With elections, you have to validate that every ballot cast is legitimate before you can determine (with certainty) who won the election.
Imagine a lottery in which all people who buy tickets check off a red box or a blue box, and the color that gets checked off most pays off a prize to all people who have a ticket with that color checked off. The lottery officials have to count the individual tickets to see which color won before they can pay out, and you can bet that the ticket holders would raise a stink if the margin of victory for one color was small. To paraphrase @BowlOfRed's answer: "My color didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, it won 25 003 to 25 001! Fix it!"
New contributor
Lotteries and elections differ in one crucial respect: lotteries validate a small number of winning tickets in an easily verifiable way: either the ticket is legitimate or not, and its either a winner or it isn't. You can verify whether a lottery ticket is a winner or not independent of the other lottery tickets sold. The Powerball states can sell a billion (or more) tickets without increasing their cost of validating the winners substantially.
With elections, you have to validate that every ballot cast is legitimate before you can determine (with certainty) who won the election.
Imagine a lottery in which all people who buy tickets check off a red box or a blue box, and the color that gets checked off most pays off a prize to all people who have a ticket with that color checked off. The lottery officials have to count the individual tickets to see which color won before they can pay out, and you can bet that the ticket holders would raise a stink if the margin of victory for one color was small. To paraphrase @BowlOfRed's answer: "My color didn't lose 25 000 to 25 004, it won 25 003 to 25 001! Fix it!"
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
asgallant
1612
1612
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
A few things that I don't see being answered in other answers make elections very complicated, and these are the things that delay results:
Mail-in ballots I'm not sure how it works in other jurisdictions, but in mine (Dallas County, TX), when you mail in an absentee ballot, you fill in your ballot, put it in an envelope with no markings on it. Then you put that envelope in a second envelope that has your information, information about your ballot request (barcoded) and your signature on it. On election day, the outer envelopes are checked (to make sure that the information is on the up-and-up) and that you didn't also vote in early voting or on election day). Then the envelope is emptied putting its contents (the inner envelope in a separate bin). Once that step is done, then the inner envelopes are emptied and the ballots are counted. This assures anonymity during the actual counting. This is my understanding, not the documented procedure. In some jurisdictions (like Oregon), all ballots are mail-in. In others (CA and AZ, for example), there's a substantial percentage of ballots that are mailed-in.
Deadlines In some jurisdictions, mail-in ballots must be received by election day. In others, they must be postmarked by election day. In Florida, for example, overseas and military mail-in ballots can be received up until Nov. 16 (Friday). You don't normally see this as a delay in "calling the winner" because usually, the margin of victory is such that everyone knows that the mail-in ballots will not affect the eventual outcome. However, in just about every jurisdiction, the final published vote totals differ significantly from the day-after-the-election totals. However these differences don't generally affect the overall outcome.
Provisional Ballots If there is a hang-up at the voting booth (for example, a question about voter ID), the voter may cast a Provisional Ballot. They have a similar two envelope system to mail-in ballots. Sometimes, it's the voter's responsibility to cure the hang-up. In any case there is usually a specified time period for these things to get settled.
Insane Politics Lawyers are everywhere and the stakes are high. Candidates will file suit for just about any cause. Look at how easy it was to setup the Florida recount this year. In 2000 it went all the way to the Supreme Court. As part of this process, PR folks on the candidates team send out messages that the elections office is run by idiots and the other candidates team is made up of scurrilous cheaters.
All in all, the 95% of ballots that follow the standard process get processed (and recounted) easily. However, if there's only a 0.5% difference between the candidates, the edge cases predominate. There are no edge cases with lotteries (in general).
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
A few things that I don't see being answered in other answers make elections very complicated, and these are the things that delay results:
Mail-in ballots I'm not sure how it works in other jurisdictions, but in mine (Dallas County, TX), when you mail in an absentee ballot, you fill in your ballot, put it in an envelope with no markings on it. Then you put that envelope in a second envelope that has your information, information about your ballot request (barcoded) and your signature on it. On election day, the outer envelopes are checked (to make sure that the information is on the up-and-up) and that you didn't also vote in early voting or on election day). Then the envelope is emptied putting its contents (the inner envelope in a separate bin). Once that step is done, then the inner envelopes are emptied and the ballots are counted. This assures anonymity during the actual counting. This is my understanding, not the documented procedure. In some jurisdictions (like Oregon), all ballots are mail-in. In others (CA and AZ, for example), there's a substantial percentage of ballots that are mailed-in.
Deadlines In some jurisdictions, mail-in ballots must be received by election day. In others, they must be postmarked by election day. In Florida, for example, overseas and military mail-in ballots can be received up until Nov. 16 (Friday). You don't normally see this as a delay in "calling the winner" because usually, the margin of victory is such that everyone knows that the mail-in ballots will not affect the eventual outcome. However, in just about every jurisdiction, the final published vote totals differ significantly from the day-after-the-election totals. However these differences don't generally affect the overall outcome.
Provisional Ballots If there is a hang-up at the voting booth (for example, a question about voter ID), the voter may cast a Provisional Ballot. They have a similar two envelope system to mail-in ballots. Sometimes, it's the voter's responsibility to cure the hang-up. In any case there is usually a specified time period for these things to get settled.
Insane Politics Lawyers are everywhere and the stakes are high. Candidates will file suit for just about any cause. Look at how easy it was to setup the Florida recount this year. In 2000 it went all the way to the Supreme Court. As part of this process, PR folks on the candidates team send out messages that the elections office is run by idiots and the other candidates team is made up of scurrilous cheaters.
All in all, the 95% of ballots that follow the standard process get processed (and recounted) easily. However, if there's only a 0.5% difference between the candidates, the edge cases predominate. There are no edge cases with lotteries (in general).
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
A few things that I don't see being answered in other answers make elections very complicated, and these are the things that delay results:
Mail-in ballots I'm not sure how it works in other jurisdictions, but in mine (Dallas County, TX), when you mail in an absentee ballot, you fill in your ballot, put it in an envelope with no markings on it. Then you put that envelope in a second envelope that has your information, information about your ballot request (barcoded) and your signature on it. On election day, the outer envelopes are checked (to make sure that the information is on the up-and-up) and that you didn't also vote in early voting or on election day). Then the envelope is emptied putting its contents (the inner envelope in a separate bin). Once that step is done, then the inner envelopes are emptied and the ballots are counted. This assures anonymity during the actual counting. This is my understanding, not the documented procedure. In some jurisdictions (like Oregon), all ballots are mail-in. In others (CA and AZ, for example), there's a substantial percentage of ballots that are mailed-in.
Deadlines In some jurisdictions, mail-in ballots must be received by election day. In others, they must be postmarked by election day. In Florida, for example, overseas and military mail-in ballots can be received up until Nov. 16 (Friday). You don't normally see this as a delay in "calling the winner" because usually, the margin of victory is such that everyone knows that the mail-in ballots will not affect the eventual outcome. However, in just about every jurisdiction, the final published vote totals differ significantly from the day-after-the-election totals. However these differences don't generally affect the overall outcome.
Provisional Ballots If there is a hang-up at the voting booth (for example, a question about voter ID), the voter may cast a Provisional Ballot. They have a similar two envelope system to mail-in ballots. Sometimes, it's the voter's responsibility to cure the hang-up. In any case there is usually a specified time period for these things to get settled.
Insane Politics Lawyers are everywhere and the stakes are high. Candidates will file suit for just about any cause. Look at how easy it was to setup the Florida recount this year. In 2000 it went all the way to the Supreme Court. As part of this process, PR folks on the candidates team send out messages that the elections office is run by idiots and the other candidates team is made up of scurrilous cheaters.
All in all, the 95% of ballots that follow the standard process get processed (and recounted) easily. However, if there's only a 0.5% difference between the candidates, the edge cases predominate. There are no edge cases with lotteries (in general).
A few things that I don't see being answered in other answers make elections very complicated, and these are the things that delay results:
Mail-in ballots I'm not sure how it works in other jurisdictions, but in mine (Dallas County, TX), when you mail in an absentee ballot, you fill in your ballot, put it in an envelope with no markings on it. Then you put that envelope in a second envelope that has your information, information about your ballot request (barcoded) and your signature on it. On election day, the outer envelopes are checked (to make sure that the information is on the up-and-up) and that you didn't also vote in early voting or on election day). Then the envelope is emptied putting its contents (the inner envelope in a separate bin). Once that step is done, then the inner envelopes are emptied and the ballots are counted. This assures anonymity during the actual counting. This is my understanding, not the documented procedure. In some jurisdictions (like Oregon), all ballots are mail-in. In others (CA and AZ, for example), there's a substantial percentage of ballots that are mailed-in.
Deadlines In some jurisdictions, mail-in ballots must be received by election day. In others, they must be postmarked by election day. In Florida, for example, overseas and military mail-in ballots can be received up until Nov. 16 (Friday). You don't normally see this as a delay in "calling the winner" because usually, the margin of victory is such that everyone knows that the mail-in ballots will not affect the eventual outcome. However, in just about every jurisdiction, the final published vote totals differ significantly from the day-after-the-election totals. However these differences don't generally affect the overall outcome.
Provisional Ballots If there is a hang-up at the voting booth (for example, a question about voter ID), the voter may cast a Provisional Ballot. They have a similar two envelope system to mail-in ballots. Sometimes, it's the voter's responsibility to cure the hang-up. In any case there is usually a specified time period for these things to get settled.
Insane Politics Lawyers are everywhere and the stakes are high. Candidates will file suit for just about any cause. Look at how easy it was to setup the Florida recount this year. In 2000 it went all the way to the Supreme Court. As part of this process, PR folks on the candidates team send out messages that the elections office is run by idiots and the other candidates team is made up of scurrilous cheaters.
All in all, the 95% of ballots that follow the standard process get processed (and recounted) easily. However, if there's only a 0.5% difference between the candidates, the edge cases predominate. There are no edge cases with lotteries (in general).
answered yesterday
Flydog57
6397
6397
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
In addition to other fine answers:
If people lose faith in the lottery...
then ticket sales will fall, tax revenues will drop, and the persons running the lottery will be replaced.
If people lose faith in elections...
fewer votes will be cast, political elites will gain even more power, and the persons running the election will keep their jobs.
So OP, don't lose faith in elections.
2
Your points might point towards a possible answer (something about there not being much motivation to make sure elections work perfectly, perhaps?), but your conclusion of "don't lose faith in elections" is not an answer to the question asked.
– NotThatGuy
14 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
In addition to other fine answers:
If people lose faith in the lottery...
then ticket sales will fall, tax revenues will drop, and the persons running the lottery will be replaced.
If people lose faith in elections...
fewer votes will be cast, political elites will gain even more power, and the persons running the election will keep their jobs.
So OP, don't lose faith in elections.
2
Your points might point towards a possible answer (something about there not being much motivation to make sure elections work perfectly, perhaps?), but your conclusion of "don't lose faith in elections" is not an answer to the question asked.
– NotThatGuy
14 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
In addition to other fine answers:
If people lose faith in the lottery...
then ticket sales will fall, tax revenues will drop, and the persons running the lottery will be replaced.
If people lose faith in elections...
fewer votes will be cast, political elites will gain even more power, and the persons running the election will keep their jobs.
So OP, don't lose faith in elections.
In addition to other fine answers:
If people lose faith in the lottery...
then ticket sales will fall, tax revenues will drop, and the persons running the lottery will be replaced.
If people lose faith in elections...
fewer votes will be cast, political elites will gain even more power, and the persons running the election will keep their jobs.
So OP, don't lose faith in elections.
answered yesterday
Dr Sheldon
2487
2487
2
Your points might point towards a possible answer (something about there not being much motivation to make sure elections work perfectly, perhaps?), but your conclusion of "don't lose faith in elections" is not an answer to the question asked.
– NotThatGuy
14 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Your points might point towards a possible answer (something about there not being much motivation to make sure elections work perfectly, perhaps?), but your conclusion of "don't lose faith in elections" is not an answer to the question asked.
– NotThatGuy
14 hours ago
2
2
Your points might point towards a possible answer (something about there not being much motivation to make sure elections work perfectly, perhaps?), but your conclusion of "don't lose faith in elections" is not an answer to the question asked.
– NotThatGuy
14 hours ago
Your points might point towards a possible answer (something about there not being much motivation to make sure elections work perfectly, perhaps?), but your conclusion of "don't lose faith in elections" is not an answer to the question asked.
– NotThatGuy
14 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I have worked in the election field in New York and I believe I pick up a lot of info listening to the news because of it.
First I would challenge your statement and ask for you to provide valid, credible sources.
And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Next I would say that lottery tickets are much simpler than election ballots. If you look at how many different ballots are available in a particular state you will see that it is at least 100:1 in terms of permutations.
Then you can look at how lottery works. It is tightly controlled, nobody has a right to play and you pay money for a ticket. You can also play as many tickets as you please. Compare that to voting where many people have the right to vote and depending on the jurisdiction the ability to register to vote is much more lax than buying lottery tickets.
If I had a choice to administer a 50 lottery systems vs an election system in one state I would choose lottery all day long.
I could add more but those details are somewhat covered in other answers. I believe what I have stated should make clear
Why is counting election totals more difficult than lottery
administration?
I am sorry, but your answer provides no new information. You are neat-picking some assumptions and restating the others. But that's not informative. The randomness of who buys and who doesn't buy lottery tickets makes it more difficult to control from the administrative point because there is less predictability of the players. The frequency of the lotteries makes their administration a more intensive information-processing endeavor. There is simply more information to process. And yet the same institutions (states) are more capable of administering more difficult task.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I have worked in the election field in New York and I believe I pick up a lot of info listening to the news because of it.
First I would challenge your statement and ask for you to provide valid, credible sources.
And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Next I would say that lottery tickets are much simpler than election ballots. If you look at how many different ballots are available in a particular state you will see that it is at least 100:1 in terms of permutations.
Then you can look at how lottery works. It is tightly controlled, nobody has a right to play and you pay money for a ticket. You can also play as many tickets as you please. Compare that to voting where many people have the right to vote and depending on the jurisdiction the ability to register to vote is much more lax than buying lottery tickets.
If I had a choice to administer a 50 lottery systems vs an election system in one state I would choose lottery all day long.
I could add more but those details are somewhat covered in other answers. I believe what I have stated should make clear
Why is counting election totals more difficult than lottery
administration?
I am sorry, but your answer provides no new information. You are neat-picking some assumptions and restating the others. But that's not informative. The randomness of who buys and who doesn't buy lottery tickets makes it more difficult to control from the administrative point because there is less predictability of the players. The frequency of the lotteries makes their administration a more intensive information-processing endeavor. There is simply more information to process. And yet the same institutions (states) are more capable of administering more difficult task.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I have worked in the election field in New York and I believe I pick up a lot of info listening to the news because of it.
First I would challenge your statement and ask for you to provide valid, credible sources.
And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Next I would say that lottery tickets are much simpler than election ballots. If you look at how many different ballots are available in a particular state you will see that it is at least 100:1 in terms of permutations.
Then you can look at how lottery works. It is tightly controlled, nobody has a right to play and you pay money for a ticket. You can also play as many tickets as you please. Compare that to voting where many people have the right to vote and depending on the jurisdiction the ability to register to vote is much more lax than buying lottery tickets.
If I had a choice to administer a 50 lottery systems vs an election system in one state I would choose lottery all day long.
I could add more but those details are somewhat covered in other answers. I believe what I have stated should make clear
Why is counting election totals more difficult than lottery
administration?
I have worked in the election field in New York and I believe I pick up a lot of info listening to the news because of it.
First I would challenge your statement and ask for you to provide valid, credible sources.
And yet miscounting the votes seems to happen on a mass scale.
Next I would say that lottery tickets are much simpler than election ballots. If you look at how many different ballots are available in a particular state you will see that it is at least 100:1 in terms of permutations.
Then you can look at how lottery works. It is tightly controlled, nobody has a right to play and you pay money for a ticket. You can also play as many tickets as you please. Compare that to voting where many people have the right to vote and depending on the jurisdiction the ability to register to vote is much more lax than buying lottery tickets.
If I had a choice to administer a 50 lottery systems vs an election system in one state I would choose lottery all day long.
I could add more but those details are somewhat covered in other answers. I believe what I have stated should make clear
Why is counting election totals more difficult than lottery
administration?
answered yesterday
Joe
21218
21218
I am sorry, but your answer provides no new information. You are neat-picking some assumptions and restating the others. But that's not informative. The randomness of who buys and who doesn't buy lottery tickets makes it more difficult to control from the administrative point because there is less predictability of the players. The frequency of the lotteries makes their administration a more intensive information-processing endeavor. There is simply more information to process. And yet the same institutions (states) are more capable of administering more difficult task.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
I am sorry, but your answer provides no new information. You are neat-picking some assumptions and restating the others. But that's not informative. The randomness of who buys and who doesn't buy lottery tickets makes it more difficult to control from the administrative point because there is less predictability of the players. The frequency of the lotteries makes their administration a more intensive information-processing endeavor. There is simply more information to process. And yet the same institutions (states) are more capable of administering more difficult task.
– grovkin
yesterday
I am sorry, but your answer provides no new information. You are neat-picking some assumptions and restating the others. But that's not informative. The randomness of who buys and who doesn't buy lottery tickets makes it more difficult to control from the administrative point because there is less predictability of the players. The frequency of the lotteries makes their administration a more intensive information-processing endeavor. There is simply more information to process. And yet the same institutions (states) are more capable of administering more difficult task.
– grovkin
yesterday
I am sorry, but your answer provides no new information. You are neat-picking some assumptions and restating the others. But that's not informative. The randomness of who buys and who doesn't buy lottery tickets makes it more difficult to control from the administrative point because there is less predictability of the players. The frequency of the lotteries makes their administration a more intensive information-processing endeavor. There is simply more information to process. And yet the same institutions (states) are more capable of administering more difficult task.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
This is a key factor (ability to get things right v.s. likelihood of mistakes).
Lotteries are a permanent, ongoing operation happening all the time, which warrants full-time staffing of management/oversight positions. Sales of tickets, drawings of winning numbers, payment of prizes, distribution/maintenance of equipment, printing/shipping/sale of scratch tickets, etc. are happening every day (or close to it) on an ongoing basis. You can hire people to do these jobs. They can continue to do these jobs for a long time.
Elections happen once every four (or two) years (or more frequently, depending on local laws/processes). It's highly unlikely anyone will be printing and distributing ballots, operating a polling location, or counting votes in March 2019 (barring any special elections). There are various types of oversight (depends on city/town/county/state etc.), some of which are permanent, long-term employees, and some of which are elected officials (who may change due to execution of an election, and may have a vested interest in non-legitimate outcomes), but you can't really hire a full-time ballot counter (or ballot printer, or voting location staff), unless you want to waste a lot of money paying them when there is no election.
Public reporting/discussion/opinion is another factor.
Lotteries are generally self-funded revenue generators, and the only people affected by them are those that choose to participate (can't lose if you don't play). Lottery fraud can and does happen (citation needed - there've been a few pretty public cases), but a lot of people just don't really care, because it doesn't affect them.
On the other hand, elections can affect everyone, so the general public has a vested interest in the outcome. If the election results in a particular law going into effect (either directly by ballot measure, or indirectly by electing officials who put it in place), everyone is subject to that law, regardless of whether or how they voted. This leads to more coverage and public discussion of any election issues.
Anonymity
Many (most?) U.S. states do not allow anonymous lottery winners; winners' names are public information. Votes are completely anonymous. My polling location will have a record that I showed up, received a ballot, and placed a ballot into the ballot machine. There is no record of how I voted, or which races I did or did not vote in. There is no way to verify that my vote in particular was counted, other than a verification that all votes cast at my location are accounted for.
Regarding examples of lottery fraud, how about 1) a cashier stealing a winning ticket or 2) a ticket sale to a minor miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article196375744.html lbpost.com/news/…
– origimbo
yesterday
@origimbo was thinking more of the insider that fixed the winning numbers, but haven't had a chance to look up anything to cite
– yoozer8
yesterday
1
Nothing to See Here: People Who Sell Lottery Tickets Are Just Really Lucky, concerning a convenience store owner who sold himself 28 winning tickets, including one for $1 million.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
This is a key factor (ability to get things right v.s. likelihood of mistakes).
Lotteries are a permanent, ongoing operation happening all the time, which warrants full-time staffing of management/oversight positions. Sales of tickets, drawings of winning numbers, payment of prizes, distribution/maintenance of equipment, printing/shipping/sale of scratch tickets, etc. are happening every day (or close to it) on an ongoing basis. You can hire people to do these jobs. They can continue to do these jobs for a long time.
Elections happen once every four (or two) years (or more frequently, depending on local laws/processes). It's highly unlikely anyone will be printing and distributing ballots, operating a polling location, or counting votes in March 2019 (barring any special elections). There are various types of oversight (depends on city/town/county/state etc.), some of which are permanent, long-term employees, and some of which are elected officials (who may change due to execution of an election, and may have a vested interest in non-legitimate outcomes), but you can't really hire a full-time ballot counter (or ballot printer, or voting location staff), unless you want to waste a lot of money paying them when there is no election.
Public reporting/discussion/opinion is another factor.
Lotteries are generally self-funded revenue generators, and the only people affected by them are those that choose to participate (can't lose if you don't play). Lottery fraud can and does happen (citation needed - there've been a few pretty public cases), but a lot of people just don't really care, because it doesn't affect them.
On the other hand, elections can affect everyone, so the general public has a vested interest in the outcome. If the election results in a particular law going into effect (either directly by ballot measure, or indirectly by electing officials who put it in place), everyone is subject to that law, regardless of whether or how they voted. This leads to more coverage and public discussion of any election issues.
Anonymity
Many (most?) U.S. states do not allow anonymous lottery winners; winners' names are public information. Votes are completely anonymous. My polling location will have a record that I showed up, received a ballot, and placed a ballot into the ballot machine. There is no record of how I voted, or which races I did or did not vote in. There is no way to verify that my vote in particular was counted, other than a verification that all votes cast at my location are accounted for.
Regarding examples of lottery fraud, how about 1) a cashier stealing a winning ticket or 2) a ticket sale to a minor miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article196375744.html lbpost.com/news/…
– origimbo
yesterday
@origimbo was thinking more of the insider that fixed the winning numbers, but haven't had a chance to look up anything to cite
– yoozer8
yesterday
1
Nothing to See Here: People Who Sell Lottery Tickets Are Just Really Lucky, concerning a convenience store owner who sold himself 28 winning tickets, including one for $1 million.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
This is a key factor (ability to get things right v.s. likelihood of mistakes).
Lotteries are a permanent, ongoing operation happening all the time, which warrants full-time staffing of management/oversight positions. Sales of tickets, drawings of winning numbers, payment of prizes, distribution/maintenance of equipment, printing/shipping/sale of scratch tickets, etc. are happening every day (or close to it) on an ongoing basis. You can hire people to do these jobs. They can continue to do these jobs for a long time.
Elections happen once every four (or two) years (or more frequently, depending on local laws/processes). It's highly unlikely anyone will be printing and distributing ballots, operating a polling location, or counting votes in March 2019 (barring any special elections). There are various types of oversight (depends on city/town/county/state etc.), some of which are permanent, long-term employees, and some of which are elected officials (who may change due to execution of an election, and may have a vested interest in non-legitimate outcomes), but you can't really hire a full-time ballot counter (or ballot printer, or voting location staff), unless you want to waste a lot of money paying them when there is no election.
Public reporting/discussion/opinion is another factor.
Lotteries are generally self-funded revenue generators, and the only people affected by them are those that choose to participate (can't lose if you don't play). Lottery fraud can and does happen (citation needed - there've been a few pretty public cases), but a lot of people just don't really care, because it doesn't affect them.
On the other hand, elections can affect everyone, so the general public has a vested interest in the outcome. If the election results in a particular law going into effect (either directly by ballot measure, or indirectly by electing officials who put it in place), everyone is subject to that law, regardless of whether or how they voted. This leads to more coverage and public discussion of any election issues.
Anonymity
Many (most?) U.S. states do not allow anonymous lottery winners; winners' names are public information. Votes are completely anonymous. My polling location will have a record that I showed up, received a ballot, and placed a ballot into the ballot machine. There is no record of how I voted, or which races I did or did not vote in. There is no way to verify that my vote in particular was counted, other than a verification that all votes cast at my location are accounted for.
Fourth, the scale at which lotteries are administered is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the voting. Some states have weekly lottery drawings. Whereas votes only happen every 2 years.
This is a key factor (ability to get things right v.s. likelihood of mistakes).
Lotteries are a permanent, ongoing operation happening all the time, which warrants full-time staffing of management/oversight positions. Sales of tickets, drawings of winning numbers, payment of prizes, distribution/maintenance of equipment, printing/shipping/sale of scratch tickets, etc. are happening every day (or close to it) on an ongoing basis. You can hire people to do these jobs. They can continue to do these jobs for a long time.
Elections happen once every four (or two) years (or more frequently, depending on local laws/processes). It's highly unlikely anyone will be printing and distributing ballots, operating a polling location, or counting votes in March 2019 (barring any special elections). There are various types of oversight (depends on city/town/county/state etc.), some of which are permanent, long-term employees, and some of which are elected officials (who may change due to execution of an election, and may have a vested interest in non-legitimate outcomes), but you can't really hire a full-time ballot counter (or ballot printer, or voting location staff), unless you want to waste a lot of money paying them when there is no election.
Public reporting/discussion/opinion is another factor.
Lotteries are generally self-funded revenue generators, and the only people affected by them are those that choose to participate (can't lose if you don't play). Lottery fraud can and does happen (citation needed - there've been a few pretty public cases), but a lot of people just don't really care, because it doesn't affect them.
On the other hand, elections can affect everyone, so the general public has a vested interest in the outcome. If the election results in a particular law going into effect (either directly by ballot measure, or indirectly by electing officials who put it in place), everyone is subject to that law, regardless of whether or how they voted. This leads to more coverage and public discussion of any election issues.
Anonymity
Many (most?) U.S. states do not allow anonymous lottery winners; winners' names are public information. Votes are completely anonymous. My polling location will have a record that I showed up, received a ballot, and placed a ballot into the ballot machine. There is no record of how I voted, or which races I did or did not vote in. There is no way to verify that my vote in particular was counted, other than a verification that all votes cast at my location are accounted for.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
yoozer8
2882317
2882317
Regarding examples of lottery fraud, how about 1) a cashier stealing a winning ticket or 2) a ticket sale to a minor miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article196375744.html lbpost.com/news/…
– origimbo
yesterday
@origimbo was thinking more of the insider that fixed the winning numbers, but haven't had a chance to look up anything to cite
– yoozer8
yesterday
1
Nothing to See Here: People Who Sell Lottery Tickets Are Just Really Lucky, concerning a convenience store owner who sold himself 28 winning tickets, including one for $1 million.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
20 hours ago
add a comment |
Regarding examples of lottery fraud, how about 1) a cashier stealing a winning ticket or 2) a ticket sale to a minor miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article196375744.html lbpost.com/news/…
– origimbo
yesterday
@origimbo was thinking more of the insider that fixed the winning numbers, but haven't had a chance to look up anything to cite
– yoozer8
yesterday
1
Nothing to See Here: People Who Sell Lottery Tickets Are Just Really Lucky, concerning a convenience store owner who sold himself 28 winning tickets, including one for $1 million.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
20 hours ago
Regarding examples of lottery fraud, how about 1) a cashier stealing a winning ticket or 2) a ticket sale to a minor miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article196375744.html lbpost.com/news/…
– origimbo
yesterday
Regarding examples of lottery fraud, how about 1) a cashier stealing a winning ticket or 2) a ticket sale to a minor miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article196375744.html lbpost.com/news/…
– origimbo
yesterday
@origimbo was thinking more of the insider that fixed the winning numbers, but haven't had a chance to look up anything to cite
– yoozer8
yesterday
@origimbo was thinking more of the insider that fixed the winning numbers, but haven't had a chance to look up anything to cite
– yoozer8
yesterday
1
1
Nothing to See Here: People Who Sell Lottery Tickets Are Just Really Lucky, concerning a convenience store owner who sold himself 28 winning tickets, including one for $1 million.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
20 hours ago
Nothing to See Here: People Who Sell Lottery Tickets Are Just Really Lucky, concerning a convenience store owner who sold himself 28 winning tickets, including one for $1 million.
– Jeffrey Bosboom
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The other aspect of the Lottery not mentioned is that the winning ticket is a bearer item, meaning that the identity of the winner is only tied to the individual who's name is on it. Find a stray ticket with the winning number of the big jackpot in the gutter? It doesn't have anyone's name signed to it... You're even luckier than the guy who purchased a winning ticket!
Ballots are anonymous for various good reasons, but that causes a lot of problems when you have to validate the ballot as legitiment or not... the 2000 problem from Florida was attributed to "Hanging Chad" where the hole punch removed the paper in such a way that the whole damaged both check boxes and with no way to tell who the voter actually wanted, it became a big fight over what to do with the ballots... cast them for candidate A, candidate B, or invalidate someone's vote?
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The other aspect of the Lottery not mentioned is that the winning ticket is a bearer item, meaning that the identity of the winner is only tied to the individual who's name is on it. Find a stray ticket with the winning number of the big jackpot in the gutter? It doesn't have anyone's name signed to it... You're even luckier than the guy who purchased a winning ticket!
Ballots are anonymous for various good reasons, but that causes a lot of problems when you have to validate the ballot as legitiment or not... the 2000 problem from Florida was attributed to "Hanging Chad" where the hole punch removed the paper in such a way that the whole damaged both check boxes and with no way to tell who the voter actually wanted, it became a big fight over what to do with the ballots... cast them for candidate A, candidate B, or invalidate someone's vote?
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The other aspect of the Lottery not mentioned is that the winning ticket is a bearer item, meaning that the identity of the winner is only tied to the individual who's name is on it. Find a stray ticket with the winning number of the big jackpot in the gutter? It doesn't have anyone's name signed to it... You're even luckier than the guy who purchased a winning ticket!
Ballots are anonymous for various good reasons, but that causes a lot of problems when you have to validate the ballot as legitiment or not... the 2000 problem from Florida was attributed to "Hanging Chad" where the hole punch removed the paper in such a way that the whole damaged both check boxes and with no way to tell who the voter actually wanted, it became a big fight over what to do with the ballots... cast them for candidate A, candidate B, or invalidate someone's vote?
The other aspect of the Lottery not mentioned is that the winning ticket is a bearer item, meaning that the identity of the winner is only tied to the individual who's name is on it. Find a stray ticket with the winning number of the big jackpot in the gutter? It doesn't have anyone's name signed to it... You're even luckier than the guy who purchased a winning ticket!
Ballots are anonymous for various good reasons, but that causes a lot of problems when you have to validate the ballot as legitiment or not... the 2000 problem from Florida was attributed to "Hanging Chad" where the hole punch removed the paper in such a way that the whole damaged both check boxes and with no way to tell who the voter actually wanted, it became a big fight over what to do with the ballots... cast them for candidate A, candidate B, or invalidate someone's vote?
answered 8 hours ago
hszmv
4,035417
4,035417
add a comment |
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ 11 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
3
What is the point of your third numbered paragraph? Planty of election systems are able to track votes back to an individual polling place or voting machine.
– origimbo
yesterday
40
It's less anonymous in at least one important way. I can come away from buying a lottery ticket with a full authenticatable record of what numbers I picked (the ticket). This is generally considered a bad thing in an election, because it's precisely the system you need to start selling your vote. This is often brought up as an argument against vote by mail or internet voting.
– origimbo
yesterday
11
"there has never been a mistake made in awarding or not awarding lottery winnings" - depends on what you mean by "mistake". Every (?) state has pages like this: mnlottery.com/winners/unclaimed-prizes
– user4556274
yesterday
9
They are not the same. You can buy more than one lottery ticket. Almost anyone can buy lottery.The lottery institution does not win the price while the counting of vote is done by the people trying to win the price.
– the_lotus
yesterday
4
@DavidGrinberg No they don't. US Reps and Senators are up for election on even-numbered years. But what is the point in dismissing my note about local elections if you'll also concede special elections happen?
– Azor Ahai
yesterday