MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181893118

Long Voter Lines in Prince George's County, 2004 and 2006 Elections

2006· article· en· W2181893118 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral electionVotingSpoilt voteEveningBallotWork (physics)Political scienceLawComputer scienceGroup voting ticketPoliticsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My name is Rebecca Wilson and I live in Hyattsville, MD. I have served as an Election Judge and Chief Election Judge for 5 elections, including the General Election in 2004 and the General Election of 2006. The morning of the 2004 General Election produced 2-3 hour long lines. A huge number of voters tried to vote on their way to work. We had 3 of our 11 machines down when we opened and intermittent problems with 1 of them throughout the morning (the other 2 were paper jams on the zero tapes, which we were able to resolve). The backlog of voters didn't clear until about 11:00 am, so the people most affected were probably the ones who showed up between 7:30 and 8:30 am -- prime time for people en route to work. In the 2006 General Election, the thing that saved us from long lines for most of the day was the steady flow of people. But in the evening we had a big back-up of people after work. We locked the doors at 8pm and the last voter finished voting at 9:30 or 9:45, but the peak was probably about 6:30 - 7:30. We had 50 (if I remember correctly) Voter Access Cards, so we couldn't have more than a total of 50 voters actually at machines or in line at any time. We had a long line of people waiting to check in, but we couldn't check anyone in until a voter finished voting and returned the smart card. Once a voter checked in and had their card, they still had a fairly long wait for a machine to free up. Checking in using the E-pollbook takes about one minute. We had 2 E-pollbooks and 11touchscreen DREs that were taking voters as much as 45 minutes because the ballot was very long: The average time was probably from 15 to 25 minutes. There were 37 ballot items, including 19 election contests plus 4 state and 14 county ballot measures. The ratio of the number of DREs to the number of E-pollbooks was 5.5:1 whereas the ratio of the times for their use was more like 20:1. Thus the long lines were caused by the voting machines and not the E-pollbooks. I eased the situation as much as I could by going through the line and trying to weed out people who would have to vote provisionally, since there was no reason for them to wait in line. So anyone who had recently moved or wasn't sure if they were in the right polling place or had requested but not received an absentee ballot or whatever, I had the idle check-in judges look them up to see if they would need to vote provisionally. Those who did were able to get out of there much more quickly than those who were forced to wait in line for a machine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207