Why is counting election totals more difficult than lottery administration?











up vote
39
down vote

favorite
9












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 preventing states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?






united-states election lottery







share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    Nov 16 at 16:52






  • 1




    When you enter a lottery you receive a ticket. In other words, you have a receipt proving your participation. You receive a sticker when you receive when you vote. Lottery winners come forward with their receipt to prove they are the winner. Voters have no way to prove anything.
    – fredsbend
    Nov 16 at 18:35










  • @fredsbend Post an answer!
    – wizzwizz4
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @wizz There's already 9 answers, and it seems like an obvious difference to me. I think the question is one you'd think of, perhaps, (i.e. why is the state organized here, but not there), but it's apparent to me that lottery winners and vote counts are not even remotely similar.
    – fredsbend
    2 days ago















up vote
39
down vote

favorite
9












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 preventing states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?






united-states election lottery







share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    Nov 16 at 16:52






  • 1




    When you enter a lottery you receive a ticket. In other words, you have a receipt proving your participation. You receive a sticker when you receive when you vote. Lottery winners come forward with their receipt to prove they are the winner. Voters have no way to prove anything.
    – fredsbend
    Nov 16 at 18:35










  • @fredsbend Post an answer!
    – wizzwizz4
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @wizz There's already 9 answers, and it seems like an obvious difference to me. I think the question is one you'd think of, perhaps, (i.e. why is the state organized here, but not there), but it's apparent to me that lottery winners and vote counts are not even remotely similar.
    – fredsbend
    2 days ago













up vote
39
down vote

favorite
9









up vote
39
down vote

favorite
9






9





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 preventing states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?






united-states election lottery







share|improve this question















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 preventing states from being as accurate about elections as they are about lotteries?






united-states election lottery




united-states election lottery






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 16 at 12:32









Jared Smith

2,7022914




2,7022914










asked Nov 14 at 14:17









grovkin

2,56121137




2,56121137








  • 1




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    Nov 16 at 16:52






  • 1




    When you enter a lottery you receive a ticket. In other words, you have a receipt proving your participation. You receive a sticker when you receive when you vote. Lottery winners come forward with their receipt to prove they are the winner. Voters have no way to prove anything.
    – fredsbend
    Nov 16 at 18:35










  • @fredsbend Post an answer!
    – wizzwizz4
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @wizz There's already 9 answers, and it seems like an obvious difference to me. I think the question is one you'd think of, perhaps, (i.e. why is the state organized here, but not there), but it's apparent to me that lottery winners and vote counts are not even remotely similar.
    – fredsbend
    2 days ago














  • 1




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    Nov 16 at 16:52






  • 1




    When you enter a lottery you receive a ticket. In other words, you have a receipt proving your participation. You receive a sticker when you receive when you vote. Lottery winners come forward with their receipt to prove they are the winner. Voters have no way to prove anything.
    – fredsbend
    Nov 16 at 18:35










  • @fredsbend Post an answer!
    – wizzwizz4
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @wizz There's already 9 answers, and it seems like an obvious difference to me. I think the question is one you'd think of, perhaps, (i.e. why is the state organized here, but not there), but it's apparent to me that lottery winners and vote counts are not even remotely similar.
    – fredsbend
    2 days ago








1




1




Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Sam I am♦
Nov 16 at 16:52




Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Sam I am♦
Nov 16 at 16:52




1




1




When you enter a lottery you receive a ticket. In other words, you have a receipt proving your participation. You receive a sticker when you receive when you vote. Lottery winners come forward with their receipt to prove they are the winner. Voters have no way to prove anything.
– fredsbend
Nov 16 at 18:35




When you enter a lottery you receive a ticket. In other words, you have a receipt proving your participation. You receive a sticker when you receive when you vote. Lottery winners come forward with their receipt to prove they are the winner. Voters have no way to prove anything.
– fredsbend
Nov 16 at 18:35












@fredsbend Post an answer!
– wizzwizz4
2 days ago




@fredsbend Post an answer!
– wizzwizz4
2 days ago




3




3




@wizz There's already 9 answers, and it seems like an obvious difference to me. I think the question is one you'd think of, perhaps, (i.e. why is the state organized here, but not there), but it's apparent to me that lottery winners and vote counts are not even remotely similar.
– fredsbend
2 days ago




@wizz There's already 9 answers, and it seems like an obvious difference to me. I think the question is one you'd think of, perhaps, (i.e. why is the state organized here, but not there), but it's apparent to me that lottery winners and vote counts are not even remotely similar.
– fredsbend
2 days ago










10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
74
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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 13




    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
    Nov 15 at 0:03










  • Re "The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status...": the bulk of entrants determine the payout of the winning ticket.
    – agc
    Nov 16 at 6:39






  • 12




    I think "the status" here means whether a ticket has won or not, and does not reflect the size of the winnings.
    – Mawg
    Nov 16 at 11:20






  • 2




    The flip side of @supercat's point is also true. No individual voter has a direct economic interest in insuring that their particular vote counted properly, even if that was possible, which it is not because anonymity of voting means that most voting systems are designed so that only aggregate data on how people voted is preserved.
    – ohwilleke
    yesterday


















up vote
52
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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    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
    Nov 14 at 15:09






  • 40




    Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
    – Carduus
    Nov 14 at 15:20






  • 8




    "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
    Nov 14 at 17:23






  • 16




    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
    Nov 14 at 17:32






  • 7




    @MartinBonner: Interesting. Here in Germany, candidates in that election cannot be in any of the committees administering elections. But the different parties are supposed to be in the committees (usually in turn in descending order of previous votes). So rather than trying to keep them out, we try to have all of them in. In addition, think we rely most on having huge numbers of local citizens involved (e.g. the last federal election 88000 election boards totalling some 600000 citizens). Federal and Länder election committees also have prescribed numbers of judges in the committee.
    – cbeleites
    Nov 15 at 10:43


















up vote
23
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!"






share|improve this answer








New contributor




asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 4




    This is the heart of it. Lotteries and elections use totally different processes. It is much harder to collect and process data than it is to generate it.
    – De Novo
    Nov 16 at 15:50










  • It's worth mentioning that there is a similar concept in betting. Check Parimutuel betting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting . Of course the main difference mentioned in BowlOfRed's answer remains valid. You can change decision for a specific bettor from lose to win even if that's not fully legitimate claim at organiser's expense without changing the odds for others. There can even be a specific remark in the rules to handle such cases. The voting affects entire community for years making it essential to have all the counting right before results are announced.
    – Ister
    yesterday


















up vote
14
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 :-) )






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    +1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
    – Kelly Thomas
    Nov 14 at 20:23










  • I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
    – Mark
    Nov 15 at 1:12






  • 1




    Where is"here"?
    – Mawg
    Nov 16 at 11:27










  • For elections, you may want to have so many new volounteers every time - even if they are less efficient as this also lowers the possibility for corruption: if a significant fraction of the counting volounteers changes every time, bribing is far more inefficient and dangerous.
    – cbeleites
    2 days ago


















up vote
5
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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 3




    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
    Nov 15 at 10:51




















up vote
5
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).






share|improve this answer





















  • The mail-in procedure in my county (Mahoning Ohio) is slightly different. In our county the completed ballot is placed in a envelope that has the voter's name, signature, driver's license # or SS # on it. That envelope is then placed in a envelope that is is preaddressed to the board of elections (voter must put on sufficient postage). So theoretically the person (or machine) that is opening the voter's verification envelope (that contains the actual ballot) would be able to learn who that voter voted for.
    – BobE
    2 days ago


















up vote
2
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?







share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    Nov 14 at 21:04










  • That's not true, the computer systems that track every ticket are part of a very simplistic system from the point of view of someone like me who has spent their life in the IT industry. They only care about the number on the ticket and not the only eligibility is the person who plays is over 18. I know my answer is sparse and that is because it is a very simple answer to a very simple questions, from my point of view.
    – Joe
    Nov 16 at 13:02












  • To clarify simple, the lotto system is a 'closed loop'. All points of entry are controlled and licensed by the governing body.
    – Joe
    Nov 16 at 13:03










  • And whether they are over 18 only matters if they win, which they won’t.
    – jmoreno
    2 days ago


















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.






share|improve this answer























  • 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
    Nov 14 at 19:45










  • @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
    Nov 14 at 20:44






  • 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
    Nov 15 at 5:26


















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?






share|improve this answer





















  • I believe you've mis-stated the "hanging chad" problem. I believe the problem was that the hole punch had not completely removed the paper from what should have been the hole but, rather, the chad (the paper that should have been removed) was still partially attached. Depending on exactly how the chad and the rest of the ballot paper went through the counting machine, the chad could cover up the hole and cause the machine to think that the ballot was voting for nobody.
    – David Richerby
    Nov 16 at 16:01




















up vote
0
down vote














  1. Elections are more complicated than lotteries. I don't play the lottery to excuse me if I'm missing some details, but a quick check of my state's lottery web site shows 10 kinds of ticket you can buy: Powerball, Pick 3, Pick 4, etc. In each case, you either choose or are assigned between 3 and 6 numbers.


Compare that to a voting ballot. In the last election, my ballot listed at least 13 races: federal senate, state senate, federal house, state house, governor, state treasurer, secretary of state, state supreme court judge, county probate judge, municipal judge, regents of the state university, board of the county community college, county commissioner, maybe others that I'm forgetting, not to mention 3 proposed amendments to the state constitution. This information has to be pulled together from federal, state, county, and city sources. Different races appear on different ballots: I can vote for mayor of my city but not for mayor of a neighboring city. People in different districts have different choices for house and senate. Etc. In some races there is one winner. In other races there are several winners, e.g. for the state supreme court we were electing 2 judges, so the top 2 vote-getters won.




  1. With a lottery, the people who run the lottery get to make up the rules, and they can invent rules that make it easier to administer. (I suppose if they made rules that were too obviously biased, like "relatives of members of the lottery commission get 2 chances to win while everyone else only gets 1", the state would step in.) The people who run elections can't make up rules to make their lives easier. For example, the lottery people can say that you pick numbers from the range 1 to 60. If someone said that they want to chose 61, the lottery people can just say "no, that's not a choice", and that would be the end of it. But the election people can't say, "you must choose Democrat or Republican, and letting you pick Libertarian or Green Party is just too complicated".


Likewise, the lottery people have an easy way to control who plays: You have to pay for a ticket. If you want another ticket, fine, pay for another ticket. They don't have to worry about who is allowed to buy tickets or making sure no one buys more than one ticket. They don't have to verify your identity when you buy a ticket. Etc.



It's much more complicated with elections. Some people are allowed to vote and some aren't. Each person is only allowed to vote once. You don't pay to vote so the only disincentive to illegal voting or multiple voting is getting caught and prosecuted.




  1. People who run the lottery don't generally care who wins. They have zero incentive to cheat to let one stranger win over some other stranger. They might conceivably cheat to help a friend or relative win, but that would be instantly suspicious -- if the lottery commissioner's brother-in-law wins a $50 million jackpot, I'm sure someone would investigate. (I'd hope so, anyway.)


People who run elections often care a great deal about who wins. While one would hope that their highest ideal is fair elections, it doesn't take incredible cynicism to wonder if some election officials might not try to stack the deck now and then for their preferred candidate. As every candidate is favored by large numbers of people, you can rarely say, "wow, it was awfully suspicious that this candidate won".




  1. The Lottery has a strong institutional incentive to be fair and accurate. If there is evidence that the games are biased -- or even rumors -- people will refuse to play and the lottery will go broke. But with elections, it's the only game in town. Sure, if you discover that elections are biased, you can refuse to vote. But then you've given up your chance to influence the political process. The people who run the elections don't lose: you do.


  2. As others have noted, lotteries are relatively easy to verify. If someone claims to have the winning ticket, you check that one ticket and say yes or no. You don't need to re-check every other ticket that was sold. If there's serious question that the ticket was forged or some such, you can devote considerable resources to investigating it. With elections, you have to study every vote. If someone won the election by just one vote, you can't say, "oh, it was Fred Smith who cast the deciding vote, so let's make absolutely sure that we know who Fred Smith voted for". EVERYONE cast the deciding vote. If any one of all those millions of ballots was illegally cast or was miscounted, then the election results could be wrong.







share|improve this answer




















    protected by Philipp♦ Nov 15 at 13:51



    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?














    10 Answers
    10






    active

    oldest

    votes








    10 Answers
    10






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    74
    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.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 13




      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
      Nov 15 at 0:03










    • Re "The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status...": the bulk of entrants determine the payout of the winning ticket.
      – agc
      Nov 16 at 6:39






    • 12




      I think "the status" here means whether a ticket has won or not, and does not reflect the size of the winnings.
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:20






    • 2




      The flip side of @supercat's point is also true. No individual voter has a direct economic interest in insuring that their particular vote counted properly, even if that was possible, which it is not because anonymity of voting means that most voting systems are designed so that only aggregate data on how people voted is preserved.
      – ohwilleke
      yesterday















    up vote
    74
    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.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 13




      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
      Nov 15 at 0:03










    • Re "The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status...": the bulk of entrants determine the payout of the winning ticket.
      – agc
      Nov 16 at 6:39






    • 12




      I think "the status" here means whether a ticket has won or not, and does not reflect the size of the winnings.
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:20






    • 2




      The flip side of @supercat's point is also true. No individual voter has a direct economic interest in insuring that their particular vote counted properly, even if that was possible, which it is not because anonymity of voting means that most voting systems are designed so that only aggregate data on how people voted is preserved.
      – ohwilleke
      yesterday













    up vote
    74
    down vote










    up vote
    74
    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.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    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.







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    New contributor




    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered Nov 14 at 17:39









    BowlOfRed

    82114




    82114




    New contributor




    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    BowlOfRed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.








    • 13




      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
      Nov 15 at 0:03










    • Re "The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status...": the bulk of entrants determine the payout of the winning ticket.
      – agc
      Nov 16 at 6:39






    • 12




      I think "the status" here means whether a ticket has won or not, and does not reflect the size of the winnings.
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:20






    • 2




      The flip side of @supercat's point is also true. No individual voter has a direct economic interest in insuring that their particular vote counted properly, even if that was possible, which it is not because anonymity of voting means that most voting systems are designed so that only aggregate data on how people voted is preserved.
      – ohwilleke
      yesterday














    • 13




      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
      Nov 15 at 0:03










    • Re "The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status...": the bulk of entrants determine the payout of the winning ticket.
      – agc
      Nov 16 at 6:39






    • 12




      I think "the status" here means whether a ticket has won or not, and does not reflect the size of the winnings.
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:20






    • 2




      The flip side of @supercat's point is also true. No individual voter has a direct economic interest in insuring that their particular vote counted properly, even if that was possible, which it is not because anonymity of voting means that most voting systems are designed so that only aggregate data on how people voted is preserved.
      – ohwilleke
      yesterday








    13




    13




    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
    Nov 15 at 0:03




    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
    Nov 15 at 0:03












    Re "The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status...": the bulk of entrants determine the payout of the winning ticket.
    – agc
    Nov 16 at 6:39




    Re "The bulk of entrants has zero effect on the status...": the bulk of entrants determine the payout of the winning ticket.
    – agc
    Nov 16 at 6:39




    12




    12




    I think "the status" here means whether a ticket has won or not, and does not reflect the size of the winnings.
    – Mawg
    Nov 16 at 11:20




    I think "the status" here means whether a ticket has won or not, and does not reflect the size of the winnings.
    – Mawg
    Nov 16 at 11:20




    2




    2




    The flip side of @supercat's point is also true. No individual voter has a direct economic interest in insuring that their particular vote counted properly, even if that was possible, which it is not because anonymity of voting means that most voting systems are designed so that only aggregate data on how people voted is preserved.
    – ohwilleke
    yesterday




    The flip side of @supercat's point is also true. No individual voter has a direct economic interest in insuring that their particular vote counted properly, even if that was possible, which it is not because anonymity of voting means that most voting systems are designed so that only aggregate data on how people voted is preserved.
    – ohwilleke
    yesterday










    up vote
    52
    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 7




      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
      Nov 14 at 15:09






    • 40




      Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
      – Carduus
      Nov 14 at 15:20






    • 8




      "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
      Nov 14 at 17:23






    • 16




      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
      Nov 14 at 17:32






    • 7




      @MartinBonner: Interesting. Here in Germany, candidates in that election cannot be in any of the committees administering elections. But the different parties are supposed to be in the committees (usually in turn in descending order of previous votes). So rather than trying to keep them out, we try to have all of them in. In addition, think we rely most on having huge numbers of local citizens involved (e.g. the last federal election 88000 election boards totalling some 600000 citizens). Federal and Länder election committees also have prescribed numbers of judges in the committee.
      – cbeleites
      Nov 15 at 10:43















    up vote
    52
    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 7




      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
      Nov 14 at 15:09






    • 40




      Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
      – Carduus
      Nov 14 at 15:20






    • 8




      "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
      Nov 14 at 17:23






    • 16




      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
      Nov 14 at 17:32






    • 7




      @MartinBonner: Interesting. Here in Germany, candidates in that election cannot be in any of the committees administering elections. But the different parties are supposed to be in the committees (usually in turn in descending order of previous votes). So rather than trying to keep them out, we try to have all of them in. In addition, think we rely most on having huge numbers of local citizens involved (e.g. the last federal election 88000 election boards totalling some 600000 citizens). Federal and Länder election committees also have prescribed numbers of judges in the committee.
      – cbeleites
      Nov 15 at 10:43













    up vote
    52
    down vote










    up vote
    52
    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.






    share|improve this answer














    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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 15 at 22:50

























    answered Nov 14 at 14:46









    PoloHoleSet

    10.9k12651




    10.9k12651








    • 7




      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
      Nov 14 at 15:09






    • 40




      Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
      – Carduus
      Nov 14 at 15:20






    • 8




      "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
      Nov 14 at 17:23






    • 16




      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
      Nov 14 at 17:32






    • 7




      @MartinBonner: Interesting. Here in Germany, candidates in that election cannot be in any of the committees administering elections. But the different parties are supposed to be in the committees (usually in turn in descending order of previous votes). So rather than trying to keep them out, we try to have all of them in. In addition, think we rely most on having huge numbers of local citizens involved (e.g. the last federal election 88000 election boards totalling some 600000 citizens). Federal and Länder election committees also have prescribed numbers of judges in the committee.
      – cbeleites
      Nov 15 at 10:43














    • 7




      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
      Nov 14 at 15:09






    • 40




      Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
      – Carduus
      Nov 14 at 15:20






    • 8




      "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
      Nov 14 at 17:23






    • 16




      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
      Nov 14 at 17:32






    • 7




      @MartinBonner: Interesting. Here in Germany, candidates in that election cannot be in any of the committees administering elections. But the different parties are supposed to be in the committees (usually in turn in descending order of previous votes). So rather than trying to keep them out, we try to have all of them in. In addition, think we rely most on having huge numbers of local citizens involved (e.g. the last federal election 88000 election boards totalling some 600000 citizens). Federal and Länder election committees also have prescribed numbers of judges in the committee.
      – cbeleites
      Nov 15 at 10:43








    7




    7




    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
    Nov 14 at 15:09




    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
    Nov 14 at 15:09




    40




    40




    Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
    – Carduus
    Nov 14 at 15:20




    Yeah, I think it boils down to 'lottery officials that botch the lottery get fired, politicians that botch the vote get re-elected'.
    – Carduus
    Nov 14 at 15:20




    8




    8




    "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
    Nov 14 at 17:23




    "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
    Nov 14 at 17:23




    16




    16




    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
    Nov 14 at 17:32




    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
    Nov 14 at 17:32




    7




    7




    @MartinBonner: Interesting. Here in Germany, candidates in that election cannot be in any of the committees administering elections. But the different parties are supposed to be in the committees (usually in turn in descending order of previous votes). So rather than trying to keep them out, we try to have all of them in. In addition, think we rely most on having huge numbers of local citizens involved (e.g. the last federal election 88000 election boards totalling some 600000 citizens). Federal and Länder election committees also have prescribed numbers of judges in the committee.
    – cbeleites
    Nov 15 at 10:43




    @MartinBonner: Interesting. Here in Germany, candidates in that election cannot be in any of the committees administering elections. But the different parties are supposed to be in the committees (usually in turn in descending order of previous votes). So rather than trying to keep them out, we try to have all of them in. In addition, think we rely most on having huge numbers of local citizens involved (e.g. the last federal election 88000 election boards totalling some 600000 citizens). Federal and Länder election committees also have prescribed numbers of judges in the committee.
    – cbeleites
    Nov 15 at 10:43










    up vote
    23
    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!"






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 4




      This is the heart of it. Lotteries and elections use totally different processes. It is much harder to collect and process data than it is to generate it.
      – De Novo
      Nov 16 at 15:50










    • It's worth mentioning that there is a similar concept in betting. Check Parimutuel betting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting . Of course the main difference mentioned in BowlOfRed's answer remains valid. You can change decision for a specific bettor from lose to win even if that's not fully legitimate claim at organiser's expense without changing the odds for others. There can even be a specific remark in the rules to handle such cases. The voting affects entire community for years making it essential to have all the counting right before results are announced.
      – Ister
      yesterday















    up vote
    23
    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!"






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 4




      This is the heart of it. Lotteries and elections use totally different processes. It is much harder to collect and process data than it is to generate it.
      – De Novo
      Nov 16 at 15:50










    • It's worth mentioning that there is a similar concept in betting. Check Parimutuel betting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting . Of course the main difference mentioned in BowlOfRed's answer remains valid. You can change decision for a specific bettor from lose to win even if that's not fully legitimate claim at organiser's expense without changing the odds for others. There can even be a specific remark in the rules to handle such cases. The voting affects entire community for years making it essential to have all the counting right before results are announced.
      – Ister
      yesterday













    up vote
    23
    down vote










    up vote
    23
    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!"






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    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!"







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    New contributor




    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered Nov 14 at 23:40









    asgallant

    33113




    33113




    New contributor




    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.








    • 4




      This is the heart of it. Lotteries and elections use totally different processes. It is much harder to collect and process data than it is to generate it.
      – De Novo
      Nov 16 at 15:50










    • It's worth mentioning that there is a similar concept in betting. Check Parimutuel betting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting . Of course the main difference mentioned in BowlOfRed's answer remains valid. You can change decision for a specific bettor from lose to win even if that's not fully legitimate claim at organiser's expense without changing the odds for others. There can even be a specific remark in the rules to handle such cases. The voting affects entire community for years making it essential to have all the counting right before results are announced.
      – Ister
      yesterday














    • 4




      This is the heart of it. Lotteries and elections use totally different processes. It is much harder to collect and process data than it is to generate it.
      – De Novo
      Nov 16 at 15:50










    • It's worth mentioning that there is a similar concept in betting. Check Parimutuel betting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting . Of course the main difference mentioned in BowlOfRed's answer remains valid. You can change decision for a specific bettor from lose to win even if that's not fully legitimate claim at organiser's expense without changing the odds for others. There can even be a specific remark in the rules to handle such cases. The voting affects entire community for years making it essential to have all the counting right before results are announced.
      – Ister
      yesterday








    4




    4




    This is the heart of it. Lotteries and elections use totally different processes. It is much harder to collect and process data than it is to generate it.
    – De Novo
    Nov 16 at 15:50




    This is the heart of it. Lotteries and elections use totally different processes. It is much harder to collect and process data than it is to generate it.
    – De Novo
    Nov 16 at 15:50












    It's worth mentioning that there is a similar concept in betting. Check Parimutuel betting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting . Of course the main difference mentioned in BowlOfRed's answer remains valid. You can change decision for a specific bettor from lose to win even if that's not fully legitimate claim at organiser's expense without changing the odds for others. There can even be a specific remark in the rules to handle such cases. The voting affects entire community for years making it essential to have all the counting right before results are announced.
    – Ister
    yesterday




    It's worth mentioning that there is a similar concept in betting. Check Parimutuel betting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting . Of course the main difference mentioned in BowlOfRed's answer remains valid. You can change decision for a specific bettor from lose to win even if that's not fully legitimate claim at organiser's expense without changing the odds for others. There can even be a specific remark in the rules to handle such cases. The voting affects entire community for years making it essential to have all the counting right before results are announced.
    – Ister
    yesterday










    up vote
    14
    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 :-) )






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      +1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
      – Kelly Thomas
      Nov 14 at 20:23










    • I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
      – Mark
      Nov 15 at 1:12






    • 1




      Where is"here"?
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:27










    • For elections, you may want to have so many new volounteers every time - even if they are less efficient as this also lowers the possibility for corruption: if a significant fraction of the counting volounteers changes every time, bribing is far more inefficient and dangerous.
      – cbeleites
      2 days ago















    up vote
    14
    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 :-) )






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      +1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
      – Kelly Thomas
      Nov 14 at 20:23










    • I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
      – Mark
      Nov 15 at 1:12






    • 1




      Where is"here"?
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:27










    • For elections, you may want to have so many new volounteers every time - even if they are less efficient as this also lowers the possibility for corruption: if a significant fraction of the counting volounteers changes every time, bribing is far more inefficient and dangerous.
      – cbeleites
      2 days ago













    up vote
    14
    down vote










    up vote
    14
    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 :-) )






    share|improve this answer














    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 :-) )







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 14 at 21:28

























    answered Nov 14 at 17:28









    P.M

    921610




    921610








    • 2




      +1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
      – Kelly Thomas
      Nov 14 at 20:23










    • I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
      – Mark
      Nov 15 at 1:12






    • 1




      Where is"here"?
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:27










    • For elections, you may want to have so many new volounteers every time - even if they are less efficient as this also lowers the possibility for corruption: if a significant fraction of the counting volounteers changes every time, bribing is far more inefficient and dangerous.
      – cbeleites
      2 days ago














    • 2




      +1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
      – Kelly Thomas
      Nov 14 at 20:23










    • I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
      – Mark
      Nov 15 at 1:12






    • 1




      Where is"here"?
      – Mawg
      Nov 16 at 11:27










    • For elections, you may want to have so many new volounteers every time - even if they are less efficient as this also lowers the possibility for corruption: if a significant fraction of the counting volounteers changes every time, bribing is far more inefficient and dangerous.
      – cbeleites
      2 days ago








    2




    2




    +1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
    – Kelly Thomas
    Nov 14 at 20:23




    +1 knowledge retention is stronger with stable full time staff.
    – Kelly Thomas
    Nov 14 at 20:23












    I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
    – Mark
    Nov 15 at 1:12




    I suppose that's why the vote-counting here doesn't generate very many problems: we get, quite reliably, two elections a year.
    – Mark
    Nov 15 at 1:12




    1




    1




    Where is"here"?
    – Mawg
    Nov 16 at 11:27




    Where is"here"?
    – Mawg
    Nov 16 at 11:27












    For elections, you may want to have so many new volounteers every time - even if they are less efficient as this also lowers the possibility for corruption: if a significant fraction of the counting volounteers changes every time, bribing is far more inefficient and dangerous.
    – cbeleites
    2 days ago




    For elections, you may want to have so many new volounteers every time - even if they are less efficient as this also lowers the possibility for corruption: if a significant fraction of the counting volounteers changes every time, bribing is far more inefficient and dangerous.
    – cbeleites
    2 days ago










    up vote
    5
    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.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 3




      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
      Nov 15 at 10:51

















    up vote
    5
    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.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 3




      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
      Nov 15 at 10:51















    up vote
    5
    down vote










    up vote
    5
    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.






    share|improve this answer












    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 14 at 20:27









    Dr Sheldon

    2767




    2767








    • 3




      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
      Nov 15 at 10:51
















    • 3




      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
      Nov 15 at 10:51










    3




    3




    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
    Nov 15 at 10:51






    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
    Nov 15 at 10:51












    up vote
    5
    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).






    share|improve this answer





















    • The mail-in procedure in my county (Mahoning Ohio) is slightly different. In our county the completed ballot is placed in a envelope that has the voter's name, signature, driver's license # or SS # on it. That envelope is then placed in a envelope that is is preaddressed to the board of elections (voter must put on sufficient postage). So theoretically the person (or machine) that is opening the voter's verification envelope (that contains the actual ballot) would be able to learn who that voter voted for.
      – BobE
      2 days ago















    up vote
    5
    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).






    share|improve this answer





















    • The mail-in procedure in my county (Mahoning Ohio) is slightly different. In our county the completed ballot is placed in a envelope that has the voter's name, signature, driver's license # or SS # on it. That envelope is then placed in a envelope that is is preaddressed to the board of elections (voter must put on sufficient postage). So theoretically the person (or machine) that is opening the voter's verification envelope (that contains the actual ballot) would be able to learn who that voter voted for.
      – BobE
      2 days ago













    up vote
    5
    down vote










    up vote
    5
    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).






    share|improve this answer












    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).







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 15 at 0:01









    Flydog57

    6497




    6497












    • The mail-in procedure in my county (Mahoning Ohio) is slightly different. In our county the completed ballot is placed in a envelope that has the voter's name, signature, driver's license # or SS # on it. That envelope is then placed in a envelope that is is preaddressed to the board of elections (voter must put on sufficient postage). So theoretically the person (or machine) that is opening the voter's verification envelope (that contains the actual ballot) would be able to learn who that voter voted for.
      – BobE
      2 days ago


















    • The mail-in procedure in my county (Mahoning Ohio) is slightly different. In our county the completed ballot is placed in a envelope that has the voter's name, signature, driver's license # or SS # on it. That envelope is then placed in a envelope that is is preaddressed to the board of elections (voter must put on sufficient postage). So theoretically the person (or machine) that is opening the voter's verification envelope (that contains the actual ballot) would be able to learn who that voter voted for.
      – BobE
      2 days ago
















    The mail-in procedure in my county (Mahoning Ohio) is slightly different. In our county the completed ballot is placed in a envelope that has the voter's name, signature, driver's license # or SS # on it. That envelope is then placed in a envelope that is is preaddressed to the board of elections (voter must put on sufficient postage). So theoretically the person (or machine) that is opening the voter's verification envelope (that contains the actual ballot) would be able to learn who that voter voted for.
    – BobE
    2 days ago




    The mail-in procedure in my county (Mahoning Ohio) is slightly different. In our county the completed ballot is placed in a envelope that has the voter's name, signature, driver's license # or SS # on it. That envelope is then placed in a envelope that is is preaddressed to the board of elections (voter must put on sufficient postage). So theoretically the person (or machine) that is opening the voter's verification envelope (that contains the actual ballot) would be able to learn who that voter voted for.
    – BobE
    2 days ago










    up vote
    2
    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?







    share|improve this answer





















    • 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
      Nov 14 at 21:04










    • That's not true, the computer systems that track every ticket are part of a very simplistic system from the point of view of someone like me who has spent their life in the IT industry. They only care about the number on the ticket and not the only eligibility is the person who plays is over 18. I know my answer is sparse and that is because it is a very simple answer to a very simple questions, from my point of view.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:02












    • To clarify simple, the lotto system is a 'closed loop'. All points of entry are controlled and licensed by the governing body.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:03










    • And whether they are over 18 only matters if they win, which they won’t.
      – jmoreno
      2 days ago















    up vote
    2
    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?







    share|improve this answer





















    • 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
      Nov 14 at 21:04










    • That's not true, the computer systems that track every ticket are part of a very simplistic system from the point of view of someone like me who has spent their life in the IT industry. They only care about the number on the ticket and not the only eligibility is the person who plays is over 18. I know my answer is sparse and that is because it is a very simple answer to a very simple questions, from my point of view.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:02












    • To clarify simple, the lotto system is a 'closed loop'. All points of entry are controlled and licensed by the governing body.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:03










    • And whether they are over 18 only matters if they win, which they won’t.
      – jmoreno
      2 days ago













    up vote
    2
    down vote










    up vote
    2
    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?







    share|improve this answer












    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?








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 14 at 18:00









    Joe

    22218




    22218












    • 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
      Nov 14 at 21:04










    • That's not true, the computer systems that track every ticket are part of a very simplistic system from the point of view of someone like me who has spent their life in the IT industry. They only care about the number on the ticket and not the only eligibility is the person who plays is over 18. I know my answer is sparse and that is because it is a very simple answer to a very simple questions, from my point of view.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:02












    • To clarify simple, the lotto system is a 'closed loop'. All points of entry are controlled and licensed by the governing body.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:03










    • And whether they are over 18 only matters if they win, which they won’t.
      – jmoreno
      2 days ago


















    • 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
      Nov 14 at 21:04










    • That's not true, the computer systems that track every ticket are part of a very simplistic system from the point of view of someone like me who has spent their life in the IT industry. They only care about the number on the ticket and not the only eligibility is the person who plays is over 18. I know my answer is sparse and that is because it is a very simple answer to a very simple questions, from my point of view.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:02












    • To clarify simple, the lotto system is a 'closed loop'. All points of entry are controlled and licensed by the governing body.
      – Joe
      Nov 16 at 13:03










    • And whether they are over 18 only matters if they win, which they won’t.
      – jmoreno
      2 days ago
















    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
    Nov 14 at 21:04




    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
    Nov 14 at 21:04












    That's not true, the computer systems that track every ticket are part of a very simplistic system from the point of view of someone like me who has spent their life in the IT industry. They only care about the number on the ticket and not the only eligibility is the person who plays is over 18. I know my answer is sparse and that is because it is a very simple answer to a very simple questions, from my point of view.
    – Joe
    Nov 16 at 13:02






    That's not true, the computer systems that track every ticket are part of a very simplistic system from the point of view of someone like me who has spent their life in the IT industry. They only care about the number on the ticket and not the only eligibility is the person who plays is over 18. I know my answer is sparse and that is because it is a very simple answer to a very simple questions, from my point of view.
    – Joe
    Nov 16 at 13:02














    To clarify simple, the lotto system is a 'closed loop'. All points of entry are controlled and licensed by the governing body.
    – Joe
    Nov 16 at 13:03




    To clarify simple, the lotto system is a 'closed loop'. All points of entry are controlled and licensed by the governing body.
    – Joe
    Nov 16 at 13:03












    And whether they are over 18 only matters if they win, which they won’t.
    – jmoreno
    2 days ago




    And whether they are over 18 only matters if they win, which they won’t.
    – jmoreno
    2 days ago










    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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
      Nov 14 at 19:45










    • @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
      Nov 14 at 20:44






    • 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
      Nov 15 at 5:26















    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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
      Nov 14 at 19:45










    • @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
      Nov 14 at 20:44






    • 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
      Nov 15 at 5:26













    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.






    share|improve this answer















    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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 14 at 21:59

























    answered Nov 14 at 17:51









    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
      Nov 14 at 19:45










    • @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
      Nov 14 at 20:44






    • 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
      Nov 15 at 5:26


















    • 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
      Nov 14 at 19:45










    • @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
      Nov 14 at 20:44






    • 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
      Nov 15 at 5:26
















    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
    Nov 14 at 19:45




    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
    Nov 14 at 19:45












    @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
    Nov 14 at 20:44




    @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
    Nov 14 at 20:44




    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
    Nov 15 at 5:26




    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
    Nov 15 at 5:26










    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?






    share|improve this answer





















    • I believe you've mis-stated the "hanging chad" problem. I believe the problem was that the hole punch had not completely removed the paper from what should have been the hole but, rather, the chad (the paper that should have been removed) was still partially attached. Depending on exactly how the chad and the rest of the ballot paper went through the counting machine, the chad could cover up the hole and cause the machine to think that the ballot was voting for nobody.
      – David Richerby
      Nov 16 at 16:01

















    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?






    share|improve this answer





















    • I believe you've mis-stated the "hanging chad" problem. I believe the problem was that the hole punch had not completely removed the paper from what should have been the hole but, rather, the chad (the paper that should have been removed) was still partially attached. Depending on exactly how the chad and the rest of the ballot paper went through the counting machine, the chad could cover up the hole and cause the machine to think that the ballot was voting for nobody.
      – David Richerby
      Nov 16 at 16:01















    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?






    share|improve this answer












    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?







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 15 at 16:44









    hszmv

    4,055417




    4,055417












    • I believe you've mis-stated the "hanging chad" problem. I believe the problem was that the hole punch had not completely removed the paper from what should have been the hole but, rather, the chad (the paper that should have been removed) was still partially attached. Depending on exactly how the chad and the rest of the ballot paper went through the counting machine, the chad could cover up the hole and cause the machine to think that the ballot was voting for nobody.
      – David Richerby
      Nov 16 at 16:01




















    • I believe you've mis-stated the "hanging chad" problem. I believe the problem was that the hole punch had not completely removed the paper from what should have been the hole but, rather, the chad (the paper that should have been removed) was still partially attached. Depending on exactly how the chad and the rest of the ballot paper went through the counting machine, the chad could cover up the hole and cause the machine to think that the ballot was voting for nobody.
      – David Richerby
      Nov 16 at 16:01


















    I believe you've mis-stated the "hanging chad" problem. I believe the problem was that the hole punch had not completely removed the paper from what should have been the hole but, rather, the chad (the paper that should have been removed) was still partially attached. Depending on exactly how the chad and the rest of the ballot paper went through the counting machine, the chad could cover up the hole and cause the machine to think that the ballot was voting for nobody.
    – David Richerby
    Nov 16 at 16:01






    I believe you've mis-stated the "hanging chad" problem. I believe the problem was that the hole punch had not completely removed the paper from what should have been the hole but, rather, the chad (the paper that should have been removed) was still partially attached. Depending on exactly how the chad and the rest of the ballot paper went through the counting machine, the chad could cover up the hole and cause the machine to think that the ballot was voting for nobody.
    – David Richerby
    Nov 16 at 16:01












    up vote
    0
    down vote














    1. Elections are more complicated than lotteries. I don't play the lottery to excuse me if I'm missing some details, but a quick check of my state's lottery web site shows 10 kinds of ticket you can buy: Powerball, Pick 3, Pick 4, etc. In each case, you either choose or are assigned between 3 and 6 numbers.


    Compare that to a voting ballot. In the last election, my ballot listed at least 13 races: federal senate, state senate, federal house, state house, governor, state treasurer, secretary of state, state supreme court judge, county probate judge, municipal judge, regents of the state university, board of the county community college, county commissioner, maybe others that I'm forgetting, not to mention 3 proposed amendments to the state constitution. This information has to be pulled together from federal, state, county, and city sources. Different races appear on different ballots: I can vote for mayor of my city but not for mayor of a neighboring city. People in different districts have different choices for house and senate. Etc. In some races there is one winner. In other races there are several winners, e.g. for the state supreme court we were electing 2 judges, so the top 2 vote-getters won.




    1. With a lottery, the people who run the lottery get to make up the rules, and they can invent rules that make it easier to administer. (I suppose if they made rules that were too obviously biased, like "relatives of members of the lottery commission get 2 chances to win while everyone else only gets 1", the state would step in.) The people who run elections can't make up rules to make their lives easier. For example, the lottery people can say that you pick numbers from the range 1 to 60. If someone said that they want to chose 61, the lottery people can just say "no, that's not a choice", and that would be the end of it. But the election people can't say, "you must choose Democrat or Republican, and letting you pick Libertarian or Green Party is just too complicated".


    Likewise, the lottery people have an easy way to control who plays: You have to pay for a ticket. If you want another ticket, fine, pay for another ticket. They don't have to worry about who is allowed to buy tickets or making sure no one buys more than one ticket. They don't have to verify your identity when you buy a ticket. Etc.



    It's much more complicated with elections. Some people are allowed to vote and some aren't. Each person is only allowed to vote once. You don't pay to vote so the only disincentive to illegal voting or multiple voting is getting caught and prosecuted.




    1. People who run the lottery don't generally care who wins. They have zero incentive to cheat to let one stranger win over some other stranger. They might conceivably cheat to help a friend or relative win, but that would be instantly suspicious -- if the lottery commissioner's brother-in-law wins a $50 million jackpot, I'm sure someone would investigate. (I'd hope so, anyway.)


    People who run elections often care a great deal about who wins. While one would hope that their highest ideal is fair elections, it doesn't take incredible cynicism to wonder if some election officials might not try to stack the deck now and then for their preferred candidate. As every candidate is favored by large numbers of people, you can rarely say, "wow, it was awfully suspicious that this candidate won".




    1. The Lottery has a strong institutional incentive to be fair and accurate. If there is evidence that the games are biased -- or even rumors -- people will refuse to play and the lottery will go broke. But with elections, it's the only game in town. Sure, if you discover that elections are biased, you can refuse to vote. But then you've given up your chance to influence the political process. The people who run the elections don't lose: you do.


    2. As others have noted, lotteries are relatively easy to verify. If someone claims to have the winning ticket, you check that one ticket and say yes or no. You don't need to re-check every other ticket that was sold. If there's serious question that the ticket was forged or some such, you can devote considerable resources to investigating it. With elections, you have to study every vote. If someone won the election by just one vote, you can't say, "oh, it was Fred Smith who cast the deciding vote, so let's make absolutely sure that we know who Fred Smith voted for". EVERYONE cast the deciding vote. If any one of all those millions of ballots was illegally cast or was miscounted, then the election results could be wrong.







    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote














      1. Elections are more complicated than lotteries. I don't play the lottery to excuse me if I'm missing some details, but a quick check of my state's lottery web site shows 10 kinds of ticket you can buy: Powerball, Pick 3, Pick 4, etc. In each case, you either choose or are assigned between 3 and 6 numbers.


      Compare that to a voting ballot. In the last election, my ballot listed at least 13 races: federal senate, state senate, federal house, state house, governor, state treasurer, secretary of state, state supreme court judge, county probate judge, municipal judge, regents of the state university, board of the county community college, county commissioner, maybe others that I'm forgetting, not to mention 3 proposed amendments to the state constitution. This information has to be pulled together from federal, state, county, and city sources. Different races appear on different ballots: I can vote for mayor of my city but not for mayor of a neighboring city. People in different districts have different choices for house and senate. Etc. In some races there is one winner. In other races there are several winners, e.g. for the state supreme court we were electing 2 judges, so the top 2 vote-getters won.




      1. With a lottery, the people who run the lottery get to make up the rules, and they can invent rules that make it easier to administer. (I suppose if they made rules that were too obviously biased, like "relatives of members of the lottery commission get 2 chances to win while everyone else only gets 1", the state would step in.) The people who run elections can't make up rules to make their lives easier. For example, the lottery people can say that you pick numbers from the range 1 to 60. If someone said that they want to chose 61, the lottery people can just say "no, that's not a choice", and that would be the end of it. But the election people can't say, "you must choose Democrat or Republican, and letting you pick Libertarian or Green Party is just too complicated".


      Likewise, the lottery people have an easy way to control who plays: You have to pay for a ticket. If you want another ticket, fine, pay for another ticket. They don't have to worry about who is allowed to buy tickets or making sure no one buys more than one ticket. They don't have to verify your identity when you buy a ticket. Etc.



      It's much more complicated with elections. Some people are allowed to vote and some aren't. Each person is only allowed to vote once. You don't pay to vote so the only disincentive to illegal voting or multiple voting is getting caught and prosecuted.




      1. People who run the lottery don't generally care who wins. They have zero incentive to cheat to let one stranger win over some other stranger. They might conceivably cheat to help a friend or relative win, but that would be instantly suspicious -- if the lottery commissioner's brother-in-law wins a $50 million jackpot, I'm sure someone would investigate. (I'd hope so, anyway.)


      People who run elections often care a great deal about who wins. While one would hope that their highest ideal is fair elections, it doesn't take incredible cynicism to wonder if some election officials might not try to stack the deck now and then for their preferred candidate. As every candidate is favored by large numbers of people, you can rarely say, "wow, it was awfully suspicious that this candidate won".




      1. The Lottery has a strong institutional incentive to be fair and accurate. If there is evidence that the games are biased -- or even rumors -- people will refuse to play and the lottery will go broke. But with elections, it's the only game in town. Sure, if you discover that elections are biased, you can refuse to vote. But then you've given up your chance to influence the political process. The people who run the elections don't lose: you do.


      2. As others have noted, lotteries are relatively easy to verify. If someone claims to have the winning ticket, you check that one ticket and say yes or no. You don't need to re-check every other ticket that was sold. If there's serious question that the ticket was forged or some such, you can devote considerable resources to investigating it. With elections, you have to study every vote. If someone won the election by just one vote, you can't say, "oh, it was Fred Smith who cast the deciding vote, so let's make absolutely sure that we know who Fred Smith voted for". EVERYONE cast the deciding vote. If any one of all those millions of ballots was illegally cast or was miscounted, then the election results could be wrong.







      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote










        1. Elections are more complicated than lotteries. I don't play the lottery to excuse me if I'm missing some details, but a quick check of my state's lottery web site shows 10 kinds of ticket you can buy: Powerball, Pick 3, Pick 4, etc. In each case, you either choose or are assigned between 3 and 6 numbers.


        Compare that to a voting ballot. In the last election, my ballot listed at least 13 races: federal senate, state senate, federal house, state house, governor, state treasurer, secretary of state, state supreme court judge, county probate judge, municipal judge, regents of the state university, board of the county community college, county commissioner, maybe others that I'm forgetting, not to mention 3 proposed amendments to the state constitution. This information has to be pulled together from federal, state, county, and city sources. Different races appear on different ballots: I can vote for mayor of my city but not for mayor of a neighboring city. People in different districts have different choices for house and senate. Etc. In some races there is one winner. In other races there are several winners, e.g. for the state supreme court we were electing 2 judges, so the top 2 vote-getters won.




        1. With a lottery, the people who run the lottery get to make up the rules, and they can invent rules that make it easier to administer. (I suppose if they made rules that were too obviously biased, like "relatives of members of the lottery commission get 2 chances to win while everyone else only gets 1", the state would step in.) The people who run elections can't make up rules to make their lives easier. For example, the lottery people can say that you pick numbers from the range 1 to 60. If someone said that they want to chose 61, the lottery people can just say "no, that's not a choice", and that would be the end of it. But the election people can't say, "you must choose Democrat or Republican, and letting you pick Libertarian or Green Party is just too complicated".


        Likewise, the lottery people have an easy way to control who plays: You have to pay for a ticket. If you want another ticket, fine, pay for another ticket. They don't have to worry about who is allowed to buy tickets or making sure no one buys more than one ticket. They don't have to verify your identity when you buy a ticket. Etc.



        It's much more complicated with elections. Some people are allowed to vote and some aren't. Each person is only allowed to vote once. You don't pay to vote so the only disincentive to illegal voting or multiple voting is getting caught and prosecuted.




        1. People who run the lottery don't generally care who wins. They have zero incentive to cheat to let one stranger win over some other stranger. They might conceivably cheat to help a friend or relative win, but that would be instantly suspicious -- if the lottery commissioner's brother-in-law wins a $50 million jackpot, I'm sure someone would investigate. (I'd hope so, anyway.)


        People who run elections often care a great deal about who wins. While one would hope that their highest ideal is fair elections, it doesn't take incredible cynicism to wonder if some election officials might not try to stack the deck now and then for their preferred candidate. As every candidate is favored by large numbers of people, you can rarely say, "wow, it was awfully suspicious that this candidate won".




        1. The Lottery has a strong institutional incentive to be fair and accurate. If there is evidence that the games are biased -- or even rumors -- people will refuse to play and the lottery will go broke. But with elections, it's the only game in town. Sure, if you discover that elections are biased, you can refuse to vote. But then you've given up your chance to influence the political process. The people who run the elections don't lose: you do.


        2. As others have noted, lotteries are relatively easy to verify. If someone claims to have the winning ticket, you check that one ticket and say yes or no. You don't need to re-check every other ticket that was sold. If there's serious question that the ticket was forged or some such, you can devote considerable resources to investigating it. With elections, you have to study every vote. If someone won the election by just one vote, you can't say, "oh, it was Fred Smith who cast the deciding vote, so let's make absolutely sure that we know who Fred Smith voted for". EVERYONE cast the deciding vote. If any one of all those millions of ballots was illegally cast or was miscounted, then the election results could be wrong.







        share|improve this answer













        1. Elections are more complicated than lotteries. I don't play the lottery to excuse me if I'm missing some details, but a quick check of my state's lottery web site shows 10 kinds of ticket you can buy: Powerball, Pick 3, Pick 4, etc. In each case, you either choose or are assigned between 3 and 6 numbers.


        Compare that to a voting ballot. In the last election, my ballot listed at least 13 races: federal senate, state senate, federal house, state house, governor, state treasurer, secretary of state, state supreme court judge, county probate judge, municipal judge, regents of the state university, board of the county community college, county commissioner, maybe others that I'm forgetting, not to mention 3 proposed amendments to the state constitution. This information has to be pulled together from federal, state, county, and city sources. Different races appear on different ballots: I can vote for mayor of my city but not for mayor of a neighboring city. People in different districts have different choices for house and senate. Etc. In some races there is one winner. In other races there are several winners, e.g. for the state supreme court we were electing 2 judges, so the top 2 vote-getters won.




        1. With a lottery, the people who run the lottery get to make up the rules, and they can invent rules that make it easier to administer. (I suppose if they made rules that were too obviously biased, like "relatives of members of the lottery commission get 2 chances to win while everyone else only gets 1", the state would step in.) The people who run elections can't make up rules to make their lives easier. For example, the lottery people can say that you pick numbers from the range 1 to 60. If someone said that they want to chose 61, the lottery people can just say "no, that's not a choice", and that would be the end of it. But the election people can't say, "you must choose Democrat or Republican, and letting you pick Libertarian or Green Party is just too complicated".


        Likewise, the lottery people have an easy way to control who plays: You have to pay for a ticket. If you want another ticket, fine, pay for another ticket. They don't have to worry about who is allowed to buy tickets or making sure no one buys more than one ticket. They don't have to verify your identity when you buy a ticket. Etc.



        It's much more complicated with elections. Some people are allowed to vote and some aren't. Each person is only allowed to vote once. You don't pay to vote so the only disincentive to illegal voting or multiple voting is getting caught and prosecuted.




        1. People who run the lottery don't generally care who wins. They have zero incentive to cheat to let one stranger win over some other stranger. They might conceivably cheat to help a friend or relative win, but that would be instantly suspicious -- if the lottery commissioner's brother-in-law wins a $50 million jackpot, I'm sure someone would investigate. (I'd hope so, anyway.)


        People who run elections often care a great deal about who wins. While one would hope that their highest ideal is fair elections, it doesn't take incredible cynicism to wonder if some election officials might not try to stack the deck now and then for their preferred candidate. As every candidate is favored by large numbers of people, you can rarely say, "wow, it was awfully suspicious that this candidate won".




        1. The Lottery has a strong institutional incentive to be fair and accurate. If there is evidence that the games are biased -- or even rumors -- people will refuse to play and the lottery will go broke. But with elections, it's the only game in town. Sure, if you discover that elections are biased, you can refuse to vote. But then you've given up your chance to influence the political process. The people who run the elections don't lose: you do.


        2. As others have noted, lotteries are relatively easy to verify. If someone claims to have the winning ticket, you check that one ticket and say yes or no. You don't need to re-check every other ticket that was sold. If there's serious question that the ticket was forged or some such, you can devote considerable resources to investigating it. With elections, you have to study every vote. If someone won the election by just one vote, you can't say, "oh, it was Fred Smith who cast the deciding vote, so let's make absolutely sure that we know who Fred Smith voted for". EVERYONE cast the deciding vote. If any one of all those millions of ballots was illegally cast or was miscounted, then the election results could be wrong.








        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        Jay

        49826




        49826

















            protected by Philipp♦ Nov 15 at 13:51



            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?



            Popular posts from this blog

            'app-layout' is not a known element: how to share Component with different Modules

            Image
            0 My application was working fine until I decided to go with lazy loading: So, my shared component looks like this: import { Component, Renderer2 } from '@angular/core'; export interface FormModel { captcha?: string; } @Component({ selector: 'app-layout', templateUrl: './app-layout.component.html', styleUrls: ['./app-layout.css'] }) export class FullLayoutComponent { } app-layout.component.ts I am using this component in my Another component say school-home.component.html like this: <app-layout> </app-layout> and it was working fine until I created a Module school-home.module.ts like this: import { NgModule } from '@angular/core'; import { CommonModule } from '@angular/common'; import { SchoolhomeRoutingModule ...
            Read more

            android studio warns about leanback feature tag usage required on manifest while using Unity exported app?

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 This is a simple project showing cubes on Unity, exported to android project and imported on Android studio. On maifest file it showed following warning: Expecting <uses-feature android:name="android.software.leanback" android:required="false" /> tag I have no information about it. And also on default emptyview android project does not use/mention this feature. I know it is required by TV's and such but why its not added by default? Why is this? And Should I concern about it? android unity3d ...
            Read more

            WPF add header to Image with URL pettitions [duplicate]

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite This question already has an answer here: Image source URI requiring authorization 3 answers Add header to all* HTTP requests on a machine 1 answer first of all sorry for my english. Recently I added some security in the backend of my project, and now I need to send a validation code(apiKey) inside the headers to retrieve the images. I have a problem with ALL images in my project that I had attached in my UI. For example, before I had: <Image Height="90" Source="{Binding Video.Thumbnail}"/> Now I need to change my code to create a CUSTOM petition add the apiKey in the header:...
            Read more