If it worked for you, then I guess that's correct. I just tried voting on
another machine here next to me at work, and it worked. All machines here have
the same external ip address.
However, I just tried what you said, and it rejected my vote. Then I logged in
as a different user, and it accepted the vote. So yes, it can be done, and
there would be ways to automate it.
Sent: Friday, 27 February 2009 11:07 AM
To: Tim Dolby
Cc: birding-aus; Evan Beaver; Peter Shute
Subject: Duck Shooting Poll - how to fake it
Meaningless, meaningless polls.
If you want to vote multiple times to skew the tally, all you have to do is
delete your browsing history and temporary internet files through your browser.
If you wanted to track it down further you could probably see what files are
being written/updated and just delete them.
You could probably even write a script to do this thousdands of times! But the
age website may have safeguards against that.
Anyway, this is not to say that i condone doing this.. but it can be done and
these polls cant be taken as a tool of measuring public opinion.
"Tim Dolby" <>
26/02/2009 02:16 PM
"Evan Beaver" <>, "Peter Shute" <>,
RE: [Birding-Aus] Duck Shooting Poll
Yes, there is something strange about this poll - currently 7500 people
have voted on what would normally be a fairly innocuous topic, with few
people seriously interested. This is easily the most popular poll The
Age has ever run. For example a recent poll on "Oil crisis : Are hybrid
cars too expensive?" only attracted 1064 votes.
My feeling is that yes, there are a few interested parties running the
up the numbers - either naturally or mischievously. (I, for one, have
voted 3 times - on three machines - against a duck hunting season, which
sort nullifies the poll anyway.) I wonder if the duck hunting lobby has
sent out a communication (like the to one to birding-aus). I suppose, if
so, so be it.
On Behalf Of Evan Beaver
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2009 2:03 PM
To: Peter Shute
Subject: Duck Shooting Poll
I find it incredible that 4000 people would be prepared to vote FOR
duck hunting. Come on Victoria, you'll have to control your citizens
better in future.
On 26/02/2009, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> The count is now over 7400, and the percentages have hardly moved,
with the pro duck hunting vote still ahead. Obviously a lot more people
feel strongly enough about this issue to vote than previous ones, but
it's interesting that neither side can make headway. I assume there's
no easy way to vote twice.
> We can say that these polls are meaningless, but I can't imagine a
politician ignoring 7000 votes.
> Peter Shute
> wrote on Wednesday, 25 February 2009
> > With a further 300 votes from when Peter checked the vote is
> > still 58% in favour.
> > However, as a friend pointed out to me, voting could be clouded
> > "The thing is, it's not asking whether you're in favour of
> > duck hunting, but whether you're in favour of a duck hunting
> > SEASON, i.e., some people might think the question is asking
> > whether, if there is duck hunting, it should be limited to
> > only part of the year (so this is my position: there should
> > be no duck hunting, but if there is duck hunting, yes, it
> > should be limited to a season). It's a badly thought out
> > question, but I trust the results of the poll aren't going to
> > influence policy."
> > Wendy Moore