IMHO, no. Because, again, the intent is not clear. Yes, they’re both of the same party and on the ticket, but only one was running for President.
Fair enough, wring. But someone else might see a Gore vote there. I’m thinking of the one election judge in Florida who voted to count every disputed ballot for Gore. Clearly, “the intent of the voter” was not very workable as a standard. Should we change the laws to specifically state which votes should be counted, e.g., a straight-party punch and a candidate punch on the same ballot, or a punch and a write-in for the same candidate? Or should we only count the properly cast ballots? For simplicity and fairness to everyone, I think we should do the latter.
I’ve seen that assertion made a couple of times in the last few days, but I don’t recall hearing anything like it during the recounts. Do you have a cite for that, by any chance?
Spoofe said:
Satan replied:
While I wouldn’t have phrased it in exactly the same way, my sentiments are nearly perfectly in accord with Spoofe’s.
He did not advocate that staffers at polling places ignore or refuse to help anyone with special needs, whatever the cause; or that he or anyone else heartlessly ignore these people. If they have weak eyesight, it is incumbent upon them (as a responsible citizen and voter) to either take the additional time to read and understand the instructions, or to seek assistance from either a staffer or family member/friend in reading and/or interpreting the instructions.
If the polling places are especially busy, this may not always be possible [feasible, perhaps?]; which is why I did the “Early Vote” thing in Texas (I don’t know if Early Voting is universally available in the different states), right alongside scads of seniors who wanted to take their time and get it right by avoiding the crush of last-minute voters on Election Day.
I feel sorry for people with special needs who may have been rushed due to the crowds of voters in Florida, thereby making mistakes that effectively cost them their intended vote.
To say that the situation needs to be addressed is an understatement.
But regardless, it is the sole responsibility of the voter to ensure that they read, understand and follow the voting instructions.
To imply that Spoofe is suggesting that people with special needs are shit-out-of-luck is beneath you.
Of course you do.
how is it fair, though to have valid ballots dismissed because the machine failed to read them? Isn’t that a much bigger travesty of fairness than to (gasp) count votes?
And, I’ll second minty’s request for the cite on the judge. I kept hearing that assertion last fall, too, that there was a single person on one of the panels in one of the counties that were counting ballots who ‘saw’ every disputed ballot as one for Gore. What is left out of that picture was that there were always three people on each panel, so even if that one single person was unbelievably partisan, their word alone did not a vote make. At least one other person had to see it as well, and there wasn’t a follow up accusation that there were at least two such individuals anywhere let alone on the same panel. (of course, keeping in mind the television cameras, and members of the public also viewing)
So your preference, then, would be to disenfranchise all of those voters because you think one person (who couldn’t effect the election on their own) you felt was partisan?
gotcha. yea, that’s much better than, oh…counting valid votes.
[sub]As an atheist, I ought to be good at that… :D[/sub]
A marked vote for Gore (or Bush) and a write-in vote for same could be interpreted as an attempt by the voter to try to cast two votes for Gore (or Bush).
Notice that I did not call it a well-reasoned attempt.
[semi-hijack]
One of the themes of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was that Man would become too reliant upon technology, depending upon it to the point of allowing technology to do our thinking for us. (When the astronauts report the trouble with HAL, Mission Control responds by consulting their own HAL instead of trying to solve the problem themselves.) Today, in the year 2001, some are arguing that we should rely upon machines to count our votes for us.
I can imagine Stanley Kubrick shaking his head sadly, saying, “I warned you…”
[/semi-hijack]
But that’s exactly the question. Who determines what a valid vote is? Florida law takes into account the “intent of the voter”, but there are no provisions stating how that is to be determined. Thus the chaos that ensued.
So I see two choices:
1)Change the laws to explicitly state what votes are to counted as valid. These standards should dictate how overvotes, undervotes, hanging chad, dimpled chad, absentee ballots, overseas (military) ballots, ad absurdum, should be counted.
2)Change the law to state that only properly cast ballots should be counted.
Occam’s razor suggest #2.
Incorrect use of “Occam’s razor” withdrawn. Change to:
“The law of parsimony” suggests #2.
Carry on!
That ain’t gonna help a damned thing, Milroyj!
Because it’ll just create another conundrum over what constitutes a “properly cast ballot” the next time around.
I dunno, ExTank. If the ballot says “Vote for One”, and somebody votes for two, three, or zero candidates, then the vote is not properly cast and not counted. Doesn’t sound that hard to me, but I have a simple mind. 
Same here. Which is why I’m so perplexed over this debate.
I’d taken the “it’ll blow over soon” attitude during the election/recount/ re-recount/litigate/re-re-recount/litigate some more/etc./ad nauseum affair, but it seems to have a life of its own.
And with apologies to Satan; I missed Monster’s post addressing the very issue. He said it better and more succinctly than I.
Well,
or
Both ‘define’ exactly what would be considered to be a valid vote. However, one would allow for individuals who are legal voters to continue to be heard even if they were less than perfect, the other would exclude them.
Exactly what is your justification for excluding registered voters after the fact?
What would prevent, for example, a nefarious, partisan person from designing the ballot in such a way and with such a myriad of instructions and cautions that it would exclude most of those eligible voters?
Face it - as we learned, much to our chagrin, many people are not that good at following directions. Should their constitutional rights be stripped because of this, when simple modifications can be made?
Well, and correct me if I’m wrong Wring, but aren’t the ballot designs agreed upon by both parties (or representatives of both parties) of an election district?
I’m operating under that impression, though it may be mistaken.
The courts just ordered John Stafford, Duval County Supervisor of Elections, to recount the uncounted ballots. This is part of the Miami Herald’s effort to count all ballots; they had to go to court for this one because Stafford didn’t want those hanging chads to fall off during the recount.
Bush won Duval County. No doubt about him winning those ballots that were counted. Only 5,000 ballots were thrown out as undervotes - those are the ones the Herald, and the judge has agreed, to be counted.
Yes, we all agree that the question is moot because of the Supreme’s decision giving the election to Bush 'coz his rights were violated.
The big HOWEVER here in Duval County is not the 5,000 undercounted ballots, but the other 22,000 ballots thrown out because they were “over-votes”. Most of these occured in four African American precints. Some precincts tossed out one of every four ballots. This is more than triple the rate for overvotes in the last two previous national elections.
I am mad as hell about those outrageous over votes [triple the normal rate in past two national elections], the fact that they occured in only four precincts, the fact that there were unauthorized police check points around certain precincts, different standards to prove that you are a registered voter, lack of sufficient assistance for those who are physically handicapped or who have a language barrier, not allowing voters to vote if they arrived just at closing time etcetcetc.
A recent Jacksonville University study says alot:
50% of the whites polled said they had confidence in the election results while 65% of African Americans had no confidence. One out of 5 African Americans had experienced a problem in voting in November; confusing ballots telling folks to “vote for group”, lack of poll worker assistance,
etc.
I don’t expect to see a Gore win with all this counting. It’s a moot point to me. I just don’t want to see such blatant inequality in voting rights the next time. Nope, no political party is going to blame voter ignorance next time. No political party is going to control the final outcome like Sec State Katherine Harris whose office is being phased out. I hope to see the post of Supervisor of Elections to be a nonpartisan elected official who must be responsive to the voters in his/her area. I hope to see that felons will be able to vote, after serving their time, without having to pay up to $10,000 to $20,000 to get the gov’nor to reinstate their civil right to vote. I hope to see up to date voting equipment, well trained and customer responsive poll workers. I hope to see provisional voting ballots if your name can’t be found on the registered voter list. I hope to see fair elections next time that won’t be overturned by the Supreme Court. I hope to see, eventually, that the Electoral College goes the way of other formally sanctioned institutions [such as slavery].
I hope that some other SDMB member will see this post…
If anything, what happened in Florida with the recounts, with the inconsistent and always changing standards, violated the Constitution. Simply counting the properly cast ballots does not.
-
The NAACP law suit
-
The US Commission on Civil Rights although this might be surpressed by the Bush Administration via John Ashecroft. One can only wait to see what happens to their report due out in a couple of months. Hopefully, it will not be a whitewash to hide the ugly truth the many more people’s civil right to vote were violated than Dubya’s right to have uniform interpretation of ballots thruout the state…
dunno. My recollection after the PBC butterfly ballot thing was that the (can’t remember the title of the person, but) clerk or whatever reviewed and approved the ballot design herself (tho’ in that particular case it had been published, don’t think other counties did that). she got a lot of flack since she was a Democrat, and it ended up being more confusing for the voters in that highly democratic district. I seem to recall a whole lotta crowing from certain folks over ‘it was one of youse guys that approved it’, and not “two parties approved it”.
Please demonstrate where the Florida election code provides that only a 100% properly cast ballot may be counted. Otherwise, your assertion has no legal basis whatsoever. Like it or not, “intent of the voter” is the Florida legislature’s legal touchstone, not absolute compliance with whatever procedures a local election board may have adopted.
Kiffa:
Do you have cites for any of these claims???
The position is, that if you have established the criteria before hand, there is no problem. The problem is that the Florida State Legislature had failed to do that, merely relying on the individual counties interpretation of the legislative statement ‘intent of the voter’. The SCOTUS decision stated that ‘specific and universal’ criteria were needed, but there wasn’t sufficient time to establish them by the time they were issuing their ruling. That’s what happened.
We had several recounts in the State of MI, all were orderly and well defined, 'cause the state law had done exactly what you claim is too cumbersome (defined for example that with the punch card ballots x, y and z = valid vote, a, b c doesn’t).
Ya know, I just don’t have the energy to keep on posting the responses to this same arguement. This thread alone has references to the responses to your position. There were several others in GD as well. Do a search on Great Debates for the last 5 days even and you should see most of them. Or bring a different argument out, please.