Can this Palm Beach E-mail be De-Bunked?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

19,000 invalidated ballots are evidence that thousands of people were allowed to revote when their initial try failed because they punched two presidential votes; the machine kicks the ballot out when this happens, instantly, then a precinct person gives the mistaken voter another ballot and allows them to try again, and up to three attempts are allowed … the do-over has already been done and the 19,000 invalidated but kept for accounting purposes ballots are the PROOF. Get it?

The “machine” into which Palm Beach County residents (at least in my district) placed their completed ballots was a high-tech piece of machinery colloquialy termd a “box”. While PBC is an affluent county and no doubt made every effort to by the latest and greatest “boxes” for such purposes, I can assure you of the sad fact: the “box” was entirely devoid of any means of detectin, much less reacting to, a ballot with two holes punched.

The “machine” that does read and reject such ballots is the same machine that counts them. By that time, I’m afraid, the possibiity of identifying the poor soul whose ballot has been tossed, much less allowing them to revote, has passed.

It is correct that a voter who recognizes that their ballot is invalid before placing it in the “box”, may request a second, even a third, ballot. But the 19,000 ballots cited are not examples of this. If they were, then the claims that those voters were “disenfranchised” would be specious on their face. One way you can tell the difference between the two types is referenced above: ballots for which a replacement has been given are not tabulated. The 19,000 ballots in question quite obviously were.

[Freedom]

I hear some Bush supporters objecting because the Gore campaign has asked for hand recounts only in counties where the machine recounts showed a shift towards Gore. Well, these are the same counties that recorded the greatest shift overall. If the Bush campaign objects to the selection of counties, the simple remedy is just to ask for hand counts in whatever counties they feel the Gore campaign has neglected. Again – what is the justication for arguing against an accurate count in a close race?

Do you see the cycle you are advocating? Where does it end?

[Freedom]

One way you can tell the difference between the two types is referenced above: ballots for which a replacement has been given are not tabulated. The 19,000 ballots in question quite obviously were.

Wouldn’t they HAVE to be tabulated? Even if the nuts and bolts description of a machine spitting it out is wrong, can you debunk the rest of it?

If they didn’t tabulate all the double punched ballots then how would they account for all the ballots they had been given? Every single ballot needs to be accounted for at the end of the day.

Ballots cast as votes.
Double punched ballots that were exchanged.
Rejected votes.
Uncast ballots to be returned.
Is it possible that any of the places have machines as described?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Do you see the cycle you are advocating? Where does it end?

It ends when an accurate count has been received from the counties in question. What is your objection to that?

machine count 2 differed from machine count 1 by 2000 votes. The difference between the two candidates is less than 400 votes. It is not reasonable to argue that machine count 2 is accurate when machine count 1 was inaccurate.

Your “cycle” does not exist. The only imperative is to gain an accurate count. Once those counts have been done, their is no recursive level to drive the “cycle”. The Gore campaign has already listed those counties it would like recounted. The Bush campaign is free to do the same. The disparity in machine counts is certainly reason enough to call their accuracy into question.

Refusing to do so because “it would take too long/be too expensive” places either convenience or thrift above fairness. I find such an attitude offensive to the principles of a democratic republic.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

The 19,000 ballots in question were not only counted, which as you say would be done with “returned” ballots as well, the distribution of votes is also known. Hence the reports that 16,000+ of those ballots showed a dual Gore/Buchanan vote. Returned balots are not fed through the reader and hence that tabulation would not be available.

Is it possible that any of the places have machines as described?

Possible? I cannot conclusively say “no”, since I was not at every polling place. However, in 16 years of Florida elections (multiple districts and counties) I have never seen a polling place equipped with a reader. The standard procedure is for ballots to be collected, counted (bulk number only), and taken to a central location for tabulation. Thus we have reports of ballot boxes being “missing”, “found”, “delayed”, etc.

I can conclusively say that it is not the norm for polling places in Palm Beach or Broward counties to have votes tabulated at the polling place at the time of the vote. I base this on conversations with friends and coworkers which, as you might imagine, have centered more than usual about the process and details of voting in this election.

The quote in question drastically misrepresents the truth of my voting experience and the voting experience of my friends and coworkers. Since this detail would seem easy to check before making such a sweeping claim (all 19,000 votes represent ballots returned by the voter), I strongly suspect that the author is too biased to be given serious consideration.

[Triskadecamus]

I don’t think a revote, in one or more contested jurisdictions, is prohibited by either the federal law, or by the Constitution. The fact is that it has not been done before in a federal election, although I think it was done one or more times in the past in local elections. (I seem to recall an incident where ballots were destroyed by natural causes somewhere, and the precinct was allowed to vote again. It’s a very vague recollection, though, from the sixties, or seventies.)

But the absence of a legal precedent is not a precedent in and of itself. Elections can be set aside. That would be a very expensive and very disruptive action, as things now stand. But the fact is that if there is sufficient evidence that the right to vote has been compromised, correcting that state of affairs is far more important than the outcome of even a presidential election. The right to vote is the bedrock of the Republic. Safeguarding that right must be the first concern of the Law.

That being said, I must admit that it seems unlikely to me, from the evidence I have seen that a compelling case can be made to set aside the election. I think there were mistaken votes, and the election ends up riding on the opinions of people who did not know what they were doing. That is not a new state of affairs. The real difference this time is that there wasn’t a pot of difference in the choices available, and the coin toss landed on the edge.

I do not think that either Gore, or Bush or any of the citizens who feel that their right to vote was compromised are to be criticized for zealously protecting their rights. Beyond the winning and loosing of office is the right of the people to be represented, and the duty of candidates to represent their constituency. That we do so with fervor, and yet remain peacefully engaged in the day to day life of the nation is the greatest boon we have from our founding fathers. In many times and places, such a thing would be the beginning of bloodshed, and anarchy.

Tris

[TampaFlyer]

> As for Buchanan saying he doesn’t think those votes are his- we’ve seen again and again people here saying that Nader wants Bush to win, so that it’ll be easier for his agenda/party to get support in '04. Why wouldn’t the same (in reverse, sort of) apply for Buchanan?

Also, Buchanan is no big fan of Bush (father or son). He’d probably prefer Gore in office so he can complain about how Gore is ruining everything. I think potential Buchanan voters would be more likely to stick with him in 2004 if Gore is in office, since I assume they would be happier with Bush in power.

[Sam_Stone]

So those of you favoring a re-count will have no objection if Bush demands the same thing in other districts should Al Gore win?

There is a big difference between machine counts and hand counts, in that the nature of the error is different. The machine’s error falls into the category of noise - it should effect all candidates equally, because of the nature of the error. Hand-counts will have errors that do not follow a normal distribution, because of human bias, fatigue, etc (for example, unless the ballots are completely randomized, a bias will creep in because the accuracy of the count in the morning will be different than after a long day of counting, meaning the ballots on the ‘bottom’ will be more error prone than those on the top of the stack. If, say, more Gore voters tended to vote in the morning and daytime, and Bush voters tend to vote in the evening, then there will be a bias.

This is not to say that hand counting is not necessarily bad, but that it is different. And that gives the loser an advantage. He can say, “let’s all vote, and if I don’t like the outcome I want to count the votes a different way.” Even if the difference is still just noise, THIS time it might be noise that gives him the votes he needs.

Another problem is that every hand re-count will return a different number, because no one is perfect. When the result is this close, the winner will almost certainly be chosen by ‘noise’. Letting the loser force a new count just gives him another chance to have the ‘noise’ favor him.

Perhaps what you need is ten re-counts, then average them all. (-:

[Freedom]

Perhaps what you need is ten re-counts, then average them all. (-:

For some reason I suspect their plan is to keep counting until Gore wins and then stop. Since we all know Gore won, that is the only possible correct answer, any count that confirms it will be the indisputable one.
See…many of us are making the mistake of thnking that we DO NOT KNOW what the vote count should be, and that when they finish counting, that is the answer. But you see, the democrats KNOW that Gore won, so until the counting is in line with their expectations, we will have to just keep doing it again until we get it right.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

For some reason I suspect their plan is to keep counting until Gore wins and then stop. Since we all know Gore won, that is the only possible correct answer, any count that confirms it will be the indisputable one.

How sanctimonious of you. I know no such thing, but I do feel an accurate count should be taken. Since we have ample demonstration that the existing counts are unreliable, that means we are not done yet.

Despite the argument to the contrary, there need be no significant error in a hand count. All that is required are sufficient human resources. Counts are done independently and double checked, where there is a discrepancy, the count is repeated. Perhaps some of you would care to argue that the question before us is not sufficiently important to warrant such an application of resources?

See…many of us are making the mistake of thnking that we DO NOT KNOW what the vote count should be, and that when they finish counting, that is the answer. But you see, the democrats KNOW that Gore won, so until the counting is in line with their expectations, we will have to just keep doing it again until we get it right.

Ah, more sanctimony, tinged with smugness this time.

I prefer objectivity myself. I have never been a democrat, but I am a Florida voter. The only thing 2 machine counts have demonstrated to date is that the machine counts are unreliable when dealing with a race this close. That, in fact, is why we have mandatory recounts when the race is sufficiently close. Despite your oh-so-compelling attack on democrats, they did not request the machine recount. It was required by law. Now, since that recounted makes it very clear that several counties have serious discrepancies between iterations, it is hardly reasonable to pick either one of those results and say it is “right”. Of course, to see that when your “side” would win takes perhaps more objectivity and dedication to democratic principle than some of you are capable of maintaining.

So sad.

The rest of us can be thankful that those who actually supervise the election take their duties seriously enough to keep working until a reliable count can be assured. After all, some people still believe that it is important for there to be a direct relationship between votes correctly cast and the outcome of an election.

[jshore]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *

The “machine” into which Palm Beach County residents (at least in my district) placed their completed ballots was a high-tech piece of machinery colloquialy termd a “box”.

This definitely wins my vote for one of the best lines to come out of this election fiasco!!! And, good job Spiritus Mundi, in injecting some fact and careful thought into all these arguments swirling around. One of the frustrating things I find about this whole process is that things are getting argued about that ought to be facts that can quickly be settled…like whether or not there were a large number of votes cast in error in PBC…which I think there quite clearly were and that even a pretty good estimate of the number can be made (at least of those 3400 that were marked only for Buchanan).

Then, once we settle on the facts, we have to figure out what can or should be done about it…Admittedly, that is harder.

And, Freedom2, let me say as a Gore supporter (even if not a Gore voter), that I do not believe that the recounts should be stopped once Gore is ahead. I think they should be continued until they converge on a clear result, or at least one that both sides agree seems to be clear or unlikely to change. I hope that doesn’t take forever…But, hey, it’s only been 3 days so far…What’s the big rush? You can’t be worried about paralyzing the government…that was done for months over the question of whether are President lied about his sex life.

[divemaster]

Despite the argument to the contrary, there need be no significant error in a hand count.

While I don’t think a re-re-count is necessarily a bad thing, there is the human element to consider. With that comes potential error, especially concerning the so-called disputed ballots. According to what I’m hearing on CNN, the hand counter would have to determine voter intent by looking at “hanging chards,” incomplete holes, pencil markings, or other subjective criteria. There may be instances where two holes are punched and someone will have to decide of one hole looks more correct than the other. I would hope that ballots such as these would be thrown out, but given the circumstances, who knows? There is a can of worms here. Maybe it can be opened and contained. On the other hand, we may end up with worms all over the place.

[Sofa_King]

Gore and Floridians have every right to ask for a mark-one eyeball count, and so do all of you. Consider these examples:

Here’s a really, really good reason. Oops. An entire precinct turned up empty. And was accepted as valid.

That’s certainly worth looking into, what with all those goose-stepping Buchananites storm-trooping all over that boring, sleepy place.

Fraud, you ask? Maybe on the part of the Democrats. In the same article, there are these examples:

“Then on Wednesday afternoon, an elderly poll worker walked into the elections office with a bag of ballots he had forgotten to deliver the night before.”

Hmmmm, a “senior moment,” perhaps. But there was also a computer tallying crash in the same county. And are you going to believe this?

“Late Wednesday, a carload of lawyers for the candidates headed to rural Gadsen County, the state’s most Democratic, near Tallahassee, where they inspected more 2,000 ballots that had been rejected by the county’s polling machines. For the Democrats, they found gold, some of the ballots were valid and represented a net increase of 153 more votes for Gore.”

Who are you going to believe, a carload of Democratic lawyers, or a third look? Don’t you want to check the serial numbers on that old man’s bag of ballots? I doubt an “electromechanical device” that looks for holes in a piece of paper can read serial numbers. Evidence of fraud on the part of the Democrats would shut most of us up right quick, and a recount likely won’t counterbalance the votes of the military absentees. So why not drive in the stake, nail the coffin shut, and send us all off to our menial lives with our consciences clear and the fate of our nation accepted?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

According to what I’m hearing on CNN, the hand counter would have to determine voter intent by looking at “hanging chards,” incomplete holes, pencil markings, or other subjective criteria.

Perhaps you should have watched/listened more intently, or else reported more clearly.

Not one but two people must inspect each ballot and agree upon the result. The process is also open not only to representatives from each campaign but also to the public and the media. Yes, there is an element of subjectivity involved. There is also an elemment of judgment that is sorely lacking from the mechanical count.

If two independent people, working in plain view of both campaigns, the national media, and the public, can agree upon how a ballot should be counted; I can live with their call.

[dixiechiq]

    1. Claim: 19,000 ballots were thrown out because voters selected more than one candidate for president. This shows people were confused and a revote should be taken.

Fact: 15,000 ballots were thrown out in 1996 for the same reason. Source: CNN Jim Smith, Former Florida Sec of State

the figure for 1996 includes both double-votes and non-votes. non-votes normally outweigh double-votes. the figure for 2000 is double-votes only. if you add in non-votes for 2000, the total is near 30,000. additionally, it is known that there are 19,000 double-votes in this election. it is estimated that there were at most 7,000 double votes in 1996. [from cnn.]

         3. Claim: 3407 Palm Beach residents cast their ballots for the Reform Party candidate. Gore
                     allies like Rep. Robert Wexler charge that those votes rightfully belong in the vice president's
                     column. "These people are mostly elderly Jewish retirees who would never be caught dead voting
                     for a Nazi like Buchanan," Wexler told reporters Wednesday. Even Buchanan has said those
                     votes don’t belong to him.

                     Fact: In Buchanan’s 1996 presidential primary, over 4,000 area residents voted for Buchanan.

a primary is not anologous to an election. also, afaik buchanan’s nazi statements came out in a book published more recently than the 1996 primary.

       4. Claim: Proof that the votes for Buchanan were in error is that he received 3407 votes in Palm
                     County while a similar county , Broward, gave him only 790.

                     Fact: According to the Florida supervisor of elections, Broward County has only 189 members of
                     the Independent Party – Florida's Reform party. Palm Beach County, on the other hand, has a
                     whopping 14,551 members of the Independent Party. In fact, it has the highest Independent
                     registration in Florida. So as a percentage, Buchanan got almost 7 times the registered
                     independent vote in Broward will getting only 18% of the independent vote in Palm County.

as has been pointed out, mr buchanan has stated he does not believe all those votes were intended for him. [as seen on network tv.]

          5. Claim: The ballot was confusing and is part of a Republican dirty trick campaign.

                     Fact: It was designed by a Democrat. It was approved by the local Democrats. It was posted in
                     the local newspaper and in other public places. Every single registered voter in Palm Beach
                     County was sent a sample ballot. Number of complaints reported to the local election officials
                     before Election Day = 0. 

the ballot that was distributed prior to the election were not identical to those in the booth. [as seen on cnn last night.]

[jshore]

*Originally posted by dixiechiq *

the figure for 1996 includes both double-votes and non-votes. non-votes normally outweigh double-votes. the figure for 2000 is double-votes only. if you add in non-votes for 2000, the total is near 30,000. additionally, it is known that there are 19,000 double-votes in this election. it is estimated that there were at most 7,000 double votes in 1996. [from cnn.]
the ballot that was distributed prior to the election were not identical to those in the booth. [as seen on cnn last night.]

Facts like these coming out (assuming they are correct) is why we need some sort of non-partisan review of the various charges and counter-charges. One can simply not believe these supposed debunkings by the Republicans! Which is why in the case of the votes for Buchanan, I went and looked at the numbers on the Florida Board of Elections web site personally. Unfortunately, I don’t think they have numbers there for the various invalidated ballots, so one necessarily has to rely on the media and others to get to the truth of the matter.

[divemaster]

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**

(from divemaster)
According to what I’m hearing on CNN, the hand counter would have to determine voter intent by looking at “hanging chards,” incomplete holes, pencil markings, or other subjective criteria.**

Perhaps you should have watched/listened more intently, or else reported more clearly.

Not one but two people must inspect each ballot and agree upon the result. The process is also open not only to representatives from each campaign but also to the public and the media. Yes, there is an element of subjectivity involved. **

I guess I should have been more clear because I agree with you on the recount business. In fact, your statement of the element of subjectivity was the point I was trying to make. As long as this is minimized to the greatest possible extent, I don’t really have a problem with a hand count.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

See, agreement is possible!

Now if we could just get both campaign to shut up (and stay out of federal court!) long enough for the process to work as it was designed.

[Mockingbird]

*Originally posted by Freedom2 *
**It seems certain that 19,000 people didn’t came out and ask for a new ballot.
And another anecdotal story…
There was a NY congressman claiming that he got calls all day Tuesday from New Yorkers who said their parents had called them crying from Florida because they think they might have voted for Buchanan.
These people are lying. There is nothing they won’t claim or say. **

It is so nice that you know the hearts and minds of these individuals and can claim you know they are lying. But, you’ve seem to refuse to see how Bush has serious flaws, so I suppose this should not be a surprise.