A correctly cast ballot is an undeniable indication of the voters’ choice, hence it’s of greater value than an incorrectly cast ballot. No matter how you wiggle and dance, an incorrectly cast ballot does not hold as much weight because the choice has been interpreted or divined. It is an air uncertainty. A Translation is never has exact as the original. There may be numerous reasons for a ballot being incorrect, the intent could be know—even clearly known—but the ballot is still incorrect. A invorrectly typd semtence is still incorect evan whem the maening is clearr. Long, long ago in my university days, I would get an F if I submitted a paper with too many “innocent” typos, but the Gore side seems to have no problem with assembling crews of counters to fix the errors; if he can find enough errors to fix, maybe he can turn that F into D- win of the Presidency. But that smacks of very lax standards if not out right cheating.
A correctly cast ballot is simply better than an incorrect one.
No. It’s just easier to interpret. You are giving the means (the ballot) more importance than the end (the intent of the voter).
The means should serve the end. Our current voting systems and procedures are currently doing a horrendous job of doing that (see the front page story in yesterday’s LA Times). Both candidates and the voters of Florida have been the most recent victims of these inadequacies. It’s time to start laying blame where it belongs and not at the feet of the parties that have been disadvantaged by a broken system.
Mmmm-hmmm…as an English professor I can see the tongue-in-cheek transposition in the first sentence of the quotation. However, an entire paper of misplaced fingers–after several opportunities to proofread and revise–is far different than a final in which students don’t have several days in which to correct errors. The fallacy in your analogy is that many polling places allow three to five minutes for voting, whereas most professors allow much longer to perfect a paper. In the case of a final exam, I, and everyone I know, allow for more errors due to time constraints, the lack of spelling and grammar check, and pressure.
I will be grading papers for one class while I’m giving the final to another, and grading finals for the first class while giving the final to the other. The papers and the finals are held to different standards. Why should votes and college papers be held to the same?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by stofsky *
**
[QUOTEThe fallacy in your analogy is that many polling places allow three to five minutes for voting . . . **[/QUOTE]
They do? Since when? Were there posted time limits at the polling places in Florida? I can not remember ever seeing or being subjected to a time limit.
As has been explained ad nauseum in recent weeks over the media and in court, it is absolutely possible to follow all instructions when using a punch card ballot and still have your ballot counted as an undervote due to machine error. To call this an “incorrectly cast ballot” is misleading; it is an incorrectly read ballot.
When the margin of error of the machines is greater than the difference in count percentage between the candidates, you have to use a more accurate counting method. In this case, that would be humans.
Three to five minutes to perfect a ballot seems highly adequate and generous to me. It doesn’t have to be 15-20 typed pages which may take a few days, it is a very simple ballot, and a minute should probably be enough for most people. If someone can’t vote right within that time limit then they’re vote * should be * disqualified. As a English professor you wouldn’t allow students to submit late papers then grade them equally with the students who were timely would you? You would probably drop them a grade. But ballots and papers aren’t completely analogous, I know, but Gore thinks no such penalty should be levied against the miscast votes. Hardly seems fair the people who voted right the first time. Because of the short time constraints, I think ballots should be Boolean, Pass/Fail, correctly cast or incorrectly cast.
Just hypothetically speaking, let’s assume that 100 completely neutral people are going to look at 100 of these undervotes. (To be fair, let’s have them look at the same 100 ballots.)
Now, what are the odds that all 100 counters are going to come up with the exact same count? Does anyone really think that will happen when they each have to “determine the intent of the voter”?
Now, assume that the some counters aren’t completely neutral, that they have a political bias (either way). Would that change the numbers reported for those 100 ballots?
Multiply any difference in count by 1000 or so. Is this really a good thing to be doing? How can voter intent really be determined accurately? If it’s impossible with people looking at the ballots, what’s next? Magic 8 ball? Psychic Friends Hotline? Ouija boards?
xenophon’s post, I think, got directly to the heart of the matter. I’d like to see Pyrhhonist, pldennison, and Milossarian address it at their convenience.
But a dimpled chad(among other chads)is more than just an incorrectly “read” ballot, it is an incorrectly cast ballot. Perhaps someother error other than voter error caused the dimple, or maybe not. The only certainty is its “state of incorrectness” whatever the cause. Human intervention via hand counts can’t turn it into a correctly cast ballot. Leave the divination to the astrologers and palm-readers. Hand counting the incorrectly cast dimpled chads as incorrectly “read” ballots should not done.
Okay, so I’m none of the above, but I will address xeno’s post.
The intent of the voter to vote for Bush, Gore, any other presidential candidate, or none of the candidates can’t be left to doubt. The machines I saw that were used for these elections are poorly designed…but…When the voter takes his/her ballot from the machine and places it in the slotted box, that voter should have checked for hanging chad, dimpled chad, etc…Making his/her intent clear. If they did not, their “intent” was clearly not there!!!
You didn’t answer my question, Milo. Is the purpose of an election to find out what the voter wants or is it to find out how well they follow directions?
The fact remains that a significant number of voters were unable to transmit their desire with the ballot devices used in this country. Whatever the cause, until these devices are modified so that the number is insignificant (in the case of Florida, this is less than 1,000) no candidate can claim that their power derives from the will of the people.
I agree with you about the dimples, but Gov. G. W. Bush of Texas does not. (Now presidential candidate G. W. Bush, on the other hand… ) I would hope that each canvassing board decides not to count dimpled chads (unless all categories on the ballot have one dimpled as well and there are no overvotes on the ballot; same as California law), or that the USSC requires the Fla. SoS to give clear instructions on the matter.
The answer is A; however, the voter’s desire can’t be discovered without a properly rendered B. If the voter can’t complete correctly B, then A will remain unknown.
<valiantly not commenting on how many voters were likely to have even heard the term “hanging chad” prior to Nov 7>
So, you’re saying the voter’s responsibility doesn’t stop with the mere act of marking the ballot? Am I correct in understanding your comment to be that the voter should also have sufficient knowledge of the technology which will be used to read their ballot so that they can then check to make sure their marking of the ballot is adequate for the machine?
I would never say that Dubya isn’t a hypocrite. But he is a politician and hypocrisy and lying comes with the job.
Your, or more exactly California’s, process for counting dimples is too convoluted. I prefer to apply Occam’s razor “A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly” meaning the simplest answer is usually the correct one. I think the simplest answer is that dimples should never count…
Ockham’s Razor: “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” Of two competing theories, the simplest explanation of an entity is to be preferred.
When applied to a ballot in which all offices up for election have exactly one candidate’s chad marked with a dimple, how would Ockham have us treat the following theories?[list=A][li]The voter rested his or her stylus over one selection for each category, but decided not to vote in any category.[]The voter attempted to vote in each category, but the stylus failed to detach the chad.[]Some other mechanism besides the voter dimpled those chads.[/list=A]In the first case, for each category, the voter decided in favor of a candidate and then decided not to vote in that category. In the second case, the voter decided in favor of a candidate for each category and tried to place a vote. In the third case, a series of accidents occured marking only one selection in each category.[/li]
All other things being equal, which theory is simplest?
It’s the voter’s responsibility to be very deliberate in:
Making sure the card is properly placed.
Making sure the hole they are about to punch is for the candidate they intend to vote for.
Making sure they are very deliberate in punching the hole; i.e. putting the stylus in to the hilt, moving it around a bit.
Checking their ballot to make sure there are no hanging chads before handing it back in.
Two things are almost certain to soon happen: Either the Supreme Court of the United States will rule that evaluating voter intent on ballots using standards that are subjective and vary not only from county to county but table to table within a county is unconstitutional, at least when it comes to races involving more than one county;
And/or, legislatures in states where the criteria about discerning the intent of the voter is nonspecific will move to make it specific, having seen this mess.
“This mess” being the non-specific process used and manipulated to benefit one candidate.
) I would hope that each canvassing board decides not to count dimpled chads (unless all categories on the ballot have one dimpled as well and there are no overvotes on the ballot; same as California law), or that the USSC requires the Fla. SoS to give clear instructions on the matter.