Who cares what they are called? If you can’t figure out that somebody or some thing will have to deal with the hanging little piece of cardboard or paper later on when the ballot is counted, you are not being conscientious.
yes
Ockham would, given your strenuous and possibly improbable limitations of so many dimples, choose B. However, I think Ockham would determine that this is only the cause of the incorrectly cast ballot.
Okay, now consider this. What data processing method should Ockham use: [list=A] [li]Data correctly tallied without error? []Revised data where errors can * probably but not absolutely * be determined and compensated by long draw out and convoluted means? []Data with undetermined errors? [/list=A][/li]
All other things being equal, which data processing method is simplest? 
This returns me to my original theory that a correctly cast ballot is more reliable than an incorrectly cast one. Dimples shouldn’t be counted.
[quote]
Okay, now consider this. What data processing method should Ockham use:[list=A][li]Data correctly tallied without error?[]Revised data where errors can probably but not absolutely be determined and compensated by long draw out and convoluted means?[]Data with undetermined errors?[/list=A][/li][/quote]
Tell ya what, Pyrrhonist; I’ll answer that when you actually list some data processing methods. Your question, as constructed, asks which outcome Sir William would desire. If you wish to pose questions of logic, please apply logic in your posing thereof.
jeel and Milossarian: It may seem quite obvious to you how to use a punch card ballot, and (after more than a month of intensive training on the subject, courtesy of media saturation) how that ballot is counted. Hell, I’m even quite sure both of you knew enough to check the ballot for proper punching even before all this mess.
“This mess” being the state results in Florida which were smaller than the margin of error of the machines used to count the ballots.
The point I (and others) have tried to make is that voting is a right which is not and should not be made to be dependent on the literacy, mechanical ability or intelligence of the voter, nor on the reliability of the technology used. You may not agree with this fundamental tenet of our republic, but there it is. Any statement that “correctly cast” ballots are “better” than “incorrectly cast” ballots, besides being WRONG legally and ethically, also runs counter to established constitutional understanding.
“…the state results in Florida which were smaller than the margin of error…” should, of course, have been “…the margin of difference in the Florida state results…”
Ockham was such a jerk! If he meant to say, the simplest explanation is probably right, why didn’t he just say so! But, no, he’s gotta go all around the houses…
At any rate, back to the chads.
No body knew anything about chads. Nobody had ever heard of chads. You insist that The People must rigorously examine thier ballot to make sure it does not fall into a category they have yet to hear of? Huh?
The People were victimized by thier faith in the System. Remember when you used to hear about the Electoral College as the tag end of the evening news on the day the EC did thier thing, you remember “And today, The Candidate was formally elected by the EC…” with that cute little smile they have when talking about something utterly insignificant. Because it was, and rightly so. Most people pretty much assumed that the guy who won the popular vote (or The Vote, as we partisans like to think of it) was the winner. Al won the election, he seems pretty much doomed to lose the power struggle.
I have heard it seriously suggested here that a significant number of people trudged all the way to the voting boot, started pressing down on the vote thingy, and then suddenly had a change of heart, and said, no, I ain’t gonna do it.
Quelle croque du merde as Sartre once said.
Now if you have a ballot with chads dimpled at random all over the ballot, kinda like the face of the moon, well, maybe a dimple landed precisely in that spot by accident.
But one and only one such spot, located in exactly the spot where a voter would register intent? That buggers imagination.
If there is a physical impact on that location and no other, and the voter did not put it there with the intent of voting, ** how the hell did it get there?** Voodoo? Cosmic rays? The Chad Fairy?
Finally, so what? If the bushwhackers are so mightily concerned about fairness, what are they worried about? If this is a random sort of error, then it will even itself out because it is random, both candidates will have the same amount of errors, even steven.
This dimpled chad crap is just a smokescreen. If the ballots with holes punched into them are counted by hand, Gore has a good chance of winning. Hanging, doorway, whatever, if you count the votes wherein a voter physically impacted the card in order to express his vote, it should count. If the machine did not register that, it is a machine malfunction. If a human count will correct that, we have a duty to perform that count.
Count the whole state. Insist that in order to count you must hold the ballot to the light and light must shine through the opening, and, of course, there can be no other plausible indication of a vote for the other candidate.
The bushwhackers don’t want a fair count. They don’t want any count. They oughta be ashamed of themselves.
So I’ll boil it down to a challenge: if the voter didn’t put that impact there, how did it get there? I dare you!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**
There was a joke e-mail a few days before the election that basically said: “Due to heavy turn out, Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday.” If a Democrat believed this, showing a remarkable lack of intelligence, and the right to vote didn’t depend on intelligence, wouldn’t it be fair to let that person submit a late vote using your tenant? Or is there some line that can’t be crossed? I say that line is a correctly cast ballot. What’s your line?
Well, you’re definitely consistent with your attempts at logic, Pyrrhonist. :rolleyes:
But just in case you seriously believe that’s what I said, let’s review. You stated that an “incorrectly cast” ballot, meaning one which was kicked out by the machine as an undervote, carries less weight than a correctly cast ballot. I pointed out that the counting machines make errors, and in a close election the ballots should be counted more accurately than the machine can count them. You cited “dimpled” chads. I showed how a California standard considers some dimpled chads to be clear indication of voter intent. After misapplying Ockham’s Razor, you insisted that it somehow compells us to believe “incorrectly cast” ballots don’t count. I pointed out that voting is not a provisional right for eligible voters. Nowhere in there did I ever say allowances should be made to let stupid people cast ballots outside of official polling times and places.
[/quote]
BTW, the word is “tenet.” T-e-n-e-t. From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: te·net
Pronunciation: 'te-n&t also 'tE-n&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, he holds, from tenEre to hold
Date: circa 1600
: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession
I don’t disagree with the substance of xenophon’s post, so I’m really don’t know why you want my comments. I want an answer to my question in re: stofsky’s post, namely, are there in fact posted time limits in Florida?
In Ohio, we used butterfly ballots, and I often found myself in the booth for 10-15 minutes due to the plethora of local judges races, ballot issues, etc. I want to know where this “3 to 5 minutes” remark comes from.
Inadvertently, you’ve proved my point. I admit my question was not correctly phrased, or strictly adherent to the rules of logic (probably because I never studied Logic academically :eek: ), but I think you understood my intent. If you can disregard my intent because of an incorrectly phrased question, then what is the difference of disregarding a incorrectly cast ballot?
Again, you seem to confirm that * correct * is better than * incorrect.* While it is true you never said such a thing about * stupid people *, you did say “the right to vote didn’t depend on intelligence,” but in my example and by your reply, it seems that intelligence does in some cases hinders the ability to vote. Case in point, showing up on the right day. If lacking the intelligence to vote on Tuesday can “invalidate’ the right to have a vote counted, why should the lack of intelligence to punch out chads not “invalidate” the vote too.
BTW, thanks for pointing out that I spelled “tenet” an “an” by mistake, thereby implying your ideas come for some one who pays you rent. 
I should like to point out that “compells” is spelled with one “L” not two. Does any one have a dead horse? I want to flog it.
Can you please give me your definition – not a dictionary’s definition, mind you, but your’s – of the following terms:
election
ballot
vote or voting (verb)
vote (noun)
election winner
Thank you.
perhaps if the election officials CLEANED the punch machines a bit more often this may not have been such a problem. i can’t imagine what sort of chad buildup can occur in 8 years. so let’s not jump to the conclusion that the voters were totally at fault for the dimpled chad.
Boy, you really got 'em that time, Milo! Yessiree, Bob, you certainly proved beyond any doubt that, uh,… that is, you have made clear that…
No, slipped my grasp again.
You were thinking something, right? Got any idea what it was? You might very well be the only one, 'cause I am one smart cookie and I sure don’t get it.
Do note, with smug satisfaction, that my dare goes unanswered. I have too much class to say “neener neener”. But maybe I can make you define “neener neener”.
elucidator - I don’t recall asking you anything. Shouldn’t you be playing patty-cake with Stoidela right now? Aren’t there other threads requiring your special “I’m so much smarter than you and above it all - and damn funny to boot” touch?
xeno - When you get around to it. I have some questions in mind, depending on what your answers may be.
Nah. She cheats.
After reviewing the principles of Ockham’s Razor, I believe you’re mistaken when claimed I misapplied it. The crux of the principle (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem) says “that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” From this comes the law of parsimony “Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham’s razor.” I would think counting votes is an “interpretation of data” and divining a scheme to determine the voters intention would be a “multiplication of the entity.” The only point you could draw is that counting dimples is not “beyond necessity.” However, I would say that the simplest assumption in counting ballots (i.e. the interpretation of the data) is to count the ballots known to be correctly cast and disregarding those know to be incorrectly cast.
It is also important to remember that Ockham mentioned his principle frequently and employed it broadly in regards to causality, motion, psychological powers, and the presence of ideas in the mind of the Creator. If Sir William, as you like to call him, can use his principle so liberally, I don’t see how you can say I misapplied it.
For a brief biography of William of Ockham and Ockham’s Razor: http://www2.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/deeper/OBIG/spoilers.html
Gee, so many to reply to, so little time.
Sorry Milo and Pyrrhonist, I turned the computer off for 12 hours or so last night and I’m only catching up now.
Milossarian asked:
Sure thing.
election: The process of polling the population regarding their preference for various candidates for public office and/or their Yes/No preference on referenda. In the US, for each decision the rule is “one voter, one vote.”
ballot: Official ticket or card on which all candidates and referenda are listed, and on which the voter is required to mark his or her preference using the official marking device (pen, stylus, etc.)
vote: v To go to an official polling place on election day and indicate your preferences for the candidates, etc. by marking an official ballot using the official marking device and depositing it in the official ballot box.
vote: n The choice a voter indicates for a candidate, etc. by marking an official ballot with an official marking device.
election winner: The candidate for a particular office who is certified by all legal processes as having indisputably received the preponderance of votes.
I’ll add another, just to avoid confusion:
eligible voter: Man or woman who meets all criteria in his or her state to participate in an election. This would include having registered properly.
I await your no doubt incisive follow up.
[/quote]
Pyrrhonist, regarding Ockham, says:
First, thanks for researching your subject; that’s truly in the spirit of the Straight Dope.
Second, you’re still confused. When we use the term “entity” in this context, we are speaking of the specific “thing” being examined, generally a condition which must be defined or a question which must be decided. Ockham’s Razor cannot be applied too broadly (it’s a razor after all), so we must break the general situation down into base entities, applying our surgical tool to each entity. Your statement that “the simplest assumption… is to count the… correctly cast and disregard… incorrectly cast” applies the razor too broadly. Proper application requires the questions: “What criteria clearly indicate voter intent?” and “What methods should be used to verify that those criteria exist on each ballot?”
Clear?
[/quote]
This requires comment because it illustrates the danger of using a reductio ad absurdum argument outside of the proper set.
The difference here is that the right to vote is dependent for all voters on the scheduled operation of the polling places. It is not dependent on the ability of the voter to doublecheck the voting apparatus. Your error here is in comparing a restriction which is universally applied (voting only while the polls are open) with a condition not applied to each legally cast ballot (incompletely detached chad).
[/quote]
One final comment. The USSC decision regarding the equal protection clause, specifically aimed at the criteria used in the hand counts of undervotes, clearly confirms the seriousness with which the courts of this country regard that “fundamental tenet” we’ve been debating.
A clearer explanation of the strictest application of Ockham’s Razor would be “When you have two or more competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better.” Your criticism is that I interpreted too broadly the principle when I claimed, in essence, “When you have two or more competing process to determine an outcome, the one that is simpler is the better.” Okay, I see where your coming from; for the moment call my version “Pyrrhonist’s Razor.” My razor uses the same structural logic insofar as we both want to shave away extraneous and convoluted explanations and get to the heart of the matter. The main difference is that Ockham’s Razor is for questions where the answer is the same and Pyrrhonist’s Razor is for questions where the answer is different. Both try to find the simplest solution. Ockham asks what is the simplest explanation, Pyrrhonist asks what is the simplest process. I’m sure you tell me how I’m wrong, but I don’t think Ockham would fuss too overtly by lumping both razors together and would accept my broad interpretation.
Actually, I think you got it backasswards. Restrictions would determine to the eligibility to vote and conditions determine the ability to vote. Felons and foreigners and some mentally retarded may be restricted from registering to vote, but under the law stupid people are eligible to vote, there are no restrictions that prohibit them because of the lack of intelligence. Now imagine an idiot named John Doe. John registers to vote when he is 18 and meets with no restrictions. A day before he goes to vote he reads an e-mail and mistakenly believes he should vote on Wednesday, so he fails to meet a condition (i.e. voting on the right day.) During the next election John Doe forgets his ID and can’t vote because he fails the condition of showing proper ID. Four years later, stupid John doesn’t punch out his chads and fails to meet the condition of a properly cast ballot, so his vote is not counted. In no case was John restricted from voting under the law, but his lack of intelligence have made unable to meet the conditions to vote.
One comment on Pyrrhonist’s Razor©. (Catchy term. )Any decision regarding process must take into account the entity which the process is intended to produce. Since in the case of handcounts, the entity must be stated as “an accurate determination of voter intent,” we come back to the questions I asserted that Ockham requires:
So, indeed, I think Ockham would have no problem with Pyrrhonist’s Razor, but I do think he’d apply it as he did his own.
Okay, we’re back to your original argument that idiot John’s ballot with a not-fully-detached chad is an “improperly cast” ballot. For my answer (actually, for my answer again 
) please see Bricker’s thread here debating the same question. Suffice it to say, I don’t agree with your definition of “improperly cast,” so I think the third case is NOT analgous to the two previous cases.
No, I think in the case of the hand counts, the entity should be stated as “an accurate count of the votes.” The voter’s intent is revealed by their vote, the vote is not revealed by the intent. So now I think we’re stuck with two competing entities vying for legitimacy:
[list=A][li]An accurate determination of voter intent. [*]An accurate count of the votes. [/list=A][/li]
This is the crux of the problem. On what principles you pick an entity to process when two or more vie for legitimacy?
Actually, my original argument was for keeping only “correctly” cast ballots. There is no question that in case three the ballot is “incorrect,” but you assert that its state of incorrectness does not invalidate the vote. If punching out the chads correctly is not* condition* for voting—what is it then? An option?
If you disagree and say it is not really an “incorrect” (or “improperly” cast) ballot then what is it? Perhaps an “incomplete” ballot would do? (But don’t let put words in your mouth.) Where does the Government get the authority to complete in incomplete ballot? A Government with that much authority, IMHO, has too much authority. (As an aside, if you ask me, the FSC and the SC booth overstepped their authority quite partisanly for each side.) But what about only when intent is clear? What are the standards of clear? None of these questions were answered in this election.