This topic seems to deserve its own thread, since it is currently being debated in several others.
If a “dimpled chad” is counted as a Presidential vote, then presumably, that “dimpled chad” is the only chad among the chads representing Presidential candidates that has a mark of any kind.
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that virtually every voter went into the voting booth intending to cast a vote for some Presidential candidate? That being the case, if one Presidential chad on a ballot is dimpled, and none of the others is marked in any way, why is it unreasonable to conclude that the dimpled chad is the one the voter intended to mark?
As for those worried about the risk of fraud (which I assume to mean that they think the counters will somehow punch the ballots themselves) the only ballots which would even be susceptible to such fraud would be those which had no prior indication of any Presidential vote. Which would be damn few (if any) ballots.
It also occurs to me that some folks offering their opinions have never voted using one of these punch-card systems. The cardboard ballot is slid under a piece of plastic. The piece of plastic has holes in it, with each hole designated as representing a particular candidate. You use a metal spike which you push through the plastic hole, and then on down through the card. There are two distinct sensations of “penetration” when you vote: One when you get the spike through the plastic hole, and another when you get the spike through the card.
I can easily imagine a voter who upon feeling the spike penetrate the plastic hole might think that they have done the job, when in fact the spike might not yet have penetrated the card beneath, and might have only “dimpled” the card.
To me, this is a very good reason to abandon this voting system in future elections; but is also a good reason to give strong consideration to dimpled chads among the ballots cast this time around.
My position on this since the beginning has been no, don’t count 'em seems like a reach. While arguments of late sound a little more persuasive than my knee jerk reaction to the idea originally, I still think it’s cheesy. And more to the point, it looks cheesy, which is bad for my guy. I’d rather he lost after a hand count than won after a hand count that looked fixed.
And there are a lot of people who do not vote for president. Not a lot by percentage, but a lot by the numbers, and that is exactly what we’re down to.
FTR: I am not an active party member of either party. I’ve never voted straight ticket. I HAVE voted on those punch cards for (let’s see, moved to Lansing in 1977, moved out in 1999) 22 years.
I’ve NEVER checked (and never missed an election, including primaries and odd ones for school bonds and the like) to see if the now famous “Chad” was completely dislodged.
I DO agree with the position that it is unlikely (though not impossible) that voters went to vote and decided to opt OUT of voting for Pres.
However. I believe that trying to ascertain the intention of the voter by a mark made by a stylus is conjecture at best.
Like I said, while it may be unlikely, it isn’t IMPOSSIBlE that the person chose not to vote for a particular position.
I DO agree that if the Chad is dislodged it should be counted. If more than one candidate is dislodged in any way, the vote should NOT be counted.
AND. regardless of what my personal beliefs are, the RULE of law that exists in the place where the votes were cast should rule. So, in Texas, doesn’t matter that I think the pregnant chad shouldn’t count, it will. In PBC, FL, where the board of canvassers are allowed to determine this, it would count. In the other counties in FL where the board of canvassers said it SHOULDN’T count, it shouldn’t.
clear as mud, eh?
And, for me personnally, if I ever come near one of those things again, I’ll inspect it for hanging chads before handing it over.
Hanging chads, yes (assuming there’s only one). Dimpled chads, no. FWIW, I wrote in “none of the candidates” on my absentee ballot re Senator–there was no way in hell I was voting for any of them–I think I could have left it blank but I wanted to be sure the rest of my selections were counted.
OK, fair enough. I suppose some portion of the population decided not to cast a Presidential vote at all. But I would also bet that the number is vanishingly small.
And I would also say that if there is a dimpled chad, and no mark on any of the other Presidential chads, it would be perfectly legitimate to conclude that the voter intended to mark that chad.
What if the voter was hesitant about voting for a candidate, and put their stylus in the plastic hole. Then their conscience kicked in and they decided that what they really wanted to do was vote for “None of the Above” by not casting a vote.
So they then withdrew their stylus, punched the holes for the offices they wanted to vote for, withdrew their ballot, made sure the chad was in place over the presidential candidates and then turned their vote in.
As evidence of this, I present the fact that the voter was strong enough and aware enough to punch the chad all the way through on the other candidates.
When I turn on MY voter intent ESP that is the reasoning I receive.
What? Your voter intent ESP is giving you a different reading? Maybe we need to start using mechanical machines to remove any bias.
I would guess the number of “non-voters” is enough across Florida to turn this election. Small as a percentage, but signficiant in this discussion.
And I would also say that if there is a dimpled chad and no mark on any other Presidential chad, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that the voter got cold feet and didn’t go through with the vote. In either case you and I may not be making any wild leaps of logic. But that does not mean we can take the next step, which is to decide we know what the voter intended. If it’s not conclusive, it’s a non-vote, regardless of who is affected. Period.
I was under the understanding that according to Florida law, it only counted if a chad was at least partially dislodged. Thus, dimpled wouldn’t qualify.
I’ve maintained to not count the dimpled ones at all.
But, FTR, what happens is:
(this will probably NOT be spelled out in any law, though, it probably will in the future - when they made the laws, they had no idea how complicated it could be.) The process for hand counting would be: (Machine counts wouldn’t count chads or pregnant blips or anything else but a ballot with ONE hole for the position)
Look to see how many holes. 2 or more? no vote. One, it’s a vote, proceed to next ballot.
No holes? look to see if there’s a chad hanging. more than one chad hanging? no vote. one chad hanging? Vote.
No holes? No chads hanging? look for dimples. Dimples in more than one area? no vote. no holes, no hanging chads but a single dimple in one area? vote.
So the answer would be that since there’s a hole where a vote should be, the vote would count for that person, you wouldn’t proceed to look to see if there’s dimples.
But your scenaria is exactly why I don’t think the dimples should count (not to beat that dead horse, but I like to mention of course, that according to Texas law, the dimple would count).
oops forgot to mention - to count and how to count and when to count is generally subject to the laws of the area concerned, and the election officials themselves.
Those concerned are allowed to decide what process to use and which consitutes a vote. That’s why you’ll find some variance about if the pregnant dimples should be counted.
The big problem with ‘dimpled’ chads (aside from the little fact that they may not indicate a vote) is that judging a ‘dimple’ is highly subjective. At what point is a dimple really a dimple? Does a slight scuff on the surface count? How about a very tiny indentation? What if two different chads have dimples on them? What if one Chad is hanging, and another is dimpled?
Sitting here, it might be easy to say that your judgement would be good enough. Try making that judgement on your 3rd straight day of sitting 12 hours at a time while looking at tens of thousands of nearly identical cards.
The other problem with allowing dimpled chads is that it’s going to slow the counting process to a crawl. It’s relatively easy to see a swinging chad, but if you have to look for a dimple you’re going to have to spend far more time on each ballot.
Democrat here, and Gore voter.
I say don’t count the dimpled chads (and BTW, I prefer “pregnant chads”. Hehheh hehheh hehheh.) I cannot think of an objectively reasonable standard to determine when a pregnant chad should or should not be considered to represent the intent of the voter. Without such an objective standard, we should be better safe than sorry and throw out the preggers.
Holy crap. Then you get into “Well, this could be a dimpled, but might be a pregnant”, “This looks like it might be a mark, but maybe it was just printed odd”, or “If I look at the card just right, it’s a dimpled”.
What about pimpled, humped, and bowed chads? This is getting silly now.
An interesting point about dimpled chads was brought up on the MSNBC show “Hardball with Chris Matthews” (for those of you unfamiliar with the show, Matthews is something of a conservative Democrat, if such an animal can exist).
Rather than showing that a voter intended to vote for a candidate, dimpled chads could show that they specifically intended NOT to vote for a candidate.
Supposedly, a bunch of people were undecided going into this election, and made their decisions at the last minute. Isn’t it possible someone began to vote for a particular candidate, then stopped, thinking, “Nah; I just can’t do it”? And very intentionally did not pierce that chad?
Now that makes more sense to me than someone not having the strength to punch a hole in a thin card with a stylus designed for that purpose.
And with all of the indecision and lack of enthusiasm over Bush and Gore, I don’t think it’s all that implausible that someone would vote in other races but not vote for president.
(Just to get my opinion on record: I think any ballot that shows a presidential punch for one candidate in which two or more corners of a chad are detached, that shows that they voted for that candidate. Pushed their stylus through the card. A ‘pregnant chad,’ however, is an f-ing joke.)
Actually Milo, there has been one report to the contrary. However, it’s inconclusive so I’d advise taking it with a grain of salt.
[quote] Kausfiles has received an intriguing, chad-related e-mail, claiming that “pregnant” or “dimpled” chads do not occur "because the person did not punch forcefully enough. It seems there is a reservoir for chads in the machine. Workers are supposed to empty them regularly. But when too many people vote for a candidate in a short period of time and the reservoir is not emptied, voters are not able to fully punch, no matter how hard they push … " Is this true? I found no reference to it on NEXIS, haven’t read of it, or heard of it while watching 1,783 consecutive hours of “Hardball.” If accurate, I admit, it could fundamentally alter my previously unshakable view of pregnant chad, and would recommend the Solomonic Palm Beach rule described below. … The kausfiles investigative team will be ordered to swing into action in the morning. …
(underlining mine, bolding his)