# Does the GOP Subvert Democracy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234 "2003-08-28T17:12:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/121 "2003-09-17T14:08:06Z")
> [@](#): > > You can, but you shouldn’t. You do NOT run the cards over and over until you get a result you can somehow declare a tie. No, but if you can come up with a margin of error for the process, and for Florida that appears to be 120,000 votes, then perhaps you need a procedure in place for situations where the difference between the candidates is less than that, and therefore statistically a ‘tie’. Clearly, a difference of 500 votes between the two men, one way or the other, was statistically meaningless. Do you deny this? > [@](#): > > You count the votes once, and fully, and fairly, and in a way that makes good faith apparent, and if the results are close, you recount by hand, as required by law and by the fundamental principle of democracy (a question about its meaning to you remains ducked, btw). And you think a hand count is that much more accurate? Do you honestly believe a reasonable hand count can come up with a result that is accurate within 300 votes? If so, I’ve got some swampland to sell you. If you remember the recount, you’ll recall that there were substantial disagreements between the three members of the panels. If you let the majority win, and there are substantial disagreements, that would indicate a _very_ high error rate. You’re going to count six million votes that way? And you think the result will be accurate within several hundred? Not a chance. Perhaps the voteamatic machines are least accurate. I was just reporting what was claimed on _Hardball_. In any event, it’s irrelevant to my point just which system was least accurate. The point is, ALL of them are inaccurate. So much so that, hand count or not, any results within even several thousand votes are meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/122 "2003-09-17T15:59:42Z")
Elvis1L1ves: (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > You were saying that a punchcard system is the most accurate. The cite, very easily found at that, shows that it’s the least accurate, **while hand counting is the most accurate**. Next? That’s not what the report says. It doesn’t say that hand-counting of punchcard ballots is more accurate than machine counting of punchcard ballots. It says that hand-counted **paper or optical** ballots are more accurate than punchcard ballots. How the punchcard ballots are counted is not addressed by the report. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/123 "2003-09-17T17:00:00Z")
Fair enough objection there, cm. But: (1) It is far more reasonable than the contrary to suppose that the individual, thoughtful scrutiny of each ballot that is inherent to hand-counting is the source of its accuracy, not the particular format of the paper or cardboard being scrutinized. (2) The basic issue is the perceived legitimacy of the result of a closely contested election. The citizenry will naturally perceive a complete, good-faith hand count as the most accurate method and _the best that can reasonably be done_. That gives the method, fairly and consistently applied, legitimacy by itself, all the more so because the facts do support it. It’s also the law, not incidentally - the rules of the game, not changeable after the fact, as we’ve heard complained about so often. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/124 "2003-09-17T17:12:54Z")
I see an earlier reply to the staunchest partisan Republican in Canada got eaten by the hamsters. **Sam** , you really need to read posts before you reply to them. I’m tired of repeating myself and being ignored - I get enough of that from the kids. The topic of nonapplicability of statistical thinking to single events has been addressed multiple times. I can’t make it any clearer. Any communications disconnect remaining is your own damn problem. I’ll add this, since you’re still harping on it: _Arguendo_ (great word - my thanks to the board’s lawyers), if you have a “tie” result, then what do you do? You’ve been braying about that for a long time, but have never said what should be done if that is the conclusion (other than braying that something should be done about it - ref. your last post). Out with it, pal. What system do you think would be fairer and more legitimate than a full hand count? How, in Sammyland, do you break a “statistical tie” and decide a winner (again, _arguendo_) and still follow the basic principles of democracy (another question you’re ducking)? I’ll give you a break and let that runoff-election idea that’s already been debunked quietly disappear. You’ve said enough about it that it’s time for you to contribute. Now. Or withdraw it. Take your pick. But either way, let it be known that you haven’t done so yet, but have confined your comments to complaining about people who have done so. Somehow or other, you need to explain why the tiebreaker has to go to your guy. “The final nail in the coffin”, huh? Another great word: _Khayali_. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/125 "2003-09-17T17:32:59Z")
Well… I’m not convinced **Elvis**. You have, understandably, focused in this thread on whether the Florida count was _complete_. Due to voter, bureaucratic, or mechanical error I think it’s safe to say that we’ll never have a complete count. In one state a few hundred votes may be misplaced, in another a well meaning (but uninformed) election official may erroneously turn voters away at the polls, in a third the voting methodology used may be confusing to voter or vote counter. These voting problems are inherent in any nation wide vote counting methodology. Having said that, if an election is a close call, and all the votes (all of them, not just from a single state) have been counted by hand as per your suggestion, and the result is _extremely_ close (say 500 votes difference between candidates) what is the proper course of action? Obviously errors have been made. Errors are _always_ made in vote counting. Doesn’t it make sense to have procedures in place in case of such an eventuality that doesn’t rely on a subjective evaluation of the errors which occurred as per **Sam** ’s suggestion? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/126 "2003-09-17T18:08:32Z")
Fine. Got one to suggest? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/127 "2003-09-17T19:32:58Z")
Elvis: > [@](#): > > Fair enough objection there, cm. But: > > (1) It is far more reasonable than the contrary to suppose that the individual, thoughtful scrutiny of each ballot that is inherent to hand-counting is the source of its accuracy, not the particular format of the paper or cardboard being scrutinized. Not necessarily. If the issue with punch-card ballots is the fragility of the “chads” or the difficulty of punching them cleanly, then it can probably be assumed that the counting error when counted by machine will be equal, whereas when counted by hand, could be either biased or contaminated. In addition, additional handling could ruin ballots as well. Just for example, let’s say a Republican ballot inspector is looking at an ambiguous ballot that most logically should read “Gore.” Suddenly, “OOPS! Oh my, the Bush chad just fell out!” Now, the Democrat observers might object, but the best that that could do is get the ballot invalidated completely. I can’t see how, with partisan observers on both sides, they could “restore” such a ruined ballot to its original state and get back the Gore vote they should have had. > [@](#): > > (2) The basic issue is the perceived legitimacy of the result of a closely contested election. The citizenry will naturally perceive a complete, good-faith hand count as the most accurate method and the best that can reasonably be done. That gives the method, fairly and consistently applied, legitimacy by itself, all the more so because the facts do support it. It’s also the law, not incidentally - the rules of the game, not changeable after the fact, as we’ve heard complained about so often. I hate to pop your bubble Elvis, but “the citizenry” has been accepting machine counts for ages, and “the citizenry” has very well accepted the legitimacy of the result of the Bush-Gore election. The number of “Gore won Florida” holdouts like yourself is infinitesimally small, as a percentage of the population. Depending on “the citizenry” to make your point will only weaken it. Which, I’ll admit, is neither here nor there on the substance of whether that _was_ as accurate and precise as it conceivable could be. You can continue arguing that with Sam Stone till the sun burns out if you’d like, and I’ll stay out of that. I’m merely addressing that specific argument of yours. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/128 "2003-09-17T23:44:36Z")
What procedures could you have in place in case of a ‘tie’? All kinds of them. In case of self-contained local elections in which the entire election can be re-run, a run-off between all candidates within the margin of error seems reasonable. I’ll agree that in a federal election you have a problem, because a run-off election gives voters in that state information they shouldn’t have (i.e. the results of the nationwide election). So perhaps in that case you could split the electors between the candidates, with the one who had the ‘most’ votes getting the odd elector if the amount isn’t divisible by the number of candidates. I’m sure an equitable solution could be found. Of course, this isn’t perfect, but then, giving ALL the electors to one candidate when you don’t really know if he was the winner of the election seems worse, don’t you think? You seemed to think it was pretty bad when Bush got them. You keep claiming that I’m the partisan one here, while I’m the one who is saying that Bush wasn’t the ‘winner’ and neither was Gore, and that the result wasn’t fair. You seem to think that the only ‘fair’ solution was one in which Al Gore would have won. And note that under my proposed remedy, Gore would have won the election. Perhaps it’s not the correct solution, but there must be some solution to the assinine idea that in an election with an acknowledged error of 120,000 votes, and a difference between the candidates of a handful, the ‘winner’ is the one who just happens to have gotten one extra vote counted. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/129 "2003-09-18T05:54:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > If you had a coherent argument, you could try making it instead of repeating that. You’re the one making the claim, so it is your burden to provide the coherent argument. You don’t really expect me to prove a negative, do you? > [@](#): > > He holds the office. His winning is certainly disputable. Saying that it’s disputable whether he won the election because there are claims that it was done improperly is like saying that it’s disputable that the US won the war with Iraq because there are claims **that** was done improperly. The election is the process through which a president is chosen. Bush was chosen. Therefore, he won the election. Unless you’re claiming that there is a massive conspiracy, and Gore is currently inhabiting the White House, this is indisputable. > [@](#): > > I’ll agree with that. But, tell me, would you have been willing to accept a Gore win if the party affiliations had been reversed? Of course. Would you have objected to a Gore win in such a case? > [@](#): > > Who ever mentioned voiding an election? An election consists both of collecting votes an evaluating them. Had the latter been thrown out, it would have constituted a (partial) voiding of the election. > [@](#): > > Only in those counties where the vote actually was completed. What do you mean by “vote” and “completed”? > [@](#): > > Who’s claiming they picked a guy off the street? Nobody. Quit making shit up - you’re hurting yourself. Who said anyone said they picked a guy off the street? I said they imply this. How about **you** stop making shit up? > [@](#): > > Read the Constitution, then. The first three words will do. What is wrong with you? What is so hard to follow about this? You said “The interests of the people are important, not that of the president” in response to my claim that this would hurt democracy. Unless you thought that I meant “the president” when I said “democracy”, this is a non sequitor, and referring me to the Constitution does not change this. I am not disputing your statement, I am just saying that it is a non sequitor. > [@](#): > > Then you’re saying it’s against our interests to know the facts. You exhortation for me to stop “making shit up” would have much more legitimacy if you were not doing so yourself. I never said that knowing the facts is against our interests. > [@](#): > > Where the hell have you been? The Florida law on counting ballots defined the standard as “the clear intent of the voter”. You called that “ridiculous”. It’s the law. So "have an election, and then ask the question ‘Okay, what’s the most fair way of evaluating these votes?’ " and “the clear intent of the voter” are equivalent? Does determining intent demand that the standards not be decided upon until after the election? > [@](#): > > The second part is obvious. How is it obvious? Are you saying that anyone who takes a position that is in Bush’s interests must prefer Bush? Anyone who disagrees with you **must** be doing so for partisan reasons? > [@](#): > > You denigrated Gore as a candidate, without noting that Bush got half a million votes fewer than that. How did I denigrate him? Does merely observing that someone failed to achieve their objective constitute denigration? (And BTW, you still seem to have a problem with antecedents). > [@](#): > > Where the hell did you get that [the question of whether the police fond Gore’s body floating face down in the Potomac] from? That would one of those examples of egregious circumstances you asked for earlier. Murdering your opponent is not following the rules. Presenting legal arguments for why there shouldn’t be a recount is. > [@](#): > > Since you ask, no, the choice of electors is a state matter controlled by state law. And what of the part of the Constitution assigning jurisdiction of cases involving a state and a citizen of another state to the Supreme Court? > [@](#): > > But I was referring to the SCOTUS disavowal that the decision was based on law or precedent. Do the words “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances” ring a bell? The latter does ring a bell. The former does not. > [@](#): > > I’m getting pretty sick of being lied about, ya know, but have come to expect it of you by now. :rolleyes: Oh, poor, poor you, victim of vicious slander. Name one lie that I have posted about you. Just one. > [@](#): > > You do _complete_ the count, and yes, you do it according to the rules agreed on ahead of time. The method of counting the votes which was agreed upon beforehand was completed. You seem to be saying that since that method was not sufficiently accurate, a new method should be used. > [@](#): > > It’s possible at any time, but gets much less likely with every iteration. You don’t seem to understand what I am saying. In some situations, it gets larger with each iteration. There are some types of errors such that the probability of the mean value of the errors being a certain distance from the true mean increases the larger the sample is. In mathematical terms (I can’t make the E backward or the A upside down, so just imagine that they are), E f(x): A d E n: a\>b\>n -\> P (|mean(x1…xa)-mean f(x)|\>d)\>P(| mean(x1…xb)-mean f(x)|\>d) > [@](#): > > No. The general acceptance of reasonability, good faith, and fairness is what matters. I’m just one guy. But those considerations weren’t taken at all. That’s just your opinion. Clearly, many people disagree with you. > [@](#): > > (2) The basic issue is the perceived legitimacy of the result of a closely contested election. The citizenry will naturally perceive a complete, good-faith hand count as the most accurate method and the best that can reasonably be done. That gives the method, fairly and consistently applied, legitimacy by itself, all the more so because the facts do support it. It’s also the law, not incidentally - the rules of the game, not changeable after the fact, as we’ve heard complained about so often. If you want a law declaring a hand count to be required, then go ahead and lobby for it. Now. Before the next election. As soon as those proposing a method can do so in the knowledge that it would help their candidate, it becomes impossible to know if such is their motivation, and thus legitimacy is **not** ensured. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/130 "2003-09-18T05:56:23Z")
Evil Captor > [@](#): > > So even if you were able to make a point about the Fla. recount, there would still be other elements of the 2000 election which are widely considered to be fraudulent, and still other cases (Calif. recount, Texas redistricting, etc.) in which the subversion of democracy is at issue. If you only dispute that one tiny area, you are in effect ceding the rest. This is called the “shotgun fallacy”: someone posts a whole bunch of claims. There’s no way anyone can address them all, and as soon as someone address one part of **one** of them, a whole bunch of subsidiary issues relating to that issue are brought up, in an endless cycle of refutation being followed by additional claims followed by refutation ad infinum. Victory is them claimed on the basis that “well, you never addressed this issue, so I win”, ignoring the fact that it’s impossible to address every single issue. We are not “only disputing that one tiny area”; we have disputed all of them. It takes quite blindness to reality to argue on and on about one point, and then turn around and say “well, even if you show I’m wrong in this area that I’ve been making all this fuss about, the fact that you haven’t presented an exhaustive treatise refuting all possible accusations against the Republicans means I’m right”. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/131 "2003-09-18T11:44:47Z")
My post was only directed at the people who have hijacked this thread into a Florida recount thread and wasn’t meant to cover the discussion as a whole, hence it’s not a shotgun fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234/132 "2003-09-18T14:15:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmkeller \* > Not necessarily. If the issue with punch-card ballots is the fragility of the “chads” or the difficulty of punching them cleanly, then it can probably be assumed that the counting error when counted by machine will be equal, whereas when counted by hand, could be either biased or contaminated. In addition, additional handling could ruin ballots as well. The media consortium, among other organizations at the time, showed pretty well that chads do not “just fall out” unless they’ve already been pushed at least partway out. That can pretty much only be done deliberately. > [@](#): > > I hate to pop your bubble Elvis, but “the citizenry” has been accepting machine counts for ages, and “the citizenry” has very well accepted the legitimacy of the result of the Bush-Gore election. More than not, yes, but not universally as you suggest. > [@](#): > > The number of “Gore won Florida” holdouts like yourself is infinitesimally small, as a percentage of the population. On what do you base that assertion? Seems to me the popular sentiment is “Can’t do anything about it now, Bush is President, let’s get on with it” – that’s my sentiment, too, although it may not be clear. Your insistence that Bush not only won, but won legitimately, is an evasion tactic, frankly, and I’d also suggest that it it’s more than “vanishingly small” even among Republican partisans - not that many are willing to make that claim, but the popular sentiment seems to be much the same reagardless of party. This thread is an example of a more curious, activist, and yes, nobler sentiment that all of us who have an interest in Fighting Ignorance share - what happened, why, what it means, what to do about it. **Evil Captor** and **TheRyan** , Florida 2000 is hardly a hijack, it’s in fact the most egregious example of the thread topic itself. The case cannot be made or even considered without examining examples and adding them up. If you’re bored with it, too damn bad, Chester. If you’d like to discuss or refute any of the other examples in the OP, you’re welcome to do so - but can you? **TheRyan** , if you’d discuss facts, you might be slightly convincing. That last rant shows the depth of your “arguments”, though. **Sam** , the Electoral College is an entirely different topic than partisan antidemocratic activities. I do happen to agree with you about proportionate assignment of electors if a full popular vote system is politically unfeasible, but more along the lines of the already-existing Maine and Nebraska laws in which the state winner gets the 2 Senate electors and each House district winner gets 1. Not to get too deeply into a real hijack, but that also makes the candidates pay attention to what are now non-swing states, and that is certainly in the spirit of democracy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-gop-subvert-democracy/198234.md?page=6)