# Election Problems: If it doesn't alter the outcome, it doesn't matter? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968 "2004-11-21T18:35:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/61 "2004-11-25T14:28:49Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > [http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2916692](http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2916692) > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAA… or not. This is an example of a razor-thin margin. But if the count is 32 votes, I’m not seeing any particular evidence – except desperate and hopeful speculation – that the alleged “248 irregularities” would have resulted in changing the winner. The Heflin campaign is essentially saying, “We lost by 32, and there were 248 votes that we can’t prove are valid.” Well… in ANY election, there are going to be questionable ballots. It’s not reasonable to assume otherwise. In my view, Heflin should concede. I don’t think it’s _quite_ “BWAHAHAHA” territory, but in the end, unless he has evidence of fraud, he is merely speculating. That’s insufficient to overturn official counts. Heflin should suck it up. Close, but he’s a loser. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/62 "2004-11-25T15:27:08Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > No, I’m merely mentioning it because one of the things he said in F 9/11 was that the media found Gore would have won in all scenarios, and I didn’t want anyone thinking of that quote as a cite to refute me, because I was stating up-front that it was a falsehood. ## Are you sure that Moore was talking about partial recounts such as the “four county strategy”? I don’t remember the exact quote now but I thought he was referring to the media consortium’s count that showed that if a single standard were applied in a statewide count, no matter what that standard was, then Gore always got more votes than Bush. Sure there were scenarios where some votes weren’t counted or where varying standards were applied and Bush could end up with more votes. We are living in one. ---
**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:** [November 25, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/63 "2004-11-25T16:01:44Z")
2sense: > [@](#): > > Are you sure that Moore was talking about partial recounts such as the “four county strategy”? I don’t remember the exact quote now but I thought he was referring to the media consortium’s count that showed that if a single standard were applied in a statewide count, no matter what that standard was, then Gore always got more votes than Bush. Even if Moore did limit his statement in such a way, still, one of the two recounts in the media consortium report in which Bush still came out ahead was statewide, according to that CNN link I posted. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/64 "2004-11-25T19:13:33Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Sheesh, I didn’t even _mean_ to get into an argument over what was the biggest problem with Florida 2000. Don’t start nuthin’, won’t be nuthin’. > [@](#): > > It just always seemed to me that in the aftermath of the 2000 Election Floridians got a humorously-intended reputation for stupidity based on the butterfly ballot flap. It did, and the subtext was that it was reasonable to dismiss \*all \* the problems in Florida as being similar examples of screwups/stupidity. But that just sweeps the correctable problems under the rug with the uncorrectable problems. It’s a shame that the butterfly issue even came up, because it enabled those who wanted the particular result they got to ignore the legitimacy issues. I saw you doing the same thing, and still do. > [@](#): > > In addition, there has been a major push to upgrade voting technology…, but has nothing to do with voters wrongly dropped from the rolls or otherwise disenfranchised. See above. The fraud issues must not be lumped into the technological user-friendliness issues, as you have done. > [@](#): > > Democrats have plenty of vote fraud in their history, going back to the voting dead in Chicago, up to Democrat-affiliated electioneers registering fictional characters this year. No, I asked for cites about the 2000 and 2004 election that represent a sufficient quantity to allow a reasonable person to consider them offsetting in terms of their effect on the results. I don’t think you can. > [@](#): > > What I meant by my question was, do you know for a fact that that ChoicePoint list of 8000 were, in fact, _wrongly_ disenfranchised, Etc. The story has been widely reported and discussed, both on this board and in the outside world, and I’m not going to spoonfeed it to you here. The short answer is yes by any reasonable standard, though. > [@](#): > > Yet somehow, no one thought a hand count was required to show that until 2000. Yet somehow, there hadn’t been a result close enough for it to possibly affect the outcome until 2000. Amazing, ain’t it? > [@](#): > > No, I’m merely mentioning it because one of the things he said in F 9/11 was that the media found Gore would have won in all scenarios, and I didn’t want anyone thinking of that quote as a cite to refute me, because I was stating up-front that it was a falsehood. That was a clip of Jeffrey Toobin saying it and he was wrong. The point was that a full, statewide, good-faith attempt to determine “the clear intent of the voter” under Florida law, specifically by a statewide hand recount, butterfly ballots and disenfranchisement notwithstanding, would have resulted in a Gore victory. > [@](#): > > Because a) the law had a dedline for vote count certification, which had already passed, Wrong wrong wrong. The deadline was that which, if met, would prevent any challenges from being filed against the certified slate. Electors can be seated right up until the Electoral College vote. The urgency was to forestall any chance for Gore to have the process or results reconsidered on appeal, which made the SCOTUS have to take emergency action. > [@](#): > > b) the count that SCOTUS stopped did not have a single standard for determining the validity of machine-unreadable ballots, The FSC made it clear enough that that was exactly where they were headed; a process in compliance with both the letter and spirit of the law. > [@](#): > > c) the count that SCOTUS stopped was only examining undervotes, not overvotes or otherwise ruined ballots. See above. > [@](#): > > And in addition, the CNN article I linked to indicates that if SCOTUS had not stopped the recount ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court, it would have resulted in a Bush victory, not a Gore victory as you have said. You’re reading what you want to read. Yes, if they’d done exactly what Gore asked, that is what would have happened, but their authority was not confined to that. > [@](#): > > And here I disagree. While people certainly WANT a system that is foolproof against cheating. But if the cheating did not seem to be of a magnitude that would have caused the final result to be different, they will still accept the result, and will accept that the system works to render cheating minimal and insignificant. No. Fraud that appears to be small-scale can in fact be symptomatic of large-scale fraud, and makes the results suspicious no matter the fact. We do not and must not accept it on any scale. > [@](#): > > Randomness doesn’t always cancel out. Please. If it doesn’t, that’s prima facie evidence of nonrandomness, and noninconsistency since that’s your preferred term. > [@](#): > > “All” is pretty much impossible. However, I think that _most_ of my fellow citizens do not think that Jeb Bush plotted to remove valid voters from the rolls in order to throw the 2000 election to his brother. “Most” voters aren’t as well informed as we Dopers, I dare say. > [@](#): > > But that’s not what I said. My point was that just as people don’t consider themselves safe only if they live in a town with absolutely zero murders, similarly, people do not consider an election result correct only if there was absolutely zero irregularities. Nor did anyone claim otherwise. You said what you said. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/65 "2004-11-25T19:17:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, Heflin should concede. I don’t think it’s _quite_ “BWAHAHAHA” territory, but in the end, unless he has evidence of fraud, he is merely speculating. That’s insufficient to overturn official counts. Heflin should suck it up. Close, but he’s a loser. > > - Rick Aren’t you sick of all this recount business? Why not expend some serious effort into making ballot counting as clear and unambiguous as possible? _It doesn’t need to be this imprecise_. We, the people, have the power to change it. Why don’t we? How hard would it be to do electronic voting, done by swiping in your “voter ID card” (to minimize any illegal/double voting) and also include a paper trail? Make the source code to the machines completely open source to alleviate any allegations of fraud/cronyism. The voting machines are not networked together, but must be physically carried to a counting center. Have the machines made by an independent government agency instead of a private company with heavily Republican ties. We could fucking do it. Probably with only a fraction of what it cost us to go into Iraq. And the thing that pisses me off is that the only thing thats stopping us from having a system we can all believe in is the lack of willpower to do so. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/66 "2004-11-26T00:39:54Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Even if Moore did limit his statement in such a way, still, one of the two recounts in the media consortium report in which Bush still came out ahead was statewide, according to that CNN link I posted. ## Well sure, it is possible to count the votes in such a way as to hand the election to Bush. As I said, this is what happened. But none of the scenarios that give Bush a lead count all the votes according to a single statewide standard. If I’ve missed something in the CNN story which disputes this fact then please quote the relevant part. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/67 "2004-11-26T06:14:13Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > What I meant by my question was, do you know for a fact that that ChoicePoint list of 8000 were, in fact, _wrongly_ disenfranchised, or were most pf them perhaps actual felons who were being properly weeded out of the voter rolls, as the ChoicePoint thing was meant to do? As to people who were turned away at the polls, is there an accurate demographic analysis that would indicate who the “disenfranchised” would have voted for? Most of the people on the ChoicePoint list were wrongly disenfranchised. When you refer to people turned away from the polls, do you mean people on the phoney felon scub list, or people turned away for other reasons? Either way, I’m sure that the people who were targeted for disenfanchisment were people who seemed likely to vote for Gore. African Americans in particular, a great majority of whom generally vote Democratic. > [@](#): > > And, not to confuse the issue here - I am NOT saying that that disenfranchisement was not a serious problem. My whole point earlier had merely been that I saw the butterfly ballot, rather than the disenfranchisement issue, as having become the icon of Florida 2000 screw-ups. Not that both weren’t important. I think those who were pleased to have Bush declared the winner were inclined to believe (or promote) the idea that the main factor was the butterfly ballot. This enabled them to say that if the would-be Gore voters made mistakes it was their own fault. They don’t want to admit that the phoney felon scrub list was a major factor. Being improperly removed from the voter rolls because of a false allegation that one was a felon cannot possibly be blamed on any mistake made by the person improperly removed. > [@](#): > > No, I’m merely mentioning it because one of the things he said in F 9/11 was that the media found Gore would have won in all scenarios, and I didn’t want anyone thinking of that quote as a cite to refute me, because I was stating up-front that it was a falsehood. The only scenario that mattered was, if a complete recount were done, who was the winner? (In other words, who really won?) The answer was Gore. I can’t see that it’s of any importance what the result would have been with this or that partial recount. What mattered was to determine who the rightful winner was. And, yes, I know that Gore did not demand a total recount. Well, it shouldn’t have been _up_ to Gore! One of the lessons of the 2000 debacle was that _we need better rules!_ Under better rules, there would have been a complete recount. > [@](#): > > …I think that _most_ of my fellow citizens do not think that Jeb Bush plotted to remove valid voters from the rolls in order to throw the 2000 election to his brother. Oh? Well, _I_ believe there was a plot to see to it that Bush won Florida. I don’t know if the ringleader was Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris. It may be that Jeb did not personally engage in any plotting; he would not have needed to. His people knew that they were expected to do whatever it took to see to it that the Governor’s brother won the state. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/68 "2004-11-26T17:29:57Z")
> [@Hazel](#): > > Oh? Well, _I_ believe there was a plot to see to it that Bush won Florida. I don’t know if the ringleader was Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris. It may be that Jeb did not personally engage in any plotting; he would not have needed to. His people knew that they were expected to do whatever it took to see to it that the Governor’s brother won the state. I believe that prayer is effacacious in healing the sick. In order for me to advance that belief in a debate, however, I must present more than my belief. I must show evidence. I cannot tell you, “Prove that prayer doesn’t work!” It’s for the person making the claim to provide the evidence. I can’t point to a couple of cases in which persons were prayed for and then recovered. I can’t even point to a case in which a legitimate medical miracle has occurred - say, the rabies case in which the girl survived without a rabies vaccination, the only example of a person ever to beat rabies. She was, of course, the subject of much prayer, but as persuasive as I might find it, that’s simply not evidence in a debate setting. I believe that similar standards apply to your claim. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/69 "2004-11-26T18:16:54Z")
**Bricker** , the debate between **Hazel** and **cmkeller** is about _perception_. I don’t think your analogy applies. In a more appropriate analogy, you wouldn’t have to prove that prayer heals, only that _you believe_ that it does (or perhaps how widespread that belief was, in the case of public perception claims). But perhaps the burden is on **cmkeller** to provide a cite for the claim that _"most_ US citizens do not believe the 2000 Fla election was rigged", since that was the originating assertion? And perhaps you would like to tell us how important _perception_ is when presenting a case to a jury? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/70 "2004-11-26T18:50:18Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > **Bricker** , the debate between **Hazel** and **cmkeller** is about _perception_. I don’t think your analogy applies. If the debate is about perception, then my analogy still applies: it’s merely necessary to show facts (not anecdotes) relating to how wide-spread a particular perception is. But given that they are both offering examples of actual incidents, not surveys or other indicia of public perception, I’m not sure I agree with your… er… perception … that the debate is about perception. > [@](#): > > But perhaps the burden is on **cmkeller** to provide a cite for the claim that _"most_ US citizens do not believe the 2000 Fla election was rigged", since that was the originating assertion? Well, although he made that assertion, he’s asserting the negative of **Hazel** ’s argument. I’d say it’s on **Hazel** to show that most DO. > [@](#): > > And perhaps you would like to tell us how important _perception_ is when presenting a case to a jury? Very important… but of course, perception is driven (ideally, anyway) by the facts in evidence. When you argue your case at the conclusion of the trial, you argue from the facts in evidence. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/71 "2004-11-26T23:07:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …I’m not sure I agree with your… er… perception … that the debate is about perception. I didn’t mean the main debate as put forth in the OP, just the particular assertion that “most people do not believe that the 2000 election was rigged”. Without a cite, how is that anything but perception? I can’t speak for **Hazel** , but rather than citing polls, I’d probably just call it for what it is - a logical fallacy. Regardless of what most people do or do not believe, that doesn’t make it fact, does it? But since you’re saying that cited public perception is acceptable evidence… Here is a [NY Times Poll](http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/10/31/politics/20041101_POLL_RESULTS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1101507892-Fqzv+OODr2yvixEnAvQ7ww). See page 28, question 66. It charts how many people viewed the 2000 election as legitimate (over time between 2001 - 2004). In the last week of October 2004, it was 50% legitimate, 45% not legitimate, 5% don’t know. > [@](#): > > Very important… but of course, perception is driven (ideally, anyway) by the facts in evidence. When you argue your case at the conclusion of the trial, you argue from the facts in evidence. Sure, _ideally_. But in the real world, logical fallacies are often employed, because _they work_. They can and do drive perception. And as you admit, perception is very important. In the real world, can we afford to ignore public perception, regardless of the facts in evidence? If 50% of the public no longer perceive elections to be legitimate (or aren’t sure they are), lack of hard evidence becomes secondary to that perception. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/72 "2004-11-27T07:12:12Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > In the real world, can we afford to ignore public perception, regardless of the facts in evidence? If 50% of the public no longer perceive elections to be legitimate (or aren’t sure they are), lack of hard evidence becomes secondary to that perception. Here’s something Bricker might pay attention to: **It’d be a good strategy for the Republican Party.** Responding to these fears (some well justified) with “tough shit, its good enough” doesn’t help you. Joining the movement for more accurate voting will earn you _more_ votes in future elections by assuaging fears of some undecideds out there, and perhaps bolstering your weak majority in Congress by an even greater margin. Interested now? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/73 "2004-11-29T20:01:51Z")
Has [this article](http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm) been posted anywhere in these pages yet? Either way, what’s the reaction? While I’m not ready to start screaming that I don’t live in a free state yet, I’m hopeful that these things will continue to be watched and won’t be forgotten due to inertia. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/74 "2004-12-01T00:44:23Z")
ElvisL1ves: > [@](#): > > Don’t start nuthin’, won’t be nuthin’. It was just meant as an illustration of how, despite the best efforts of everyone to make things work smoothly, screw-ups are inevitable. I realize that I used the word “biggest”, and that seems to be what you’ve been arguing about all this time, and quite frankly, I could care less whether it was the biggest, the smallest, or rank 15 out of 52, OK? It was something that stood in the way of an election properly reflecting the intent of the voters, although precautions that were thought reasonable were taken to ensure that it would work right. > [@](#): > > No, I asked for cites about the 2000 and 2004 election that represent a sufficient quantity to allow a reasonable person to consider them offsetting in terms of their effect on the results. I don’t think you can. I don’t have to. (And nasty as that disenfrancisement thing was, I think it was still more error than deliberate fraud, if at all.) My point was not to prove that the net effect WAS negligible in a SPECIFIC election, my point was that the people realize in the general sense that fraud is not 100% preventable, and are willing to accept electoral results despite that because the fraud is not so pervasive that it is seen as affecting the result. Of course, that is only true when the election is not particularly close (remember, that’s the whole issue raised by the OP - why people don’t seem to care unless it’s a close election). > [@](#): > > Wrong wrong wrong. The deadline was that which, if met, would prevent any challenges from being filed against the certified slate. Electors can be seated right up until the Electoral College vote. Wrong wrong wrong yourself. That is true of any _federal_ deadline for seating the electors, but there was a _state_ deadline on result certification imposed by the Florida state legislature. > [@](#): > > The FSC made it clear enough that that was exactly where they were headed; a process in compliance with both the letter and spirit of the law. Clear to you, maybe. I didn’t see them saying anything about enforcing uniform standards. > [@](#): > > You’re reading what you want to read. Yes, if they’d done exactly what Gore asked, that is what would have happened, but their authority was not confined to that. (also relevant to **2sense** ’s request for the relevant quote): From the CNN Article: > [@](#): > > Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore. That’s not “exactly what Gore asked”, I’m not thus implying such a limit on the Florida Supreme Court’s authority. Unless I’m misreading what they meant by “the standard most local election officials said they would have used” (seems to me it means the single standard that was most common amongst local officials, although I’ll allow this could be interpreted to mean “each vote counted based on locally-used, but varying standards”), the CNN article reports that using that standard, counting statewide, Bush would have won. > [@](#): > > No. Fraud that appears to be small-scale can in fact be symptomatic of large-scale fraud, It can, but you need more evidence than its mere existence to imply that it is. > [@](#): > > and makes the results suspicious no matter the fact. Only if the results are within the margin that would have been altered by the number of suspected fraudulent votes. > [@](#): > > We do not and must not accept it on any scale. “It” being fraud? That’s why we have laws to ban and prosecute it. That doesn’t sound like “acceptance” to me. “It” meaning the result? I disagree. If the margin of victory is beyond any reasonable estimate of suspected fraudulent votes, it’s foolish to continue arguing that the election is illegitimate. > [@](#): > > “Most” voters aren’t as well informed as we Dopers, I dare say. “Most” people aren’t as well-informed about the human mind as Freud was either, but often enough, the cigar is just a cigar. Hazel: > [@](#): > > Most of the people on the ChoicePoint list were wrongly disenfranchised. > > When you refer to people turned away from the polls, do you mean people on the phoney felon scub list, or people turned away for other reasons? Either way, I’m sure that the people who were targeted for disenfanchisment were people who seemed likely to vote for Gore. African Americans in particular, a great majority of whom generally vote Democratic. I was referring to the people on the scrub list, and even though it’s true that the majority, being African-Americans, were likely to have been Gore voters, you don’t know how many of those were actually going to go to the polls at all. > [@](#): > > I think those who were pleased to have Bush declared the winner were inclined to believe (or promote) the idea that the main factor was the butterfly ballot. I think you’re wrong about that. > [@](#): > > Oh? Well, I believe there was a plot to see to it that Bush won Florida. I don’t know if the ringleader was Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris. It may be that Jeb did not personally engage in any plotting; he would not have needed to. His people knew that they were expected to do whatever it took to see to it that the Governor’s brother won the state. Then boy, did they do a piss-poor job of it. W may have squeaked over the finish line there in 2000, but the contest was way, way too close to think that someone high up was trying to get a fix in. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/75 "2004-12-01T04:45:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore. I saw that part. I just didn’t think it referred to a single standard but rather to a count using the standard each election official said they would use. Now though it seems I was wrong. Maybe I missed the word “most”. Hmmm. I guess I’ll go look for the study itself. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/76 "2004-12-01T14:47:12Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > t was just meant as an illustration of how, despite the best efforts of everyone to make things work smoothly, screw-ups are inevitable. I realize that I used the word “biggest”, and that seems to be what you’ve been arguing about all this time, and quite frankly, I could care less whether it was the biggest, the smallest, or rank 15 out of 52, OK? Not gonna work, friend - it was the only subject you were willing to discuss in detail, and the only one you seem informed about either, frankly. > [@](#): > > I don’t have to. No, only if you want your view to be accepted as not only reasonable but based on a consideration of the facts. Your choice, though. > [@](#): > > (And nasty as that disenfrancisement thing was, I think it was still more error than deliberate fraud, if at all.) Unfortunately the available evidence says the reverse. Your basis for your belief is unfounded. > [@](#): > > My point was not to prove that the net effect WAS negligible in a SPECIFIC election, my point was that the people realize in the general sense that fraud is not 100% preventable, and are willing to accept electoral results despite that because the fraud is not so pervasive that it is seen as affecting the result. Of course, that is only true when the election is not particularly close (remember, that’s the whole issue raised by the OP - why people don’t seem to care unless it’s a close election). The exception swallows the rule. > [@](#): > > Wrong wrong wrong yourself. That is true of any _federal_ deadline for seating the electors, but there was a _state_ deadline on result certification imposed by the Florida state legislature. No indeed. The deadline was the one after which no challenge could be made. The hurry was to prevent Gore from getting his day in court. > [@](#): > > Clear to you, maybe. I didn’t see them saying anything about enforcing uniform standards. Some horses just won’t drink. > [@](#): > > It can, but you need more evidence than its mere existence to imply that it is. You need more than faith to be sure that it is not, and especially to convince others. Simple responsibility requires one to look into it, not dismiss it out of hand. > [@](#): > > Only if the results are within the margin that would have been altered by the number of suspected fraudulent votes. You’re runnning around in a small, tight circle - you don’t know the extent of the fraud until you investigate it, and you refuse to investigate if it can’t be proven to you that it was extensive enough. There’s an easy _and_ responsible way to break out of that circle, of course. > [@](#): > > “It” being fraud? That’s why we have laws to ban and prosecute it. That doesn’t sound like “acceptance” to me. From earlier in _this very same post of yours_: > [@cmkeller](#): > > my point was that the people realize in the general sense that fraud is not 100% preventable, and are willing to accept electoral results despite that because the fraud is not so pervasive that it is seen as affecting the result But there is no way to be sure of the extent of the fraud, is there? Not as long as there are persons with your level of faith who refuse to allow a serious investigation. And therefore there is no way to be confident of the integrity of the results - unless you really \*want \* to believe. Your guy got in. Be happy with that. There is no need to fool yourself, and insult the rest of us, by claiming that it was the result of any higher principle than that. > [@](#): > > I was referring to the people on the scrub list, and even though it’s true that the majority, being African-Americans, were likely to have been Gore voters, you don’t know how many of those were actually going to go to the polls at all. Please. They were not only registered to vote, for the most part they actually did show up and were turned away. That argument was beneath you. > [@](#): > > I think you’re wrong about that. Then you could show it for your own case by discussing a different topic in depth. > [@](#): > > Then boy, did they do a piss-poor job of it. W may have squeaked over the finish line there in 2000, but the contest was way, way too close to think that someone high up was trying to get a fix in. So to you Bush’s win was evidence that there was _no_ large-scale fix? Talk about topsy-turvy reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/77 "2004-12-01T15:11:54Z")
Since I don’t want to open a new thread, and it seems to fit pretty well here, does anybody have opinions about the Ohio courts stopping the recount that Badnarik and Cobb requested? I’m having a hard time maintaining perspective, but it sure smells like the people in charge are making decisions based on bias rather than principle. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/78 "2004-12-02T00:03:03Z")
ElvisL1ves: > [@](#): > > Not gonna work, friend - it was the only subject you were willing to discuss in detail, and the only one you seem informed about either, frankly. Are you trying to tell me that my responses in this thread indicate an unwillingness to discuss the other election problems? > [@](#): > > Unfortunately the available evidence says the reverse…You need more than faith to be sure that it is not, and especially to convince others. Simple responsibility requires one to look into it, not dismiss it out of hand…Then you could show it for your own case by discussing a different topic in depth. Not that I need to prove anything to you, but…sure. Here’s a juicy little topic to discuss: > [@](#): > > So to you Bush’s win was evidence that there was no large-scale fix? Talk about topsy-turvy reasoning. Not at all. My reasoning is that it’s completely illogical to think that if one’s goal is to fix an election involving seven million potential voters for a certain candidate, that disqualifying a mere 8,000 (even if every single one of them was a guaranteed valid, present-at-the-polls, Gore voter) is going to do the trick. It’s completely illogical to think that there was some sort of plot between the Florida state Repubs and ChoicePoint (based on ChoicePoint’s CEO’s love for the Republican party) when the system had been in place for two years prior and wasn’t even ChoicePoint’s system originally. It’s completely illogical to think that if there was some state-level fix, that the use of the ChoicePoint list would be left to the discretion of county election supervisors (some of whom did in fact decline the use thereof) rather than be made mandatory. Any notion that the disenfranchisement of the voters on that ChoicePoint list was a deliberate attempt to fix the election relies on a Rube Goldberg device of a plot, with every component made of tissue paper. I can’t stop you from thinking it was deliberate if you wish to, but if you think it’s your reasoning that’s straight and my reasoning that’s topsy-turvy, you’ve mistaken your spoon for a mirror and vice versa. The ironic thing is that the whole “voter scrub list” thing practically proves my original point and response to the OP, before my choice of example became the big issue of discussion. There wouldn’t even have been a voter scrub list in Florida if not for widespread fraud which benefited the Democratic side (and I AM NOT saying it was orchestrated) in the 1997 Miami mayoral election, with thousands of ineligible votes being cast. But in trying to correct the problem, legislators, being human, erred even more on the other side, and now thousands of votes that should have been cast ended up not being cast. People figure that the elections are reasonably honest and that some level of inaccuracy - one way or the other - is inevitable, that any attempt at fixing problems is itself doomed to imperfection. As long as the imperfection isn’t big enough to affect the overall result - which it was in 2000, but wasn’t most of the time otherwise - people shrug their shoulders and accept the result, figuring that there’s little improvement to be gained by picking away at moot problems. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/79 "2004-12-02T14:02:28Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > **Bricker** , the debate between **Hazel** and **cmkeller** is about _perception_. I don’t think your analogy applies. > > In a more appropriate analogy, you wouldn’t have to prove that prayer heals, only that _you believe_ that it does (or perhaps how widespread that belief was, in the case of public perception claims). > > But perhaps the burden is on **cmkeller** to provide a cite for the claim that _"most_ US citizens do not believe the 2000 Fla election was rigged", since that was the originating assertion? > > And perhaps you would like to tell us how important _perception_ is when presenting a case to a jury? **Annapluabelle** has it right. I was replying to a statement about what most people think. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968/80 "2004-12-02T14:06:41Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Here is a [NY Times Poll](http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/10/31/politics/20041101_POLL_RESULTS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1101507892-Fqzv+OODr2yvixEnAvQ7ww). See page 28, question 66. It charts how many people viewed the 2000 election as legitimate (over time between 2001 - 2004). In the last week of October 2004, it was 50% legitimate, 45% not legitimate, 5% don’t know Very interesting. Thanks for the info. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-problems-if-it-doesnt-alter-the-outcome-it-doesnt-matter/275968.md?page=5)