but Sam the judge that ruled earlier today was a democrat, ruled in Bush’s favor.
(gotta get the program to know all the players ya know).
I agree that once the Supreme Court rules we should all take a chill pill. No, wait, let’s take that chill pill right now.
Ok. I’ll buy that. It also seems to me to be totally fair to use the Texas law as standard as presumably this standard has already been endorsed by Bush.
I just read that California is 2 corners, but Massachusetts goes along with Texas on this.
Depends on which law you look at. By Florida Law, Gore is entitled to request a hand recount on a per-district basis. The local canvassing board has authority to say yes or no. Has has asked for his recount, and now he is getting it.
Now, I might agree that taking his fight to the people would be a bad thing. But not for the reasons you stated. The various laws of Fla seem to be in conflict here.
You can only claim ‘the law supports my side’ if you look at it selectively in this case. There are laws that back up the Gore position as well.
No, taking the fight to the people would be bad because it’s devisive. It would be better for the country to admit that Bush stole the election fair and square concede.
In late breaking news, the Fla Supreme Court has ruled that the SOS may not certify results until they say so. That may or may not be monday. But in any case, I agree. This should be the last shot fired. Wherever we end up when the Fla Supremes rule should be the end.
Talk of this going to the national Supreme Court is nonsense. That would be a clear violation of state Sovrenity IMO.
I disagree. I think that Terry Lewis, for instance, has been a model of proper justice. He ruled on the law and on the questions that were asked of him. He offered no opinions and IMHO, his rulings were completely correct.
The Supreme Court in Fla so far has done nothing other than to affirm the rulings of lower courts and to enjoin the SOS from certifying results before the legal battle is over. Once again, I see no evidence of partiality in their behavior so far.
tj
Wing, first, my apologies to the BBorder whose handle is long, starts with M, but who is not Manhattan. I made a mistake.
Mechanical counts are less prone to error by many reasons. They are too numeros to explain. If you can’t understand even that, there is no point. Consider that it was the main reason to count mechanically in the first place. (Yes, machines are faster, but this is secondary. We can wait. Just proved it.)
These cards were designed to be counted mechanically. The machines were designed to count them by certain rules, e.g., “if the hole is incomplete, it’s not counted”.
A machine counts all incomplete holes uniformly, by the same criteria. A human must make a new decision for each incomplete hole, like “is it partially incomplete or completely incomplete, what a voter had in mind, is the chad hanging by one corner or by two corners and what was its original hanging position”. Etc. Replacing one counting device with another would be inconceivable in any scientific study. It brings with it a whole new set of errors. In election it also brings a new set of rules. Doing the recount of “mechanical” cards with anything but the machines they were designed for, is incorrect (unless a new device was reliably shown to give ststistically indistinguishable results). So, if any doubts existed, a recount with the same machines would bring new results. Then they should be averaged with the original results and used as new, more precise results. Recounting 100 times, by machines, could give still more precise results.
But that’s how things are done scientifically. Politically, they are done differently. I.e. the cards will be counnted till Algore declared winner.
You are mistaken. That’s only true if you define “error” as “holes that aren’t punched to specifications”.
Where as, the real meaning of error here is “Votes that were made, but not picked up by the counting process”. This second is the only defensible definition of “error” in the context of an election.
The fact that punch cards are made to be read by machines is irrelevant. People can read them just as accurately (though much more slowly). Not only that, but people can read with 100% accuracy if they are willing to take the time to do so. (Think forensics). Machines can NEVER be more accurate than when they were first made in 1960, and will get steadly less accurate as they age.
Also, there is noting at all “impartial” about using punch cards in democratic destricts and the more accurate optical scan system in republican districts. To be REALLY fair, we would have to use the same ballot and the same equipment everywhere.
tj
Um. Only if he had the most votes in the first place. You can’t count votes that weren’t made. Unless you are alleging fraud, of course. Are you?
tj
You are my kinda person, TJ.
A good friend of mine keeps asking me what the hell is up with the Bush/Republican story, and how they are justifying their position. She continues to be amazed that they can say the things they are saying and really expect that anyone buys it.
While I can recite it, the idea that anybody really buys it, in their hearts, continues to be disheartening to me. It’s almost preferable to think that those who are spouting the B/R line on this know that it is junk but hew to it for partisan reasons than to accept that they actually believe this hooey.
Sigh… I’m drained with it all. And very, very happy, by the way. I’m so glad the SC of FL stopped Bush from simply seizing the presidency. That was really gonna depress me.
stoid
who still can’t get a damn thing done even though she knows there won’t be any real news til next week
Stoid I find it disheartening that people would form such negative opinions on so little tainted information.
Bush supporters can’t argue their positions very well because of the lack of information, and neither can Gore supporters. However hand recounting “for the best count” sounds better. My only problem with it is I see no reason why it should be done past the first recount required by law. If you ask for another recount you obviously want Gore to win, not the best accuracy because Gore is losing and recounts could only help Gore, and IMHO if all the recounts only help Gore that means that they are innacurate(or that the first ones were innacurate take your pick).
Stoid, if you truely want a accurate count why don’t you support Bushes threats to recount states like New Mexico?
(btw I claim that there will be fraud, why woulden’t it happen in this election? Everything else has.)
The first recount was another machine count. The count that is happening now is the first full hand count. (I say full, because previously we have had a hand count of 1% of ballots to determine if there was any reason to believe that a full handcount would have any effect.
The answer to that question was yes. Then Broward did the full hand count. Palm Beach delayed to start their full count until told by the courts that that was OK.
Dade county just decided today that a full count was in order.
In each case, this is the first full hand count to be done in each of these counties.
Then you have to also belive that the fraud would happen in plain sight of the republican/democratic observers of the counting process.
Fraud is a lot easier to get away with if you do it before people start watching your hands. 
Say by distributing pre-punched ballots to democratic polling places. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,34812,00.html
by the way, does any one know of “The Times” in london is a reputable paper? I’d feel better if this was the BBC reporting it.
Incidently, I recommend the BBC Coverage of the US election. They seem to check their facts and IMO are immune to the spin of the parties. BBC News | AMERICAS | Q and A: What is taking so long?
Ironic, but whenever I want the straight dope on what is going on in the US. The BBC news is one of the places I turn to. (I’m a US Citizen living in Wisconsin ;))
tj
Took me a while to find it again, but here’s a link to a report through a news service (not, please note, a campaign web site) ABC news (which AFAIK, does not have substantial links to either party).
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/florida_election_recount_001116.html
In it, it answers questions and gives information about how so many votes were miscounted the first time, taking up the challenge of “why so many more for GOre” and INCLUDES information about many recount differences, some of questionable nature, favoring each candidate (some for Bush, some for Gore, roughly the same number)
My concern is that those who talk about the “handling of the ballots means there’s less likely to be accurate” have not supported this statement with anything. In this article, they quote the Palm Beach Director of Public Affairs (party affiliation is not noted) who talks candidly about those “chads” While I don’t believe this will convince anyone, at least it’s SOME specific information that can be cited vs. the bulk of folks’ statements without any support. See ya.
"Regardless of whether one or both chad are fully or partially detached, that would be a double vote, and thus an invalid ballot.
tj "
Can somebody give me a reference for this? I’ve been looking around on the 'net for the hand re-counting standards to be used, and haven’t found anything. Are they even in writing?
And another question: The consensus seems to be that a ballot where one candidate’s “chad” is fully detached and another candidate’s “chad” is partially detached is invalid.
Assuming that Palm Beach County also counts “dimpled chads” as votes, then it would also make sense that a ballot where, say, Buchanan’s “chad” is ever so slightly dimpled and Gore’s “chad” is fully punched should be invalidated.
Thus, it would seem that every ballot would need to be carefully scrutinized, held up to the light, etc.
This is troubling for two reasons:
First, realistically, such scrutiny isn’t likely to happen. What I mean is, if you are a vote counter, and you have a ballot where one candidate is clearly punched, and no other candidate is clearly punched, you’re not likely to take the time to really look carefully at that ballot in a quest for “dimples.”
Another problem is that in many cases you would be frustrating the will of the voter. For example, I’m sure many voters were told to “punch the card all the way through.” I’m speculating a little here, but I bet that many of the people in the “confusing ballot” county first “dimpled” the Buchanan “chad,” and then punched Gore all the way through. IMHO, such people reasonably could have assumed that they had validly voted for Gore, especially if they were told that that ballots have to be punched all the way through.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy *
**
I have NEVER heard anyone call Reagan “Your President” - where do you get this “most Democrats” stuff? As for the questioning of Clinton’s legitimacy, Limbaugh has been hammering on that one for the last 8 years, and DeLay and Armey pretty widely reported to be making that case to help justify impeachment.
But it is indeed all “partisan crap”. No question.
Just like there’s no question it’s damaging to the country.
Tejota, I basically agree, but…
A machine is set to count “full” holes as holes, everything else as “no holes”. Uniformely. Therefore, if “holes were not punctured to specifications”, they are not counted. To me it’s fair, because:
“People can read them just as accurately (though much more slowly)” is not true. People can count eggs, 12 per box. They cannot count millions. “Much more slowly” implies fatigue. The analogy with bathroom scale, somebody gave here yesterday, is incorrect, because bathroom scale measures ‘continuum’, i.e. weight can be any infenitesimal number. We are talking about measuring ‘discreet’ category here. Machines made in 1960 are still more accurate than people made in 1960 and before.
If you or Algore think that he lost because of inacurate count, what makes you think it was “inacurate” only for him? And that any recount, machine or human, will make it into his favor? Today, the absentee votes were counted and they made Bush lead greater. How many times will they be recounted?
Q<<To be REALLY fair, we would have to use the same ballot and the same equipment everywhere.>>
I couldn’t agree more. In my “democratic” state, I was “forced” to put all switches to either position to unblock the curtain-opening lever. No “recounting” is even possible.
And again, I think that by disputing the results, especially in this persistent, tacky way, Algore is digging a deeper and deeper political grave for himself. If GWB will concede to him now, will he be able to be an “effective” president?
First of all peace I believe that if you identified the candidates correctly, your point wouldn’t sound so biased. The name is Gore. Or Al Gore. Just as his opponent is Bush or George W. Bush.
And I would suggest that you spend time researching the ballots themselves, by the manufacturers and the different states etc. Machine counting these punchcard ballots is inherantly LESS accurate than manual counts because the machine will NOT discern a vote counted when the chad is hanging at all, where as a human can clearly do that. Since these things hang a certain percentage, that will disallow that certain percentage. While the percentage is low (I’ve heard around 5%), that still means that in MANY elections (many have a small percentage difference between the candidates), the wrong person may be seen as the winner.
In addition, when you add in the factor that these ballots that are more prone to errors are used in larger urban districts that tend (in this case at least) to have GENERALLY favored one candidate over another, that bias will effect one in substantially higher proportions. So, when you have a state wide election, where the winner got less than one percent of the vote more than the looser, AND, the looser had substantially more support in areas where the method of counting the ballots was more flawed, then you have a real problem.
So, even if the “errors” are even across the ballots (not candidates, ballots) this is what would happen: Statewide difference of less than one percent, raw vote difference of 1000 votes. 5 districts that favor the looser use this flawed system. 100,000 ballots in one area using the flawed system, the vote goes 65/35 with the looser gaining 65% of that vote. This translates to 65,000 votes - but with an error rate of 5%, will only show to be 61,750, a loss of 3250 votes. The other side, with 35,000 actual votes would loose ony 1750 of them. So, there’s 1500 additional votes that would have made the difference in the election. Times 5 counties…
And. Frankly, I’ve said it repeatedly. I believe that after all the chads have settled, that Bush will indeed be declared the winner. HOWEVER. If those ballots had NOT been counted, his presidency would suffer for 4 years of “yea buts” , a cloud that would not be easy to overcome.
Wring, I’m not as sophisticated. Somewhere in the middle of your example I got lost. Besides, you a priori presume, that big cities are democratic…In other words, you already know that they will go to AG…, before the election, what’s the point? Let’s do polls, it’s cheaper and brings the needed results.
My arithmetic: 101 votes was for GWB, 100 for AG. Five in each bunch had “hanging chads”. So, 96 votes are counted vs. 95. A very slim margin. But still.
Q<<Machine counting these punchcard ballots is inherantly LESS accurate than manual counts because the machine will NOT discern a vote counted when the chad is hanging at all, where as a human can clearly do that.>> Exactly. It will defeat the purpose of machine counting, which was designed to be impartial and count only “clear/full” holes. A human wonders “why a chad is hanging?” Each human answers this question differently from another one and from herself at different times. There are millions voter-related and voter-unreleted reasons for chad hanging. We try to determine the voter’s wish, but with punch-cards, it’s impossible to do precisely. These imperfections create “the error”. Machines cannot eliminate it, but they can balance it. Humans add to it.
My posts may give a false impression that I am for GWB. I am not. I simply think that any recounting brings more confusion and it’s ain’t right to make noise now, when one looks like a loser, actual or perceived. A virtual incumbent, at economically advantageous times, running against no one (or not much, anyway) could not clearly win. Concede magninimosly, be a man, not a whining lawyer, and you’ll beat GWB easily in four years. But be is not only contemptuous, he also can’t see far.
I haven’t seen anyone arguing against Bush’s right to ask for recounts in the other close states (New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Iowa). I certainly support his right to do so.
Having said that, however, I think that it is important to recognize that without Florida, Bush would have to win 3 out of 4 of these states with one of them being Wisconsin. And, while New Mexico seems about as close as Florida, the other 3 are a fair bit less close (although I heard that there may still be votes outstanding in Oregon). Thus, I think it is disingenius when the Bush camp tries to present their decision not to contest a state like Iowa as an example of being better sports about it. My guess is that the decision was in fact made because they recognize what a long shot it is that they could win recounts in enough of these other states to swing the election.
Peace, can I make a suggestion? when you’re quoting some one use <quote> (replace the < with [ and > with ] and their name, then do </quote> (replacing the <> again). that way, it’s easier for people like me with bad eyesite to figure out when you’re quoting and when you’re replying.
Anyhow. Ok, I made the presumption about the relative numbers of votes based on prior years votes. While it’s possible that folks would change, if a county went 70/30 last year Democratic, it’s probable that it won’t be 50/50 this year. Not exact, but gives you an better idea (also all the counties involved had exit poll numbers greater than the numbers I was suggesting). I wasn’t suggesting that we replace voting with polls, I was supporting the basis of why those ballots harmed Gore more proportionally than Bush.
The point is, if the votes are roughly 50/50 you’re right, the problems with the machines will effect both probably in roughly equal numbers. However, the ballots that have this higher (like 5%) rate of problems were used in areas that tended to vote highly democratic, so while the NUMBER of ballots screwed up would be a constant, it would effect the vote differently. Consider this: if you had a box of 100,00 apples and oranges 50/50 mix and reached in and randomly picked 5% out, you’d be likely to roughly pick out about a 50/50 mix. HOWEVER, if the mix in the box was more like 60/40 apples over oranges, you’d be likely to roughly pick out more apples than oranges. that was the point. DOes that help?
And more about the chads… god. Hell. I’ll just give you a link to the “Internation Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance” where it discusses chads.
http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/em/emf02/default.htm
The machines would erroneously NOT count a ballot with a hanging chad. This happens. Even if it only happens 5% of the time, in the case it would make the difference. Humans can see and count that vote. The machine cannot. That is why, in a close race, the human count is prefered, and considered to be more accurate.
I understand your point about the next election (by which time hopefully, we’ll have fixed all these bugs), but I think it’s important for whoever lands at the W/H to not have a cloud hanging over their head. I fear if we don’t at least do this recount, that cloud will be there. I really believe (and have said over and over) that I think even WITH the recount, Bush will win.
I couldn’t decide where to put my first post and this seemed like as good a place as any. In all of this discussion no one but me seems to be wondering why both parties chose to run such unapalatable candidates. Both have so many problems in their past, that in my more paranoid moments all of this feels like the quintessential “divide and conquer” since everyone knew there would be no “Democrats for Bush” or “Republicans for Gore”. Both camps are probably sitting behind closed doors chuckling to themselves while hand in hand they plan something for us that no one will like. In my less paranoid moments I am merely amused.
Wring, I’ll try.
Wring:The machines would erroneously NOT count a ballot with a hanging chad. This happens. Even if it only happens 5% of the time, in the case it would make the difference. Humans can see and count that vote. The machine cannot. That is why, in a close race, the human count is prefered, and considered to be
It seems that we differ in our viewpoints: I think that, since “a hanging chad/incomplete hole” may have many human and non-human causes, it should never be counted, mechanically nor manually. Because neither a machine nor a human can each and every time guess correctly the reason, e.g., voter’s intention, lousy paper, “spontaneous” puncture, etc. I understand, Wring, that, in general, humans are better (in bed, for instance), but not at counting (anything; OK, counting contestants in “Ms. America” pagent, perhaps, but we are dealing with low numbers there. BTW, can I volunteer to “recount” them?) . That’s the main reason (not the speed) machines were introduced.
I hope that all sides will learn the lesson and in 2004 we all will vote by one uniform system, electronically or electically, but not with error-prone punch-card macines (BTW, I could not buy punch-cards in Boston 25 years ago. I needed them to continue a research project started long time ago using p-cards. Young salespeople never even saw them)
Pop:discussion no one but me seems to be wondering why both parties chose to run such unapalatable candidates.
Both parties did not, we did. I mean, we had primaries. I was not crazy about John McCain, but he looked better than the alternative. Of course, it would be great if a Tom Jefferson ran, but they do not make ‘em anymore…
Here’s an example of how you can bias the handcount, even with a Republican watching:
First, most ballots will be fine. Those are going to go by pretty fast. The Democrat picking up the ballots sees one for Gore, with a slight dimple on Buchanan. He says, “Another good one”, and passes it on. The other Democrat agrees. The Republican glances at it, it looks okay. It goes in the ‘good’ pile.
The next one has a hole punched for Bush, but a dimple on ‘Browne’. THIS time, the Democrat says, “Uh oh, questionable ballot!” Now they argue about it, and maybe it gets counted for Bush and maybe it doesn’t.
The point is that the person doing the initial screening of the cards can bias the choice of ‘questionable’ ballots, because there’s no way that all three people are going to subject ALL of them to heavy scrutiny.
Another factor - I understand that there are often two Democrats and one Republican working together. If that’s the case, then the Democrats have four eyes working on spotting ballots that favor their guy, while the Republicans only have two. That introduces even more bias.
There are also cases of the standards for determining valid ballots changing DURING the process. This should never happen. That introduces selective bias.
What should have happened is that Bush should have accepted Gore’s offer to re-count the entire state. Then all recounting should have stopped until some clear, uniform standards were adopted which are acceptable to both sides. Then count ONCE, and certify the election no matter how close the re-count comes out.
But this thing is going to be won by the side that has the most clever lawyers and the most Machiavellian ‘ground’ people, unless the Supreme Court of Florida shuts the whole process down on Monday.