They arent invincible though. There were most likely a few at least flawed ones that would fall out easily.
Even if so, which my experience suggests is not the case, without malicious efforts they would fall out in such a way that would favor neither candidate.
I must respectfully disagree with Ptahlis on this point. I believe that the first time through, a double-marked ballot might show clear evidence of intent. For example, the Buchanan chad might still be mostly attached while the Gore chad is completely removed. But if and when that Buchanan chad falls off, there is no way to identify intent.
Even if this happens one time per precinct, that’s plenty enough to skew the results of any recount.
And then, there is the F-word. I’ll cite this article only because it is the only one I’ve found that goes into such detail, but I do not vouch for its authenticity or the personal account of the convicted former California assemblyman who now works for Chuck Colson. Some of you may find it interesting, and I cannot help but notice at least a degree of plausibility in the description of the methodology used to invalidate votes.
Italics added. That wasn’t in your earlier post. We agree now; the only difference is in emphasis.
SofaKing, that was an interesting article, but it skirted the main concept - how can you make a chad come loose if it hasn’t previously been partly dislodged, especially while being watched by people motivated to find you doing so? Take one of those cards and try it yourself sometime.
The point is still that the chad discussion was a diversionary tactic, one of several, to discredit anything that might threaten Bush’s lead as his campaign chair had certified it.
I was under the impression that none of the overvotes, ones with more than one chad punched, were even under consideration. I thought it was only the undervotes, where the machine failed to find any punched chad, that were being considered. In an overvote situation, there are at least two chads punched out, either hanging or completely, to the point where light can shine through the opening. There is no way to determine intent in such a situation, since a hanging chad like that is the result of a full punch-through of the stylus.
Pthalis the chads wont fall out in a way to favor either canidate. However the only reason for the recounts was that the machines error. Which was as impartial as that:)
Yet with a higher error rate in populous, poorer, Democratic counties according to some. So…? Statistically the Democrats seem to have the stronger case if there were an agreed upon standard. Personally I favored counting all chads detached by two or more corners, simply because I have seen them time and again result from normal usage of punch cards, although it has (thankfully!) been years since I was forced to deal with the odious little critters.
Ealry on in the recount mess, didn’t Al Gore offer to meet with Dubya about (among other things) toning down the rhetoric, mending fences, and negotiating a uniform standard for a statewide recount? And didn’t Dubya slap that down?
I’d be interested if any Bush supporters can find a newspaper/news media citation from the Bush camp where they said “we’ll be glad to support a recount if a standard can be found” – because I’ve felt, from day one, that the Bushies have never wanted any recounts, and all that talk about “standards” was just bullsh*t to cover their fears.
(And remember, the reason why there were no standards for a recount was because they were never defined by the state legislature to begin with.)
I may be under the mistaken impression that due to the now unofficial nature of the count that voter intent would be taken into larger account, as a subcategory.
But this is the essence of the issue: nobody is going to know for certain. No standard will be agreed upon by politicians or historians. Each group who successfully wins their FOIA request will come up with differing standards, numbers, and subcategories. Everyone will point a finger at the other guys, claiming impropriety of some sort, be it attempted theft through the courts or delay, destruction or discretion, or party-line politics in the courtroom. Some of us will still be arguing this election four years from now.
Others will develop a life.
Don’t mind me. I’m just checking for a pulse on this horse. Yup, just as I suspected. He’s still dead.
I apologize for the interruption. Please, continue with the beatings.
No Gore did not offer this he offered to withdraw all lawsuits if Bush would and then offered a statewide recount, not a uniform standard. Of course Gore coulden’t exactly start a statewide recount, he just thought he could win with 4 democratic counties.
PunditLisa, the horse is undead!!!