Chads are the partially punched holes rejected by most ballot counting machines.

"Several thousand ballots in Palm Beach County had been mechanically rejected last week because machines could not detect punched votes in the cards."

There are a variety of reasons why these occur... perhaps the ballot punch lever was not operating properly, perhaps an elderly voter did not have the strength to apply enough force. For whatever reason, these chads are a valuable indication of the intent of the voter, and deserve the right to at least be inspected, which is something that machines do not do.

Here is a precedent for this issue, apparently established in a 1956 case in the state of Massachusetts...

"The Will of the Voters

All parties to a recount should keep in mind in their examination of the ballots that the will of the voters, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty, must be given effect. If the marks on the ballot fairly indicate the voter's intent, the vote should be counted in accordance with that intent, as long as the voter has essentially complied with the election law. The voter is not to be disenfranchised because of minor irregularities. Where, however, the ballot is marked in a way that leaves the intent of the voter unclear, the vote should not be counted (see Examples of Contested Ballot Marks).

Kane v. Registrars of Voters, 328 Mass. 511, 518, 105 N.E. 2d 212, 216 (1952); Munn v. Dabrowski, 335 Mass. 41, 138 N.E. 2d 570, 573 (1956)."

Remember that before the counting machines came along, all of these ballots were counted by hand. Clearly, this is the Constitutionally correct thing to do. Chad deserves his right to vote, not to be discarded as trash!

-- (when.Chad.speaks@The.People.listen), November 13, 2000

Answers

...yawn...

-- bored (quite@bored.really), November 13, 2000.

According to county spokesman Bob Nichols, there are five types of chad.

Ones that count:

B Hanging door -- one corner hanging off
B Swinging door -- two corners hanging off
B Tri-chad -- three corners hanging off

Chads that don't count:

B Pregnant -- bulges, but not punched through
B Dimple -- simple indentation

-- FYI (let@Chad.speak!), November 13, 2000.

The dictator...

"HEIL HITLER!!

Zuw must shtop cowntink unt
poot down ze ballots NOW!

Line up againsht ze fence
vere zuw vill be exshekuted!!"

-- Frau Bleucher (I.vill@supress.ze.masses), November 13, 2000.

"Frau"

I view the ongoing legal and rhetorical manipulations with a mixture of amusement, astonishment, and sadness.

As a resident of Florida, I find myself repeatedly and halfheartedly apologizing for our mixed bag of voting processes. It's all determined locally, you see. Perhaps this is as it should be; only time will tell.

As a Libertarian, I find myself saying things like: "See! Neither of these bozos are fit to be in office!"

But surely you can find a better argument against an elected official than the fact that she looks like a Mel Brooks character? Is that the best you can do? Seems to me to be a rather adolescent argument. No doubt it is fun, but in this case, the stakes seem rather high. Why not try to argue your point from informed constitutional law?

Are we really to the point where the lowest, shrillest, most silly point carries the day? If so, then it is a sad day, indeed.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc@nolynchings.please), November 14, 2000.

BTW,

She looks more like a Vulcan than a Nazi.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc@nolynchings.please), November 14, 2000.

LOL!

She ish a Vulcan Nazi, my secret mistress vile ze wife is milking ze cowsh.

-- Adolph (we.have.taken.Florida@for.ze.shrub), November 14, 2000.