Nassau County Robs 51 american voters of their votes

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

In a move that can only state that the republicans are doing their best to steal this election, the canvassing commission in Nassau county did not report a net gain of 51 votes for Al Gore, instead, reporting the machine recount total. This is a truly sad day in America, when machines are accorded greater status than humans. What if you were one of those 51 voters? How would you feel?

These folks in Nassau were not interested in getting an accurate vote count; instead, they were interested in trying to assure Bush could steal Florida. How truly despicable.

-- SydBarrett (Dark@side.moon), November 27, 2000

Answers



-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), November 27, 2000.

That's your best shot, aint? Throw up a silly illustration instead of addressing the consitutional issues. A person like you, who in the past has cried out that individual rights are being trampled, is perfectly okay with voters rights being trampled if it favors your political aims. Pathetic.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), November 27, 2000.

Syd, the only way it would be TRULY fair then, is if EVERY county in EVERY state handcounted EVERY vote and EVERY dimpled chad and EVERY hanging chad...that would be the ONLY way.

AND..there should be ONE guideline, ONE set of rules applying to ALL the hand counting.

Cause that would seem a lot more fair than this.

-- k (k@a.n), November 27, 2000.


K

You have said this before under another handle, and in a world where Don Quixote is real, maybe you are right. What we are talking about here is Florida Law, so the idea of bringing other states into the matter is irrelevant. While it is possibly a great idea to have standards in every state, the US Constitution gives the states the right to decide how to conduct elections-the Constitution would not allow the US legislature to pass law governing the standardization of voting procedures.

What we are talking about here is wether or not the constitutional rights of Florida citizens have been violated. It is OBVIOUS they have. There has been plenty of testimony as to why these machines miss votes-If these machines wre infallible, why was the handcount provision written into the FLorida code?

And this is the gist of it, that everyone seems to want to ignore: The democrats in Florida wanted to take advantage of a right accorded to them and their constituents by FLorida law-that right is to request hand recounts where they feel it would affect the outcome. The argument that they only selected three counties is moot-Florida law states that the recount can be requested in "any" county.

By rejecting their own handcount in Nassau, they have disenfranchised those 51 voters. The FLorida supreme court realized that two statutes were in conflict-and realized that a manual recount could never be done in time to meet the certification date-and realized that the will of the people is more important than strict statutory construction.

I do not see any way Nassau's actions can be justified.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), November 27, 2000.


Syd,

Here's a clue... when it comes to repetitive simple tasks (like calculating sums, scoring tests or processing ballots), machines are much more accurate and efficient than humans. If you have some spare time, peform a few thousand math calculations... than run the same calculations through a computer. Try it a few times. Compare the results. You'll make more mistakes.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 27, 2000.



"so the idea of bringing other states into the matter is irrelevant"

I don't think so. If Gore's people don't stop now, they're gonna have a fight on their hands in several other states. They don't seem to have realized that the Republicans or only fighting them where they must. If Gore manages to get enough votes through a Florida recount, then Bush will just contest the election in any one of 49 other states.

-- (dont@look.now), November 27, 2000.


>> [...] when it comes to repetitive simple tasks (like calculating sums, scoring tests or processing ballots), machines are much more accurate and efficient than humans. <<

What is at issue, though, is not the ability of the machines to count any ballot it recognizes. The question of accuracy is introduced at the interface between the machine and the ballot - the sensor.

There is a well known acronym in the computer world. I am sure you've heard it: GIGO. It stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out. To the degree that a machine cannot gather the correct input, it cannot produce the correct output. If the hole punched in a ballot is obstructed by a hanging chad as the hole passes the sensor, the machine cannot gather the correct input and register that hole as a vote. Once the input is invalid, the output will be invalid as well.

The sole reason that a human is more accurate than a machine for this purpose is that we are equipped with much better sensors. We have binocular vision. In color, no less. We have fingertips that are crammed with nerve endings. We have the ability to make close observations, correlate them, and our own draw conclusions. We have the ability to confer with other humans, each one of whom is equipped with similar abilities. We integrate information better.

The problem with humans is that we tire. As we tire out, our inattention or lack of concentration tends to invalidate our observations and blur our ability to reach sound conclusions. That is one reason why the manual counting process is not undertaken by one person alone, but rather by teams. It is much more difficult for five or six people to make the same mistake simultaneously. During a manual recount, if any one of the five or six people observing the count believes a ballot is being wrongly "sensed", that ballot is set aside for further close examination by several more people.

To take your example:

>> [...] peform a few thousand math calculations... than run the same calculations through a computer. Try it a few times. Compare the results. You'll make more mistakes. <<

I would wager that, if you were to serially pass those calculations through five or six auditors, with any errors detected by those auditors being corrected before passing them on to the next in line, the results would few or no mistakes by the final pass.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 27, 2000.


Ken:

Good to see you back here. I might even agree with you, if the machine recount gave the same result as the count in every county in FLorida. But they did not. And that is the issue. Again, if the machines were infallible, there would be no need for a statute which allows for manual recounts. It would be illogical. You are a man of good logic, and I think you can see this.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), November 27, 2000.


Ah, Brian, spoken like a true liberal... no amount of money, time or labor is too great in the spirit of public service. (laughter) Let us count for four years until the next election. I can see advantages in leaving the office of president unoccupied.

Unlike human beings, machines have no political preferences or motives. The machine simply (and accurately) counts ballots that have been properly marked. Oh, humans do make errors marking ballots. Thankfully, the machine does not attempt to discern "intent." It simply counts. These machines have been accurate enough to serve the electorate for quite some time.

I trust the machines far more than a group of politically motivated (or even inclined) individuals. I don't want election officials plumbing "intent" like amateur telepaths. On the whole, I contend machines produce a more accurate count, although one admittedly imperfect. I wager some of the imperfections in the recount can be traced directly to operator error... again, the human factor.

If you want perfection, Syd, you have a long wait. Even improved technology cannot assure a perfectly accurate count. Humans will always run the machines... and we are quite fallible. And I find your logic less than compelling. Allowing for manual recounts does not prove anything, per se. I do hope you are not suggesting legislative intent is akin the papal infallibility. (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 27, 2000.


Ah, Brian, spoken like a true liberal... no amount of money, time or labor is too great in the spirit of public service.

I realize you were being sarcastic here, but HELL YEAH no amount of money, time or labor is too great in the spirit of public service! We want an ACCURATE election, not a CHEAP election.

The machine simply (and accurately) counts ballots that have been properly marked.

Then why did Bush's intial lead shrik from 1700 votes to 900 after the first MACHINE recount? Which machine vote was inaccurate?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 27, 2000.



I think Ken has missed the point this time. The issue isn't the precision of the machinery, but the accuracy. The machines might very well come up with the same "wrong" totals with numbing consistency (assuming the ballots themselves weren't degraded by the counting process).

Now, here's the REAL issue. Give me and Syd the same ballots the machines could not read correctly or consistently. Let us examine these ballots in detail to figure out what the problem is. Let us derive perfectly reasonable rules for interpreting the intent of the voter based on our examinations. Let us count these ballots according to our reasonable rules. Hey, let us count them 10 times each. If we wish, let us change to a *different* set of reasonable rules and start over if we're not getting the desired results (like they did in Palm Beach County).

What you're likely to discover is that Syd and I come up with extremely different totals, which we both are able to replicate very closely count after count. If we adopt the "Brian method" of serial audits, we might arrive at dead solid counts according to our very different sets of reasonable rules. Needless to say, these different rule sets were determined and derived with a desired winner in mind.

Finally, let me emphasize that nobody has made a single mistake! We have removed human error, distractions, tiredness. We have achieved perfect accuracy. Yet we have vastly different totals, and (most important of all) different winners. We have BOTH carefully determined the will of the people. Haven't we? *Sure* we have. Now, in whose favor should we be "accurate"?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 27, 2000.


>> The machine simply (and accurately) counts ballots that have been properly marked. Oh, humans do make errors marking ballots. Thankfully, the machine does not attempt to discern "intent." It simply counts. These machines have been accurate enough to serve the electorate for quite some time. <<

Oddly enough, when this country was founded all ballots were counted by people, not machines. During those benighted decades, every ballot had to be evaluated for "intent". That system, too, was "accurate enough to serve the electorate for some time."

>> I trust the machines far more than a group of politically motivated (or even inclined) individuals. <<

And if the shoe were on the other foot, would this still hold true?

You started out arguing that machines were more accurate than humans. I notice that, although I carefully argued why machines could not be expected to count every ballot as fully, accurately or completely as humans, you did not choose to address my argument or attempt to defeat it. Instead, you introduced a new position - that humans are politically motivated and therefore not to be trusted to accurately register votes that do not favbor their position.

This second argument can also be negated fairly easily. All that is necessary to neutralize this source of inaccuracy is to involve equal numbers of people who favor each outcome and give them equal input into the process. So, for example, if a Gore supporter attempts to falsely count a ballot for Gore because counting it correctly for Bush would not favor his interest, the Bush supporter who is standing next to him and will certainly interject his interest in seeing the vote fairly assigned to Bush. This tends to smooth out the ability of the counters to let thier bias control the outcome, by using the simple mechanism of competition to prevent a monopoly of one interest over the other.

I know you understand the theory of competition, Ken.

>> I don't want election officials plumbing "intent" like amateur telepaths. On the whole, I contend machines produce a more accurate count, although one admittedly imperfect. <<

I find it silly that the word "intent" is being used as if this were some unusual and esoteric thing that had never been involved in counting votes before. Voters register their intent through the act of marking their ballots.

Machines are able to "divine" the voter's "intent" by mechanistically applying a set of rules to scan each ballot. Machines are limited in their sensitivity and can only apply a set of rules that conform to their limitations. As such, a machine discards some votes because they are not sensitive enough or intelligent enough to plumb the voter's intent. But plumbing the voter's intent is exactly what the machine is doing. More accurately, the machine is a tool used by humans to scan ballots to determine voter's intent.

In most cases, the machine is an adequate tool. Its tolerances are fine enough to do the job required of it - to indicate which candidate got the most votes. In an election where a candidate wins by 20,000 votes (plus or minus 200), no one cares about that dangling qualifier.

But, in an election where the margin of victory falls well within the tolerances of accuracy the machine is capable of delivering, then the humans who need to know who got the most votes can no longer rely on the machine. Instead, they must find a tool with finer tolerances. The only tools we have that meet this requirement are human eyes and hands and brains. Otherwise we are stuck with an outcome where a candidate wins by 500 votes (plus or minus 1500).

You surprise me, Ken. You work with machines. We all do. Machines are great up to a point. But the people who design the machines can tell you exactly when the machine's limits are surpassed. And every machine has its limits. That is why the space program is so expensive. Ever priced a Votomatic machine? They cost lots less than a lunar landing module.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 27, 2000.


Distortions lies and falsehoods. The recount produced fewer votes than the first vote. If the recount was certified, someone would have bitched that all of the votes in the first count were not counted and citizens were cheated out of their votes. Check the record. Why did the recount produce a smaller number of total votes? Were some votes lost during the recount. This is strange. Usually more votes are FOUND during the recount. Is this not the purpose of a recount to FIND all of the votes?

-- Two plus Two (EqualsSix@mathexpert.wah), November 27, 2000.

Tarzan,

Sorry, but I disagree. There is always a point where a given activity is "too expensive."

Brian,

I don't think anyone can discern "intent" from a mishandled or improperly marked ballot. And I think pretending to discern "intent" leads election officials down a dark and slippery slope. Here's a novel concept... let's treat voter's like adults and hold them responsible for properly marking (or punching) a ballot.

Oh, and I don't trust election officials of any particular stripe. Were the liberals ahead on two machine counts, my position would be exactly the same. Frankly, I have come to expect a better class of insult from you.

My essential argument remains the same. Machines, in the handling of simple repetitive tasks are more accurate than humans. Period. The argument about better sensory equipment does not hold water. I can build you a machine that will sink a difficult shot in pocket billiards 10,000 times in succession. Even a world class pool player will miss on occasion. What, ho! The human player has vastly superior senses and motor skills. Need I press this point?

You argue that humans can "interpret" unusual variances. My retort is simple. It is incumbent on the voter to mark or punch the ballot correctly. Florida does allow a voter to ask for a new ballot in the event of mismarking. Nifty, eh? And no matter how simple the ballot or clear the instructions, some voters will make mistakes. C'est la vie.

My argument about political motivations is simply an extension of the first. How easy might it be for a Bush supporter to pose as a Gore sympathizer? How about a tasty little bribe? How about other influences? Blackmail? Coercion? Come now, Brian, haven't you seen enough of Chicago politics to know how urban elections work? Give me a satchel of money and a bit of time and I can buy you a few thousand votes. It's quite easy. You see, Brian, I do understand competition.

The longer you count (and recount) the votes, the greater the risk of fraud or other mischief. Oh, and handling damages the ballots, e.g., the ever increasing number of falling chads. Every time a ballot is handled, the risk increases. Recounting and recounting will not produce a more accurate result.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 27, 2000.


Ape-Dude,

If one would take your statement to it's logical conclusion we would have to count every single ballot cast in the entire USA by hand in order to be sure that each vote was afforded the same weight as a vote cast in Palm Beach Florida.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 27, 2000.



To All:

Nice input. Whoever said that ascertaining voter intent is not a novel concept is right on the mark. If it were the case that the democrats were trying to steal the election, don't you think this would have occured in Broward? Don't you think they would have found enough votes? The argument that partisan politics would deliver the election to the democrats does not hold water-if it were true, it would have happened. The folks in Broward and Palm would have "divined" enough votes to change this in Gore's Favor.

Ken:

In your opinion, why is there a manual recount provision in Florida? You said my argument was not compelling, but you have not told me why. I say again, if the FLorida legislature had ultimate faith in machines, there would be NO provision for a hand count.

As far as your faith in machines, as far as I know, we have not yet invented a perpetual motion machine. All machines are subject to physical laws, which include entropy, and at some point, ALL machines will break down, no matter how sophisticated. Are you comfortable enough to state that this election in Florida is actually the 45,677 time your machine goes to shoot that ball in the pocket, and at that point it still works as perfectly as at the 10,000th shot? Have all the machines in Florida been perfectly maintained? Were all the machines cleared of discarded chads in a timely fashion? There comes a time when we cannot place our ultimate faith in machines. The FLorida Supreme court said this exactly.

And we seem to have gotten slightly off the point here. No one has offered a justifiable reason to ignore the state mandated recount total in Nassau and report the count of the first night.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), November 27, 2000.


If one would take your statement to it's logical conclusion we would have to count every single ballot cast in the entire USA by hand in order to be sure that each vote was afforded the same weight as a vote cast in Palm Beach Florida.

Not being a fan of big government, unlike yourself, I would never presume to tell individual electorates how to conduct their vote tallies. On the other hand, I would not advocate standing in the way of their efforts to ensure an accurate count, either.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 27, 2000.


Funny! Me a big government type, LOL. You're pulling my leg, I think.

Do you want an ACCURATE election as you originally stated? No amount of time money ect too great an obstacle? If do consider an accurate election the paramount objective having partisan officials conduct selective recounts in selected areas using differing standards from one area to the next will most certainly NOT get you one.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 27, 2000.


Syd,

Sorry, but why should we assume the democrats are logical or even skilled in stealing elections... aside from the obvious example of Chicago? Your logic is getting worse by the post, Syd. We do not know if the democrats (or the republicans) have attempted to steal the election. The democrats may have tried and botched it... or the republicans may have simply done a better job. I do know that the longer the revoting continues, the greater the opportunity for mischief.

Quite frankly, Syd, I have no idea why there is a manual recount provision in Florida. Neither do you... unless you were there when the legislature passed the election law.

Insofar as machines, I'll continue to drive to work and fly to vacations despite the fact we have not conquered the laws of physics. I am comfortable enough to sleep through a flight to the west coast, despite my knowledge of entropy and chaos theory. Feel free to stay home if you don't trust those damn machines. (laughter)

Your intital post, by the way, is a mess. You have no idea why the Nassau canvassing board did not report the alleged 51 votes. You leap from a factoid to a republican coup (and a damnation of technology).

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 27, 2000.


Although you did not address most of my points directly, I will address yours as directly as I can.

>> I don't think anyone can discern "intent" from a mishandled or improperly marked ballot. <<

Nor is it my contention that someone can. However, it is my contention that a human may discern clear and definite intentions that a machine may not discern. If a chad is punched through, but at least one of the four corners fails to break away fully (a "hanging door" chad), the machine may not sense the presence of a hole at that position, but a human certainly can. To call such a ballot "improperly marked" strains the definition of how far a voter should be expected to go to accommodate a machine's needs.

If, however, a voter failed to punch a chad with sufficient force to break away even one of the four corners, a human is certainly quite capable of discerning this fact also. We can detect a wide variety of nuances in the amount of force applied to a chad, by examining it. We gots good eyes. Detection of the state of the ballot is not a problem. Interpretation of that state is the problem.

What is needed in a case where many nuanced gradations can be discerned is a set of rules that can be applied consistently to interpret what each chad means, so that chads on one side of a well-defined cut-off point are counted and on the other side are not. Given such a clear rule, the chad may be interpreted very consistently. About as consistently as a machine applying a similar set of mechanical rules that are less sensitive or discerning.

>> And I think pretending to discern "intent" leads election officials down a dark and slippery slope. Here's a novel concept... let's treat voter's like adults and hold them responsible for properly marking (or punching) a ballot. <<

It is my impression that a voter who fails to "properly" punch a ballot is usually following instructions pretty carefully.

Do you vote with punch cards? I do (or did). In my county, (before we switched to vote-by-mail) I'd have to say there was not enough information for a voter to know if their ballot is "properly" punched or not. Each ballot is slipped into a slot and during voting it is completely out of your sight. If you misaligned the ballot in the slot, you could vote wrongly in every contest and not know it.

The only way to know that all the chads you intended to punch out were indeed punched out would be to remove the ballot from the slot and count the number of holes in it to see if it equalled the number of votes you intended to make. You would also need to have a firm grasp of the operation of the vote-counting machine in order to appreciate the dire possibilities of failing to punch out each chad entirely. No one ever told me this fact when I was voting.

If we are going to hold people responsible to the degree you suggest, then we sure as shootin' better give them all the information they need to fullfill their responsibilities. That is pretty damn difficult using punch cards, as I have seen them used.

>> Were the liberals ahead on two machine counts, my position would be exactly the same. <<

I'm glad to hear it.

>> My essential argument remains the same. Machines, in the handling of simple repetitive tasks are more accurate than humans. Period. The argument about better sensory equipment does not hold water. I can build you a machine that will sink a difficult shot in pocket billiards 10,000 times in succession. Even a world class pool player will miss on occasion. What, ho! The human player has vastly superior senses and motor skills. Need I press this point? <<

You missed Flint's distinction between precision and accuracy. And my point about the interface between the machine and the ballot producing GIGO.

BTW, comparing machine ability in different domains is tricky. IBM built a computer that could beat Yuri Kasparov, the world chess champion, at playing chess. Nobody has yet built a computer that can converse as well as a 4 year old.

>> You argue that humans can "interpret" unusual variances. My retort is simple. It is incumbent on the voter to mark or punch the ballot correctly. Florida does allow a voter to ask for a new ballot in the event of mismarking. Nifty, eh? <<

See my remarks above. A voter will rarely be aware if they have mismarked a ballot, if my experience is any guide.

>> And no matter how simple the ballot or clear the instructions, some voters will make mistakes. C'est la vie. <<

Agreed. Mistakes cannot be excluded, they can only be reduced. Where an ireedeemable mistake is made, no amount of effort can redeem it.

>> My argument about political motivations is simply an extension of the first. <<

If you say so.

>> How easy might it be for a Bush supporter to pose as a Gore sympathizer? How about a tasty little bribe? How about other influences? Blackmail? Coercion? <<

Fraud is another matter altogether from machine accuracy or potential human accuracy. No one needs to wait for a manual recount in order to commit fraud. They can do it early and avoid the last-minute rush.

>> Come now, Brian, haven't you seen enough of Chicago politics to know how urban elections work? <<

No. I'm from Oregon, so I have seen almost nothing of Chicago politics.

>> Give me a satchel of money and a bit of time and I can buy you a few thousand votes. It's quite easy. You see, Brian, I do understand competition. <<

Again, fraud cannot be excluded by using machine counts. All you have to do is lose a few votes between the polling place and the counting place. If the involvment of machines cannot preclude fraud, your point is moot. Fraud is fraud and can occur at any stage of an election.

>> The longer you count (and recount) the votes, the greater the risk of fraud or other mischief. <<

If someone were intent on fraud, why would they wait for a manual recount? They'd get their licks in early while the getting was good. Wait for a recount and you may miss your chance. Recounts are rare.

If fraud were involved, we'd have much different and much bigger problem than whether a machine or a human is doing the counting.

>> Oh, and handling damages the ballots, e.g., the ever increasing number of falling chads. Every time a ballot is handled, the risk increases. <<

I hear this said. I see no evidence it is true. The punch card ballots I have handled seemed pretty sturdy, especially the chads that have not been disturbed.

What are you basing this claim on? Have you handled any punch card ballots after they had been through the counting machines?

>> Recounting and recounting will not produce a more accurate result. <<

Actually, counting the ballots 100, or 1,000, or better still 1,000,000 times, and then taking the average result would result in a much more accurate result. Not that I am recommending such a procedure, merely pointing out a truth.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 28, 2000.


Its so obvious. Most voters vote for the person who THEY THINK WILL GIVE THEM THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL BENEFIT. This is called voting your pocketbook. It is very common. The problem is when one side promises everything to everybody when it is absolutely impossible to keep all of the promises. One candidate promised to eliminate the national debt by 2012, to increase prescription benefits, to save social security, to increase the number of teachers, to help labor unions, to help change the laws to benefit the attorneys etc. etc. etc. etc. This is impossible. To eliminate the national debt requires, increased taxes, reduced expenditures, lower medical benifits and a smaller government to cause the savings. The budget fairy is not going to magically payoff the debt. I know Alan Greenspan is liked by Gore and Big Al loves to print money. Does Al Gore believe that if Big Al prints enough money, it can be used to pay off the national debt? It could happen but it would cause horrendous inflation so that a loaf of bread would cost $649.95 and peoples savings would vanish like 1923 Germany. This is not the answer.

-- Tom Dollar (Tom@twoplustwois.six), November 28, 2000.

Brian... Your response has a Pythonesque quality. I hope the comedy group decides to do "chads" in the future. Personally, I think it is quite silly to hand examine the six million Florida ballots. By the way, I imagine a republican is no more or less likely than a democrat to suffer a "hanging chad." Ah, but only the counties with a high concentration of democrats are manually recounting the ballots. This suggests Gore will "find" more votes than Bush. How convenient. If you (and others) insist on the silliness of a manual count, why not count them all?

What I find truly humorous is your notion that one can develop a set of "rules" for dimples, pimples, marks, etc. and have a diverse group of people uniformly apply them. Get out much? What you are saying, in essence, that human "judgement calls" are as accurate as a machine count. Please.

There is no perfect system. Manual counting cannot "fix" a mismarked ballot. If I accidently punched a vote for Nader, how will your group of eagle-eyed election officials discern I really wanted to vote for someone else?

The simple fact is that voting is an imperfect process. Ex post facto care cannot correct these imperfections. In fact, the longer the process goes on, the greater the chance for honest (or dishonest) mistakes. Perfect accuracy is a chimera. The best we can do is improve the equipment, the system and the information we provide voters. Oh, and forgive me if I decline to consider one person's experience in voting as a general guide.

As for fraud... c'mon Brian. It's MUCH cheaper to buy a few hundred or thousand votes than try to buy an entire pre-ballot election... although someone always tries. The democrats know they only need a few hundred ballots. How tempting!

Fraud is not moot because you wish it so. The more people that are involved and the longer the process takes and the more the ballots are handled... the greater the risk. Simple math, Brian. Oh, and I have handled punch cards.... Chads do fall out over time.

The million count process works... but only in a perfect world. (Oops, forgot you live in Oregon.) If you repeat a flawed process or if the process has bad data, well... you just have a average with more decimal points. GIGO.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 28, 2000.


Ken:

While I admire your willingness to jump into this debate, and the time you take to contruct your arguments, I do not admire the way you talk down to people and use sarcasm to try to emphasize your points. You can disagree without being disagreeable. You may say that I am attacking the messenger and not the message, but I cannot continue a debate with someone who insists on using sarcasm to drive their points home.

You are right. I was not there when Florida passed the manual recount statute, and I do not know why Nassau rejected the machine recount- for sure. But the last time I looked it was not unacceptable to try and draw conclusions from what I see. Apparently the Nassau board did not give an excuse good enough for Gore not to file a protest in that county. Drawing conclusions from incomplete information is a cherished american tradition(LOL). And I submit that you yourself have done that many times in the year I have been reading your posts.

I would have like to have debated this further, but your responses to Brian and myself were tinged with a little too much hostility for my comfort.

Have a great day.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), November 28, 2000.


Come now, Syd, you skin is far too thin for a forum like this. If you are feeling bruised by my gentle mocking, you would have been utterly destroyed by the rough-and-tumble on the old forum.

Your original post is silly. On the basis of a legal challenge, you determined that the republicans were trying to "steal" the election, a "sad day for America." Most of us would have waited to see how the legal challenge fared (a full and fair hearing, evidence, arguments, etc.) before we lower the flag to half mast. If Gore wins his legal challenge, you may have grounds to complain. On the other hand, Gore may lose his challenge in Nassau County. Why not wait?

Quite simply, you do not have enough data to draw any conclusions about Nassau County. At best, you are making a wild speculation. If you wish to challenge one of my posts you feel is wildly speculative, carry on.

Furthermore, please let Brian take offense to the comments directed towards him. I have bickered with Brian for quite some time. Despite my inherent distrust of socialists with a messiah complex, I find him a reasonable fellow.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 28, 2000.


Syd:

With all due respect, you're incorrect on Nassau County. Somewhere around here is a thread I started entitled something like "Continuation of Eve's op-ed thread." Therein, I provided links to types of voting machines used in all Florida counties, totals of the counts in all districts, and the results of the recounts in all districts.

Further down in that thread, I presented a list of the Punched Card counties and the variations between count 1 and count 2. I do believe I pointed to Nassau County and said, "How does this happen?", as their original count showed MORE votes counted than the second." If you'll check out the variation link provided, you'll notice that Nassau's second count showed 73 FEWER votes for Gore and 124 FEWER votes for Bush.

Nassau County said that they "found" approximately 200 punched cards that hadn't been counted in the second machine recount. THIS is why they went back to their original total...so 197 voters wouldn't be disenfranchised.

I suppose LEGALLY it was wrong for them to do this, but I think they did the right thing. Of course I'd like to know how a polling place could MISPLACE 197 ballots on the 2nd machine count, but I've already concluded that these places must have the organization of my home office.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 28, 2000.


Syd:

Here's a link to the thread with the links to the information.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 28, 2000.


>> Personally, I think it is quite silly to hand examine the six million Florida ballots. <<

I see you have an opinion. But when have you ever failed me on that count?

>> By the way, I imagine a republican is no more or less likely than a democrat to suffer a "hanging chad." <<

Sure. Who ever said otherwise?

>> Ah, but only the counties with a high concentration of democrats are manually recounting the ballots. This suggests Gore will "find" more votes than Bush. How convenient. <<

I already addressed this point. It is not just convenient, it appears to be what the Florida law invites, either by deliberate design, or from egregious stupidity. Take your pick. That is what the Florida Legislature put in the law.

>> If you (and others) insist on the silliness of a manual count, why not count them all? <<

I live in Oregon. Don't blame me if it doesn't happen that way. What do you expect me to do? In the meantime, one candidate suggested this, but the other rejected it out of hand. As for me, I'd prefer a full manual recount, but it seems academic at this point.

>> What I find truly humorous is your notion that one can develop a set of "rules" for dimples, pimples, marks, etc. and have a diverse group of people uniformly apply them. <<

Yet another echo of Y2K. If the rules have a fine granularity, are known to all participants and all participants must agree they are being followed, then I don't see how such a system would fail in any significant way. OTOH, you find the idea humorous. OK. I disagree.

>> Get out much? What you are saying, in essence, that human "judgement calls" are as accurate as a machine count. Please. <<

Yes. That is what I am arguing, with this nuance that you keep missing: that what I am relying on is not is not the judgement of one person in isolation, but the judgement of a group applying a clear set of rules.

I do not consider "Please" to be a very effective rebuttal. But, hey! It's your argument.

>> There is no perfect system. Manual counting cannot "fix" a mismarked ballot. If I accidently punched a vote for Nader, how will your group of eagle-eyed election officials discern I really wanted to vote for someone else? <<

I already addressed this one, too.

How will they discern it was not intended as a vote for Nader? Simple: they won't. That is a red herring.

>> The simple fact is that voting is an imperfect process. Ex post facto care cannot correct these imperfections. <<

This is a very large generality. No sane person would argue that all imperfections could be corrected. I certainly don't argue that way.

But you seem to be taking the exact counterpart of that indefensible position, arguing that no imperfections could be corrected. I find that position equally absurd.

>> In fact, the longer the process goes on, the greater the chance for honest (or dishonest) mistakes. <<

Essentially, you seem to be arguing that any effort to count the votes in Florida will always contain a margin of error greater than the vote differential separating the two candidates. This renders the "true" result unknowable. It is forever beyond our grasp. Therfore, we should face up to this rotten fact and simply settle for naming someone President, using some set of criteria and get on with it.

If I understand you, you are saying that machine count amounted to a coin flip, but that a coin flip is the best we can expect, and by that coin flip we have a winner.

You could be right. I suspect that this question is much like Y2K, in that most of the arguments are being made from generalities, conjectures, perceptions and beliefs, because it is too difficult to obtain reliable data.

However, if hand counts were provably more accurate and reliable than machine counts, using unbiased data, then settling for a coin flip at this time would be a cop out. I want to know the margin of error for each method. If hand counts are demonstrably no better than machines, I'll jump to your position in a flash. So far, all the arguments on both sides of the question seem to be missing this data.

>> Perfect accuracy is a chimera. The best we can do is improve the equipment, the system and the information we provide voters. <<

I agree.

What we disagree on is whether further accuracy would be introduced by the introduction of humans doing the counting. Perfect accuracy was never in question. Greater or lesser accuracy is the question.

>> As for fraud... c'mon Brian. It's MUCH cheaper to buy a few hundred or thousand votes than try to buy an entire pre-ballot election... although someone always tries. <<

Gee. This sounds authoritative and knowledgeable. But... c'mon, Ken. You plucked this out of thin air, didn't you? Admit it. I won't tell anyone. I do it, too.

>> The democrats know they only need a few hundred ballots. How tempting! <<

They are also operating under the glare of intense scrutiny by Republicans who know the Democrats only need a few hundred votes.

>> Fraud is not moot because you wish it so. The more people that are involved and the longer the process takes and the more the ballots are handled... the greater the risk. Simple math, Brian. <<

If it is simple math, let me see the numbers.

>> Oh, and I have handled punch cards.... Chads do fall out over time. <<

OK. In your experience, they do. However, you yourself wrote: "forgive me if I decline to consider one person's experience in voting as a general guide."

Although I am tempted to apply your own rules to your own assertion, I will avoid that temptation and accept it. Chads do fall out over time.

However, that just begs the questions: How many, over how long? Out of all the votes cast for president in Florida, what percentage could we expect to be munged by handling the ballots in this case? 10? 10,000?

I have no idea. Do you?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 28, 2000.


Brian,

I deeply appreciate your attention to detail, but I can scroll up and see what I have written. Your prose is far more readable if you simply make your argument without the added weight of my text.

I have a reasonable confidence in machine counting votes. You have greater confidence in a manual count. Yes, I understand that you trust a "group" of individuals (self reported as members of the different political parties) will provide an "accurate" count if provided clear guidelines. My issues are simple. The process of manual counting creates opportunities for honest (and dishonest) mistakes. The more times ballots are handled and the longer the process takes, the greater the chance of error. I will readily admit you can create a manual process with 12 member panels, oversight officials, constant audio and video monitoring, sealed rooms and armed guards. How much is enough?

My argument is that the machine count (and recount) provided a reasonably accurate count. The same candidate won both counts. Absent proof of fraud or other naughy behavior, it is reasonable to presume hanging chads, dimples and mismarked ballots were relatively evenly distributed between the two candidates.

My inclination is to accept the two machine counts. Personally, I think the risks of manual counting outweigh the benefits. I don't think your "perfect world" environment can be created in Florida. (I don't think it has thus far.) All the scrutiny in the world doesn't stop fraud... it just increases the chances of catching the bad guys (or gals).

Clearly, I think it's time to invest in better voter technology. I have done some initial analysis for my municipality. We will be investing in a secure, paperless system for the next election cycle. I will dig up some data on manual versus machine counting... but who guards the guardians? (chuckle) Sorry about Nader not getting five percent. It would have made 2004 much more interesting.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 28, 2000.


Ken,

I am just a dumbass hick redneck, so take it for what it's worth. BUT, paperless voting is not the way to go. Folks like to do the pencil to paper thingy, stylus to chad, fill in the dots, whatever. I do not know if I can put enough emphasis on this, however, PEOPLE WILL NOT TRUST AN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTE!

Nope.

We read about all sorts of hacking, Microsoft has been hacked, the FBI has been hacked, why in God's name should we trust that "Vote USA" has not been hacked? Sorry, you are jumping a bit ahead of yourself. NOT that I am saying that such a system could not be secure, what

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 28, 2000.


I am saying is that people(especially older people) would not trust such a system.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 28, 2000.

>> My argument is that the machine count (and recount) provided a reasonably accurate count. <<

Still looks to me like Bush wins by 530-some votes (plus or minus 1500). This only translates into a 65% chance that Bush got more votes than Gore in Florida. Not the most satisfying outcome one might hope for, when the office of President is at stake. But maybe "close enough for government work".

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 28, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ