NY TIMES Gore Strategy cost Gore the election

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?todaysheadlines=&pagewanted=all
November 12, 2001

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at — a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

Even so, the media ballot review, carried out under rigorous rules far removed from the chaos and partisan heat of the post-election dispute, is unlikely to end the argument over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. The race was so close that it is possible to get different results simply by applying different hypothetical vote-counting methods to the thousands of uncounted ballots. And in every case, the ballot review produced a result that was even closer than the official count — a margin of perhaps four or five thousandths of one percent out of about six million ballots cast for president.

The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected last November. Those included so-called undervotes, or ballots on which the machines could not discern a preference for president, and overvotes, those on which voters marked more than one candidate.

The examination then sought to judge what might have been considered a legal vote under various conditions — from the strictest interpretation (a clearly punched hole) to the most liberal (a small indentation, or dimple, that indicated the voter was trying to punch a hole in the card). But even under the most inclusive standards, the review found that at most, 24,619 ballots could have been interpreted as legal votes.

The numbers reveal the flaws in Mr. Gore's post-election tactics and, in retrospect, why the Bush strategy of resisting county-by-county recounts was ultimately successful.

In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical — a statewide recount — could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.

Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late- arriving ballots did not meet Florida's standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them.

A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.

But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.

Democrats invested heavily in get- out-the-vote programs across Florida, particularly among minorities, recent immigrants and retirees from the Northeast. But their efforts were foiled by confusing ballot designs in crucial counties that resulted in tens of thousands of Democratic voters spoiling their ballots. More than 150,000 of those spoiled ballots did not show evidence of voter intent even after independent observers closely examined them and the most inclusive definition of what constituted a valid vote was applied.

The majority of those ballots were spoiled because multiple choices were made for president, often, apparently, because voters were confused by the ballots. All were invalidated by county election officials and were excluded from the consortium count because there was no clear proof of voter intent, unless there were other clear signs of the voter's choice, like a matching name on the line for a write-in candidate.

In Duval County, for example, 20 percent of the ballots from African- American areas that went heavily for Mr. Gore were thrown out because voters followed instructions to mark a vote on every page of the ballot. In 62 precincts with black majorities in Duval County alone, nearly 3,000 people voted for Mr. Gore and a candidate whose name appeared on the second page of the ballot, thus spoiling their votes.

In Palm Beach County, 5,310 people, most of them probably confused by the infamous butterfly ballot, voted for Mr. Gore and Patrick J. Buchanan. The confusion affected Bush voters as well, but only 2,600 voted for Mr. Bush and another candidate.

The media consortium included The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN. The group hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in January to examine the ballots. The research group employed teams of three workers they called coders to examine each undervoted ballot and mark down what they saw in detail. Three coders provided a bulwark against inaccuracy or bias in the coding. For overvotes, one coder was used because there was seldom disagreement among examiners in a trial run using three coders.

The data produced by the ballot review allows scrutiny of the disputed Florida vote under a large number of situations and using a variety of different standards that might have applied in a hand recount, including the appearance of a dimple, a chad dangling by one or more corners and a cleanly punched card.

The difficulty of perceiving dimples or detached chads can be measured by the number of coders who saw them, but most of the ballot counts here are based on what a simple majority — two out of three coders — recorded.

The different standards mostly involved competing notions of what expresses voter intent on a punch card. The 29,974 ballots using optical scanning equipment were mostly interpreted using a single standard — any unambiguous mark, whether a circle or a scribble or an X, on or near the candidate name was considered evidence of voter intent.

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive "dimpled chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.

But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.

Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.

The Florida Supreme Court urged a statewide recount and ordered the state's 67 counties to begin a manual re-examination of the undervotes in a ruling issued Dec. 8 that left Mr. Gore and his allies elated.

The Florida court's 4-to-3 ruling rejected Mr. Gore's plea for selective recounts in four Democratic counties, but also Mr. Bush's demand for no recounts at all. Justice Barbara Pariente, in her oral remarks, asked, "Why wouldn't it be proper for any court, if they were going to order any relief, to count the undervotes in all of the counties where, at the very least, punch-card systems were operating?"

The court ultimately adopted her view, although extending it to all counties, including those using ballots marked by pen and read by optical scanning. Many counties immediately began the effort, applying different standards and, in some cases, including overvotes.

The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt. Three days later, the justices overturned the Florida court's ruling, sealing Mr. Bush's election.

But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?

The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.

The Florida Legislature earlier this year banned punch-card ballots statewide, directing counties to find a more reliable method. Many counties will use paper ballots scanned by computers at voting places that can give voters a second chance if their choices fail to register. In counties that use that technology, just 1 in 200 ballots had uncountable presidential votes, compared with 1 in 25 in punch-card counties.

Others will invest in computerized touch-screen machines that work like automated teller machines.

Kirk Wolter, who supervised the ballot review for the National Opinion Research Center, said that the study not only provided a comprehensive review of uncounted ballots in Florida but would help point the way toward more accurate and reliable voting systems. All data from the consortium recount is available on the Web at www.norc.org.

The review produced databases to study this election from a historical perspective, said Mr. Wolter, the research center's senior vice president for statistics and methodology, adding, "I hope in turn this can lead to voting reform and better ways of doing this in future elections."



-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Answers

The above goes a long way to explain the eating, flab and beard to hide the fat.

If he joins Wt. Watchers, Jenny Craig or goes to a fat farm, you will know he is going to make another run.

2008 might be a better move following the Nixon path of 8 years of re- building.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001


Ah, here we go again. No matter what balloting technology is used, there will always be room for ambiguity. Some ballots will be indeterminate, but as we can see from that election, the arguments went much further. Was the ballot design confusing? Was it more confusing in some counties than others? Were lines too long at some polling places but not others? Were people discouraged from voting, or did they face unusual constraints (like police roadblocks) more in some places than others? Were perfectly clear ballots cast by dead people in some places, while perfectly clear ballots cast by live people were "unaccountably misplaced" in others? Were there any significant statistical patterns in the "bad ballot" group?

And how about aspects of campaigning? Did one side spend more than the other? Were people bussed in to vote in some places but not others? Was an effort made to teach people to vote in some places and not others? This list can go on indefinitely.

And therefore, when enough ballots are involved, it's simply impossible to eliminate any possibility of having an election too close to call. Even this consortium admits that for many ballots, they needed three examiners so that they could take best-two-of-three opinions (which implies that the final "winner" depended on the party affiliation of ONE of these three). By every indication, the "winner" of the Florida election is *not knowable*. Ever. By any means.

Of course, we can do quite a lot to reduce the size of the "coin flip zone" fairly drastically. But we can never eliminate it entirely. It's not possible in principle to determine the "real winner" of an election where millioins of votes are cast and the difference is .0005% because we can't measure that closely. So while it's a good idea to improve the voting technology as much as possible, it's ALSO a good idea to recognize the existence of a statistical tie, and have procedures in place both to define and resolve such an event. So long as we labor under the misimpression that an "accurate count" can resolve all elections, "Bush/Gore Syndrome" will always threaten us.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001


Best proof proving this issue a yawner. Nite.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Flint,

As we've discussed before, the mechanism is already in place for something like what happened in Florida. The legislative branch is supposed to decide the election.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened here and it set a terrible precedent.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001


Stephen:

I'm not sure if we have to disagree here or not. Yes, there is some Constitutional language to the effect that the legislature is to resolve disputed elections. However, what the Florida law *actually said* was that (1) An election too close to call is within X% (I forget if it was 1.5% or 0.5% or whatever, but there WAS an explicit trigger margin), and (2) In that case, the resolution was to RECOUNT THE VOTES!

This is what I'm calling a mistake. Had the Florida law said something like "Any Presidential election where the leading candidates are within X% (0.5 is fine) SHALL BE DECIDED by the State Legislature." Not by a recount. Recounts, I've decided, are never a good idea. They guarantee chicanery.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001



NY Times article: "Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore."

Given the rather belated analysis of the votes cast one year ago, this statement appears to be perfectly correct. However, I submit the following statement is also perfectly correct:

The United States Supreme Court did award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Bush.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001


Think about it:

Yes, you do need to do that, you realize. If Bush won, then he won. There was no award. What the court did was to stop the counting, which isn't quite the same thing as "awarding" Bush the election.

And if there is one thing that all these news stories make crystal clear, it is that IF the "right" people counted, and IF they counted the "right" votes, and IF they interpreted them the "right" way, THEN it WAS possible that Gore would have "won" at least ONE of those counts.

So did Bush "really" win? WHICH of these many counts is the "real" count? What was common knowledge at the time was that in an election so extremely close that you could recount many times and have either candidate "win" any given count, Gore's optimum strategy was to keep counting, over and over, until he finally "won" one, and then (of course) claim THAT was the ONLY "honest" count.

All these news articles emphasize that Gore, in requesting the undervote only be recounted, has apparently asked for the wrong recount, and should have asked for the overvote instead. And blah blah blah.

So Stephen is correct, the election should have gone to the legislature to decide, and NOT to the courts, and NOT to endless recounts that the USSC finally put a stop to. So the problem lies in the Florida law that mandates a recount in cases where the election is so close that a recount is the worst possible strategy.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001


Flint, I read your several replies on this thread several times. I am having trouble deciding whether you think Bush received more votes than Gore in Florida or not.

You seem determined to argue that no counting of those Florida votes could have any more validity than any other count, regardless of who the count favored, because the margin fell within the "coin flip zone".

You seem equally determined to argue that the USSC did not determine the outcome, because Bush won the vote legitimately.

How can you reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable positions? If you don't hold them both simultaneously, which one do you repudiate?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001


Think:

Good question. I wasn't clear at all, so I'll try again. That election was a mess, no doubt about it.

What I'm trying to do here is distinguish between the actual winner and the official winner.

The actual winner is the candidate that the most voters thought they voted for, or made a good-faith effort intending to vote for. It is my contention that the actual winner cannot be known when the election is sufficiently close, due to inevitable ambiguities in the procedures. No matter what those procedures are.

The official winner is the candidate who just happens to come out ahead by some small and arbitrary number of votes, when the votes are counted according to some procedure. This candidate is the official winner by dint of being *declared* the winner according to the rules (which as I recall said the Florida Secretary of State received and certified the count).

The official winner is never "appointed" however. As a practical matter, we can't keep recounting the same votes indefinitely. We could see that the ballots themselves were degrading under the stress. *Something* has to break us out of the infinite recount loop. In this case, the USSC did break the loop. At that time, there were up to NINE different count totals, depending on how you defined a count. As far as I could tell, the claim that "the USSC appointed Bush" originated from those irritated because Gore had not yet won any of these counts, but *still might* if we counted enough times with enough different people and procedures. Which the Florida Supreme Court (composed of all Democrats, as it happened) was trying desperately to make happen.

So I'm saying the actual winner cannot be known, being far, far within our error of measurement. By coming out ahead (IMO at random) when the votes were counted, Bush became the official winner. Florida law (IMO a TERRIBLE law) stipulated that the election was close enough to require a recount, which was the root cause of the problems.

But the USSC didn't "determine the outcome", the USSC simply stopped the "keep counting until Gore wins" forces prematurely, so they had to go with the last count they had. Alternatively, you could argue that ANY step along the way "determined" the outcome -- the accident of the counts, the decision to recount only undervotes, the time limits imposed by either (or both) the Florida Supreme Court or the Florida Secretary of State, the USSC blowing the whistle. I'm not sure where to draw the fine line between determining the outcome, and strongly influencing it. After all, there was some evidence that factors other than pure voter preference were involved in the outcomes in other states.

So I think Bush won the *election* legitimately, but didn't necessarily win the vote. We followed the rules and Bush came out ahead according to those rules. (More accurately, the rules weren't clear at all, and courts of different political persuasions attempted to clarify the rules in favor of *their* candidate, and the USSC put a stop to that. If the candidates were reversed, would the USSC have decided the same way? Highly doubtful). The USSC certainly influenced the outcome, but was far from the only (or even the most important) factor.

As for the actual winner, who knows? We'd need someone capable of reading the mind of every voter in Florida!

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001


It is amazing how long it took all these "liberal" news outlets to "word" the report about the election results. After all, how do they say "Gore Won" and make it sound like Bush was the actual winner. The point is, more people voted for Al Gore and he should have won the election. If he had, the Bush administration wouldn't have been able to tell the Taliban to take our deal for a pipeline or eat our bombs. Which pissed them off, and then Sep-11 happened and they are "eating" our bombs.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001


Jesus, Cherri, that's wacko as hell. That is not why the Taliban acted as they did. The Taliban were bin Laden's puppets.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ