posted on November 19, 2000 08:54:01 PM new
...previous penetrations prevent subsequent ones. Subtitle: The Chad Pad.
Broward County alone (with 40% of the manual recount completed), the election board has set aside over 1000 ballots with so-called "pregnant chad". A Circuit Court Judge has already indicated that the recount so far has been too restrictive, and that such ballots may be ordered to be included. "What has been overlooked by many observers is how these ballots came to be. While a small number
could be the result of weak punching by the voter, it is far more likely that they were caused by a full catchbox. These catchboxes are simple attachments under the voters console to prevent the chad from spilling to the floor. If properly emptied, there would not be a problem. But, late in the day, or during heavy voter turnout, poll workers would likely be inattentive to this routine task. This little box, crammed with chad,would act to prevent the chad from being pushed hard enough to separate from the card. A voter would have no knowledge of the problem unless he or she inspected each and every hole on the card before turning in their vote."
posted on November 19, 2000 09:04:27 PM new
The [Broward County Canvassing Board] "said Sunday it would consider the ballots with dimple, pregnant chads or otherwise questionable chads after its appellate attorney, Andrew J. Meyers, said the two-corner standard would not hold up in court. On Friday, Circuit Judge John Miller told the board to reconsider its decision and warned he would order them to do so if they did not examine the ballots to see if a voter's intent could be determined. Democrats applauded the board's change of heart. "These chad marks didn't get on the ballot by osmosis," said Democratic attorney Charles lichtman, who added the voter's choice was obvious on many of the ballots that have thus far been thrown out. "The only way they could have occurred is with a stylus in a voting booth." --AP, 11/19/00
posted on November 19, 2000 09:08:00 PM new
I've voted in every election since I was 18 (10, now do your math, and you'll figure out how old I am.) I have used this type of ballot in each one. When you use the pin to poke out a chad, you can feel if you've actually poked it out or not. To get a rough approximation, punch a hole in a piece of paper with a pin. You can FEEL when the pin goes through. This is not a complex activity, no matter how many voters seem to have found it so.
It is truly grasping for votes, to now be looking for and counting pregnant chads.
posted on November 19, 2000 09:30:42 PM new
People go into a voting booth with the intention to vote. There's just not much else to do in there.
Why would anyone take themselves to a polling place, wait in line, get checked in, get into a voting booth, and then stand there and say to themselves - "Hey, wait a minute. What am I doing in this booth, pressing this stylus to this card?? I don't want to vote!" "Yes, the campaigning has been going on for a year. Yes, I thought about the issues. Yes, they were important enough to me for me to decide to take action and come down here and cast my vote for choice of president. But, gee, now that I'm standing here, pushing this stylus into my ballot, I suddenly realize... No, no!! I don't want to vote for the person designated by this space I've been pressing my stylus to. And not only that, I don't want to vote for ANYONE else in this race either."
To suppose that thousands of people, mere milliseconds before puncturing a card, had changed their minds in the precise moment between pressing hard enough to indent and hard enough to puncture, had suddenly decided... "No! No vote for him, and no vote for anyone else!!" is to stretch the bounds of reason.
To count an indentation, absent a vote for another candidate, as signifying an intention to cast a vote, is not something Gore or Democrats are suddenly making up for this election. It's accepted in case law and written in statute in many states, and perfectly acceptable under Florida statute. Both Broward county and Palm Beach county have been instructed by the court to not automatically dismiss indentations, but to give consideration to their possible sign of a citizen attempting to excercise his voting priviledge.
posted on November 19, 2000 09:36:25 PM new
Yeah, it seems that the standards for determining a voter's intentions needed to be changed.
"My only job is to represent the canvassing board. This is an evolving situation," Dion said. "What we believed to be accurate legal advice on Monday is now changed." (Associated Press, Dion is the attorney representing the Broward canvassing board)
The 'evolving situation' is Gore isn't getting the necessary votes under the standards they were using. Look for more changes to be made to what the Palm Beach canvassing board uses to determine a voter's intentions.
"A senior Gore aide speaking on condition of anonymity said the vice president will have a difficult time overtaking Bush unless Palm Beach eases its threshold for accepting ballots." (Associated Press)
Bush is wasting our tax dollars by not conceding! Shame on him!
Due to the evolving situation of the game a field goal will count as 5 points
posted on November 19, 2000 09:43:46 PM new
If the catch box were filled to capacity, you would still know if you had poked a hole or not. Due to the full catch boxes, the chad may not be dislodged. I don't dispute counting ballots that have one, two, or three of the corners torn.
I really have a problem with counting dimples though. There is too much assuming going on. Can we KNOW, that for EVERY dimple, someone meant to vote for that candidate? Of course not.
We can KNOW that if one or more corners have been torn, a stylus or at least a sharp object, was pushed through that hole.
posted on November 19, 2000 09:45:28 PM new
You aren't paying attention, uaru. A court 'advised' them as follows: "Circuit Judge John Miller told the board to reconsider its decision and warned he would order them to do so if they did not examine the ballots to see if a voter's intent could be determined".
Seems to me that that's fair warning, not from your democrats (whom you no doubt blame if your sink plugs up) but from the Florida
Curcuit Court that any practice which varies from the reasonable presumption so nicely expressed above by Donny would not meet with court approval.
posted on November 19, 2000 10:01:38 PM new
An indentation has to have been caused by a voter action, a pressing of a stylus to a card. There's no other way for an indentation to get there.
Is it truly reasonable to think that thousands of people stop pressing at that last millisecond, and decide to vote for no one?
posted on November 19, 2000 10:03:54 PM new
I didn't say that.
I'm saying that there is no way to know what the voters intention was. It is possible, they hadn't made up their mind, it is possible they didn't like any of the candidates and chose to vote for the local issues, it is possible they intended to vote for the person whose chad they impregnated.
The only way a voters intention can be known, is if there was penetration.
posted on November 19, 2000 10:07:41 PM newIs it truly reasonable to think that thousands of people stop pressing at that last millisecond, and decide to vote for no one?
Is it possible that some voters decided to vote for no one?
posted on November 19, 2000 10:24:19 PM new
UpInTheHills, think about this a bit more?
"It is possible, they hadn't made up their mind..."
But they had begun to press the space with the stylus. So their mind was made up at the moment that they were pressing on it. But all of a sudden, while pressing, they changed their mind? Thousands of them?
"it is possible they didn't like any of the candidates and chose to vote for the local issues"
Yes, that's entirely possible. But if that was true, why press the stylus to one candidate's space? Consider - Someone goes into the booth, thinks to himself, "Well, I don't want to vote for president, I only came here to vote for county commissioner, but I'm gonna start poking on this presidential candidate's space anyway"
Does that really seem plausible?
"Is it possible that some voters decided to vote for no one? "
Yes, that's entirely possible. But if you intend to vote for no one, you don't poke on their name at all. But if an indentation is there, it has to have been caused by an action that the voter performed.
posted on November 19, 2000 10:36:53 PM newDonny, I don't think we should count votes based on what is plausible. I think we should count votes on what is known.
I hold this belief across party lines. If we don't have a way to know when the absentee votes were cast, they should not be counted either.
posted on November 19, 2000 10:57:38 PM new
OK..I give up...as I hope you have ALL seen there are problems with our Electoral Process...
Should we give up the Electoral College?...NO..it is there for a reason (do some research)
Should either Gush or Bore stand down?...NO...let em fight it out!!!
Should there be a Hand Recount?
YES...BUT, Nationwide!!! WAY too many EC votes are VERY close..
IMHO, G Dubbya shoulda took Bore up on his offer for a Staewide recount of FLA with NO ramifications(sp) from the courts....
I agree with Bill from last weeks SNL..." We don't really NEED a President.."
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
posted on November 19, 2000 11:21:38 PM new
I wondered what the spin would be when these counties suddenly changed laws that have been on the books for 11 plus years *in the middle of counting* no less. So, it's the evil catch box theory...
While we're grasping for straws, let's add to our concern the oft ignored "flat" chad. Is it fair to Gore that we are not considering the possibility that many chads that were not indimpled or otherwise impregnated could have also been intended as votes for him. A flat chad is obviously the result of a voter who was either too weak or too overcome by apathetic tendancies to actually make the effort to touch the chad. How can we as a nation justify ignoring these obvious votes for Gore?
Even the votes that have been counted in Bush favor may have actually been votes intended for Gore. Maybe they got distracted by a flying insect and accidently impregnated Bush when they had meant to go for Gore.
posted on November 20, 2000 12:25:19 AM new
UpInTheHills,
There is a large body of case law, prior legal cases, which have looked at the same sort of situation, wrangling with the question of whether an indentation can be determined to be a vote. The answer is yes.
That's why the judges have directed the canvassing boards of Palm Beach County and Broward County to be more lenient in the way they determine what a vote is.
I agreed with your position too, when all this first came up. At first glance, it doesn't seem to be that a mere indentation should be enough to be something as important as a vote. But when one gets to thinking about it more, as many judges have done in the cases that the present judges in Florida have read, one realizes that the fact that someone had pressed on one candidate's space, while making no identation or punching on any other candidates space in the same race, can show that the voter had performed some positive action, presumably with an intended result.
Let me ask you this - Let's say that you were a ballot inspector, and you picked up a ballot that has only indentations on it. Say there were 10 different races on that card, and there was no punched out spaces at all, but there were clearly visible indentations by 1 candidate for each race.
Would a ballot card like that lead you to think about indentations a little differently? Would 10 indentations, 1 for each race, lead you to think that the person casting the ballot intended to vote for these 10 candidates, but that a surfeit of excess paper (the previous chad from a heavy day of voting) had stopped the stylus from going through? And that this voter, in his rush to vote a ballot that had quite a few races on it, and in his hurry to get out to let the next voter in, might not think to check his card to make sure the punches he had made with his stylus had actually gone all the way through?
Mybidness,
"I wondered what the spin would be when these counties suddenly changed laws that have been on the books for 11 years"
What books would those be?
What people don't seem to be seeing here is that the people who comprise the county canvassing boards, and are trying to decide on which standard to use, are just regular guys. They probably didn't know themselves what chad were when this whole thing came up.
They're sort of learning, like the rest of us, as they go.
Each canvassing board consists of the county's election supervisor, the chair of the county board of commissioners, and one judge in the county. That Judge Burton in Palm Beach county was never an expert in what the law was on ballots. He was a former college instructor, a lawyer, and now, as a judge, chief of the crimes against children/sex crime unit. All of a sudden, here he is, confronted with this problem that he never imagined he'd have to deal with.
It looks like to me that these people on the county canvassing boards tried to do the best they could. At the beginning, mindful of the firestorm and recriminations from the Republicans, they tried to use a standard that was as strict as could be.
But that goes against the case law in Florida, and when the counties either went to court asking for guidance, or were taken to court by the Democrats, the judges told the counties - You're being too strict, you have to give more consideration to those ballots which are further from perfect.
So, still trying to do the best they can, under order from the courts, they re-evaluated the criteria they had first used.
There's nothing nefarious about that, either in the behavior of the county canvassing boards, or in the Democrats who took them to court. Florida case law was clearly at odds with the standards the county canvassing boards had originally adopted.
You really shouldn't automatically trust and defend everything either political side tells you, especially now, when candidates' camps will say just about anything to sway the public to their side.
posted on November 20, 2000 05:50:29 AM new
dimpled chad = pregnant chad = no penetration = immaculate conception = vote for Gore
Makes perfect sense, huh?
Recounting by hand those ballots clearly and properly executed is no problem. Ballots not fully marked or punched should be disqualified. It's black and white. It's either right or it's not. It is not within the right or the duty of the election boards to attempt to perceive "voter intent". If you care enough to vote, you should take the time to do it right. It ain't that hard. Millions of voters are able to do it correctly.
posted on November 20, 2000 06:17:01 AM new
Try to forget about Gore for a moment, try to forget about the situation at hand, and think about the law, and the broader implications of deciding the question - what is a vote?
The right of every citizen to vote, absent felons who've had their right taken away (and not everyone agrees with that either), is so important that, to its credit, the law is very mindful that the exercise of that right shouldn't depend on a voter's success or failure in completing what's essentially a little test in whether you can follow directions to the letter.
posted on November 20, 2000 06:48:20 AM new
Unfortunately for your premise, Biff, regarding pregnant Chads, it seems that the courts are going to side with the right to lifers.
You'd think that the Bush camp would be gratified by that stance.
posted on November 20, 2000 07:12:24 AM newDonny
It is irrelevant to me which party benefits or loses ground due to disqualified votes.
What you're suggesting is that it's fine and dandy to have a "guessing board" in place to discern what the voter intended.
That's not okay with me. Regardless of how the chips (or chads) may fall. We are "tested" daily and our "rights" are determined by the success of that testing. What if driver's license examiners made their determinations based on what the applicant intended? "He meant to hit the brake, but instead hit the gas, causing a terrible accident. But his license is approved, because the proper intent was present."
We owe it not only to ourselves, but to the rest of the American citizens to "pass the test" and meet minimum standards. Voters are not required to ask the poll workers for assistance, they can always bring their own. I'm sure representatives from both parties would be more than willing.
posted on November 20, 2000 07:22:28 AM new
I think there should be a recognized difference between the right to vote and the privilege of having a driver's license.
But you see, it already is, as you're putting it, "fine and dandy to have a "guessing board" in place to discern what the voter intended."
posted on November 20, 2000 07:24:21 AM newkrs
I'm guessing that all this talk of "pregnant" chads brings up the issue of "right to life".
I think the presumption that anyone who voted Republican on these ballots does not support the "right to choose" issue is incorrect. Speaking only for myself, of course.
Of course we could always choose that sure fire method of preventing conception. Who woulda thought a cigar could be the answer to America's birth control issues?
posted on November 20, 2000 07:30:51 AM new
Does anyone know if the pregnant chads are only in existence for the presidential choices? Did other races on the same ballots receive a full punch out? How about the left over ballots? Are they being looked at to see whether they were undimpled to begin with. Maybe someone dropped the sharp corner of a book on a whole stack of ballots and dimpled them all.
posted on November 20, 2000 07:35:46 AM newDonny
Yes, we have a right to the privilege of obtaining a driver's license, or a concealed weapons permit, or to seek medical care, to vote and so forth.
Unless that right of privilege is denied for cause (as determined by law).
I do not question the right of all citizens to vote. Nor the right to have those votes manually counted. I do oppose the methods of discernment being utilized for "questionable" ballots.
In exercising their rights to vote, citizens owe it to themselves to fully exercise those rights and do it correctly. Or seek assistance. Or bring someone to assist. I do not feel it is the responsibility of other citizens to interpret the intent of any ballot not properly executed.
