posted on November 11, 2000 04:07:34 PM new
There seems to be a lot of statements flying to and fro about 'double-punched' ballots, 'disqualified' ballots, 'uncounted' ballots, etc. Let's clarify what we mean.
A double-punched ballot is one where two holes are clearly punched out. A machine will not read such a ballot - obviously. If the voter realized that they had made a mistake and *circled* one of the two holes, a machine will still not pick it up.
In a manual recount, a person feeds each ballot through the machine individually. If the machine can't read it, then a human looks at it. If they can determine 'the will of the voter', they can count the vote. (Actually, they usually make out another ballot - correctly - and feed it through the machine so the machine then counts it.)
If the voter did not completely punch out the hole (or the tiny scrap of paper was still handing on), the machine does not read it. Again, a human (doing a manual recount) will read it and fix it.
So - lots of ballots are disqualified. In a manual recount, some of them (hole not completely punched out or one of two holes circled) can be fixed, others (two holes punched out completely) cannot.
In a normal election, a second machine count will pick up more votes (because more of the little pieces of paper still hanging on will fall off because of increased handling). The additional votes *should* be in proportion to the overall votes.
A manual recount will again pick up more votes. Theoretically, these additional votes should again be in the same proportion. The one exception to that would be if a lot of voters realized they had made an error (because of the ballot layout or something) and *circled* one of two holes. But - in my personal opinion - this scenario probably did not happen too often.
(By the way, I'm a Gore supporter.)
So, I don't think a recount (whether manual or machine) of the votes already present will make a big difference. (Of course, in this election, even a small difference could make a big difference, if you see what I mean.)
Seminole county did a manual recount and picked up just under 100 additional Bush votes. Seminole is a Republican county, so this makes sense. West Palm Beach is a Democratic county, a recount there should pick up additional Gore votes. I think the only fair thing to do is recount *all* the counties in Florida (which I don't think will happen).
Another thing to consider is 'were the WPB ballots illegal'? (I place no importance on the Florida Secretary of State saying that they're legal - she's a Republican. Only an impartial judge can make that determination.) If a judge says they're illegal, then the people of WPB *who voted the first time* should vote again. If they're *not* illegal (just confusing), then there should not be a second vote. I feel sorry for the people that were confused but - tough luck.
Yet another thing to consider is not only were the ballots legal, but were they properly visible when placed in the machine. I've heard reports that the arrows were not visible and/or did not line up properly when a person actually placed them in the holder to vote. If that's the case (which only a judge should determine), then - whether or not they were technically illegal - they should be ruled 'overly confusing' or something like that and those people (again, only those that voted the first time) should have a revote.
So basically we're going round and round in circles.
In general, I'm much more concerned with all the reports of 'found' ballots that were never counted in the first place. That situation *should not* happen. I can see a machine not being able to read a ballot, but finding 'bags of ballots' that never even went through the machine is inexcusable.
Ok, I've gone on long enough. Just wanted to clarify some points.
posted on November 11, 2000 06:37:03 PM new
A revote is obviously out of the question although I can well understand why Gore supporters would want it. What Nader supporter would possibly vote Nader again given the circumstances. Being a "spoiler" was only a distant possibility before. There is no way to ensure that each voter would vote again as he/she intended tothe first time. Therefore, there will be no revote. The courts will NEVER tolerate this "giveaway" to Gore. The demand for similar revotes all over the country would be so overhwelming as to invalidate the entire election. Sorry, Gore, give it up! You lost, fair and square. Thank you Ralph.
posted on November 11, 2000 07:54:35 PM newIn a manual recount, some of them (hole not completely punched out or one of two holes circled) can be fixed...
A most astute observation, but not in the way I think you meant.
Yet another thing to consider is not only were the ballots legal, but were they properly visible when placed in the machine. I've heard reports that the arrows were not visible and/or did not line up properly when a person actually placed them in the holder to vote.
posted on November 12, 2000 09:12:23 AM new
I said that I heard reports because they had not been verified. At this point I can no longer *where* I read it (although it was probably somewhere on Yahoo) but I do remember that a supposed WPB voter said that this was the case in one of the election threads on this board. Of course, these threads are pretty long right now so I'm not going to go searching for it. <grin>
Again, I have no idea if it is true or not. It's just another thing to consider.
Again, I was just hoping to clear up some of the confusion I see with people seeming to confuse 'disqualified' vs 'double-punched', etc.
posted on November 12, 2000 09:15:48 AM newfeduprepublican - Why do you say that a revote is obviously out of the question? It's a legal remedy that has been used before? You might think that it's unlikely but I don't see that it's 'obviously out of the question'.
Besides, you're right - the Nader people might switch their votes to Gore. But the Buchanan people will probably switch their votes too. Logically speaking, you would think that these people would switch to Bush, right? (Unless you think the Buchanan votes might possibly have been meant for Gore <grin>
posted on November 12, 2000 09:52:12 AM new
barbarake,
I saw reference to the visability of the arrows when the ballot was actually in the machine also. Like you, I can't keep track of all that I've read or passed by either, and wish there was a way to cache cuts for later pasting. This has been pretty crazy, but there may be someone who can help. He's here now, and you can ask him yourself:
posted on November 12, 2000 11:00:54 AM newCONSIDER - 1. To think carefully about. 2. To think or deem to be; regard as. See as1. 3. To form an opinion about; judge: “considers waste to be criminal.” 4. To take into account; bear in mind: “Her success is not surprising if you consider her excellent training.” 5. To show consideration for: “failed to consider the feelings of others.” 6. To esteem; regard. 7. To look at thoughtfully.
abingdoncomputers - "So what you're saying is that even though you don't know if a statement is true or not, it should still be considered just in case it might be true?"
Yes - that's exactly what I'm saying. I didn't say 'accept as true', I said 'consider'. That means checking into it, thinking about it, and making a decision based on the evidence. I usually 'consider' things before making decisions - don't you?
And I take offence to your snide remark about spreading rumours. Most of the talk on these election threads consists of what people think (opinions) and what they've heard (rumours). I made it clear that I heard that the arrows didn't show when the ballot was put in the machine. I guess - according to you - that nobody should say *anything* because it hasn't been *proved*.
posted on November 12, 2000 11:08:43 AM newYes - that's exactly what I'm saying. I didn't say 'accept as true', I said 'consider'. That means checking into it, thinking about it, and making a decision based on the evidence. I usually 'consider' things before making decisions - don't you?
If you hear something that you are unable to verify the veracity of and then you repeat it, you are spreading a rumor.
As to the bolded part of your statement above, there is no evidence that you can point to, else your previous statement about not knowing whether it is true or not wouldn't even apply. Therefore it is a rumor. It's impossible to form an informed opinion about a rumor.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 12, 2000 11:11 AM ]
posted on November 12, 2000 11:19:23 AM new
abingdon,
I "heard" the same thing re the arrows not lining up on the ballot. I "heard" this from Palm Beach voters being interviewed on the news. Perhaps, these voters were mistaken, and the arrows were aligned properly, but the fact is there are voters saying that they weren't. I wouldn't call this rumor mongering. It was the perception of these voters that they weren't aligned properly. Of course we weren't in the voting booth with them, and didn't see what they saw with our own eyes, but I still don't think that these statements are "rumors", as this is what these voters are saying that they experienced.
posted on November 12, 2000 11:48:10 AM newIf you hear something that you are unable to verify the veracity of and then you repeat it, you are spreading a rumor.
COMPLETE AND UTTER BALONEY!
Not when the person repeating it goes out of her way to include the information that it hasn't been verified, or that she doesn't know if it's true. It could as easily be true as not. It's information, worth considering, worth researching, worth passing along to interested parties. Possibly to be dismissed eventually, possibly not.
Why do you not demand the same standard for Republicans? I'm thinking of James Baker in particular, whose entire premise for the infamous Federal law suit is based purely on disinformation.
(He keeps digging a bigger and bigger hole for himself as they day wears on, btw. But that, happily, is his -- and Bush's -- problem, and no less than they deserve. ROTFL.)
posted on November 12, 2000 12:43:03 PM new
I heard an interesting rumor. I heard that even the dead vote in Chicago - home of the infamous Daley machine, a member of which is the Gore campaign chairman, and current mouthpiece.
This could mean that if Daley manages to recount Gore into the White House...that the Daley family will have finally elected a stiff...
posted on November 12, 2000 03:55:35 PM new
The articles on alignment were either on excite or yahoo news reports as they were the only 2 areas I read and I remember those statements.
I don't intend to waste my time doing a full search but here are a few snippets.
[b]ap friday: "``We went to vote and the ballot would not line up with the names correctly,'' said Joette Tindell, 33, a government teacher from St. Cloud, Fla
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 11, 2000; Page A01
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Nov. 10 –– Realtor Tony Jordan, 58, could not figure out his presidential ballot--it made no sense, he said. He stared at it for a good five minutes, but the holes he was supposed to punch did not line up with the names.
At 9 a.m., Jack Heifetz was standing in his voting booth at the fire station in Boca Raton, reminding himself he is an intelligent person.
"I'm a college graduate, I taught at college, and there I was, I had to take out my comb [to use as a ruler] because there was a misalignment of the forms," said Heifetz, 72, a retired builder. "I could not really read across properly--the comb tilted. I think I pushed the right button, but I can't promise you I did."[/b]
There were many incidents as the above reported and I don't know how those following this didn't read them.
