posted on December 11, 2000 01:25:06 PM
Let's suspend disbelief for a minute (shouldn't be difficult, given the past month) and deal in hypotheticals.
Let's assume I'm the Supreme Court. That's right; I'm not only the nine supposedly wisest minds in the land; I have 9 heads (bad hair on all) am of both genders and assorted political persuasions. (Told you this requires suspension of disbelief.)
Assume further that statute and case law directs me to require a manual recount of ALL the ballots cast in Florida, and that I so order.
Assume that said statute and case law puts the onus on moi to set a statewide standard for this recount by defining the term "a ballot which shows clear intent of the voter".
One of the USSC justices remarked today, regarding the concept of "clear intent," that even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked and went on to question whether whether "clear intent" exists in a situation where two people with an equal "investment" in the outcome can disagree regarding what is supposed to be factual content.
So....Rather than set "chad" or "dimple" standards, I define this term as "a ballot which, upon being examined by representatives of the opposing political parties, said parties agree as to the candidate for whom a vote has been placed." IOW, if either party disputes a ballot, that ballot is considered a "non-vote" and is not added to either candidate's tally, period, no appeal, no additional review.
I'm trying to figure how this would work out strategically. Certainly one party could object to e.g. every ballot, but then so could the other party, resulting in a net vote count of 0....unless of course one could keep a running mental tally of how many votes had been cast and for whom - and statewide, besides.
I'm sure there's holes in this somewhere, but right now I can't see ‘em. Thoughts? I'm primarily interested in possible statistical pitfalls (the possibility of the political equivalent of card-counting) rather than political arguments, but would like to see your thoughts on the politics of this idea as well.
posted on December 11, 2000 01:38:18 PM
interesting topic- the "card-counting" factor could come into play near the end of the tabulation with one party knowing that they were ahead and then questioning all remaining ballots. the question would be how the parties would be able to know the running tally.
posted on December 11, 2000 01:45:56 PM
Hello HCQ,
But what would be the point?
Given the results from the initial machine count that shows one candidate ahead of the other, one would assume that the process of a manual recount would consist of a machine recount with a manual recount of only those ballots where the machine did not register a vote for one of the candidates.
The disputed (uncountable by machine) ballots would surely be contested by one party or the other depending on who stood to lose the vote if it were to be counted.
The end result is nothing more than the original machine count.
Except that if the recount showed the original losing candidate gaining enough ballots to take the lead, then the other side would probably charge that the handling of the ballots up to this point had resulted in hanging chads dropping off.
There is simply no way to have a truly impartial manual recount. Not even asking someone ostensibly without an interest in the outcome to supervise the count. Who would be appointed? Someone from another country? The United Nations? No one could ever be considered to be totally impartial since literally everyone in the World has an interest in this election.
Machines, on the other hand, are as impartial as we can get. Dimples are dimples and don't count. Hanging chads don't count.
The unfortunate fact is that it is each voter's individual responsibility to make sure their vote registers properly. That some did not is a tragedy for all. No one knows precisely who cast the ballots at issue. So no one can be asked what their intent was.
I think it is going to be a bitter pill for this country to swallow but hopefully we will have reforms and safeguards in place to prevent this problem in the future.
posted on December 11, 2000 04:48:56 PM
I agree with you, codasaurus, that machines are the most accurate and impartial counting method. Even assuming that ballots cast by voters who, as Justice O'Connor noted today, just didn't follow instructions wouldn't be added to either candidate's tally, those votes would be ignored in an impartial way....assuming, of course, that the registered voters of one party are not more prone to not following instructions than those of another party. But that's not the issue I'm addressing, any more than I'm addressing the questions of whether Vote-a-Matics are more or less inclined to ignore votes or discourage voting than any other system.
I'm trying to work with the Federal statutes that require that ballots be counted using the laws in place on 11/1 (6 days before the election). I'm also assuming, of course, in the validity of the argument that the the "undervotes" result from machine error, not voter error, and are therefore eligible for manual recount under Florida law.
Setting aside my belief that Florida Statutes 101.5614(5) deals only with damaged ballot cards and assuming it applies to undervotes as well, basically that law says to count a vote if "a clear indication of the intent of the voter [can be made] as determined by the canvassing board." If there's unanimity among the canvassing board members, obviously the "intent" was clear. If the board members disagree, obviously there's NOT "clear" intent.
Of course, unless FL law is circumvented to require somebody else other than the county canvassing boards to perform the manual recounts, my suggestion doesn't address the Constitutional issue of equal protection (if, for example, Palm Beach board members were more "cooperative" and therefore disputed fewer ballots than Broward board members, the voters in those 2 counties would not be "equally protected".
posted on December 11, 2000 07:44:31 PM
HCQ - Obviously the machines aren't perfect. And I agree with a uniform standard to count these "undervotes". But what represents a fair standard acceptable to both parties that also fits the Florida Standard of Clear Intent.
Let's keep in mind that I am already on record not accepting dimples unless the entire ballot is clearly marked that way. I am already in agreement that double votes hit the trash. But what if the card was inserted properly, and somehow due to no fault of the voter registered the votes in between the punches for candidates. What do you do with these votes that obviously won't be read by the machine.
I am on record as saying this and I mean this. Any Statute in Florida that allows for an otherwise readable ballot to not be counted. IMHO is in violation of equal protection as well as the 15th Amendment.
I suspect the republican argument those were the rules before the election. Well the rules before the election also state clear intent of the voter. I guess when the Republicans changed the law in 1999. They were hoping that the other changes would effectively stop the clear intent clause from being used. Or then again maybe they put that one there in case the license checks on election day, purging of otherwise lawful voters from registration rolls, and moving of precincts on election day didn't deter enough votes. They planned on using the clear intent rule for themselves.
I still say let Florida send up two slates and split votes among the slates. But we all know why that isn't an acceptable remedy because Bush needs 23 of those 25 votes to make it to 270.
Oh yeah HCQ go back and check the thread were you get a history lesson that denying States entry to the college has occurred twice before in history 1868 and 1872. So stop with the allegation of changing the Constitution because the remedy stops The Florida Republican Party from stealing an election.
posted on December 11, 2000 08:00:46 PMI'm trying to work with the Federal statutes that require that ballots be counted using the laws in place on 11/1 (6 days before the election).And as you mention, HCQ, the pertinent Florida statute that was in place, leaves this determination up to the canvassing boards. What I was getting today from the Supreme Court hearing, was that some of the justices are uncomfortable with the "different" standards for determining the intent of those voters from county to county. But, this is one reason I don't think this is a Federal issue and why the Florida Supreme Court didn't clarify a standard to determine intent when they issued their ruling. The Florida statute clearly states that the canvassing boards will determine the "clear intent". And if the standard adopted for that determination differs from county to county, then that's just the way it is. The Florida Supreme Court didn't SET the standard when it ordered the recount. If it had, it would have been accused of WRITING the law instead of INTERPRETING the law, so it relied on the direction of the Legislature which gave that power to the canvassing boards. Obviously the Florida legislature wasn't concerned with differing standards for determining the clear intent of the voter, or it would have defined the standard for that determination. Now, as for agreement or disagreement within the various canvassing board on defining that standard goes, I don't think that either republican OR democratic observers need to be involved in that determination. Only the canvassing board should make that determination. The party observers are there to OBSERVE the actual recount, perhaps noting whether it conforms to the standard set by the individual canvassing board. THAT is why this isn't a FEDERAL question at all. It belongs solely in the STATE courts.
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Dec 11, 2000 08:02 PM ]
posted on December 11, 2000 10:56:11 PM
Machine vote tabulators are not impartial. They favor perfectly cast ballots. Democratic attempting voters have a higher rate of voter error that keep their intended votes from being machine read. Therefore, machine vote tabulators favor Republican votes.
posted on December 12, 2000 04:37:20 AM
Interesting points, Katyd, which raise the next question that's come up in some discussions: Is Florida's law regarding "clear intent" in violation of Title II (equal protection) and therefore unconstitutional?
donny, I'm not sure whether to be baffled by your imprecision or amused at your tongue-in-cheek. Can you give me a smilie and clue me in?
posted on December 12, 2000 06:19:33 AMIs Florida's law regarding "clear intent" in violation of Title II (equal protection) and therefore unconstitutional? Now that IS a murky question. And as I understand it, Florida is not the only state to have a "clear intent" statute on the books. And try as I might, I just can't seem to understand how this "clear intent" statute might violate the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution. This is where it goes in circles, because if the "clear intent" is implemented in some way as to disregard or disenfranchise some voters, then yes, I suppose it could be considered in violation. BUT, I'm assuming that the only way this could happen is if the "clear intent" standard (whatever that standard might be as determined by the individual canvassing boards)was applied in such a way that it was actually in conflict with the way that vote in question was intended to be cast. And how would one ever know or determine that? There's no way that I know of to track down individual voters and ASK them, "just exactly who did you intend to vote for?" But in that instance, yes it could violate "equal protection". But then that leads us back to the original question, doesn't it? Jeeze, I'm glad I'm not one of those justices. I have a headache already!
"donny, I'm not sure whether to be baffled by your imprecision or amused at your tongue-in-cheek. Can you give me a smilie and clue me in?"
I'm addressing your response to Codasaurus, where you said:
I agree with you, codasaurus, that machines are the most accurate and impartial counting method. Even assuming that ballots cast by voters who, as Justice O'Connor noted today, just didn't follow instructions wouldn't be added to either candidate's tally, those votes would be ignored in an impartial way....assuming, of course, that the registered voters of one party are not more prone to not following instructions than those of another party."
But you see, the registered voters of one party (Democratic) are more prone to not following instructions than those of another party (Republican). That's why, although it might seem, intuitively, that machine vote tabulators are the most impartial and error free method of counting, they're not, machine vote tabulators have a built in partiality to Republican votes.
I've tried to find something on the web to reference that addresses the difference in voter error rates by party, and can't, it's just what I learned as part of getting a Political Science degree, but that was so many years ago I'm sure I've long since thrown out any textbook that discusses it.
I would go in to why the "equal protection" problem isn't a problem at all, but I've got to run. David Boies got part of it, in his oral arguments, but missed the other parts.
posted on December 12, 2000 01:06:53 PM
Geez, donny, you mean that someplace there's actual empirical evidence that Democrats find certain voting methods beyond their abilities?
I'm stunned. I don't know whether to laugh or to be deeply disturbed. I keep thinking it's got to be some satire someplace.
If it's true, I can see why Boies didn't bring it up - the "our voters are dumber than your voters" argument would I think have more than a few justices' eyes popping out of their heads. IMHO at least, obtaining a verdict in one's favor using that argument would seem to be more embarrassing than it's worth. Talk about wanting to win at any cost.
posted on December 12, 2000 01:28:16 PM
Just to clear up some possible confusion...
I said "Machines, on the other hand, are as impartial as we can get."
I never said that machines were the most accurate.
Hello Donny,
I remain unshaken in my belief that machine tabulation is the most impartial. Whether it be a punch card reader or an optical scanner or even a counter in the lever style voting machines where they are still employed. Even to the point where a ballot filled out in handwriting might be scanned with OCR type equipment.
Machines are programmed in a deterministic fashion. That is, the same input results in the same output.
People, on the other hand, are often non deterministic in their behaviour. People tend to make decisions that favor (consciously or unconsciously) what they feel to be in their own self interest. In a ballot counting context this might devolve to a counter with political leanings towards candidate A deciding that a dimple was not clear intent when it seemed to be in the column for candidate B. And then on the next questionable ballot, deciding that a similar dimple was sufficient because (consciously or unconsciously) the dimple was in the column for candidate A.
This non deterministic behaviour is well known and well documented across nearly ever discipline of study.
When it comes to the actual methods of casting a ballot I think that if punch card ballots are more apt to be spoiled by those voting Democrat as opposed to those voting Republican it is not because of some inherent bias in the punch card machine. I suspect that sociologists would find this area of study fertile ground for observation and analysis of many factors other than political affiliation.
posted on December 12, 2000 01:43:00 PM
Hello HCG,
Perhaps I misunderstood your proposal. You are wondering if an examination of the non machine countable ballots by the canvassing board with any ballot not unanimously agree on being tossed?
How many folks are on the canvassing board? Two? One from each major Party? As many members as there are candidates on the ballot?
If this is what you suggest, I don't see how an impartial count could be made. There is either a dead tie between the Republican and the Democrat. Or chaos as the minor party representatives choose up sides to exert influence out of proportion to their candidates' popular vote totals.
Florida had quite afew candidates on the ballot. Even if a simple majority of the representatives was deemed sufficient to allow the vote the same charges of bias would inevitably arise.
I don't see any way out of this mess except in the future. Bush or Gore is going to win, recount or no recount, and half of the voting public is going to spend the next four years feeling that they were robbed.
posted on December 13, 2000 12:27:47 AM
Codasaurus,
"Machines are programmed in a deterministic fashion. That is, the same input results in the same output."
Yes, I agree. It's your second sentence that's important in the equation. When the input is different, different outputs result.
There's no doubt that Democratic ballots do have more mistakes, some caused by only the voter's own errant behavior, than Republican voter's ballots.
Consider that the Democratic party has historically been the party of choice for the newest immigrant citizens, who may be less familiar with English than citizens who have been here longer. Does this mean Democratic voters are inherently stupid? Does it mean that those citizens, citizens as fully vested with the rights that U.S. citizenship provides, as much as anyone born here, fully as subject to political rule as any citizen born here, should be denied the right to have a "real vote" (i.e. a vote that is given weight)?
I studied French for 8 years, from 3rd grade on into college. I studied Greek for 6 years. The only thing I can say in French is "I can't speak French," and the only thing I can say in Greek is "My house is red." I don't even live in a red house, but I don't know how to say "blue" in Greek, and I'm too lazy to paint the house red. I doubt I could read more than a word or two in either language, but I don't consider myself stupid. I just can't do languages. English, I do pretty well. French and Greek, despite years of study, I can't do well.
Now suppose, for some reason, I find myself moving to Greece. I attain citizenship, intending to live there, subject to their laws, subject to their taxation, subject to their draft, if they have one, and entitled to participate in their elections. Through practice, I pick up enough of the language to get by a bit better than answering any query with "My house is red." But my language is still not perfectly fluent. In my case, I don't think, no matter how long I lived somewhere else, that I would ever be absolutely proficient in another language.
But there I am, a citizen, as fully entitled to the rights of citizenship as any other citizen. And I go into a polling place to excercise my right to vote. And it's all Greek to me. I can recognize my candidate's name. I can read the instructions, mostly, but my language skills are not perfect.
I think I've interpreted the instructions correctly. I understand I'm supposed to make a mark on my ballot. But something gets lost in the translation. I think the written instructions tell me to draw a heart around my candidate's name. But what the instructions really direct me to do is to put a circle around my candidate's name. Drawing a big ol' heart around my candidate's name, I leave the polling place, secure in the knowledge that I've cast my vote, and smiling inwardly about how wonderful it is to live in a village that marks its ballots with lovely hearts.
Now comes time to count the ballots, in the little Greek village that's my home for now and forever. All 101 of us villagers have marked our ballots, and they're run through a machine that counts circles. Here are 50 ballots with circles around candidate A's name, and 50 ballots with circles around candidate B's name. And there's my tie-breaking ballot, spit out, unreadable by the machine, with a beautifully drawn heart about my candidate's name.
My ballot is an example of voter error. Should my vote not be given the weight of any other citizen's vote? Am I dumb, as HCQ would brand me, when she says:
"If it's true, I can see why Boies didn't bring it up - the 'our voters are dumber than your voters' argument."
Flip it around. It's a person who was born in Greece now, who's come to America. Who has attained American citizenship. Who goes out to cast the vote he's legally entitled to cast. Shall we now say that he is "dumb?" HCQ apparently would.
My father's mother and father came over from Ireland at around the turn of the century, steerage, no doubt, landed in New York City, attained citizenship, bore and raised their children here. On attaining citizenship, and the right to vote, this country became their country, as fully as it was any other American citizen's country, no matter that my grandparents were among the newest arrivals. And no matter that my grandparents were coming from a life in Ireland where they might not have had access to much education, should their perhaps limited literacy effectively have denied them the right to cast a vote that would count? Were they "dumb?" HCQ apparently would say so.
When you say here that -
"When it comes to the actual methods of casting a ballot I think that if punch card ballots are more apt to be spoiled by those voting Democrat as opposed to those voting Republican it is not because of some inherent bias in the punch card machine."
I'd disagree. I think there is inherent bias in the punch card machine, and here's an example of one of the reasons why:
Remember it's up to the different areas within each state to purchase and maintain their own voting equipment. While poorer districts, with a lower tax base, might find they can only afford punch card balloting systems, or fill-in-the circle paper ballots, more affluent districts, with a higher tax base, are more likely than poorer districts to equip their polling places with computerized ATM-type balloting machines.
While it's possible, with a punch card ballot, through voter mistake, to punch more than 1 hole for a particular race (an overvote that invalidates any selection for that race), and it's also possible to cast an overvote with a fill-in-the circle ballot, either through an inadvertent, unnoticed stray mark made in a second candidate's circle, or by a smudge of dirt on a second candidate's circle caused by unclean vote reading machinery, it is impossible (assuming your software was programmed right and keeps on working), to cast an overvote with an properly designed computerized ATM-type balloting system. Here in my district, in Georgia, as we did in New York City, we use lever machines. It is impossible to cast an overvote with our lever machines, the mechanism will not allow you to pull down more than 1 lever for each race or question on the ballot.
So, with some vote casting systems, your vote can be invalidated through 'overvoting,' whether that overvoting occurred through a mistake of yours, or a defect in the machine. With other vote casting systems, it is impossible to have your vote invalidated by 'overvoting.' And, remember, the more opportunites a machine allows for mistakes to be made, the more mistakes will be made.
"People, on the other hand, are often non deterministic in their behaviour. People tend to make decisions that favor (consciously or unconsciously) what they feel to be in their own self interest"
Yes, this might be true, but does it have to be? In all situations? If we take it as true, on its face, then any determination by anyone that involves any subjectivity, combined with any self interest is, of course, fatally flawed. Everytime I get change from a salesperson, I count it, it's a habit I got into as a child, before a cash register would tell a cashier how much change to return. I can remember, in my whole life, only once where I was shorted, by a dime, and once where I was overpayed, by $12.00. Wouldn't a store owner, even unconciously, short a customer more often that it's been my own personal experience than that happens?
If you approach a situation like ballot counting, where each ballot counter will probably have at least a slight preference for one candidate, and sometimes a stronger preference, or even a recognized self-interest in the outcome, can't it be that a ballot counter could still apply one standard fairly to each ballot he or she regards, whether that ballot be determined for a favored or non-favored candidate?
If someone can't accept that a ballot counter could view a ballot free of bias, then, of course, any ballot counting will be seen to have "the potential for mischief," namely, vote stealing, and, further, that every ballot counter will engage in trying to steal an election. If you believe that, despite a recognition, older and more widespread than this election, that hand counting, while slower than machine counting is more accurate, you'll always see a flawed process that is impossible to trust.
That presumption of untrustworthiness of anyone counting a ballot by hand isn't exactly what Justice Stevens addresses in his dissent to this last Supreme Court ruling, but it's close.
HCQ, I haven't addressed you directly in the above remarks, instead referring to your comments. In directly addressing you, I will say that your comments in this thread, as have some of your comments in other threads, reveal a distasteful elitism. Those who are small enough to fall prey to it may still be able enough to conceal it. But there are always some who aren't.
posted on December 13, 2000 01:21:16 AM
Donny,
When I lived in Italy the thought never crossed my mind that the Italians should have things written so I could understand them since I didn't speak Italian.
I stumbled and made do and asked lots of questions...asked my friends who spoke Italian better than I, to tell me what they were saying....
When I went to market it was up to ME to determine if I got the right change back the right lira. I didn't expect them to count it for me in English. More than once I discovered later I'd overpaid for an item...did I go back and say 'I never intended to pay that much...'no...I learned from my mistakes.
Those sample ballots were given to everyone. Those with a true desire to vote for their candidate had ample opportunity to ask someone to interpret for them. There were no surprises here if they'd taken the time to become informed.
posted on December 13, 2000 01:45:05 AM
Well, in my hypothetical, I believe I've read the instructions correctly (although in fact, I've read them incorrectly.) Someone who believed they were reading instructions correctly wouldn't ask for help.
posted on December 13, 2000 06:16:48 AM
I know this thread is about "intent," but what bothers me is "equal protection," or its application in this mess. This is what the Supreme Court opinion said about it:
'The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of
voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___
So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.'
What I can't understand is how the voting mechanisms, which differ from county to county and also result in statistically different outcomes, can meet the standard in the first place.
The Opinion further states:
'An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.'
Voting mechanisms with appreciably different error and failure rates effect the same thing. I know I must be missing something significant in this, but I just can't see how the case can be made against the recount without also invalidating the election itself.
posted on December 13, 2000 08:22:32 AM
Your remark regarding my "distasteful elitism" is too funny to merit a serious response.
However, your assertion that voting naturalized citizens would somehow be less able to comprehend voting instructions does need addressing. If you'll recall, a person undergoing naturalization takes a number of required classes concerning American government and the electoral process, on which they are tested before obtaining citizenship. Most naturalized citizens, therefore, actually understand the electoral process BETTER than native-born Americans. I'd also suggest that, having gone through the trouble of pursuing citizenship and the right to vote, they take considerably MORE care than others in ensuring their vote accurately reflects their wishes - unlike the "poor, elderly" native-born American who testified before the FL Legislature that "Hey, I always punch #2!".
Perhaps it IS "elitist" to reject a sliding-scale approach to tallying votes. If that's the case, I wear the title proudly.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 13, 2000 08:23 AM ]
posted on December 13, 2000 08:37:00 AM
Voting machines all have an inherent margin of error. The ones used in much of Florida have a especially large margin of error. When the margin of error of the machine is of the same order of magnitude as the margin of plurality then the machine results are meaningless. If there is a more acurate method of counting then it should be used in such close cases. If hand recounts are determined to be more accurate, then in order to have a meaningful result, it should be so employed.
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
Your post above follows directly on mine, and leads with Your remark regarding my "distasteful elitism" is too funny to merit a serious response and is followed by more addressed to a "you."
I haven't screened all the posts for the phrase but trust this was not directed my way, since I abhor redundancies like "distasteful elitism" and have never, ever been "too funny." Would you consider editing your post to specify the target of your remarks, so the casual reader isn't confused?
posted on December 13, 2000 09:13:02 AMIf you'll recall, a person undergoing naturalization takes a number of required classes concerning American government and the electoral process, on which they are tested before obtaining citizenship. Most naturalized citizens, therefore, actually understand the electoral process BETTER than native-born Americans.
Unfortunately, HCQ, this isn't true. It would be nice if it WERE true, but practically, it just doesn't work out that way. For the record, I live in California near the border, and there are a large population of naturalized citizens who DON'T speak english fluently, nor are they able to fully comprehend it as a written language. That is why everything here from ATMs, school information, and DMV tests and publications are printed in a multitude of languages. The sample ballots and voting publications we receive are about the only "official" documents that are still printed English only.
Pareau, you seem cranky lately. Really, anyone who reads this thread will see that HCQ's comments are directed to donny. Have some eggnog! And by the way, I think you made some very astute observations especially in light of the way the Supreme Court saw fit to decry a lack of a uniform recount standard, yet the lack of a uniform ballot does not seem to bother them in the least.
I am cranky lately, for sure, and sorry. Thanks for the offer of the eggnog, but I am not feeling 100% the thought of it makes me want to wallop. Re the thread, I confess I couldn't read every word of th e posts--some were way too long for me, and lots got repetitious, however intriguing the topic--and I figured other people might be skimming/skipping, too. Also, readers who have individuals on ignore won't be able to see all the posts. Self-imposed unequal perception, but affects the outcome all the same, eh?
Thanks for the comment on mine; I knew democracy was messy but had no idea it could be so utterly meshugeh in operation.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:18:27 AM
Boy! Some pretty hefty reading here. But it looks like this is the thread where somebody addressed the part of the Supreme Court decision that I'm not getting.
I think I'm echoing pareau here - I understand the Supreme Court is saying that in order for a recount to be fair, an "equal standard" needs to be applied to all the counties. But don't the counties all have different systems in place for the initial vote? In other words, setting up a standard that addresses whether chads are hanging, or dimpled, wouldn't have any meaning in a county that uses an ATM-style method of voting. If counties, in the initial election, get to independently choose how the votes are cast and registered - setting their own standards as it were - how can you then come back and say a uniform standard must be met for a re-count? Why can a county be trusted to handle the initial vote, but not a re-count?
I remain unconvinced that machines (either voting machines or vote tabulation machines) are inherently biased.
I agree that some folks have a more difficult time understanding and following instructions. I am not so sure that I agree that it is the newer immigrants to this country who tend to vote Democratic. Nor am I so sure that I agree that folks with lesser language skills are necessarily those who misunderstand or fail to follow instructions.
I think it is the person who doesn't pay attention to what they are doing who is more apt to misvote.
Those types of folks are probably more evenly distributed across the entire population of this country than any of us would think based on the stereotypes and the "common wisdom" that are so easily bandied about.
To go to your example of the heart rather than the circle. A machine optical scanner could easily be programmed to recognize the complete (or even partial) enclosure of the candidate's name you voted for. The machine would be deterministic based on how it was programmed.
However, if the programmer of the machine was biased and programmed the machine to reject hearts, squares, triangles, ellipses, etc. and only accept circles then you might argue that the machine is biased. But it was made so by a human.
Going one step further. Assume your ballot was kicked out by the machine as uncountable. The canvassing board is now tasked with determining your intent. Given that your vote (if intent can be determined) will determine the winner of the election, what do you think will have happen as the partial members of the canvassing board argue over whether the ballot is legal? What will be the standard for determining intent? How will a dispute over interpreting the standard be resolved?
Any reasonable person would say that the intent was clear. But what if you thought that a dot next to your choice was the way to vote and the canvassing board is now trying to decide if the dot on the ballot is clear intent?
Okay, look at any other marks on the ballot. Are there only dots? And are the dots consistent with a vote for each office or question on the ballot? You marked all of your choices with dots.
Again, any reasonable person would say the intent was clear.
Now take the analogy to the punch card ballots and the dimples and hanging chads.
Is a dimple clear intent? Perhaps it is in the context of a number of other similar dimples on the ballot. The same for hanging chads.
But what if the dimple or chad for President is the only such dimple or chad on the ballot?
Who can reasonably argue that there exists a clear intent in these instances? And who can reasonably expect that each side will not wish to interpret the intent or lack thereof to their own advantage?.
As far as the distribution of various types of voting machines/ballots based on economics and demographic distinctions I don't believe anyone has made a conclusive case for punch card voting as some insidious ploy by the more affluent to insure that the less affluent are disenfranchised.
Here in Fulton County, Georgia we still use punch card ballots (Georgia being the first place where these types of machines were first used). I don't believe that anyone would argue that the Black voters of the City of Atlanta and the county have been disenfranchised over the past 25 or 30 years as a result of the use of this type of voting machine.
posted on December 13, 2000 01:12:24 PM
Katy, your assertions seem to contradict the legal requirements for citizenship, which include being able to "speak, read, write and understand ordinary English words and phrases" and "demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and principles of government." These requirements are fully waived ONLY for those whose complete disability makes it medically impossible for the requirements to be fulfilled (e.g., the mentally disabled).
The ONLY time the language requirements may be waived is for people over 50-55 who have been legal permanent residents for 15-20 years. Time from application to interview is anywhere from 8-36 months. So a person for whom the language requirement is waived has somehow been able to live and function in the US for a minimum of 15.5 years; and s/he must still demonstrate a working knowledge of US history, government, and the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.
But let's assume that ALL of the 3.5M naturalized citizens over 55 in the US are registered to vote, and that they voted at the same rate (51%) as their native-born fellow citizens. This is less than 2% of the total voters in this past election - which percentage would probably be reduced even further by the unlikelihood that the functionally illiterate, whatever language they speak, register and vote at the same rate as the rest of the population.
So we've got a POTENTIAL for error among 2% of the voters based on a language barrier rendering them incapable of understanding basic instructions - as opposed to error based on not having a clue as to which candidate supports what policies. I'd suggest THAT is a greater danger. How many voters can actually articulate anything about their candidates' positions, other than that the other guy "sucks"?
Anyway, given the remarkable inability of the average, educated, English-speaking e.g. driver to make turns only from the left-turn lane, I'd suggest the inability to comprehend instructions (even ones regarding his own safety) is not exclusive to race, language, or political party. People are stupid, period. They don't think; they act. The instructions don't apply to them. And some of them are bound to blame somebody else.
posted on December 13, 2000 02:34:29 PMKaty, your assertions seem to contradict the legal requirements for citizenship, which include being able to "speak, read, write and understand ordinary English words and phrases" and "demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and principles of government."
*sigh* I'm just telling like it is here, HCQ. Perhaps it is different where you live. As an example, the parents of my daughter's best friend are originally from Mexico. They are now US citizens, but still have great difficulty with the English language. While they can speak English to a degree, much of what I say in English goes right over their head. We do much better when we communicate in Spanish, lousy as mine is. They both voted in this election (for Gore). As for legal requirements, well, we all know NOW, just how easy it is to get around those, don't we? , I'd suggest the inability to comprehend instructions (even ones regarding his own safety) is not exclusive to race, language, or political party.
Now, I will agree with you on this statement, although I have to disagree with your conclusion that it is because people are "stupid". There are many MANY reasons why people may comprehend instructions differently, among them culture, language, the way the brain processes information, and of course the famous "vague" "illegible" "confusing" "obfuscating" and sometimes "stupid" manner in which said "instructions" are often delivered. Ask my husband about fitting "slot 'a' into slot 'b', with slot 'd' and tab 'a' perpendicular to slot 'c' and parallel to tab 'e'"...etc. etc.
posted on December 13, 2000 03:07:21 PM
Codasaurus,
I'm not saying that my "voting in Greece" hypothetical is the only reason why Democratic attempting voters make a statistically higher number of mistakes in ballot completion than Republican attempting voters. It might not be a reason. Whatever the reasons, one or several, language unfamiliarty, differences in machines, other reasons, the result is recognized in the study of voter behavior.
"However, if the programmer of the machine was biased and programmed the machine to reject hearts, squares, triangles, ellipses, etc. and only accept circles then you might argue that the machine is biased. But it was made so by a human."
The best vote casting mechanism would prevent a voter from committing a vote casting error. And the best vote tabulation mechanism would prevent a vote tabulation error. What we have is a system that, on the one side, allows voters to commit an error, and on the other side, refuses to process a ballot with an error.
I think the better answer is not to design a tabulator that recognizes and takes into account an error, but to design a vote casting system that prevents an error, because the only vote tabulator that can recognize and correct a wide range of voter error is hand tabulation. Of course, if you believe that any person judging a ballot will carry his bias over to determining what that ballot shows, even that's not an answer. But I reject that assumption. Every other state that allows a hand count rejects that assumption also, and Justice Stevens addresses it in his dissent.
Some people spend most of their lives studying voter behavior. When you look at what voters do, you find lots of weird variations. For example, when the results of a race aren't known, and there's no clear leader in the pre-election polling, polling voters on whom they voted for will fairly accurately reflect the real outcome of the election. Once the winner is known, if you do the polls again, you'll find a much larger percentage of the respondents asserting that they voted for the winner than before. And, when you do a post-election poll and ask people if they voted at all, for anyone, more people will claim that they have voted than real voter turnout suggests.
HCQ - You can save yourself a lot of posting time by going straight to the proposition that Grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and polling taxes be revived, that would remedy a lot of your concerns.
posted on December 13, 2000 08:55:55 PM
I think that when we get into trying to devine intent we have too many chances to be wrong. The process inevitably becomes open to partiality. There will be a large number of scenarios we could paint about combinations of markings, punches, partial punches, dimples, etc. on a ballot that could legitimately be decided either way. When we have a desire to have one outcome or another it becomes almost impossible not to have your judgement swayed. It doesn't have to be a conscious bias at all, humans are very good at seeing what they prefer to see.
I saw a thought provoking comment on another site. The person raised the question of counting dimples. If we count them shouldn't we also look at every ballot the machines did not reject to be certain there are no dimples? Wouldn't a dimple on those ballots be an overvote?
Divining intent is too much like chasing your tail. After the expenditure of significant energy we are no closer to our goal. I think that Justice O'Conner was on the right track. You don't follow the rules and your vote doesn't count.
If we have an education problem for certain voters on how to use the election machines and/or ballots I beleive it is better to address the problem through training. We don't solve that problem by opening Pandora's Voter Intent box. What is worse, not counting my vote because I did not cast it as per the instructions or possibly incorrectly counting my ballot as a vote when that was not my intention or maybe counting my vote for the wrong candidate?
We cannot divorce our rights as citizens from our responsibilities. They are inextricably linked. That a form 1040 is too complex will cut you no ice with the IRS. That you didn't know about a law the officer just caught you breaking will not excuse you. If you fail the driver's license test you will not be getting your license. As citizens we have a responsibility to follow the rules about how we exercise our rights.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:39:54 PM
Precincts using outdated voting machinery registered extraordinarily high percentages of misvotes (as high as 15%, if memory serves).
Not surprisingly, most of the outdated machines are located in poorer regions, which also just happen to be home to less educated, less prosperous citizens.
Talk about a double-whammy. We stack the deck against the people who are least likely to understand the whole process to begin with and then assert that their votes don't count because, after all, they didn't do it right.
And this is logical how?
Fortunately, this conversation will soon be rendered moot with vast reforms that are already underway in virtually every state -- reforms that accept the fact that our current methods and equipment have done a disservice to all US citizens.
[ edited by fountainhouse on Dec 13, 2000 10:49 PM ]
.
