Slashdot Mirror
Statistics, Elections, Frustration
The word is that the Florida recount will be completed later today (before 5 EST). In the meantime, a couple of interesting bits
related to math (which seems much more appropriate to Slashdot ;) The big one is of course the 'Voting Irregularity' in Palm Beach where supposedly thousands of seniors voted for Buchanan due to a badly designed ballot. this report (unfortunately, its a PDF) breaks down the returns on various counties and pretty much proves that something was wrong. Any math folks out there interested in doing their own take on the numbers?
bwoodard sent in
a mathematical argument for the electoral college written by
MIT Prof, Alan Natapof. Hopefully we'll have more word later today. Update: 11/09 01:55 PM EDT by C :For those of you interested in seeing why there is such controversy over the Palm Beach County ballot, you can take a look at the ballot to see for yourself if it might be a bit unintuitive. If you'd like more food for thought, you can check out this article which talks a bit about the usability issues behind the ballot's design.
You demonstrate such amazing conviction without giving any reasons why it should be so.
If they are truly interested in checking for irregularities, why not check election procedures in all 50 states? Gore won California by only 5%. Let's check and see how many CA voters were illegal aliens. Nah. Democrats aren't interested in that since the illegal aliens prefer Gore over Bush.
You're toeing the fine line between troll and Buchanan supporter there, friend.
I would have loved to see someone tell my 79 year old grandma (in Florida) that she couldn't have another ballot if she had made a mistake on hers.
That would have been a hell of a battle!
As it is, I'm very sure her correct vote for Bush got counted.
You make some good analysis points, but there are also some mistakes.
Firsly, all elections results are only published after polls close. So no election news coverage could influence any votes.
As to challenges to the ballot needing to be made before the election, if true, this will indeed be the most powerful republican argument. But if a ballot only has problems that can be conclusively determined after the vote has taken place, that issue should be hearable.
Also, due to the fact that only one person can use a machine at a time [for obvious reasons], there were incredibly long lines on Tuesday. This may also have caused people to give up and go home.
// mlc, user 16290
Face it, he and his followers are nutjobs, and they only got the reform party nomination because they were fanatical enough to flood the primary. I don't think his nomination was representative of Reform party feelings at large.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
read here in the Miami Herald
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I'm not a US citizen, so I could be wrong on this, but didn't Buchanan have something like 30% support across the Republican party nationally? What did that get him in this election?
If you want people to believe your claim that Palm Beach might be genuinely different, what were Buchanan's primary votes like in neighbouring areas in 1996? In order for your position to be defensible, they must be significantly lower.
I would like to remind everyone that the electoral college works. Just because New York and California really really want Gore to win doesn't mean that the rest of the country wants what Gore represents. Imagine if the EU existed during Hitler's rise to power, and Nazi Germany dominated the popular vote for the elections to president of the EU. This is all hypothetical, but I'm simply afraid that a lot of people don't understand the power balancing that the electoral college brings.
I suggest you read a little more about Hitler's rise to power before you make claims like this. Hitler never won a popular vote in the Weimar Republic. The closest he got was about 44%, and that was in an election where he had massive media backing and substantial support from Germany's industrialists.
Rhetoric aside, your argument is that some people's votes should inherently be worth more than others, because of where they live. That is bad enough, but it also seems that your claims are motivated solely by your desired outcome, rather than on any coherent set of electoral principles.
(sorry for sounding harsh :)
Fixing copyright
The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:
(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.
(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
Found at The Florida Election Commission. (sorry, a direct link is impossible)
The fundamental legal question is "was the will of the people thwarted?" And there is little doubt that it was in this case.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Honestly, I think Gore is handling this perfectly. I hope if the results change that Bush is as gracious and concedes to Gore. Even though I voted for Bush I think the most important thing now is that this be over we move on. Turning it into a lawyer infested slugfest is not going to help anyone.
Finkployd
I added more weight to this when I heard two of the voters talk. One voted, and then realized she had voted for Buchanon. The person in charge refused to give her another ballot so she could vote correctly - even though it clearly says on the ballot to get another one if you make a mistake. The other person I heard interviewed actually asked one of the workers there which hole was for Gore...the worker couldn't figure it out either. If the person that works there can't figure it out, how are the voters going to figure it out?
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Two peanuts crossed the street. One was assaulted.
They use this ballot system at my precinct, and a confused voter could have voted for McReynolds, *NOT* Buchanan.
In this type of machine, you insert your card above the ballotting book. The card has to be seated at the bottom, and then two pins are inserted through a tear-off stub section at the top of the card.
When I put my ballot in the machine, it wasn't seated the whole way down into the slot, and I had to force it so that the alignment pins at the top would get their tight fit. There is no retainer or any other device to make sure that you have the card inserted correctly. Because of this, at worst, a voter could have their ballot sitting too high in the slot, and would be actually casting votes for the person listed below their actual choice.
For this instance, a vote for Bush would go to Buchanon, Buchanon would go to Gore, Gore would go to McReynolds. The results don't show this happening, as McReynolds doesn't have that many.
What may explain the double punches, besides confusion ("Where am I? How did I get here?"), is the fact that once a ballot is punched, there is no way of taking back the selection. Because you can't see the paper being punched (its under a plexiglass guide/shield), some voters may think that it would record the last selection that they made, resetting their vote. It doesn't.
-- Len
For very small electorates--nine people, say--he found that the gap between candidates must be very large, at least 66.6 to 33.3 percent, before districting will help. That's why raw voting works well at town meetings, where electorates are so small. As the number of voters gets larger, the crossover point moves closer to 50-50. For a nation of 135, voters are better off with districting in any race more lopsided than 55- 45. For a nation with millions of voters, the gap between candidates must be razor-thin for districting not to help. In the real world of large nations and uneven contests, voters get more bang for their ballot when they set up a districted, Madisonian electoral system--usually a lot more.
So they are districted into states. But why stop there? Many states have an overwhemling majority, so they should be districted too, by the same logic. Eventually, you'll get down to districts of ten people because of packing and cracking. And in those situations, direct elections are supposed to work fine!
I am a bad speler. Please ignore speling meestakes in me poast.
Here's the link:
data
This cross-checks to CNN totals, and includes some recount data. You can verify correlations and such, if you want.
Please let me know if you find any mistakes in the data.
First off you fucks - I'm lefthanded and even I see that covering up half of the choices obscures things. Next - even the fucking SAT has instructions on how to fill out the form. Is not even that important.
So what do you want next - literacy, English language or intelligence tests to qualify for voting. Almost all of you smug bastards are decendants of people who came here from someotherfuckingplace. I propose that we retroactively void the voting of everyone who was in a hurry, had poor language skills, did not attend Geek U, was baffled perhaps as a first time voter or for any other reason. Every other aspect of our relationship to the government has SOME level of standardization to it.Why the fuck not this? Uh lemme guess - the same blockheads who are screaming that PEOPLE OF THEIR CHOSING should not be allowed to vote fall into two categories:
Vote straight party line w/o really thinking about it or even knowing who all the candidates in their own party are or what the offices represent.
Wrap themselves in the flag and the Constitution and bleat about how everyone should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want as long as Boortz and Limbaugh tell them to.
For those of you who still wish to blame this fiasco on stupid users, check out this graph.
Anyone still want to tell me that there's nothing funny going on here? Keep in mind that this is a largely jewish community, and that Buchanan is on record saying that Hitler was an admirable man in several ways.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
All this means is that it wasn't fraud. It doesn't mean that the votes were cast as intended, which (AFAIK) is a perfectly valid reason to challenge for a new election.
Think this through. In every election, the partisans on the losing side would simply assert that there were votes that were not cast as intended. No election would ever be resolved.
You would be suprised by how many physicists are bored by the notion of determinism. This guy probably went into physics in the first place after hearing about quantum uncertainty.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
Are you sure? I believe that different states have different laws about this. I think that for some states you are only allowed to change your affiliation on a second round of votes (if nobody gets a majority on the first round).
Of course, they could probably decide to do this, go ahead and do it, and take whatever the consequences would be. (Do you think they might get a pardon from the president?)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Actually, my greatuncle ran Nixon's campaign in Illinois in 1960. He was Illinois' senior senator's chief of staff at the time. Nixon called off further inquiries because he felt it would cheapen the results. My uncle did take the time to examine the voting records and found that his mother, my greatgrandmother, who had been dead for 12 years at the time, had voted for Kennedy. All of neighbors, in the eternal resting place, had also voted all consistently Democratic. I've seen the voting rolls from the 1960 election and actually taken them to several Chicago cemeteries. If you gave me a few hours I could prove to anyone that the "win" for Kennedy was a fraud, manufactered by Mayor Daley. Nixon was told this and he called off any official action. An affidavit was prepared, it was not filed.
Remember, the historian who's history you are reading, probably favored Kennedy.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
From the same article:
However, I don't want to pass any judgment as to whether this usability problem cost Al Gore the Presidency because there were so many other usability problems in other states that might have influenced the count there.
So we should redesign every ballot in every state, and redo the entire national election again?
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
Name me someone else who I could use in my analogy. Heck, I can't even use Gorby anymore, after the fall of the soviet union, he simmered down even _more_. His daughter even lives in the US as a Christian (and yes, he's perfectly fine with that).
Those people, btw, did die in order to show as many people as possible what happens when you combine hate with power. Unfortunately, many tweleve year olds have never even heard of Hitler(nor MC Hammer or other recent figures, as I found out during a 'quiz' I gave them...). I'm waiting to watch a "Jaywalk" to see how many colege students and people on the street can't identify a picture of the Nazi leader to Leno. (A recent one had people who couldn't even figure out who Bush Jr. is...)
Is that why Buchanan is even saying that a lot of those votes were probably not intended for him?
Ranessin
But they didn't go to a different candidate. Essentially, they went to no candidate. Therefore, IMHO it would make more sense to throw out the ENTIRE 25 electoral votes in Florida completely. That puts the majority line at 256 or 257 (I'm not going to do the exact math right now). Therefore, Gore got the majority of electoral votes and would win.
Of course, I like the solution proposed by one of the comics in our university paper: Florida is a narrow state, so a few properly placed explosives would break it off and send it floating off into the Gulf. Voila, no more Florida, no more problems!
Has anyone else noticed that in the recount with 55/67 counties reporting, Gore has picked up 1372 (all my numbers from cnn.com) of the 1741 previously missed ballots? That is almost 80%! If the state really is in a statistical dead heat as far as real votes, shouldn't they each pick up roughly even amounts? To me this disparity means that either Gore is really unlucky with machinery, Gore voters aren't very good at punching holes / filling in circles, someone gave Bush some "extra" votes before the recount, or the people recounting (although it is machinery right now, right?) are biased towards Gore... thoughts?
I realize this may surprise everyone... but it really doesn't matter from an election point of view (excluding issues, character, whatever). The people have spoken LOUDLY and said "We don't know"... can't believe that could happen did you?
Whatever happens in the vote in Florida... the difference in votes is all noise. Both candidates are effectively equal in votes. Whoever gets it is just as legit as the other guy.
So please... no more whining about the electoral college, questionably arranged sample ballets, or whatever. This is life.
Brian Macy
I've turned the two pages of the pdf into png. Accessable here
Well, it appears this can now be amemded to "Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, Politics, and Political Statistics"
AJ
WEST'S FLORIDA STATUTES ANNOTATED TITLE IX. ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS CHAPTER 101. VOTING METHODS AND PROCEDURE Copr. © West Group 2000. All rights reserved. Current through End of 2000 2nd Reg. Sess.
101.011. Voting by paper ballot
(1) In counties where paper ballots are used, each elector shall be given a ballot by the inspector. Before delivering the ballot to the elector, one of the inspectors shall write his or her initials or name on the stub attached to the ballot; then the elector shall, without leaving the polling place, retire alone to a booth or compartment provided, and place an "X" mark after the name of the candidate of his or her choice for each office to be filled, and likewise mark an "X" after the answer he or she desires in case of a constitutional amendment or other question submitted to a vote.
(2) No paper ballot shall be voided or declared invalid in any election within the state by reason of the fact that the ballot is marked other than with an "X," so long as there is a clear indication thereon to the election officials that the person marking such ballot has made a definite choice, and provided further, that the mark placed on the ballot with respect to any candidate by any such voter shall be located in the blank space on the ballot opposite such candidate's name.
(3) After preparing his or her paper ballot, the elector shall fold the ballot so as to conceal the face of the ballot and show the stub attached with the name or initials of the inspector and hand it to the receiving inspector, who shall detach the stub and return the ballot to the elector to deposit in the ballot box in the presence of the inspectors. The detached stubs shall be numbered consecutively and filed by the inspectors.
(4) If the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if it is impossible to determine the elector's choice, his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office; but this shall not vitiate the ballot as to those names which are properly marked, and nothing in this code shall be construed to prevent any elector, at any general election, from voting for any qualified candidate other than one whose name is printed on the ballot.
(5) Any elector who shall, by mistake, spoil a ballot so he or she cannot vote the ballot may return it to the inspectors, who shall immediately detach the stub, destroy the ballot without examination, and give the elector another ballot. In no case shall an elector be furnished with more than three ballots or carry a ballot outside the polling room. The clerk shall keep a record of all ballots destroyed.
(6) At a general election an elector may vote for a write-in candidate by writing in the name of such person in the blank space provided.
CREDIT(S) 2000 Electronic Pocket Part Update Amended by Laws 1982, c. 82-143, 3, eff. April 7, 1982; Laws 1995, c. 95- 147, 550, eff. July 10, 1995.
The reason people refer to Illinois as winning the narrow election for JFK has to do with the order in which returns came in.
The thing that we are forgetting is that the ballot or the voting machine or WHATEVER is a tool for people to cast their vote with. If (for whatever reason) a person casts what they believe is a vote for candidate A but their vote actually gets tallied as being for candidate B, that is a failure of the technology. It is easy (and fun, admittedly) to make fun of people who aren't quick or savvy enough to figure out how their specific ballot works BUT it really shouldn't count. There is no protocol for a re-vote, at least that I am aware of, but this situation is pretty tragic.
if 3000 people with the same model car all got killed by putting the car in reverse when they thought they were putting it in drive I don't think we would say anything other than "Who designed this horrible gearshift?!?"
The problem being Florida was called while the polls in florida were still opened. That definitely is a problem.
That may ensure that the LETTER of the law is respected, but it also prescribes who the new president will be. If the stories of confusing ballots, people not being able to get new ballots after realising they were confused, ballots going missing, etc., are even partly true then having the republicans vote in their man clearly flies in the face of the "will" of the public.
First of all, I'm not sure which way the House would go since the Constitution proscribes that each state get one vote -- even Texas would go to Gore since 18 of the 30 districts are democrats. If people don't understand their ballot, they need to ask for help. If people are refused a ballot, they need to call in a sheriff to settle the matter( at worst they'll end up with an absentee ballot which can be counted later after their status is verified ). Finally, is is better to have judges rewrite an election by modifying it's votes or would it be better to go by the method proscribed in our founding document? On one had, you end up with a judge legislating( flying in the face of the Constitution ) and on the other you have the rule of law, something TOTALLY indesputable, standing.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Thats ironic in a way. I guess nobody is perfect. At any rate, I misread this as a dispute about the ballot itself (see your original subject). Ok, it is possible that the book itself could be misaligned.
"The book is connected to the table, but the way it is hinged so that the pages expose a gap for the hole to show throw, the book itself could have shifted making the holes line up wrong."
I cannot weigh what I do not have clear evidence of. If you can, please post a photograph of the disputed voting table. I draw images pretty well too:
shameless plug> yannitell.com
That aside there must be a probable factor in a missaligned book (as you say there is a possibility of). Certainly not all of these booths had misaligned books, because on cnn.com I see a ballot that is perfectly understandable (to me at least).
One last thing. I think there would be an equal possiblity (if your idea is truth) of a Gore voter mistaking Buchanan as a Gore voter mistaking [whom ever is below Buchanan's marker]. Its a 50/50 split acording to your illustration.
what am I missing here?
Scott
Look at it from another perspective-- that of Pennsylvania.
Now Pennsylvania has been described by various and sundry political analysts and campaign managers as having Philadelphia on one side and Pittsburgh on the other, with Alabama (or Mississippi even) in the middle. Philadelphia and its surrounding counties voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate in '92 and in '96, with the end result being that Clinton won the state both times even though he lost the rest of the state.
In 2000, it happened again. Gore won only four counties in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and the surrounding counties of Bucks, Chester and Montgomery), with a margin in those counties of approximately 400,000 votes. Gore only beat out Bush for the state by 200,000 total.
Four counties in one state decided the outcome of 23 electoral votes. Had those electoral votes gone to Bush, I seriously doubt we'd be having this conversation about Florida.
We can talk all we want about the power of the One Voter, and the value of direct election, but as the Pennsylvania experience shows, it is possible to set one bloc up, focus heavily on that bloc, and to hell with the rest.
The presence of the Electoral college prohibits that, as it forces candidates to campaign to all blocs, not just the majority.
If for nothing else, the value of the Electoral College lies in its ability to prohibit the majority from ignoring the minority completely. If you assume that the strength of the United States depends on its tolerance of diversity, than you must accept the Electoral College for embracing that diversity.
threatening language in your signature is annoying.
Sorry you feel that way. I'm simply mirroring a common pro-choice arguement and inserting my closely held beliefs of my constitutional right. I don't mean to annoy you and I certainly am not threating anyone any more than the pro-choice movement is when they say the same thing.
Finkployd
Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that
the brothers Daley would be on national media crying about election irregularities? Just for the record, their father stole the 1960 presidential election for Kennedy away from Nixon.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
I heard on the news he has a very politicaly active
relative in that area maybe he really did get most
of those votes
http://Lenny.com
Congress had teetered on the verge of wrecking the electoral college, an institution that has no equal anywhere in the world. This group of ordinary citizens, elected by all who vote, elects, in turn, the nation's president and vice president. Though the college still stood, Natapoff worried that sometime soon, well-meaning reformers might try again to destroy it. The only way to prevent such a tragedy, he thought, would be to get people to understand the real but hidden value of our peculiar, roundabout voting procedure.
interesting take. read the article before you start flaming plz, he has some good points.
Ok I suck, my bad HTML screwed up the illustration. here is my crappy ascii art:
Bush {== ==
Gore {==--==
please pretend that {== == is an arrow
> We can't assume every Buchanan vote was intended for Gore. We can't even look at the restof each ballot's party trend to assume they would also have voted for Gore. It's just not full-proof.
> Could we just throw out the county's whole vote? That too would cause an uproar.
Use the power of the electoral college for some good. Acknowledge that it was close and some irregularities may have occured so just split the seats as the vote went. It is within the bounds of the law and quite fair.
Bush got slightly more votes so he can have 13 and Gore can have 12.
No Problem
rattyThe Rodent in the Machine
At this point, I don't really care who wins. I just hope somebody wins by 10 votes and everyone freaks out. By my quick calculations based on the 50% of the recount completed so far, if Gore keeps gaining votes at the current rate, he'll still fall short by about 100 votes. Also, I think it's really funny that page layout my decide a presidential election.
-B
you've been lied to. we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. you can yead about it on the web - try "republic vs democracy" on google.
I honestly don't see what's so confusing about the butterfly ballot. I took a look at one of Florida's butterfly ballots (in the disputed area), and it seemed perfectly clear to me that, since the second arrow was between the first and the third, and that because Buchannan was there, punching the second hole would be a vote for Buchannan. You just have to look at both sides of the ballot (right and left). It's ironic, though, that this would confuse some elderly people who voted, because this was designed to be easier to read (bigger print, so they had to redo the layout).
According to Democratic sources, at least 10,000 people have called in to report that they voted for Buchannan by mistake.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Just a comment on general opinions I've seen here. This is not a reflection on whatever beliefs you might hold. :)
I see a lot of complaints that improperly marked ballots were not immediately rejected and therefore people didn't get a chance to vote correctly. I also saw a lot of complaints earlier about the inability to vote "none of the above" through spoiling the ballots. You can't have it both ways.
Here in Michigan, the ballot machine rejects any invalid ballot and the voter gets another one. I think this is far better than allowing "none of the above" votes.
--
That's just my personal testimony to add to the pot.
--
EFF Member #11254
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
The US system basically does boil down to a two-candidate election because you don't have instant runoffs. Third party candidates are basically a spanner in the works of the US electoral system.
as well as thinking that any grouping by ethnicity, locale, etc would vote in a similar fashion.
The point is not that they would, but that they might, and the system should be robust enough to withstand this.
Negative, I read it in a magazine article sometime ago. It is part of a U.N. Treaty he wishes to have ratified (my self I think we ought to keep out of all U.N. treaties!)
I'm not exagrerating or wrong. Nor do you provide counterpoints, not to mention you are an AC.
Derek Greene
What about children, should they be allowed to vote as well?
In some instances I don't see why not, depending on the age.
What about inmates or mentally handicapped?
Yes, in most circumstances
Ranessin
The woman who was standing in line in front of me at my polling place managed to vote yes and no on three city propositions. I don't think she was very bright, but at least she got a second shot at it.
He correctly realized that most congressional districts are gerrymandered, often to set up a demographic that trends toward one of the major parties, or to a specific minority bloc (like some of the districts in the Southern states that were forcibly gerrymandered by the feds so that there would be an African-American presence in the state legislatures) as a result of politicking in the state houses.
If you tie electoral votes to congressional districts in more than just number, you wind up relying on the party in power immediately after a census to discern the composition of the voting districts, and I can't even begin to think about how much of a nightmare that would be.
That being said, I think your perspective on finding a participatory incentive to be a valid one. I think the Electoral College goes a long way toward making the process feel fair enough for people to think their individual votes are worthwhile. Otherwise, a voter from Wyoming who differed from the majority in New York City would never bother to vote. Is there a balance between democracy and equality?
As does Nebraska, if memory serves.
This whole thing seems pretty hypocritical. Several states don't have Nader on the ballot, and of those some don't allow him as a write in. If voters get confused by a simple layout problem, how far off is it to think it might be a tiny bit confusing when the party you support isn't even on the ballot?
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
1.
What if it wasn't obvious that they needed help? There was no indication that they had done anything wrong when they filled out the ballots, and the error was not caught until later. Where I voted (Fitchburg, WI), they have you stick your ballot card into the scanner right away on your way out of the room. That way it is counted right away, and you are the only one that touches your ballot, so someone can't alter it after you leave. This system makes for much faster counting (But it isn't used everywhere in Wisconsin, which is why it was one of the 'undecided' states for so long). Anyway, presumably if the card contained invalid input (like two choices for president), an error indication could have been given right then and there, before I left. (Although I don't know if this is really what would happen if I'd filled out the card wrong.) Presumably in Florida this isn't what they did, so those who voted erroneously didn't have any feedback that their ballot was going to be thrown out for errors. This should be importat to people who have been talking about this as a user interface issue. Sure, they showed the ballots to people ahead of time and got no complaints, but the real UI mistake here wasn't in the ballot itself, it was in the lack of error feedback when using it. (Something you can't test for by just showing people what the ballot is going to look like).
2.
Asking for help destroys your right to a secret ballot. (Sometimes it's inevitable, as in the case of the blind, but if you think you can avoid it, you generally don't want to tell people at the booth whom you are voting for.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Just out of curiosity, would you be saying the same thing if Bush had lost the state by 750 votes, with 3500 Bush voters claiming that they'd voted for Nader by mistake? Really?
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
If you want, then disqualify the 25 Florida electoral votes - the result's the same: neither candidate has the 270 electoral votes needed, so the decision is made by the (R-controlled) Senate.
Bzzzzt!
In the event that no candidate has a majority, the HOUSE decides the winner. THey choose among the top 3 vote-getters (bush, gore, and nader), and each state casts one vote. If a state is split between decmocratic and republican representatitives, then they would be unable to cast a vote. The candidate with a majority of state votes in the house is the winner.
In the meantime, the senate chooses the VP, in straight voting. Again, a majority is required.
If the house is unable to choose a majority winner, then the VP selected by the senate is the acting president.
The newly elected senate and house would be the one to vote, but I'm not sure who would be president pro tempore of the senate. Would it be gore (current) or lieberman or bush? Or would there not be one?
--
One more drink, and I'll move on. --Dave Matthews Band
It's important to understand that the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. There is a delicate balance in our country over State vs. Federal power. For example, the House represents the Federal, democratic populous in our government. They directly represent the 'district' that they are elected from. And each district is supposed to represent approxiamately (sp?) equal populations. This gives a democratic representation of power in the House. The Senate is the forum of the State. Each state has the same power in the Senate regardless of the population. This was put in place to prevent things like the following, hypothetical, example: Congressman from New York: I think we need a toxic waste dump, but where to put it,.... Hmm, I know, let's put it in Wyoming. Congressman from Wyoming: No wait,... Congressman from California: Yea, that's a good idea, why don't we send all the prisoners over there two. Basically, the idea is that the Senate prevents Populuous states from walking all over the unpopulous ones. Each state has a certain amount of autonomy(sp?) in our country. The electoral college represents these two ideals, combined in the same election. The electoral college is important. However, I feel that the plan others have proposed, to give one electoral vote for the winner of each district, and then two votes for the popular winner of each state, will better reflect how the people, and the states want the elections to go. Also, the actual people of the electoral system should go. I don't think that there should be someone who can countermand the will of the people. The votes should just automatically go to the winner in each race.
Unfair in the sense that 4 populous states (CA, FL, NY, and TX) can't impose their will on the rest of the country, yes. You have to have AT LEAST a dozen states to win under an electoral system, but under a popular system you can basically promise every federal dollar to those four states and the rest fo the country can go to hell...
You're assuming that those four states population would vote 100% for a candidate. That's not a valid assumption. The vote would most likely be split. Look at the "strong" states that Gore or Bush carried to see the percentages. Also look at the vote counts for the 4 states you mention.
Using your argument above, don't you think that ALL the candidates would be promising those 4 states every federal dollar? So they would split the votes in those states and it would come down to the other states. It would definitely take more than 4 states to win the election.
Using a popular vote would also help the other parties. People would worry less about "wasting" their vote because their state is a close race.
Now that's getting interesting.
I stand by my original position that a validly-marked ballot ought never to be second-guessed, and that it's the voter's responsibility to make sure the ballot was properly marked before putting it in the box.
That said, this is the first non-partisan evidence that the ergonomics of the Palm Beach ballot may have skewed the election, and I thank you very much for pointing it out.
> having said that, I'm not sure if there's any obvious legal remedy for this at all.
Same here. Even though Buchanan has conceded those votes to Gore (source: www.orvetti.com), the question becomes "who really meant to vote for him, and who really meant to vote for Gore?"
With a secret ballot, there's no way to tell. That's the point of a secret ballot, and the best argument, IMHO, why the votes still shouldn't be transferred.
(Thankfully, the argument "Well, Buchanan deserves so few votes that his voters don't matter" falls flat. The election of 2000 has taught us all that every vote counts. Though I admit it would be a supreme irony if all the Republicans crowing about how "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" lost the Presidency because "a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore")
You're confused. If that were so then the Panhandle polls would be open 0500-1700 Eastern. The panhandle is on central time. The panhandle polls are open 0700-1900 CENTRAL. That means 0800-2000 Eastern. When CNN called Florida for Gore there were still Floridians in the panhandle on their way to the polls or at the polls.
Nope the "sample" ballet looks different than the "real" ballet. The center is differnt. The real ballet is confusing.
The sample ballot was identical to the one bolted to the voting booth. It doesn't take advanced visualizing skills to imagine a dot at the end of the arrow where the booklet crease is.
one of the two identical sample ballots I received (one for my wife and one for me)
You can obviously tell that it's staggered and if you're paying attention there's no way you can accidently vote for the wrong guy. If you follow the logic from the blue-hairs complaining then they would have voted for nobody if Pat Buchanan wouldn't have been there because they were looking at pinholes instead of the arrows on the ballots.
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
Apparently, a number of people (how many remains to be seen) did realize their error, asked for a new ballot, and were refused.
I can't believe any of this.
First of all, this is *nothing* like a coup. The State of Florida Electoral College Representatives are free under Florida law to vote for *anyone they wish*, including Bush, Gore, Reagan, or Bart Simpson. THAT'S HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS. So-called "faithless electors," who abandon their party's wishes are uncommon but not unknown. In 1976, a state elector assigned to vote for Ford instead chose to vote for Reagan, who had run in the Republican primary. No constitutional problem here, folks.
Second, in discussing the Palm Beach Ballots, it is becoming increasingly clear that the ballots did not comply with Florida state law, which suggests that you are to mark "at the RIGHT of the name of the candidate for whom you desire to vote." Fla.Rev.Stat. 101.191(1). That's clearly *not* what happened here. However, this type of irregularity occurs in EVERY ELECTION -- the only reason it's getting so much play is that the vote is so incredibly close.
Moreover, I find it incredibly diffcult to believe that if the shoe were on the other foot that Karl Rove and Karen Hughes wouldn't be screaming about how Gore had stolen the election. Policiticans are politicians, folks -- that's what they *do*!
Finally, while I agree that a "re-vote" *may* be a bad idea, I suggest you all remember that this is about *the will of the people*, and whether that will was thwarted. Do you really believe that if Bush wins the election on this basis that he will be accepted by the country? One thing is for certain, no matter what you believe about this -- the next President of the United States, be it Bush or Gore, is going to be viewed as illegitimate by a large group of the citizens he is ostensibly supposed to govern.
This situation, while fascinating, is not good for the country. I suggest all of you who make partisan arguments would do well to remember *that* is what we're supposed to be deciding.
--J
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
ALERT: conspiracy theory... makes you wonder doesn't it? All those extra punches on 19,000 ballots. Wonder who put em there? George all flabbergsted that reports were coming out of him losing Florida. Oh my counters are reporting different. Oh yeah little computer error mis-reporting Gore's figures. Bing corrected those erroneous votes for Gore so I'm winning now.... Gee how long did it take republican officials to punch holes in all those Gore ballots in order to invalidate them?
This is why math professors should stick to math. (Note that I'm a math major, so perhaps I should as well. ;)
Not that the longwinded article linked here actually got around to talking about Natapof's "proof" in any detail, but from what I could piece together, all he proved is that under an electoral college system, each voter has a greater chance of deciding the election with his or her vote than under a direct election.
Well no shit, Sherlock. That's why we're sitting here watching a recount come in dozens of votes at a time, arguing about a couple hundred blind old ladies, and fretting about whether more Floridians overseas are serving in the military or dual citizens of Israel. OF COURSE a smaller number of voters has a larger chance of deciding an election under the electoral college system.
In other words, the e.c. is considerably more unstable and capricious than a direct election. There is a much greater chance that the true will of the people will not be reflected in the final result. Why we need a mathematical proof to investigate this is not totally beyond me, because it's an interesting combinatorial result (I'd assume). Why this Natapof guy actually thinks this is a good thing, though, is utterly ridiculous.
His best argument (according to the article) is that we don't complain that the World Series is determined by who wins the most games, not who scores the most runs. Putting aside the fact that the two situations are *not* analogous (for one thing, the fact that there is a different starting pitcher for any given 4-5 games in a row is the most important argument for why we need a best-of-7 Series), the point here is that the World Series is put on for the purposes of *entertainment*, not of deciding who rules the free world. Not that I'm not having a lot of fun with these election results (side note--I helped elect a corpse! Whaddya think of that!), but there's an argument to be made that instability and lack-of-representation in results, while good for sporting events, are actually *bad* for presidential elections.
Furthermore, he shows absolutely no understanding of the greater "rules" of the electoral college "game". For example, the electoral college has, throughout the course of US history, served to prolong and promote slavery and remove incentives for granting female sufferage or encouraging higher voter turnouts. For some excellent explanation why, why don't we read a *relevant* article by someone who's actually qualified to talk about the electoral college, Akhil Reed Amar (Yale professor and one of the foremost academic experts on Constitutional law).
This turns out not to be the case. I used to live in Texas, and they used the same exact system that Palm Beach does (I recognized the format immediately).
There is NO "play" in the book. The actual ballot slips over two pins; if it's not on the pins, it's not in correctly (and this is made quite clear in the instructions all over the polling place). If it's not on the pins, the odds that you could have it misaligned by exactly one row (so that the hole you punch is actually one above/below what you intend) are approximately zero. Far more likely is that you'd be punching a non-perforated portion of the ballot, and this would affect the entire ballot.
The booklet itself is mounted to the frame into which the ballot is inserted. There is NO "free play" in them at all. Believe me, I've checked. Why did I check? Because I wanted to make absolutely certain that my ballot was correctly marked.
There's no getting around it. These people are whining, pure and simple.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
REUTERS: BUSH FLORIDA LEAD DROPS TO 500 VOTES
Gore gains a net of 843 votes in recounts in 32 of Florida's 67 counties. Bush's statewide lead is now 941. Bush 2,909,481, Gore 2,908,540.
Where's the "500 votes" figure from?
[
See: http://enight.dos.state .fl.us /report.asp?Date=001107 (click on President/Vice President in the left frame, then click on President/Vice President at the top center..)
This is county-by-county ballot counts for the State of Florida.
Pat Buchanan received a total of 16,989 votes in the entire state.
Buchanan's highest vote total was Palm Beach with 3,407 votes.
Buchanan's *next* highest was 1,012 in Pinellas.
Buchanan's **next** highest vote total was 845 in Hillsborough county.
In other words (or numbers..) Buchanan received 3.36 times more votes in Palm Beach than in his next highest county.
Another way to look at it is to see that in Palm Beach, Buchanan received 61% of the vote cast for Nader.
In Pinellas, Buchanan got 10% of Nader's vote; in Hillsborough Buchanan got 11.3%. That was the general relationship between ballots cast for Nader vs ballots cast for Buchanan.
Another approach is to see that Buchanan received 20.05% of all votes cast for him in one county: Palm Beach.
Now, having said all that, I've looked at the ballot examples and in MNSHO you'd have to be pretty fsck'ing stupid to screw that one up...
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
One simple way to "prove" your vote e.g. is to receive a filled out ballot and to be ordered to return a blank ballot. This method has been used among the Yugoslav military to manipulate the elections in Serbia in favor of Milosevic.
Part of any free and secret voting system is denyability and any means to prove your vote is contradictory to that.
You really are a moron, aren't you? In 1973, Bob Kahn at DARPA (U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) started a project to investigate techniques and technologies for interlinking packet networks of various kinds. The system of networks emerged from the research was known as the Internet.
If you claim I am wrong, cite your sources, troll boy.
Conceding an election is in no way legally binding, so shove it.- ------------
--------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
The Nader hole lined up perfectly with the Green party, so a vote for Nader was actually a vote for Nader.
Woot w00t w007.
The sad fact is this: Bush supporters vehemently oppose a re-vote because they know that Bush would lose the race in Florida if this happened. Everything else is gravy. Whether or not intelligent, informed people(the kind who read /.) think this ballot is confusing is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that something went awry, and a revote would completely fix that problem.
Let's say I'm a democrat who voted for Nader. What's to prevent me from claiming that I wanted to vote for Gore but mistakenly voted for Buchanan?
I really was surprised when I saw the way americans vote... and I was even more surprised by seeing the details of the ballot today.
I won't discuss the electoral college thing (which sounds very weird for me; I'm from Brazil, here the governors are elected by direct electors' votes), but it sure sounds interesting to be adopted here (of course no one would approve, but when you look at some particularities of the voting process in Brazil, you begin to wonder). But I digress...
As of the last elections here (for mayors, held last october), papers ballots have been completely subsituted by an "electronic ballot" in every city of the country.
This can't be more simple: you have a terminal at the voting booth, which have a numeric pad and three buttons (cancel, confirm, and one for voting in nobody). Each candidate's party has a designated number (and in some cases where you have many candidates from the same party, they have their own number). You type it, click confirm, and it's done.
Not only that helps a lot in making the voting process easier, but it also makes counting the votes a no brainer. I live in a city wich has roughly 5 million voters, and last election we new our new mayor within hours from the end of the voting. Two years ago, when we voted for president, we knew the results on the other day (and that was because then many smaller cities were still using paper ballots).
Maybe it's time for a change up there in the first world, isn't it?
--
Marcelo Vanzin
Marcelo Vanzin
There's a reason they teach these things early in life.
Yes, and that reason is because these are things that aren't implicit in human nature, otherwise they wouldn't have to be taught. A person's right to vote for their chosen candidate shouldn't be limited to how well they learned and retained these lessons in school.
There is exactly and only ONE way that this ballot could be inturpreted. It can not be inturpreted in any other way.
I don't care much for hyperbole, but this is the stupidest thing I've heard all week. There's one and only one way it was intended to be interpreted. To say that there's only one way it could be interpreted is so stupid that I'm not about to go into why. Anyone who actually believes there's only one possible interpretation
of anything couldn't be talked out of a wet paper bag so I won't waste time trying.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
There were other problems. Apparently the little pieces of paper that were punched out were sometimes still dangling which also caused it to be misread. There is also an outcry of how the ballot was confusing and some people marked two choices.
My question is: What are the they going to do about the mess-ups? Can they hold another vote? Are the lawyers for both sides getting ready to appeal to a federal judge saying things were way to screwy?
The partisanship of the responses here really surprises me.
I admit having a slight bias towards Gore, though I would never have voted for him. (I voted for Harry Browne). But, this whole thing is ridiculous. If you're not careful you'll rip the country apart over a really stupid issue. And while I think this country is going to ultimately degenerate into a tyranny that will require a bloody revolution to overthrow, it hasn't quite yet, and I maintain hope. :-)
The ballots _are_ confusing. Look at them. I bet the election commisioner signed off on them because they looked vaguely acceptable without realizing what an important factor it might become. Negligence and incompetence to be sure, but understandable.
OTOH, taking all the Buchanon votes and calling them Gore votes is utterly ridiculous. The spike could easily be explained via regional variation of opinion or some other anomoly.
I actually think that the Gore people should've taken note of the problem, and raised it after the presidency had been decided. I think it was horribly irresponsible for them to cause this kind of controversy at this stage of the game. It's a very dangerous thing to do.
I wish I knew what the answer was. I wish people would stop trying to take sides here and honestly look at the problem and attempt to determine a solution. Bickering based on your choice of candidate is incredibly irresponsible. Think about what the stakes are here.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The person who designed this ballot was a DEMOCRAT. The person overseeing the election in Palm County is a DEMOCRAT.
Nobody voiced a problem with this ballot until AFTER the election.
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
Hey, it's /., one-sidedness is what it's all about, and the good thing about it is that when I screw up here, people call me on it.
> perhaps some people thought it so obvious [reading left/right, top/bottom] that they didn't read into it further, as you have done into their mistakes.
That's their problem. I'm not gonna give an inch on the voter's responsibility to read and understand the ballot before voting.
> Some asked for help and got the reply that the volunteers "just didn't know". Others realized their mistakes in the booths and asked for new ballots and were DENIED.
Agreed - those are major problems. It's the responsibility of the volunteer to know (and I have a harder time believing the volunteers didn't know than I do believing the voters didn't know!), and if Florida law says (as I believe it does) that "I screwed up, shred this ballot and gimme a new one" is a legitimate request, then the denial of those requests is unacceptable.
> [My arguments that both sides may perjure themselves]
I think we actually agree more than we disagree here. Looking at that ballot, it's clear to me, but I can see how either a Gore or Bush voter might screw it up.
Ultimately, this point wasn't meant to stand on its own so much as it was intended to supplant my argument "you can't take ballots out of a ballot box and change them afterwards."
> Would you feel differently if you were on the other side? What if the ballots were from dead people? Are you suggesting that under no circumstances the ballots should be questioned?
On the other side: No. As I said in another post - IMHO this is no longer about who wins, it's about how.
If from dead people: Yes. That's unequivocal evidence of fraud. I'd stand by the court's judgement on that.
> [Are the wronged citizens' suits] the best thing for the country? Probably not. Is it the right thing? Well, that's subjective.
Agreed. I don't think we'll ever really know who "won" this election at the vote level, or the court level. It really is up to the Electoral College to decide.
Which is why I said "close to a coup", but not "a coup". Even if Gore's (or Bush's) lawyers manage to invalidate ballots, counties, or even the entire friggin' state, the electors still get to vote on December 18th, and their result is the only one that's binding.
Even in the worst case (widespread voter fraud, which does not appear to be the case here), the rules as set down by the Constitution are not in jeopardy - indeed, it was written to handle precisely this sort of situation. The electors stand between a suspect vote count (on either side) and the Presidency. That's what they're there for.
> Or, perhaps, we should let the electors vote as they see fit?
Good call. I spoke far too hastily - I posted a clarification pointing out that urging them "to consider voting" was NOT urging them "to vote". My original phrasing was far too strong.
(Unlike the ballot box, when I make a mistake, I can at least try to undo it ;-)
I'm damn glad I'm not a FL elector right now.
> One more point. How come in the recount, the counts are both going higher? Where were those votes the first time? How come no one is losing any votes?
I dunno. My hunch would be chad - the little bits of confetti from punch-cards - may have mistakenly made sensors in the vote-counting machines register punched ballots as unpunched, but if the recount is being done manually, the chad will have either been removed as a result of its passage through the voting machine, or by hand.
That explains why the "vote count" is going up for both candidates.
As for why Gore's going up faster than Bush, I'd have to look at each county that's been recounted, but it could be as simple a matter as "the votes thus far recounted are in heavily-Democratic counties"
Interesting speculation -- suppose "chad" nukes 0.01% of the votes. Because the highly-populated counties in Florida tend to vote Democratic, this election could be decided, not by voter error, but by mechanical error.
Probably the best argument I've seen for all-electronic voting (or all-manual vote-counting!) yet.
(To Black Parrot of post #515: Hopefully most of these answers will apply to your post too - you raised similar points, and raised them just as well, as Trinition did.)
I am working on a cite for his numbers as well. I think I have found them, here . I have heard that the Reform Party in Florida is called the Independent Party, and sure enough on this form it says there are 14,551 registered voters in Palm Beach county who are considered members of the Independent party.
This really hinges on Buchannan being the candidate for what Floridians call the Independent Party. I am looking for a cite on that one. It's not looking too hopeful as there is a Reform Party listed (as well as a Reform Silly Party).
I still might think that all felons should be allowed to vote (although I'm not sure if I really do feel that way).
Ranessin
you realize of course if Gore wins in a recount that every state will have to do a recount. Its only fair and has been stated here before there were several states that were withing a few percentage points. If the vote can change that much in a recount, they all need to be recounted, and recounted, and recounted...Id be really suspsicios of the system if they come out differently.
"...your future, make it a reality, all you have to do is fight for me"
The problem is that, barring sustaining evidence for the "confusing ballots" having caused the wrong person to win the election, there is no provision for such a "re-vote" under Florida law. In order to contest the election, it would be the burden of the contestor to demonstrate (i.e., sustain) that "a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question". In other words, make a darn good case for the causality I mentioned in earlier.
See 2000 Florida State Code, Title IX, 102.168(3)(e):_ mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=& amp; amp; amp;URL= Ch0102/SEC168.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0102-%3ESect ion%20168
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
The odd thing is that many republicans were complaining then, and even went so far as to say that Clinton did not have the right to govern the country (in an ethical sense, not a legal sense) since the majority of the American people voted against him. I wonder if they're going to say the same thing about Bush if he wins, or if they'll cook up some hypocrisy instead?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Clause: Some country has the following indirect N-level election system:
Population P is divided into groups (counties) of size K, where K^N=P (this gives K^(N-1) groups).
Each group selects one 2-nd level electors (this gives K^(N-1) 2-nd level electors).
2-nd level electors are divided into groups of K and select K^(N-2) 3-rd level electors, and so on.
N-level electors select president. (N=1 is direct elections, N=2 - similar to US system, N=3 - another level of indirection).
Problem: Current president wants to be elected, but is supported only by his army (1% population). He can "inject" army into any county any way he wants.
How may levels (N) are required for president to get elected?
Answer: 7
If you believe that indirect voting can be fair, you are stupid.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
(as quoted from the Jargon Dictionary)
Does this mean that he lost the argument?
---
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
I had heard it on the radio yesterday and TV late tuesday night... I'll investigate into it more.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
In 16 sates they are required to vote the way of their state. In 1976, a member or possibly two voted opposite his state but, it did not affect the election.
Derek Greene
I think you are absolutely correct about the confusion generated. If you look at the ballot you will see that the Libertarian Party is listed third on the ballot, while the third punch hole belongs to the Democratic Party. This means that all of the confused Libertarians out there must have accidentally voted Democratic. As a proud Libertarian, I demand that we are given the votes that are our due from the Democrats.
65.0% slashdot pure
It's possible that there was an abuse of statistics (though I doubt it) but since the data is available, the republicans are (and indeed should be) free to try to reproduce similar or different numbers from the available data.
Well, you seem to be unable to decide for your selves, so why should not the rest of the world 'help you'...
;-P
Apologies for this joke, the situation is turning really, really tragical.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
Dude - thanks for saying it better than I did in any of my posts.
The fundamental question is - to what extent is a judge's decision to throw out votes, or to order a re-vote - also part of the rule of law, and that's one for which I have no good answer.
Wait! It gets even better!
h p3?a_id=1389
The specifc form of vote fraud used by Xavier Suarez involved "tampering with 5,000 absentee ballots".
And he is quoted as saying that he "helped fill out absentee ballot forms and enlist Republican absentee voters in Miami-Dade County." And "Dade County Republicans have a very specific expertise in getting out absentee ballots," he said. "I obviously have specific experience in this myself."
From Feed:
http://www.feedmag.com/templates/daily_master.p
- bridgette
Actually, I've heard that there was a similar incidence in Arizona awhile back during the McGovern election. It went to court, and it was ruled that the most equitable option was to double count the votes: count the vote towards both candidates. If this option is applied, it would mean that those 19,000 double votes would count for *both* Buchanan and Gore (I'm assuming at this point that this is the pair that all ballots were double voted for).
Well, I don't live there, but I know I didn't have to sign my name on the ballot, they just checked me off their little list when I came to the polling site.
This is not really accurate (and it gave most of the major networks' news anchors headaches just trying to get the facts straight). I live in Oregon, and the way the vote-by-mail system works here, the ballots must be received at the polling place by 8 PM on election day. Voters must either mail them far enough in advance to make certain they arrive on time or they must bring them into the polling place and physically drop them into a dropbox.
:)
Only absentee ballots can be counted after the 8PM deadline.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
One person one vote! Abolish the Electoral college!
Join us in protest to call for a change
INFO IS HERE
If you want, then disqualify the 25 Florida electoral votes - the result's the same: neither candidate has the 270 electoral votes needed.
I'm not so sure this is right: Amendment XII says: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;..." Now, if the Florida votes are not certified, is that the same as saying they are not "appointed"? If so, then you only need the majority of the leftovers, which Gore has now...unless Wisconsin and New Mexico are themselved both recounted and turned over to Bush, AND Oregon ends up going to Bush.
Not much to be said for stories a friend told you. Substantiated stories only please - let's have a link to a website with images from that camera footage at least.
--
Xenu loves you!
Let's just have nice big colorful plastic buttons (big enough so nobody swallows them) by each candidate's colorful name. Maybe even big cartoony elephants and donkeys next to them as well. And music! Yeah, it'll have to play music when you pick one. And light up too! They have to light up. And flashing lights! Big, primary colored lights... Yeah. Now can da wittle voters get da wittle candidates picked out?
This'll go well with McDonalds' picture menus for the illiterate. Sheeesh.
"I don't think I ain't" -Thompson's Corollary to Descartes
The USA may be a republic and not a democracy but the EC is neither: it's a business cartel. It is simply not comparable with any real country.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Paper and pencil work worked fine in my voting booth. No confusion either.
Okay, so a voter made a mistake. The voter goes to the election official (BEFORE SUBMITTING HIS BALLOT!) and asks for a new ballot, just like the instructions say. If they refuse to give you a new ballot, you get the refusing person's name and head on up the chain of command until you get your ballot. It's your right, so they can't refuse.
If you make a mistake and don't realize it until after you submit your ballot, don't blame anyone but yourself. RTFI! Read your ballot! Pay attention to who you voted for! There's no way anyone can void your ballot once it's submitted. Chin up and decide to read your ballot and instructions more carefully next time.
What to do now? How about an re-vote, only in that county and ONLY those who voted in this election? At least at my polling place, I had to give my name and verify my address and sign beside my name. That book can tell them EXACTLY who voted last time and only those people can re-vote. If it isn't limited to those people, EVERYONE from that county will go and vote since it's so close.
But why is the rum gone?
Correction: This is the ballot, the other must have moved..
It's also worth pointing out that the electors are primarily chosen based on years of devoted and dedicated service to their party. These are people who take politics VERY seriously, and have strongly aligned themselves with one party for a good number of years.
For one of these people to choose to vote for the opposing candidate would be a very rare occurence.
According to Florida's own documents (PDF, sorry) there were only 337 voters registered in Palm Beach County as Reform Party members, as of October 10 of this year.
3400 votes for Buchanan is directly in line with every other Florida county that has a similar number of registered Reform Party members.
What other Florida county? No other Florida county had even 1/3 as many votes for Buchanan.
The real voting irregularity here is the moderators who voted for these lies as "informative".
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
You realize that you have said the same thing that I just said. I didn't say they couldn't make predictions after the votes are done. Just that while Florida is done, but Oregon is not, the media can influence the election there through their predictions.
Yes, the butterfly *design* has been used.
The practice of putting the text on *both* sides of the page has not.
People were confused by the *text*, not the physical design.
Regards,
Regards,
-scott
Check out the returns from Volusia after the recount, and compare them to the initial Volusia returns
In the recount:
Harris went from 9,888 votes to 8 votes.
Philips went from 2,927 votes to 20 votes.
Browne went from 3,211 votes to 442 votes.
Nader went from 2,436 votes to 2,903 votes.
Buchanan went from 396 votes to 496 votes.
Hagelin went from 33 votes to 36 votes.
McReynolds went from 3 votes to 5 votes.
Moorehead went from 59 votes to 69 votes.
George W. Bush and Al Gore had returns that were completely unchanged.
That's right. The recount from Volusia claims in effect, "We screwed up the vote on every other candidate, reported 16,000 erroneous votes in total... and yet managed to get the count for the major candidates exactly right!"
I hope someone's keeping track of pre-recount and post-recount totals by county in Florida. CNN.com has only pre-recount data up by county, and doesn't list Harris in it's table. FOX has both pre and post recount data by county, but only for Gore and Bush. That Daytona Beach news website basically overwrote their prerecount returns page with the postrecount returns. As soon as CBS news updates it's page, I'll be out of links to records of the initial 10,000 Harris votes.
And, Texas Oil played a factor in JFK's assassination, so it goes both ways.
It's mostly semantic, but conversely, can you imagine
how many legitamate Buchanon voters are going to jump
ship and place their vote for Bush? Holding a re-election in
this county would be absolutely tragic.
The most cheesiest lesson learned in this election is that "Every Vote counts." Wrong. The only locality where one vote makes a difference is in Florida. Even there, its not clear that the votes in Palm Beach will count...
this is very certainly true. and it's a good thing that all of those voters in florida knew that the election was going to come down to their state, so they all went out and voted.
what a crock of shit. this time it was florida. next time maybe it will be virginia. you have know way of knowing when you cast your vote whether the election will be decided by your state or not. so yes, your vote does count. maybe it didn't make a big difference today, but who is to say it won't in the next election. or the one after that. or....
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
according to all graphics i have seen, e.g. this the number next to Gore is "5"!!! How does that make you punch the 3rd hole??
You need at least the 14(15?) most populous states to win an alectoral contest. That's more (three times more) than you need in a popular vote.
That's assuming they get 100% of the vote in those states. I don't care what a candidate promises a state, they can NEVER get 100% of the vote. I'd be surprised if they could get more than 80% even in a large state that already liked them. Plus if every politician is promising everything to those states, they'll just end up splitting the popular vote in those states. As a result, the smaller states become important again. With an electoral college, you can get elected (in a 2-way race; the ratios are probably the same for more) with ~31% of the vote while the other guy gets 69% of the vote. Without the electoral college you need over 50%.
Does anyone out there have this journal and want to post an abstract or something?
Public Choice
88 (3/4):259-273, 1996.
© Kluwer Academic Publishers
A mathematical one-man one-vote rationale for Madisonian presidential voting based on maximum individual voting power
A. Natapoff
Man-Vehicle Laboratory, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Center for Space Research, MIT 37-219, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
ISSN 0048-5829
"If you are an idealist it doesn't matter what you do or what goes on around you, because it isn't real anyway."-R.P.W.
The more I look at the results, the more I think you're right. Bush for Prez. Lieberman for Veep, and (depending on how the Maria Cantwell race turned out?) the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
With a 50/50 split in so many races, and by most ways of measuring it, I'd even go so far as to say the public would accept it.
And all it would take is a few electors from any state to abstain from the December vote.
We've all seen so many things that can "never happen" this week - I don't know about you, but I've lost the ability to be surprised by anything.
I haven't eaten my recommended daily allowance of crow yet, so here goes. I predict that:
- We will see Electoral College that gives up and hands it off to the House and Senate.
- We will see this because the Florida vote will be a dead tie between Bush and Gore. That's right, you heard it here first. A tie.
And I called the tie vote at 5:58 PM EST on Thursday, for anyone crazy enough to claim they called it firstThey are bitching because they want democracy instead of a republic.
Then you also have to disolve the Senate. Two votes per state regardless of population is unfair.
Republics are not about communication failings, they are about preventing 'mob rule'. All one would have to do to get elected in a democracy is promise tax cuts and more federal spending for TX, CA, NY, and FL and to hell with the rest of the country. That would win you the election.
Finkployd
Check the other "no, there are 337" article I posted.
Wow, this myth's going to be as popular as the one that says Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet!
--
Xenu loves you!
Democracy is about the rule of the majority. The argument goes that with an electoral college, there will be a higher chance of deadlock, allowing some particular Joe to push the balance. But giving the decision to Joe in the case that there was a majority vote is not democracy.
Fine mathematics with incorrect premises gets you nowhere.
7. The Senate race was not aligned in two columns.
Well seeing as you are a gun toting white trash american.... YES!
- Toby
Given different issues, it might have been Virginia that was split on the candidates. Virginia has a fair number of electoral votes. Had the big issue been something else... (sorry, I'm a bit ignorant about local Virginian issues) it might be your county that holds the key.
Yes, some states are more likely to be battleground states than others; this is due to their demographics. However, this doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count. Depending on the issues, it might, or it might be a pebble in a landslide.
Why depending on the age?
I've been trying to listen to several different sources regarding this particular problem in Palm Beach county and at least two things have jumped out at me.
/. regarding this election have mentioned a book called "Votescam" and its accompanying website Votescam . It strikes me as oddly coincidental that the outright frauds that were enumerated in very good detail in that book happened to occur in Florida. I'm not saying that there's a correlation, but it does seem mighty coincidental.
First, it is true that several voters asked to recast their votes once they had realized that they had voted for the wrong person. Interestingly enough, none of the people I heard interviewed actually told the interviewer *why* they realized that their vote was miscast. i'd be interested in hearing that. But, regardless, the ones I heard interviewed who were refused another ballot asked for their ballot after their ballot had been turned in and placed in the sealed ballot box . That's important. had they asked before the ballot had been officially turned in, it's an easy matter to get another ballot and tear up the old one. It's impossible and illegal to get that ballot back after it's been "sealed".
Second, the questionable ballot design just didn't arise out of thin air. This ballot had to be reviewed and approved by representatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the Attorney General. Additionally, a sample of the ballot was published in the area newspapers prior to the election. So, it wasn't a surprise and was a public matter. Those who weren't paying close enough attention also must not have been paying attention to the sample ballot either. Neither must the representatives from the two major parties have been paying much attention, for they had to approve the ballots. Obviously, it wasn't that much a matter of concern. the close election seems only to have magnified this issue.
I don't see any legal way that a re-vote can be called. I've reveiwed the law, as much as I can find, and "Oops!" isn't a valid legal reason to throw out an election and have another one. This was the voters fault, pure and simple, and shame on them for not paying close attention and making doubly and triply sure their ballot was correct before handing it away.
But, in the "ain't is a coincidence" department. Recent posts on
Actually, I take that back. There does exist evidence of an irregularity. I have since ranked each county by political persuasion (that is, the ratio of Gore and Nader voters over Bush and Buchanan voters). One would expect Buchanan's percentage of the vote to be greatest in Republican counties and least in Democratic counties. The graph should be linear or at least 1/x. Palm Beach country, however (heavily Democratic as evidenced by the 1.75 ratio), does not fit a 1/x curve at all. See http://64.6.194.14/Florida%20Scatte rpl ot.htm for the added graph at the bottom of the page.
You're absolutely right, and I['ve] apologize[d elsewhere].
Re: Bush's planned challenge to a popular vote win and an electoral vote loss:
You'll have to take my word for it that I'd be just as opposed to that. Until there's a constitutional amendment, the winner of the College deserves to win the Presidency. Popular vote doesn't enter into it.
I heard on the radio this morning that Buchanan said those were most likely Gore votes.
Now, I personally think Buchanan is a Nazi, but AFAIK, he always says what he thinks, not what is expedient.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I was in fact wrong. That is the way I interpreted what I heard on a report. After reading several more articles, I saw the concensus that it was the post mark date.
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous elections I have recalled.
... Democracy does not work.
First, the people of Missouri elect a dead man to the United States Senate.
Second, the media in their haste to one up each other has to make two retractions of their prediction for the President in Florida.
Third, Nader is wrongly blamed for Gore maybe losing the Presidential Election, arguing that Nader had no chance to win the election and would take votes from Gore.
Fourth, people in Palm Beach, are allegedly confused about the Ballot. The Ballot in Palm Beach was confirmed by Both Parties.
Fifth, people are declaring Voter Fraud. Even though there are is no real evidence that the Voter Fraud that did occur would substantially swing the vote in either way. Note, Voter Fraud occurs in every election (forged ballots and such).
Sixth, people make a huge deal that a President may win the electoral college vote but not the popular vote. The popular vote is effected by the electoral college system that we have. States that are declared locks for a candidate, brings out less voters in that state. The popular vote would be different if we didn't have the electoral college system.
Seventh, the recent results from the House, Senate, and Presidential race confirms that we as a nation are not united. We might be fed up with politics. We might need a "new direction".
What should we do about this? Reform the electoral college system? Create a major new party? No, all these are too complicated
So I propose that we abolish the government that we have now. No more elections and elected officials. I declare Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the enlightened Dictator of the the USA. Whats better than a Totalitarian state? We don't have to waste millions of dollars on cookie cutter campaigns. No need to worry about Politics, Clinton will take care of everything. And what is a better way to unite a group of people, than a oppresive dictator. All we would have to do if rise up once a decade and overthrow the dictator and establish a new one. Government would be interesting again.
Long Live Hillary!
I think our system is fine. What *is* dangerous is the astounding level of laziness among voters. Only half the people in the country voted and among those that did turn out, these folks in FL were too damn lazy to make sure that they voted for the right guy.
Of course *all* the fucking bureaucrats who looked at the design thought it was OK: christ! they're the fucking bureaucrats and they know exactly what the ballot was all about and who all the candidtates were and blahblahblah...
This does not mean that *every* member of the public is going to understand *exactly* what the hell they're looking at, as clearly as the bureaucrat who designed it or approved the design, feeling no stress upon them because of how long they've waited, how many people in line behind them are waiting for *them*, the importance of the election, etc etc etc
The fucking bureaucrats have been looking at the ballot design all day every day for months.
Of course they don't see any problems with it: they created it, they know it intimately.
The voter gets to look at the damn thing for a minute every few years.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
The actual difference, as you probably heard already, was not less than 19,000 ballots, that being the number with multiple presidential candidates selected. It might be as many as 22,000 ballots, since Buchanan admits that the 3000 votes he got probably aren't intended for him -- he didn't even campaign there.
That's more than the margin of error in Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin combined. It's not an insignificant number, and it is enough to make some serious claims against the legitimacy of a Bush presidency. It's also enough to indicate that it's not an inconsequential design error.
TSG
Who wonders what Donald Norman (author, The Design of Everyday Things) thinks about all this.
I've put together a page illustrating three alternate ways a person could cognitively process the Palm Beach ballot, all of which would give erroneous Gore votes to Buchanan.
It's just a first pass, but it should make my visual perception and cognitive neuroscience teachers happy.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
There is no way to conclude that a voter in Texas has more power in the electoral system. If you were a Rep, well, your vote didn't matter because everyone else is too. If you were a Dem, your vote was 100% worthless, because it has 0 impact on the election, and 0% chance of turning the election.
:)
This means that, not only were Texas voters without any power, there was also no need for either major candidate to campaign there. This would be like a world series in which it is a foregone conclusion that game 2 is going to the Yankees, so neither the Yankees nor the Pirates show up to play.
Your argument is limited to this election, and is based on a few faulty assumptions, as well. The specific "foregone conclusion" here is not structural, but strategic -- if this were the World Series, the manager of the NL team decided to rest his players. Your statement seems to imply something more like "NL team will always lose on astroturf." (The baseball analogy dissolves after this point, so I won't get more specific than that.)
The Dems's decision to not "mess with Texas" is questionable (what happened to the Texas of Lloyd Bentsen, Ann Richards, and LBJ, huh?), but I don't think it can be held as indicative of a larger failing of the electoral system.
Finally, I'd like to point out that Texas (or any state) is free to choose its method of assigning electors as it will. It doesn't have to be winner-take-all in the state, but only the people of that state can decide whether it should be or not. If Texans (or Californians, etc.) feel that their votes for President are marginalized b/c of the current electoral system, then perhaps they should start a campaign to change the state government.
Of course, such a campaign would be ill-advised with first examining the issue in a forum possessed of more academic rigor than Slashdot.
Nope. Still vote the same. For Nader.
Has anyone ever listened to Gore and saw the resemblance to those TV evangelists? The ones that never bother to tell the true even a tiny itsy bitsy bit?
There is, in fact, Florida Statute 101.151 which states "(3)(a) Beneath the caption and preceding the names of candidates shall be the following words: "To vote for a candidate whose name is printed on the ballot, place a cross (X) mark in the blank space at the right of the name of the candidate for whom you desire to vote.".
There is also Statute 102.166 which specifies
It seems to me that we could be in for an interesting couple of weeks." 7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:
(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.
(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent."
-- "I will never let my schooling get in the way of my education." --Mark Twain
I'm all for a recount in each and every state that wants to.
I'm suspicious of the 10,000 vote drop that Gore had between 2:06 and 2:15 AM Wednesday morning
Ranessin
1) According to this logic (and I don't disagree with your point), people that were actually trying to vote for Buchanon may have accidentally voted for Gore. Slack in a flip-book goes both ways.
2) If people weren't smart enough to find the polling station, their votes don't count either. At some point your own ignorance can infringe on your rights.
3) Confusion is no excuse for an uninformed vote. They should have asked.
What the hell are you talking about? They had to count all the popular votes in the individual states didn't they? And then they conveyed those results to the meeting of the electoral college. You could have just as easily decided the race on the raw votes themselves, the electoral college had to have them available.
Not that I want to get rid of the electoral college, but the idea that there was some technological limitation back then is sheer idiocy.
About the only remnant of technological limitations of that error that is still left is the gap in time between the actual vote and the meeting of the electoral college. It took some time to count all the votes and convey them to a central location. Nowadays we probably don't need this delay.
-josh
And it's "pretty fucking obvious" that you, who obviously have yet to learn how to form a sentence without including at least two "fuck"'s, is the right person to judge whether people find it "pretty fucking clear" what to punch and not to punch.
If you honestly believe in what you're saying, there is no point in using such language. Otherwise, however, it's probably as good as any other desperately pathetic attempt to strengthen one's hollow arguments.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
The CNN website is listing the recount with this line at the bottom:
Advantage__________Bush__________+362
Wouldn't it be fun to place this up there instead?:
Deuce__________--__________+0
I get a little geeky and frignit all over the place!!!
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
Isn't it interesting that Gore's Campaign Chairman and KEY TALKING HEAD, Mr. Daly's home county (Cooke County Chicago) uses the same "Butterfly" ballot that is so confusing to those in Palm Beach County?
Isn't it also interesting that in this election, 19,000 voters voted for two presidents hence having their ballots deemed invalid (having the Dems cry foul) yet in 1996, 16,000 people from the SAME COUNTY did the exact same thing?
I see a pattern here folks, and unfortunately it points to the folks in Palm Beach county not knowing what the hell they are doing which was the case in 1996 as well.
It's a shame that such a large number of ignorant people are allowed to vote, but that is our system folks, right or wrong, good or bad, Bush or Gore, we should accept it. It's an even BIGGER shame that those who want to RUN this country will use this ignorance as a reason to drag our election system through the mud.
Whomever the recount shows the loser in Florida to be, they should concede defeat IMMEDIATELY so the business of the country can go forward.
Well, that's something that they "use every day." I only use a ballot once in a while, so it's not a big deal to take the time to look at it carefully. I would be less tolerant of a difficult-to-read interface if I had to use it all the time (like in a PDA or cell phone or godawful voice mail system).
You make a good point that a lot of folks at the ballot got just one chance (and were refused new ballots if they made a mistake). But, when there's something I can do only once, like punching a ballot or signing loan documents, I do it carefully. Maybe I shouldn't have to, but that's another argument.
User interface designers have a lot of battles to fight. Let's start with the ones that will do some good--let's make great interfaces to the things people need all the time. Then we'll worry about stuff people use once in four years.
Another point--the people who designed the ballot say they were thinking carefully about its ease of use for senior citizens. In fact, the two-page layout was chosen so that they could use a larger, easier-to-read font.
On an amusing note, our ballot-makers in Dallas weren't thinking too clearly, either--the damned things were supposed to be filled in by permanent markers that bled through the page, obscuring text on the other side.
"I call a baby goat a 'goatse.'" -- my non-Internet-savvy 6-year-old stepdaughter
"faithless" electors do happen, though. not in every election, but often enough. see http://www.washingtonpost.com The Washington Post for details.
Not true, a majority of Americans including
democrats want to live in a democracy
and that implies no Electoral College
except to break a tie. I think that in that
case the new elected congress (not senate)
should elect the president in case of a tie.
We should also do away with the senate and
add extra congress seats for supporter of
the Green, Reform or any other third parties.
We have governors to represent the states, we
don't need senators.
We then would have a true democracy.
We look like morons when we try to tell
everyone else in the world that they should
live in a democracy when we don't live in
one.
Polititians of both major party wants the
status quo because there is always a chance
that it would favor them as long as they can
secure key states.
can't recall the name of the company though
Voter News Service. I couldn't find a website for them through either Altavista or Google.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Anyone notice the site www.loser.com is a link to Al Gore's official election homepage? Premonition, or just protecting his backside... Tell me you wouldn't register www.loser.com, then link it to your opponents website to make them seem pety and insecure Or maybe that's what happened...
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
A revote is still not a completely fair solution because a lot of Nader supporters may vote gore the second time around, changing the results. Of course, as a nader voter I wouldn't do that, but I know there are people who would.
Care about freedom?
I'd rather be lucky than good.
I know for a fact that FoxNews had called Florida for Gore at 7:40-45ish... What time do the polls close in Florida?
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
A national ballot is the best way to find out which cities water supplies the government is testing it's dumb-dumb juice in.
:)
I say test the water before recounting the votes.
At the same time they can find out if watching too much TV stunts your intelligence, and whether playing violent video games increases your ability to solve complicated visual puzzles (aka the ballot sheet)
Good luck, America. We're rootin' for you in Australia
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
MSNBC's version:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/466882_asp.htm
cnn.com's version:/ election.president/large.ballot.ap.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09
salon.com's version:r esults/index.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/07/
How did Reagan get 1 electoral vote in 1976? I thought the minimum for any given state was 3.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The ballot was invalid according to Florida election laws. People complained about it during the election but nothing was done other than to warn the poll workers about it. It may be reasonable for any other districts with illegal ballots to vote again; feel free to bring legal action if you think your ballot was illegal.
The point is, if there really wasn't anything wrong with the ballot and all those peopel are just dumb, there should be the same results if they have a revote in that county with only the same people voting again.
But, for better or for worse, everyone has the right to a fair vote.
Along with that right comes the responsibility to exercize it properly, carefully, and responsibly.
If they found the ballot confusing, the time to resolve the matter was at the polls. They should have read it more carefully, asked for assistance if necessary, and, above all, refused to knowingly submit a ballot that did not reflect their intended votes.
Anyone who is unwilling to accepte the responsibilities that come along with their right to vote, shouldn't have that right.
So this guy's final argument is that with a simpler system, the excitement that is central to all sports would be gone... I'd give a little more respect than that to the issue of deciding a US President.
-----
#o#
#o#
O Moo.
O.K. If Gore agrees to throw out the votes he got by giving cigarettes to the homeless...
It's perfectly clear how this ballot works--once you see how it works. When told to follow the arrows, sure, I see it just fine. But not even the election workers all got that right the first time--several people reported being brought new ballots after the worker realized they had instructed the person incorrectly. How many did they instruct incorrectly before they caught on?
It's like the old stereograms, once you see the dolphin jumping at you, great, until then it's just a stupid-looking page. The ballot certainly appeared to be different things to different people, and that hardly seems fair...
This is another reason to go to all-mail-in ballots, as Oregon did--people have time to think and figure it out.
Stevis
We've got two lives, one we're given, and the other one we make. --Mary Chapin Carpenter
I thought the auther made a clear distinction between equal representation and equal power, (e.g., under a dictatorship everybody had equal representation and zero power).
Mob rule isn't due to equal representation, but by equal power. That is why I mentioned that the way to avoid mob rule is to use the EC, *but* have the EC be representative. So, for instance, a large state would get slightly less vote in proportion to its size - yet these votes should equally represent the population of that state! The mob rule of the state would be curtailed because its power has been limited, but not the representation of the population within it. Currently, even if the former is true, the latter isn't, so the mob rules anyway. And a whole bunch of these tiny mobs take scads of states and electoral votes.
So the approach should be twofold: limit the majority, "mob" rule, power of states like CA, FL, NY, and TX, by curving their number of electoral votes with respect to their population, yet maintain "fairness" within the state by having said electoral votes represent accurately the population of that state. So at the national level, such states have their impact dampened, yet, their impact is still fair. Right now, even if their impact is dampened any, the impact is not fair at all because the winner takes the whole damn state. I think that defeats the purpose.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
No, being elderly and having bad vision doesn't make anyone dumb.
Stubbornly refusing to get assistance with a ballot that you can't figure out yourself, now THAT makes a person dumb.
The Prime-Minister is the leader of the party that gains the most seats in Parliment. For him to reach that office, he must win a majority (at least to be effective) of seats in Parliment. Each of those ridings is won by the local candidate with the most votes.
p.s. Here we have a law that prevents broadcast of election results in areas where the polls haven't yet closed. The net is certainly having an effect on the effectiveness of this, but it isn't widespread yet.
------------------------------
Actually, according to a CNNarticle, Gore said (on day after election):
"We now need to resolve this election in a way that is fair and forthright, and in a way that is fully consistent with the Constitution and our laws."
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
1) Palm Beach and Sarasota may both be high in retirees, but the demographics may still be different. Apparently, Palm Beach is heavy in elderly Jews, who tend to be democratic. Sarasota may be elderly but not Jewish. I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out.
2) Just because a Democrat approved the ballot design doesn't mean the design was correct. We're not talking about a business, we're talking about government... whole other can o'worms. Anyway, the argument carried by one of the lawsuits pending is that the ballot design is illegal based on Florida law, despite any other approval (has to do with a law requiring that you mark your choice to the right of the candidate's name... not the case in this design). Besides, this person's a politician, not a UI engineer. We've all seen horrible examples of UI despite the number of engineers in the field. How many UI people do you think work in ballot design???
3) These people did understand what was going on; they were able to make up their minds on who to vote for. They even managed to find their way to the polls. I haven't seen the polling booths, but I've heard reports that the polls were understaffed, underprepared and faced with high voter turnout. Getting proper instructions to hundreds of seniors when you yourself are probably a senior is not the easiest thing.
4) Sorry bud. I just checked the info:
Buchanan was not even a reform party candidate in '96. He tried for the Republican nomination and failed. Perot was the '96 Reform Party candidate. There's no way that the Reform numbers in '96 are comparable to '00. Perot was a moderate, who could be popular among the Palm Beach population. Buchanan has been anti-semitic... not something to go over well with a heavily Jewish district.
Howdy folks, Just an FYI on some interesting info. After spending 10 minutes doing some research myself, I found that it's entirely possible that Buchannon (however crazy) could have gotten 3,000 some odd votes on purpose in Palm Beach County. If you look at the voter registration by party for each county in Fl, you will notice that Palm Beach County has 16,336 registered Independent voters, versus Browerd County's 125. Both have strong Democratic registration. It doesn't quite add up that the only only reason Buchannon got those 3k votes was because of "confusion" on the part of the ballot. You can look at the Voter registration information yourself at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/2000elec/voterreg/ index.shtml#general
The registration information for the General Election is in.
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/2000voterreg/2 000genparty.pdf
Walt
p.s. I didn't vote for Bush btw.
It has also been reported that 19,000 ballots from palm beach were invalidated because 2 holes had been punched for the presidential candidate. I wonder which two they were...?
I know.. the simplest answer to this is people felt they had to vote for both president and vice president. I mean, there were 2 holes next to the candidates. I would assume that older people or new voters would not realize that it is 1 punch for 2 people.
It would be real interesting if the 19k ballots were all punched as gore buchanan or bush buckanan.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Geez.
sigh, after standing in line for hours, i might be anxious or dulled, and just might be inclined to rely on forty years of voting experience...
let's see your friend's fucking children do that.
Pat Buchanan went on the Today show and "agreed [that] the ballot was confusing and that many of
his votes there were meant for Gore -- enough, he added, that had they gone to Gore he would have won the presidential election." See this article.
Seems as if he also buys the statistical argument.
Most models for polling are based on a 95% probability (or confidence) that the results reflect the actual population within the stated error. The errors I have been seeing this year are about 3-4%, which is way too high to place any confidence in given the closeness of the race. Also, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the results do not reflect the population at all.
Also I heard earlier that approx. 17,000 ballots were thrown out in '96 when voter turnout was much less. So 19,000 sounds about right.
'course, you might have to be left-handed to notice this...we spend all our time complaining about how the man is screwing us over.
okay, there's a bug in this thing...you'll have to remove the %20 from the link...something's wrong with the line breaks.
I saw that. Very strange. I'm not sure what a federal judge could do in the case in any event. It's a state matter....
Basically I think the Gore challenge wouldn't have a leg to stand on, if it weren't for the fact that these ballots are against Florida law, which requires that candidates' names be to the left of where the mark is made.
--
Xenu loves you!
Ontario, Quebec (maybe), New York, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, plus all the little states in between...
:)
:) Kill off all the yahoos and re-populate the interior with 'civilized' people :)
:)
Call it what you want (Great Lakes something-or-other), but we'd have all the population, all the money, and we wouldn't have to worry about western right wing nuts (Republicans/Conservatives) trying to make us pray and hate gays and stuff
Also, I don't think liberal BC and Washington would get along well with right'est Alberta, Alaska and Montatna... I think California, Oregon, Washington, and BC would make a lot more sense together (hell, we might even let em' join out east coast thing we got going here
(Note: don't take any of that seriously
"Everyones gotta' be something / Me I'm stupid / It's all I ever wanted to be" -MGB
You've seen this haven't you?
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
I just have one additional comment about Natapof's article, though few will probably read it as I'm adding a comment so late in the discussion. The argument that a voter's power is greater in the electoral college scheme is true, in certain states in a close election, but that increase in a voters power (such as those voters in Florida) comes at the expens of voters in states where the election is not so close (such as those in Massachusetts). I think it's pretty much an insult to everyone in the county to effectively weight voter power by how undecided they are in their geographic location.
Idol Star Astronomer
The balloting is anonymous; there is literally no way to map a set of mis-punched cards back to the voters that punched those cards in the first place.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You assume that the people voting in palm beach are elderly. There is no proof that these were the people who botched the votes. The media also doesn't tell you that in palm beach there is the largest block of reform party supporters in florida. HUH!, could this be the clue to the mysterious Pat Buchanan votes? One more thing. All the elderly people that I know are a million times wiser then this generation. They've been voting much longer than you and I. I believe they know better than we how to vote.
I don't think it's a question of "not obvious until it's in the machine". More likely, it's a question of "professionals looking at a ballot are unlikely to realize it could confuse laymen".
However, there's no way to call a do-over on an election in a context like this; if Palm Beach gets a do-over, everyone else has to get one too, because otherwise, the people in Palm Beach get to place votes with extra information about the race, and that's unfair to everyone else.
Meanwhile, I want to see recounts in a couple of other states with margins of a couple to a few thousand people, and we should see if there were any *other* irregularities; if there were, in other states, then we have even *more* reason to do the whole thing over - or just accept that we fucked up, pick the winner according to the rules we have, and *move on*. We don't need any more divisiveness than we have already.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I'm sorry, but if someone didn't notice that arrow pointing to the correct hole for each candidate, then they are either morons, or they should have put on their glasses, or they should have asked someone to help them.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Interesting, but it'd be more relevant if Buchannan had been the universal choice of the Reform party...most of the Perot-disciples who'd been there since the beginning recognized a Nazi when they saw one, and *didn't* support him...
Stevis
We've got two lives, one we're given, and the other one we make. --Mary Chapin Carpenter
Wait, are you saying Britney Spears endorsed one of the candidate? Shit, now it's too late, I may not have voted right...
For a guy who is all about math, you would think Rob could spell mathematical correctly.
Especially interesting when you know that there is a fairly large libertarian group here in Palm Beach. (They meet at the Picadilly Cafeteria on Military Trail, north of Forest Hill Blvd.).
But the question is: should they allow a revote? I almost consider it like telling the rest of the country: "Fuck you... the President of the United States will be picked by us down here in Palm Beach County". And looking around, that's scary. At the very least, the Democrats can expect to pick up some of the Nader votes that were cast - the voters cast their protest vote, and can now pick between Bush or Gore, knowing that their vote counts as one among only a few thousand for the president. It seriously changes the dynamics of the vote.
--
Evan "Livin' in the middle of PBC"
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Excepting that the ballot they received was different than the sample ballot they were sent. Excepting that several people who asked for help were refused it. Excepting that from everything I've heard, they county was severely short of voting officials(or whatever it is that they are called) and thus those they had didn't have a lot of time to help.
For the record, I don't think this is a case of fraud. I think this is more a case of bad printer, no biscuit. As for what should be done? Got me. Its going to take a lot of thinking, a lot that county re-evaluating its process, and perhaps a bit of re-thinking of the electoral college. Where it will end? Got me. Where it should end? I don't know.
Virtual Adept
where is Buchanan in all this. Does he realize they (dem & rep) are trying to take away the ~2000 votes that are his? If the powers that be decide that his votes are in error, cannot he then RAISE hell and SUE about HIS rights for HIS votes?
TIME is the Aether...
Both candidates have extensive experience in politics and elections. They know this stuff happens... it probably happened in lots of areas of the country. If you are going to scrutinize ever single ballot based on all sorts of external crap you end up with a huge mess.
A recount is what is legally required and is standard operating procedure. I would be highly surprised if either Gore or Bush don't abide by the results.
Brian Macy
Wow, that really explains allot. Thanks for this info. Where did you find this? I doubt the media would ever want to mention something like this that would take away some of the drama of the 'fraud'. If they had 15000 registered Reform Party members then 3400 votes is kind of LOW, not high. Could you find anywhere the ammount of those 15000 that voted and who they voted for? Any exit polls for that?
It seems to me that Natapof is saying that the way of voting(electoral) with the highest chance of having one voter turn an election is the better way. This is the assumption underlying his whole argument. I don't know about you, but I would not want one person to decide the future of my country. I would prefer the majority of the people to decide. Fact of the matter is that Al Gore has more people who voted for him. He should win.
Anything is possible, but any of the electors who did that sort of thing would be legally and morally wrong. 1) If it's legally decided that the Palm Beach mess is not signifigant then it is no longer an issue. Electors are not being noble and caring if they decide to itgnore the law. They'd just be arrogant and arbitrary. 2) Having one candidate with the majority of a popular vote and another winning the electoral vote is a situation that has happened a couple times before. It's not a crisis or an emergency. It's pretty much inevitable at some point. The electoral system might need changing, but it is as much a part of the Constitution as anything else, and if it must be changed then it must be changed legally. That's it. -Bryan
This is without a doubt the subtlest and most entertaining troll I've ever seen on /. Not the content; that's insightful +5 if I've ever seen it. The great part is that the second half of the word "googling" (at the start of the final paragraph) links to goatse.cx, not google. I salute you Shiva Lingham as a GIANT among /.ters, and should you ever decide to run for any high political office (or if you ever decide you want someone to sit around and get high with), you can count on me to come to your support.
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
If not, then presumably, with the recounted popular vote difference only ~300 votes out of 6 million, the electors will use some other method to decide how to cast their electoral votes.
I can see the fnords!
Just split the electoral votes if it's too close to call: 13 for Bush, 12 for Gore ...
Very interesting, however I only see that the article only talked about recounts. You can recount illegally placed ballots all day long and still get the same count. It's how they got the ballots that matter.
I have a neighbor who is from Chicago, her family has lived there for quite a while. Her grandfather died in 1952 but yet he's been voting in every presidential election since 1960.
On an aside... It's interesting that today's Daley (and Jesse Jackson also) are both complaining so much about the 'butterfly ballot.' Both of them vote in Cook County, which, incodently, uses the butterfly ballot. They've never seemed to mind it before though.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Since the states are responsible for running elections, and they pass it off to the counties and municipalities, why is anyone using something as stone age as apaper ballot? Heard on CNN that the county officials who designed and approved that ballot are Democrats. So they really have no complaint! But they will find a way to take it from Bush, by hook or crook. My money is on the crook.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I'm for more parties. I'm also against the electoral college. I'm not sure how the two are connected, so I'd be interested if you could spell this out for me.
Small parties can't get equal representation -- Green candidate gets about 3% of popular presidential vote, but but ZERO of 535 seats in congress...
The parliamentary system allows small third parties to hit the jackpot by having the power to tilt the balance of power. This is too much power, IMO.
Too true -- major legislation gets passed and then repealed -- lots of wasted energy...
I think that perfectionism is more to blame with voter disaffection. Kids are brainwashed into thinking we live in a perfect system and when they get old enough to see for themselves how messy it really is they're disgusted because that's not the way its supposed to be.
I think people are unhappy with Washington because they have a minority viewpoint that isn't represented -- in New Zealand they have a Rastifarian in Parliment !
http://www.ps.parliament.govt.nz/mp133.htm
--
--
.sig coming soon
As the recount is mandated by state law, I have no problem with this. I voted Gore in the election, but even if Bush ends up winning the state, the Dems should suck it up and deal with the fact that it appears that they have lost the election.
Suing would reflect very badly on them, painting them as sore losers, providing that they support any lawsuits. While I'm pretty sure that the Republicans would do the same under opposite circumstances, suing would be a bad idea.
Re-doing the vote, even for that county, would, I feel, unfairly tip the election to Gore, as now everyone who voted the first time could have a chance to re-cast their vote. In a district where there seems to be a good portion of Democrats, I see only a benefit for Gore. Should he win in this manner, the Republicans will pull out all the stops to see that Al Gore won't be able to get a job at a gas station, let alone government ever again.
So by all means, let's see what the recount says, stick with that, and try to not have any more events like this anymore.
-----------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
So you can't read a ballot. I don't see that it's reasonable for one district to get to vote again (assuming that happens) and not let the whole state, or even the whole nation, vote again.
You're talking about an election like it's a glass of spilled milk.
"So you're a klutz and you spilled your milk. Too bad. I don't see that's it's reasonable to give you a new glass and not give everyone else a new glass. Maybe this will teach you to hold your glass more carefully."
Except this isn't a trivial situation like spilled milk. This is the presidency of a superpower. This is the office that will appoint Supreme Court justices whose decisions will affect us for decades to come. The need to get this right and have accurate election results far outweighs any other consideration, including the need many people apparently feel to punish inattentive (or visually impaired, or elderly, or simply confused) voters.
We have a chance to set this situation right. It would be an outrage not to.
So how can you prove or disprove that the ballot layout affected the outcome, with a secret ballot, without re-voting?
Sigh. My brain hurts.
---
This site has a few links, and an interesting set of plots about the voting in Palm Beach...didn't find it when I seached, some might find it interesting...
http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/
according to other posts refering to NPR, that eraser wasn't working in Palm Beach.... apparently election volunteers wouldn't exchange mistaken ballots for new ones ....
in which case what do you do?
leave your wrong vote, or mark both?
i personally think they should use scantron based voting rather than punch cards.... (i was introduced to scantron voting here in milwaukee, and its a lot nicer than the punch card voting i have back home in orange county, california)
Need a Catering Connection
Say you have a country of 6 states:
Hicksland, Redneck, Hillbillie, Technostate, Bookplace, and The Port.
There are three candidates: Eric Cartman for the "Confederesah Party", and Mr Garrison for the "Gay" party, and Chef with his new "Party" party that no one expects to be able to win.
The Port has 110,000 citizens. Redneck has 100,000,000 citizens. The other states each have 50,000,000.
Now, 90% of the voters in Redneck, Hillbillie, and Hicksland are going to vote for Cartman, because they like his "Get the niggers out of our schools." and "Gay people should have their ass kicked." platform. Only 7% will vote for Garrison (Because he's gay), and only 3% will vote for Chef, both because he's black and because they don't want to "throw away their vote".
In Bookplace and The Port, 55% will vote for Garrison, mostly because he's not Cartman. 40% will vote for Cartman, because of his 1.2% tax cut initiative, and because of rumors about Garrison's sex life. The other 5% will vote for Chef.
In Technostate, 60% will vote for Garrison, because he's not Cartman. 20% will vote for each of Chef and Cartman. The technostate voters know that Chef is the only candidate that doesn't base his entire platform on something meaningless, but Garrison is the lesser of two morons.
That means that the majority of voters are voting for Cartman, mostly because of the large groups in some of the states. In a direct republic (majority wins) this elects Cartman, which would be a Bad Thing(tm). No one wants to see Eric Cartman as president.
In a Electoral College system, Garrison will be elected, because he carried more states. This is slightly better than Cartman getting elected, and shows the advantages of an electoral college system.
If instead of a standard "vote for one candidate" ballot, a preferental ballot had been used, the votes would have been similar, but a little bit closer. With an electoral college, Garrison would win - Without, Cartman. *But* the big win would be that more people would have voted Chef as their primary choice, and the statisticians would have to report that Chef actually got somewhere near 30-40% of the popular vote, possibly allowing him to win the next election.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Well, it's not meant to be exciting; it's meant to be accurate, and the possibility that the wrong person wins increases voter power, but only when the race is very close and then it increases the wrong voter's power, ie the one's who vote for fringe no-hoper parties, causing the general public's more popular candidate to lose.
The guy actually describes the fact that the person with the smaller number of votes gets elected as a "minor vice" and defends it on the grounds that it's temporary. So, might as well just toss the coin then, since the result only stands for four years and you might pick the right candidate. Save everyone all that time and money too.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Hello-o?
sorry for stating the obvious, but... it seems clear to me that the only and fairest way to resolve this is to vote again. votes that raise serious doubt about their regularity should just be repeated.
so just <b>repeat palm beach and get it over with</b>. jesus, what's the problem? it's certainly easier than
- recounting 20 million times
- having several lawsuits that contest the election
- having a president whose legitimacy is in doubt (also called sitting duck president)
what we need is that everybody should be able to say "yes, these were fair elections".
Actually the electoral college is a Federal thing that is defined in the constitution. And it does NOT require the electorals to vote the way the majority vote goes. It has never actually happened but it isn't written that it can't. It is rumored as far as I know to have happened in the Dewey/Truman election (thanks for the correction Dickhead). So it is possible that it could change things. It's also another reason the the electoral college should be revised if nothing else.
Thank you. I did not realize they did all their balloting by mail. Doesn't Oregon also allow for Internet voting, or am I on drugs? I believe Arizona did in the Democratic primaries, IIRC. I know Oregon tends to be on the leading edge of these sort of things.
Rick
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
one of the two identical sample ballots I received (one for my wife and one for me)
You can obviously tell that it's staggered and if you're paying attention there's no way you can accidently vote for the wrong guy. If you follow the logic from the blue-hairs complaining, then they would have voted for nobody if Pat Buchanan wouldn't have been there because they were looking at pinholes instead of the arrows on the ballots.
Anybody can get a new punch card if they screw up. If it can be proven that someone was denied a new punch card after turning in the one she was originally given, then the poll worker is guilty of a felony in FL.
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
If -- and this is a huge-to-the-point-of-being-ridiculous-IF -- the difference ended up being perfectly split -- 2,908,977 for Bush, 2,908,977 for Gore ...what would happen?
I'm not asking about the statistical improbability of this -- I'm well aware of it. I'm also aware that they'd probably call a recount and the recount, due to natural & unbiased errors, would probably go a different way.
But say it didn't. Say the vote really was a perfectly divided split down the middle -- what then? Are the electors then free to choose as they see fit? Do all 25 votes have to go the same way, even in such a situation?
I know this would never happen, but it's as close as we'll ever get to being reality as we're gonna experience (I hope!), so I'm interested in hearing the speculation of others on this...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
the polls in western florida closed one hour later than the rest of FL. They are on central time....
From looking at the numbers for PBC, it is patently obvious that much, much less than "99.999% of the population" understood the ballot. Buchanan was running nearly 4 times his statewide percentage in a liberal district. That alone should raise some significant eyebrows. It's *real* easy to look at the ballot and say 'haw, that's not tricky at all, anybody with a brain could have figured it out.' Don't forget, you've been warned. You already know that those ballots are potentially confusing; you're looking back from a position of perfect hindsight. The numbers tell the story here, folks. And the story is that an inferior user interface is about to shunt George W. Bush into our land's most exalted office.
Mr. Gore, I live in Florida and voted for G.W. Bush. I would have CC'd you on this comment but your website does not apparently supply a email address that I could find (I did give a copy of this to GW, they have email feedback). Anyway, I am gladly retracting my vote for GW and giving it too you. This has gone too far. Call off your lawyers and tell me again about your vision of the future and how it helps my family. Maybe this time I might believe it.
It's just the normal noises in here.
Actually, both parties signed off on the preview design, which didn't show where the holes were going to be placed.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
And if they want to revote, they need to revote the entire state. And if we're going to revote Florida, why not revote everywhere?
Is there a name for what is wrong with you? I am so proud of the fact that in this free country, one man can't express his opinion without having to be corrected all the time by punks like you. You are right, I did use incorrect punctuation, and I did forget capitalization. This is not a term paper; you are not my teacher, nor my professor. I don't pay you to correct me. Do me a favor, keep your comments and your opinions to yourself. If I am not allowed to express mine, then I will be *damned* if I have to put up with yours.
Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind...
--
Not that it's hard to rebutt these "facts";the "news" site you linked to is nothing but far-right propaganda, one doesn't need to look hard to see that. Fuck having slashdot sites for the government; Government works just fine when you do your own damn research, question authority, and think for your damn self, rather than choosing your "facts" from the endless continuum of opinionated media.
I hit send too early ;) ...
I'm not sure about other florida areas. But I must say that many in the republican party did not like Pat at all. 30% seems high for some areas, especially in Florida, I will admit that. If I had the percentage of Pat's vote, I'd love to share it. But to go from 3,000 in a primary to 1,000 in a election four years later does seem odd. I would expect a mimimum of half the votes being for him intentionally if this ballot thing become anything but hogwash. (They were marked with arrows and assistance with the ballots is rather plentiful! They even published and distributed the sample ballots!) But, there is no evidence that he actually didn't get his votes, because there are many retired, church-going senior citizens that like Al (let's tax social security in '93!)Gore's handouts, but are much more concerned about morality in America after they are gone. For them, there is no other choice, making Pat's votes seem reasonable.
Revote? How about a recount? Ballots aren't destroyed. And if you didn't notice, votes are being recounted right now.
This is not machine error. This is, arguably, user error, or perhaps nothing at all. Nobody has any place to whine about it. If you don't vote how you intended, tough luck, and pay attention next time. We can't call a new election everytime someone says they might have checked the wrong box.
That's right, it's not democratic. It's not supposed to be. We are not a democracy, we are a "republic".
:-)
Well you could elect Democrats in a democratic way(ie. universal suffrage) and Republicans in a republican way(ie. EC).
aahhh, well in this case it would still be the same mess... but then there wouldn't be fun
Chuchi
Damn, competeting identical twins AND a dead gubernatorial candidate. I'm voting in Missouri next in 2004!
Of course they have a right to be heard, but they also have a responsibility to speak properly. You can't change the rules because your guy lost. You get one shot at a vote. Everyone can make mistakes. It happens. The law says you go with the count, you *don't* whine after the fact about a ballot you already approved and demand a recount because it happens to fall in your favor.
Require the stub from their ballot as proof of voting and identification
I'm not a Floridian, so I don't know this, but did Florida give out stubs for the ballot? In Ohio you walk in with nothing and you walk out with nothing...there is no "receipt" for voting.
> Any exit polls for that?
FWIW, exit polls are exactly why I think there really is something wrong in Florida.
Ignore the news reports and anecdotes; these could easily be shrugged off as reporters grasping for a scoop and the whingeing of sore losers.
But exit polls. The Voters News Service originally gave the state to AG on the basis of exit polls. They retracted after complaints from the Bush HQ, but that was well after the polls had closed, and the exit polls weren't changing anymore. Now the actual results do not reflect the exit polls that the original prediction was based on.
Think about it. Voter enters booth. Voter mistakenly votes for Buchanan. [Optional step: Voter recognizes mistake and re-punches for Gore.] Voter exits booth. Voter tells VNS surveyer that s/he voted for Gore. VNS tallies samples and predicts a win for Gore. Election workers tally votes, find a surprisingly high total for Buchanan and a startlingly high number of double-punched ballots in Palm Beach, and do not find a win for Gore.
The hypothesis leads to results that fit the observations exactly.
You still need to test the hypothesis, though. Have the 19,000 double-punched ballots been destroyed? If not, how many of them show a Gore-Buchanan combination? Any other suggestions for testing the hypothesis?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Even more interesting, I think, is that Buchanan had 2600+ votes in the 96 election. Why are 3400 votes for him, in an area with 15,000 registered Reform Party members -- and 2600 of whom voted for Buch. last election, so "out of place"? Answer: they're not. P.S. Buchanan has no right or power to "concede" any of those votes over to Gore, whether they are rightfully "his" or not. Since when did the idea of sharing votes get legitimized? Answer: it didn't.
The Englishman Who Came to a Concert
Any system that allows a voter to submit an invalidly filled out form without feedback to allow him or her to fix it seriously flawed.
;-)
In my area, we use a fill-in-the-dots-with-pen method. Not all votes are mechanically checked the moment they're submitted, in some precincts they're simply dropped in a (forgive me for using this word) lockbox. It's posted absolutely everywhere, though, that if you make a mistake, you're -not- supposed to fix it yourself, you're supposed to ask for a new ballot.
Thing is, neither side has much cause to complain, imho, since the ballot -and- the process, flawed as it is, was approved by both Democrats and Republicans before the election began. Yes, it screwed some folks over. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a few Bush folks somewhere, in some state, made a Stupid Mistake(tm) themselves. The only reason Florida's getting all that attention is because this race is so damned close, and Statistical Error, the enemy of any polling process, has been exceptionally cruel this time around.
In my state, we had some problems, but not of this sort. For us, it was logistic problems coming from an unexpectedly high voter turnout. Folks being forced to wait for hours in the rain and so on. Most of the vote machines at some locations being broken. There was one story on the radio of a woman who had waited a long time in the rain when the county sheriff came over and said that her car would have to be moved or it would be towed. She drove about a mile away to the nearest free and legal parking spot, walked back in the rain, and had lost her place in line. So, she had to wait again, for hours.
Ironically, that sheriff's position was up for election. I'm sure he lost at least one vote.
Anyhow, we've heard promises from the Election Committee in our state that they're making plans to improve both logistics and hardware next year. Personally, I think some of those touch-screen polling machines I've heard about would be absolutely neato to use....
Does anyone know why Oregon still isn't decided?
From what I've heard, that state is trying out a new system by which -all- ballots are submitted by mail. One of the upsides to such a system, I would imagine, would be cutting out all the logistics problems we had in my state. On the downside, some folks did wait 'til the last minute to send their votes in, and they can only collect them as fast as the postal service will allow.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
According to Florida Division of Elections web site, a Runoff Election is initially indicated, not just a recount. See the following URL for screen captures and timestamps of my first hand observations as Florida seemingly changed its rules, literally overnight. See http://fiberhood.net/election2000/ Carping about stupid people, stupid ballots, or stupid ratings-pumping-reporting does not matter at this point; but the rules do matter. Any lawyers out there who can find the real statutes governing this stuff? After about an hour of superficial research, my layman's take is that Florida requires a 50% plus one majority in order to declare a victor in an election. Anything less than that requires a runoff, not just a recount.
She will continue to bless the US, but will likely smack you down for your continued refusal to seek therapy.
We are the first generation of Morlocks. Eat the rich!
I deeply apologize for riling you so much. I disagree with your assessment that "nothing in this situation is worth making fun of". Humour (even bad humour) can put issues in a new perspective.
I am still debating whether or not the electoral college should be reformed/abolished. The negatives are of course the probable election of a president without the popular vote and Decrease in voter turnout. And the reinforcement of a two party system. But of course you do have to consider that the electoral college, prevents urban areas from having too much power. It also increase the power of states, which is inline with the ideas of the Constitution.
So the voting system may not have to be reformed on the Federal level, but individual states themselves may have to look closer at their voting laws.
Finally, Reno and Hillary will in no way bring the US laws even close to what the Statue of Liberty stands for. Well at least to what I think the Statue of Liberty stands for, and how I think the laws can attempt to achieve them.
Regards,
Sterling
The beauty of the EC system is it makes each vote really count. There's got to be thousands of people in Florida kicking themselves about not voting. This system makes it all come right down to you and your neighbor - it makes it personal. Everyone talks about making each vote count; this system exemplifies it - and in this situation it's obvious! I say keep it!
Old and bad vision? That's why the Democrat who designed the ballot made it like it is, so the print could be bigger and people with bad eyesight could see the names of the candidates. The arrows pointing to the holes that needed to be punched were also rather large. This isn't a confusing ballot to anyone as long as you're paying attention while you vote. If you aren't paying attention while you vote, well, chances are you weren't paying attention to who the candidates are, either.
Yes, it's funny to see the usual libertarian-leaning Slashdot crowd (okay, there not really the majority of readers, just the most vocal on political issues) take a position like this. Evidently, the voting rights of people with poor eyesight aren't worth protecting.
<flamebait>Or is that, "the voting rights of people who don't agree with libertarians"? Palm Beach has heavy left-leaning tendencies. Hmmm...</flamebait>
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Happily, Ruth Dwyer, the Nazi/Republican candidate for governor of Vermont, was religated to the dustbin of history on election day. She was forced to admit, in her concession speach, that Vermonters don't appear to agree with her on the issues. She actually got a smaller percentage of the vote this year then she did two years ago, when she did not have the whole civil union issue to harp on.
Oh my god! So glad there is another slashdotter that agrees with me on how insane Ruth Dwyer is! I was getting so sick of all of the "Take Back Vermont" bullshit going on in VT, this certainly is way far from the Vermont I grew up in and love.
I live in Boston now, but am in Vermont regularily. Today in the Boston Phoenix, Ruth Dwyer and the Take Back Vermont crap was on the front page, titled "Gay Bashing: Vermont Style". Inside there is a picture of Ruth and her supporters waving, but it looks damn near close to them giving the Sieg Hiel salute, scary!!!!
BTW, my sister goes to UVM...
Melissa
That woman is a loser! I have no sympathy for people who are careless, only those who are older and less than full capity. To be told "no you can't fix a mistake" must really be a blow to some older folks who don't get out much anymore.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
No, the Nader guys would vote Gore. The Buchanan, Browne and everyone else would vote Bush. Nobody but those two candidates would get any votes at all!
Look, those people had all the time in the world to properly makr their ballot, but they decided to rush instead of being careful. They decided that their vote was not worth fretting over. They decided that their President wasn't worth care and deliberate action. Nothing to do with age. Nothing to do with intellect. All to do with attitude!
There are 538 EC votes, among 51 States and DC. That's an average of ~10.55 votes/state
To abolish the EC for a popular vote will mean that states with greater than 11 votes will gain power, while states with 10 or less will lose. According to information at the Federal Election Commission, There are 18 state that would gain, 33 that lose.
Abolishing the EC will require an amendment to the US Constitution. This requires approval of 3/4 of all states (38 states). Assuming the 18 larger states will favor an amendment, you'ld still have to convince 20 of the smaller states to go along...
As a famous politician once said: "All politics are local"
People just need to make sure there're no grounds for disputing an election's results.
-Splat
Yes, gerrymandering is a problem, but I don't think it is as big as Natapoff thinks. In theory a party can try to draw the districts to lock down as many seats as posisble, but it turns out that congressional seats do change hands fairly often, and in any case people commonly split their vote in many districts between congressional and presidential party choices. A single visit by a candidate could well swing a district designed to support the opposing party's congressional seat in his favor.
States in any case are far too large to provide a voting incentive -- we can easily see that by looking at the number of people who vote in most presidential elections. It's a rare, rare thing that people have the kind of significance that Florida voters are enjoying.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Whilst this is an amusing analogy (and yes, I did read the article it comes from), the means of deciding sporting contests are generally arbitrary - why is a tennis match decided the way it is, or why don't they have a 'best of seven' for the NFL/AFL? How about a 'penalty shootout' on the whitehouse lawns to decide the presidency? Somehow, I think making sure that a representative democracy truly represents the wishes of all (or most of) the populace should be a task undertaken with a bit more deliberation and care than coming up with some way of working out who is the winner of the World Series (and why isn't it just aggregate scores anyway?)
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
The way I see it, the EC system is great for one thing that outweights everything else: to make sure minorities are not excluded. Imagine a system of direct election, candidates would just address the issues of the mayority country wide and forget about minorities. But currently minorities have an impact in several important state presidential elections and can help win that states EC.
read the article linked to this story with the mathematical explanation. it's pretty good.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I would conjecture though, that this advanced information would hurt the candidate that is being projected to win. As supporters have less motivation to bother voting than detractors since their efforts will not produce a change, vs. a hope that change could occur if a detractor gets off his butt and gets out.
re: the ballot,
I understand all of your arguments. I'm not sure if the ballot acceptance process cannot be challenged in this case. Much like the standard no liability clause in software licenses could necessarily withstand all possible challenges.
In this case, the unfair ballot requires detailed analysis and scrutiny in order to uncover its flaw. Essentially, its not reasonable to expect a competent election process overseeer with any time contraints to both spot the mistake and devote energy of overturning the ballot format without considerable expense in proving the defect. It could be held that there is an error in law to hold the challenge process (limited before the election) as absolute, and challenged on that basis.
There's another important Florida statute that applies here though. One that requires that all punch holes be to the right of the candidates name.
How this will all pan out
So, you know my true motives, eh? I was determined to stop these threads before the total number of messages hit 6,666, but it's already too late. I guess it's time to raise up my army of demons and order them to destroy you and slashdot. Doubt me? Fine, go ahead, I'll just invoke Darwin's Law.
Personally, I find the esteemed professor's arguments and conclusions drawn a tad disturbing:
And this is a good thing???
I.e. if the election is close (where presumably an accurate voting system is most important), the electoral college is worse than the simple election. If the election is NOT close, then (apparently) the electoral college makes little to no difference whatsoever. I'm sorry, explain to me what your argument was again? Methinks the professor doth protest too much...
His specious arguments notwithstanding, I find the electoral college an adequate system. However, I do agree that it does tend to surpress the less well-known parties. It looks better to the public to have garnered 1,000,000 votes and finished third than to have won 0 electoral votes and evidently tie for last place.
So the question boils down to Do we elect a president based upon a few nitpickings over the meaning of the law?
personally, I think that whoever gets elected will already have half the country pissed at them. The only way to fully restore national confidence would be an entire national revote. I don't know how possible or costly or likely that could be, but to preserve sanity and not turn this into a partisan war, it seems like perhaps the only way to go.
make world, not war
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_ mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0101/titl 0101 .htm&StatuteYear=2000&Title=%2D%3E2000%2D%3EChapte r%20101
(The editor keeps inserting extraneous spaces. Pleae remove them. How do I make it stop?)
This page details, with admirable clarity, the many ballot and election laws which apply in the state of Florida. It very much appears to me that the oft-repeated "right-side only" rule applies only "In counties in which voting machines are not used, and in other counties for use as absentee ballots not designed for tabulation by an electronic or electromechanical voting system..."
Unfortunately I can't find the exact rules which apply to electronic voting systems. However, the procedure and considerations for defining such rules are outlined in "101.015 Standards for voting systems." on the page above, and it seems quite clear that a different set of physical and operational standards are expected to apply to an electronic or electromechanical ballot. After reading this statute it seems very unlikely that the butterfly ballot would've made it through the procedure outlined if it was, in fact, in violation of the law or of these specific rules.
Go read it for yourself. I'd appreciate it if someone could track down the rules that actually apply to this electronic ballot this time around.
-Bryan
I just looked up the recount numbers on msnbc.com and I have a few thoughts that immediately jumped up. The first is that Gore has gained almost 3 times as many votes as Bush in the recount so far.
Ok that could be statistical anomaly. However, Gore also gained votes in about 1.5-2 times as many counties as Bush. That is also excusable when not in conjuction with the overall picture. The highest number of votes gained in the recount in one county is for Gore over 700 while Bush hasn't broken 200.
I'm not proposing a theory on how or why, but as a responsible citizen I must question the integrity of the voting process based on these numbers. I must also say that the voting process seems to have been altered almost unilaterally in that Gore is hurt by this much more than Bush is, or in other words Bush is helped by this because Gore is hurt.
In an election this close I as an American INSIST that the vote be 1) of the the poeple, by the people, and for the people and 2) Fair.
Magusq
magusq@hotmail.com
Not a revote, but a recount. Big difference.
NO.
Dayle is claiming that due to popular vote Florida should be awarded to Gore. He is claiming that REGARDLESS of recounting.
It is a clear case of sore looser. These people have no shame.
You skew your sample by comparing the Buchanan to Bush ratio. Palm County had fewer Bush voters than just about anywhere, which would make your ratio all the more extreme. Nice touch. You'd think they'd teach you how to choose the right stats to measure at a place like MIT. How about Buchanan votes per 1000 voters or something objective like that. Color a coloring book, not the stats.
> Should we therefore abolish the Senate, since
> it is not based on proportional representation?
Oh, sod it, why not just abolish the USA? We'll be happy enough to take you back as a colony if you just say sorry for all that unpleasantness in the 18th century.
I would be a paid subscriber if Taco and Hemos weren't such cunts
These blind old fogies should take a little time and READ before they sign something (or in this case, punch a whole).
Why don't you take a little time and READ before you submit your posts? Christ, are you really so fucking stupid that you can't tell the difference between a whole and a hole???
I just find it funny that so many of the posts calling the Palm Beach voters stupid and careless have such obvious spelling and grammar mistakes.
why the hell are we using punch cards still for something as important as an election? Shouldn't we be using technology that isn't 50 years old?
Well cost also have something to do with it. Voting machines are expensive. The advantage of the bubble sheets or the punch cards is that the main cost is printing up the sheets or the cards. You only need a handful of scanners or punch card readers in any one district to read the ballots.
There are other machines. One machine is the AVC Edge (http://www.spve.com/products/avc_edge.html) that has a touch screen panel. It's light, easy to carry around, programmable, can do stuff in several languages, clear, can upload election data instantaneously, but costs about $5000 per box. One scanner that can scan a ward of bubble sheets in two hours costs less than one of those machines.
I live in Franklin County, Ohio (Columbus) and we have these big Shouptronic electronic voting machines, introduced in 1996. There is a plastic membrane on which the ballot is printed and a bunch of flashing lights next to each candidates name. You press a candidates button, and the flashing lights go out and only that candidates light is illuminated. It's straightforward, easy, and you don't have to piss about bubbling circles or punching in holes.
However they are expensive, in fact, other Ohio counties have talked about going to a touch screen or electronic voting machine system, but they needed to ask to voters to pass a property tax levy in order to buy the new machines. Furthermore, not only are they expensive,but they sit in warehouses 363 days of the year. What a racket the voting machine companies have...making an expensive machine that the government needs to buy in large quantities which only has one purpose once or twice a year, at best.
And finally, the Shouptronics used here in Franklin County are really big. Someone with a truck needs to move them to the polling place. The touch screen models are smaller and lighter, but ballots and sheets for one precinct can be brought in on election day by one poll worker in their Honda.
5% in california doesn't really seem like such a big difference when you realize that the initial count had bush winning by THREE-ONE HUNDREDTHS of a percent. 5% vs 0.03%.
(It doesn't mean that the votes were cast as intended, which (AFAIK) is a perfectly valid reason to challenge for a new election.
Well, you're so wrong its almost humorous. If a voter punches in two presidential candidates as his or her selection, the vote is invalid and is discarded. The ballots used were designed by a Democrat. The ballots had been sent out weeks before. There was ample time to review the ballot format, and procedures were in place to modify it if it had been requested. Election officers are in place at voting locations to assist people. If you screw up on your vote after all this, its your own damn fault for being stupid.
As for the numbers, 19,000 invalid ballots in one county, there were 15,000 last Presidential election with much lower turnout. Kind of interesting that the Democrats weren't alleging widespread voter fraud and Jesse Jackson wasn't asking for a Federal inquirery 4 years ago.
This is, quite simply, nothing more than the Democrats crying because it was so close and they don't like the results.
And no, I'm not a Republican, but the duplicitousness of the Gore and the Democrats is disgusting. It should tell you something that both Arkansas and Tennessee went for Bush.
Many people in both the media and on slashdot have been constantly bringing up the sharp difference between the votes buchanan got in Palm Beach county and votes he got in the rest of the state's counties. At first glance this seems to be a very strong argument, however a little more research shows that this argument holds very little, if any, water. The county of Palm Beach has 14,551 registered members of the reform party. Given that number, the 3500 or so votes receieved by Buchanan are not odd at all. Now if either candidate takes this to court, which Gore is quite likely to do if he loses, I'm buying the first plane ticket out of here, I do not want to be in a country where elections are overturned simply because one candidate found a friendly judge. Oh, and Gore's campaign manager is Florida's Attorney General yet will not recuse himself from the Florida Election Committee, like Jeb Bush has already done. I guess gore sees a chance to steal the election (literally)now that Bush stepped down to avoid any look of impropriety. On another related note, Florida's former Attorney General and the current Attorney General of the U.S., Janet Reno, is on her way down the Florida. I have absolutely no faith in this woman, she once arrested two men and ruined their lives for giving her evidence of democratic election fraud. She dragged them through the mud for 2 years, and the day before the trial, the day before her arguments would have to stand up in court, she dropped the charges. Her personal assistant was once caught falsifying absentee ballots. Yes, I have full faith and confidence in this woman to see to an honest election. One other thing the unwashed masses don't seem to understand, is that we are not a democracy, and for very good reason, we are a republic. This is done mainly to prevent mob rule by the majority from taking away all the rights of the minority. This was also a concession to the smaller states when the country was being formed. People seem to forget that the will of florida, california, new york, pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, minnesota, and texas, is not -supposed- to trump the will of 42 other states and DC. It must be remembered that during the time the constitution was made, there was great fear by the smaller states that they larger states would run over them, literally, there were fears that they would be invaded by a neighboring large state, of course this is back in the days when we were a true republic.
This sig intentionally left blank.
We are being cheated by our voting method not necessarily by the electoral college. I am not going to argue over Natapoff's theory that "ditricting" increases individuals voting power in certain circumstances. Rather, the system of voting in each state for the electorates falls apart when there is more than two candidates running for office. The "popular" vote only represents the will of the people when we are voting for two candidates. It is even possible that when more than two candidates run for political office that the least favored candidate could win.(Please see "May The Best Man Lose", Discover magazine, November 2000) Obviously the country is split evenly over Gore and Bush. But we also have 2,670,000 votes for Ralph Nader. The real question is if these Nader supporters were given the chance to vote for their second choice who would they pick? For that matter what if everyone could pick another candidate as a second and third choice? I remeber seeing a few signs in my neighborhood saying "A vote for Nader = A vote for Bush", this aggrivates me because its true. (true for any candidate though, insert any two names.) If you favor two or more candidates, by voting for one you are cheating the other. After all, what we really want is a candidate that most of the people feel represent them. For example, Jesse Ventura won the election in Minnesota with only %37 of the vote. So was he really the most favored candidate for most of the people? Or were the majority of the people simply split on the other candidates and couldn't stand him? Unfortunately we will never know. I think its time people realize that our voting method is inadequate and change it. There are better ways to elect our government officials. Methods that better represent the wishes of the people without ambiguity. This mess we are in is the result of using a system not appropriate for the situation, pure and simple.
Thanks for the insight on the system. I had no clue how it worked.
I'm trying not to shit on America here but.... Would it not be wise to take a look at other "free" countries and see how there systems work. I'm sure if America adopted the Swedish system, they could do it without looking too bad and save face.
Why could there not be one standard form for the whole of USA? The top part could have the standard
stuff that the whole country gets to vote on and then there could be a giant line and then all the crap like who the local dog catcher is. Having differnt ballots for voting on a country wide matter is insane. Have a 2nd ballot for all thr other crap if need be.
Anyway enough rambling. The rest of the world does it differtly and it seems to work......
I agree.. but MO also hasn't gotten in all there votes and nobody cares what happens there because the electoral college is so close. Those people who voted for 7 electoral colleges essentially have no say right now. There votes could be thrown out and it wouldn't make a diffrence. Now lets take for example that all of those votes are for gore. He get X(hundred thousand, million, whatever) more which would most likely throw him way over the edge and into a much vaster majority win but he still loses. I;m not sure if I helped proved my point or not but the electoral college is a flawed system period. I know why it was created but I doubt if they had up to the second poll information on 100 diffrent channels when the founding fathers created this country that they would have let such a flawed system get written into the constitution. We have an ever evolving country and technolgy is making it so easy to manipulate the masses. We're a diffrent class (for the most part) here on /. and we have to remeber that modifications are going to need to be implemented to keep this country fair and open so that all people completly understand the issues and aren't blinded by campaign ads. (ok I went off on a unrelated tangent there)
As a side note. Is it not riduculous that people are spending 8+ million dollars on a position that only pays 130,000 a year? Somebody please explain that to me.
"solid Bush Country" my ass...in almost all of the states, the candiates were with in a few percentage points of each other. Hardly "solid" anything
Hmmm. that sounds familiar... Haven't the Republicans been spending the last four years telling anyone and everyone that more people voted against Clinton than for him? At least he had a plurality of the popular vote. Dubya won't even have that.
We live in interesting times...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
What would happen in a state where both candidates got exactly the same number of votes? Statiscally speaking, at least right now, that's what's happened in Florida. Instead of winner-takes-all, shouldn't both be declared winners and the electoral college vote for that state split? Of course that means Gore wins...
Energy: time to change the picture.
Finally, I think the Electoral College needs a second look. Majority rules, and the popular vote should be the determining factor.
There's a load of bull. Majority rules, but "minority rights." The popular vote be the determining factor? I think you really need to know...if it was, there would be a demand for a recount from the Bush campain in the entire United States, because a difference of less than 200,000 votes is less than 1/10 of one percent! That's a pretty slim margin for any national election.
Course, another pathetic argument is that "each vote would then count more." ERRRRHHHH! Wrong again. If the popular vote would be used in this election, Palm Beach county wouldn't even exist in the news media, and neither would Florida. One reason why there's so many people protesting is because they love it that everyone's eyes are on them!
The electoral college may appear to be archaic, but it's amazing, and it forces canidates to listen to EVERYBODY, not just "the majority."
Stupidity, ignorance, and irresponsibility on the part of the voter is NOT a reason to call another election or invalidate it. What I want to know is, this ballot format was used in 1996 as well. How many mistakes were made in that election since no one bothered to bring it down to the wire since Clinton had a blowout? You clearly can't have a revote since you'll have the Nader voters jumping ship to Gore and screwing the revoting in favor of Gore anyway. This is an election to determine the president of the united states. This isn't some bullshit golf match where you can call "do-over!!!" after slicing into the pond. You make your choices on the ballot and you submit it. Done. If your ballot was wrong after you left the polling place and you failed to check it, that is YOUR OWN DAMNED FAULT!
I'm sick of lazy people looking for any and all excuses to keep the voting going until they get the outcome they want to see. That's not how it works and it's making a mockery of our elections. In closing, I think it is time for the federal government to spend even a fraction of the $100+ million that was spent on this campaign to ensure every single precinct in the United States is equipped with computerized balloting by 2004. This simply must NOT be allowed to happen again. We can't have our presidential election hang in limbo for stupid paper ballots to be counted, recounted, hand counted, stuffed, counted again, etc. Like I said, in Cuyahoga County in Ohio we had these stupid punch card ballots but right next door in Lake county they have entirely computerized balloting with touch screens. Touch your candidate and it lights up. Touch one of the others and that lights up and the first candidate unlights. There's NO WAY to vote for more than one. Then when you're satisfied with your ballot you click the submit button, it tells you it's going to submit it and that your vote is final, boom. Your vote is cast, your count is entered into a database, and the tally is instantaneous. No need to fuck around with millions of paper ballots, no chance of stuffing the ballot boxes, no chance of mistakes. We MUST implement this system nationally to ensure we never have a replay of this 2000 election fiasco in Florida. Note, I'm not saying Internet voting either... that's too open to fraud right now. I'm just saying, replace those little shitty voting stands with small cheap embedded computers with touch screens to handle the voting. They don't have to be general purpose computers... I'm sure someone can make a really cheap electronic voting machine that is much more infallable than today's setup.
Clearly the electoral college no longer serves a purpose in this country. Is there really a fundamental difference between any of the states that requires us to consider their views over the people directly? Maybe in the 18th/19th centuries when states had personalities such as pro/anti slavery among others, but thats not true today. And think about how corrupt this can get. What would happen if we started splitting up existing states in order to give more electoral votes to a particular party. For example, divide democratic New York into two states and you have not the same electoral votes as before when combined, but two more for those extra senate seats. Don't think splitting up states would ever happen? Well it actually did at least once that I know of. Massachusettes used to include Maine, but when the country was arguing about slavery they decided to split into two in order to avoid the fact that there would be a majority of pro-slave states. That was clearly a political move.
What is the remedy? Obviously to abolish the practically useless electoral "college." That better get done during the next term or even this one. For the current situation, clearly we are going to have endless battles over this for centuries to come. Now, I think we should do one of two things. We could get the Supreme Court to decide what to do (I don't know if it is allowed to, but who cares - both sides want it resolved by a neutral source so they should agree to this). Or, we should just do the whole election over and see what happens (yes, the whole country).
Sound fair?
Standard errors depend on the assumption that the error is due to a probability process; in this case, neither the selection of the observed counties nor the voting behavior of Florida residents can be described with these statistical methods. Stats as a tool have a limited range of applicability. Focus on the facts.
We can reduce ideas to bits and people to genes, but "can" does not imply "should".
EXACTLY:
It is the job of the ballot designer to make sure that information is properly conveyed to the voter, and that the voter's response to that information is correctly recorded.
PERIOD.
It happens in computer UI design ALL THE TIME. I work for a software company, and I see this happen all the time. Some designer gets a great idea, or reads a new textbook on the subject, and synthesizes a great idea out of there, and presents it to the manager at the design meetings, and they agree, "aw cool, spiffy" (actually, at Apple, it would be different, Steve Jobs would fire the guy and then tell the team how the interface will look if they value their jobs). Then they write the prototype, and the other developers, and QA see it, then it goes into the alpha, and marketing sees it, and goes "aw cool, spiffy", now, what normally happens with QA is, they often "get used" to the interface, because at that point it's usually not fully functional, and they're used to having to work around crap, it's hard to tell when there's a fundamental flaw. Until beta. Then you send the software out to the beta testers, and only if there's an unholy bitching and moaning will the most serious flaws be fixed, because at that point, it's almost like starting over from scratch in many cases, and if beta is already late, you can bet there's already pressure on the engineering team to deliver a product on time. Here's the place where most companies that ship crap products make the wrong decision. Here's where the ballot likely went wrong, they didn't beta test the ballot. Or if they did, they didn't test it well enough, because IN THE FIELD, where it counts, it did not perform it's job. Period. The committee that reviewed it didn't forsee it. The designer didn't forsee it. Not really their fault, and I don't think the fact that it didn't get any testing was anybody's fault either. To suggest it was deliberately confusing is ludicrous -
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I've actually had a long-standing interest in the Electoral college (originating in an odd incident when I was very small, which led me to ponder it as a mathematical puzzle throughout my teen years in the late 70's). I first heard of Natapoff's work just after he testified before Congress in 1977. The "Electoral college problem" was one of those math problems I gnawed on for most of 1978-9 -- and I am very surprised to see it make a resurgence because in the years since, I realized that it makes a few very flawed assumptions which invalidate the mathematics.
First, since the article doesn't give it, here's a citation of the Natapoff article:
Natapoff, Alan; "A Mathematical One-Man One-Vote Rationale for Madisonian Presidential Voting Based on Maximum Individual Voting Power"; Public Choice; Vol. 88, No. 3-4; September, 1996; 259-273; #2722.
And here are the primary flaws:
1) It does not properly generalize to larger groups of candidates -- i.e. most of the world's 'democracies' are raucous lively pluralities that make the institutionally fossilized "two party system" (which is propped up by many paternalistic -at best- state and local laws that act to exclude or disadvantage other parties, locking the existing power structures in place.)
2) It assumes that greater volatility means greater power for the individual voter (i.e. the easier it is for a small group to alter the outcome, the more "power" the voter has, right?) In reality, volatility does not suggest fairness, in fact, it suggests quite the opposite. If small changes in voting alter the outcome, the outcome is merely more chaotic, and hence more likely to be 'unfair' (like a 'bad bounce' in sports). The once situation where small changes actually reflect a switch in overall voter intent is when the small change straddles a 50-50 split (i.e. increased sensitivity to small degrees of actual measured preference are "fair") Natapoff himself notes that direct voting is actually fairer in the case where the election is very close (e.g. 49.99% to 50.01%)
The analogy to sports is extremely misleading. First few of us ever consider the huge amount of structure, rules, and effort each professional league puts in place to prevent the "best possible team" (or two otherwise unbeatable teams, which would produce the most skilled possible game when they play against each other). Everything from the draft to the rules of the game itself are altered to make everything more mediocre -"a more even match"- where even the worst team in the league has a finite chance of beating the best.
Note that in most *non-professional* leagues, the best team stands nearly no chance of beating the best, because these balancing mechanisms are not in place. Pro leagues seek to maximize excitement and profits for all teams. Volatility is fine for entertainment, but not for any system we actually rely on. I would not throw random chaotic volatility into ANY control system (even 'fuzzy logic' systems are more defined) An election that can be swayed by a small district, in the face of a distinct national majority is like a sportscar that bounces off a pebble in the road.
Professional sports seek to maximize excitement, spread the popularity around, and increase the (real or apparent) significance of each individual game. In politics, this would correspond to rigging the game to favor every politician in the 'stable' getting a shot at election; and oppose the formation of a political dream team that the overwhelming body of voters would overwhelmingly support (i.e. "unbeatable")
It is foolish to discuss "increasing the power of the individual voter" because we must ask what the increase in power means -- it means "more power against the other voters", in some ill-defined sense. The bottom line is that ALL VOTERS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION (direct voting does this). Given that "increasing the power" of any one voter can be seen as meaningless or even undesirable
I will admit that there are many other ways to phrase this that sound very appealing (and given the tenor of the 70's, and the fact that I was a teenager, I propbably believed eevery one of them -- anything that seemed to stick it to The Powers That Be must be good.
"But, it is well known, what strikes the capricious mind of the poet is not always what affects the mass of readers." -
i still believe in being held accountable for your actions. while this might not heralded by the democrates, i think they should be held responseable for their lazyness.
john
-- john
And in the continuum of intellects between Stephen Hawking and a cockroach, where would YOU put the cutoff?
While no user interface (or ballot design) is perfect, the vast majority of voters got it right. Lets focus on them while we work to make every ballot a little better than the last one.
Or we could just blame all those non-mainstream candidates. If there had been just two, the fancy, two page, two column ballot would not have been necessary, there would have been less confusion, and there would have been no Buchannan to vote for in error.
other posters have pointed out that the actual ballots and the sample ones were different
Need a Catering Connection
Sure, it's significant. But what are we supposed to do about it? We can't change the rules of the contest after it's over just because we didn't like the result.
In these cases, the entire ballot is spoiled and the voter gets a new one. So the 19,000 ballot number is completely irrelevant. These people got the opportunity to fix the problem. If they didn't then something illegal happened and the polling supervisors should be held accountable.
In no case can we allow re-votes because we'd be giving more voting power to those people. They have future knowledge of the election outcome.
--
Fact: Voting "irregularities" are not uncommon in Florida, especially south Florida.
Fact: This ballot had been used in previous elections.
Fact: This ballot was (theoretically) designed to make it easier for older voters.
Fact: Supervisors for both Democrats and Republicans had to approve this ballot. If it is so obviously confusing, why did no one complain before?
There was a great voter turnout in what will be a historic election. The sad fact is that all the griping that's going on will do more to dissuade voters from going to the polls in the future than anything else. Now there are even accusations in my home state (WI) that Democrats offered homeless people cigarettes to vote for Gore. Sheesh.
democracy 1. government by the people, usu. through elected representatives; 2. country so governed; 3. practical or social equality as opposed to aristocracy
republic 1. state in which the supreme power is held by the citizen qualified to vote, through their elected representatives and executive officers; 2. any nation of which the head of government is a president rather than a hereditary monarch
They're not quite the same, but almost. Anyway, according to these definitions, the U.S. are both a democracy AND a republic. But getting to the point, what is IMO most "undemocratic" (or "unrepublican" if you wish) about the EC, is that, according to the Howstuffworks.com article mentioned above:So the voter isn't actually voting for a candidate but for some guys who may actually contradict the popular desire of the citizens of their state !
Of course in any "Democracy" or "Republic" the "elected representatives" (President, VP, etc) may contradict the desires of the citizens, but in EC based systems (such as the U.S.) the range of this disrespect is allowed to reach even the election of these "representatives".In another case of misplacd blame, many prominennt former supporters of Ralph Nader are blaming Ralph for the loss of this election. How can we blame him? For presenting voters with a chance to vote for a person who they would actually want to be their president? They obviously aren't looking for progress, but just trying to maintain the status quo. Why would they support him in the first place if they really didn't want him to become president? This whole situation is ludicrous. Democrats have to face the facts: The candidate that they picked, Al Gore, was not fit to be president of the United States. When Ralph Nader ran for president 4 years ago, he didn't cost the democrats the presidency. Why is this? Because the democratic candidate was not a complete failure. Clinton was a well liked president, despite a couple of problems regarding his morals, and Ralph nader presnted no challenge to him winning the presidency. Nader didn't take this election away from the democrats, Gore did.
OK. Even is these 19000 votes were counted, the margin of victory for Gore would still way too small for anybody to call this state.
BTW. Networks admited that data their received was faulty - they do not say it was mystery.
For me, I want a president who will transcend individual interests to act in the nation's best interest. (I have senators to represent my state's interest, and a representative to defend my community's interest.) To get such a person, the nation as a whole must vote in a common, popular vote. (On another note, this will be the third election in which a winner did not attract a majority. Perhaps we would be better served by a popular vote, followed by a run-off between the top two, if no one won a majority. That would assure a president with majority support, and give everyone a 'second chance' in a badly fragmented electorate like this.)
As for the GOP contention that thousands of ballots are thrown out in every election, so why sweat this one -- well, this election demonstrates that not even voting is immune from measurement error. (Of course, any ninth grade chem student coulda told you that, but we are dealing with politicians here... a level of evolutionary development several steps below that of a ninth grade chem student.)
In an election where the margin of victory lies within the tens or hundreds of thousands of votes, a measurement error of thousands of votes may be acceptible. In an election where the margin of victory is only a couple hundred votes, a measurement error of several thousand is clearly unacceptible. Thus the dispute.
The brightest aspect of this controversy may be the new national attention to usability issues. It seems absurd to me that in this technologically advanced nation, we are using paper punch cards to elect a president.
Surely, we should implement some sort of touch screen voting, with adjustible font sizes and confirmation boxes, that would eliminate the confusion that even bright, clear-thinking people sometimes feel when trying to vote.
I've often said that if we had more developers and fewer lawyers involved in politics, we'd be a better nation. This sorry episode's just proving that point.
--
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
*ROFLMAO*
Y'know, despite my preference for Bush during the election, I'd be happy with a Gore win (in the recount, that is!) for precisely that same reason.
The political reality is that neither candidate has a mandate to carry out his campaign agenda, so it doesn't matter who wins in terms of future legislation... and the entertainment value of the backpedalling would be enormous!
The interesting thing - with one county and ~200 votes spread, and many counties having spreads over 200 votes - we may not just see your "dearest hope" happen once (tomorrow, for Gore, I'd say with a probability of 20%), but twice (after Gore, the rest of the absentee ballots swing it back to Bush by November 17th.)
(That said, once - in either direction - would be enough "fun" for me.)
Tackhead, signing off 'till the next /. post on the subject.
Here are some of the most common ones I've heard:
"Gore should uphold the constitution and concede - he may have won the popular vote, but he lost the electoral vote, and if he lost that vote, no matter by how slim a margin, he lost the election."
Well, firstly, Gore is not protesting the electoral college, nor is he saying that due to his winning the popular vote, he should win the election. Gore made a statement saying that he would uphold the consitution fully on this issue, and not attempt to overthrow the electoral college. The democratic campaign is contesting whether or not he actually did lose Florida, based on an unusual amount of 'irregularities' in the ballot there. (find it odd that George Bush's brother is the governer in a state Gore lost by 'irregularities'?)
Oh, and wasn't it the Republican campaign that was threatening, a short while ago, to go to court if Bush won the popular vote but not the electoral?
"Why do they find it unusual that so many votes were for Buchanan? He got a lot of votes in '96!"
Hey, guess what? Buchanan was running for the Republican party in 96, not the Reform party.. Buchanan's approval went down by about 99 percent since 96. That would be like saying "Hey, isn't it odd that Germany no longer supports Nazis? They really suported Hitler a lot in WW2!"
"Gore is making too big a deal out of this! He's politicizing it!"
Oh, God forbid that a political election should be 'politicized'. Honestly, Republicans have the worst choice of words. That aside, doesn't it matter if the President of the United States is elected because of fraud? I think that in an election this close, every single suspicion of foul play should be investigated.
"Oh, but Gore won by a very slim margin in other states too!"
Were blacks being turned away because "we don't have enough ballots" in those states, too?
Anyway, it's just funny.
-elper
Un-doodspeak my email to send a message.
Apparently the other 6 million+ people in Florida and nearly 100 million people across the nation didn't have any problem punching the hole. Perhaps West Palm beach is just inhabited by an irregular amount of idiots or blind people.
First of all, the electoral votes are allocated to states based on population, so, the electoral college system actually makes this sort of domination EASIER - after all, now you only need 51% in the most populous few states (I don't know how many you need, but not many)
You need at least the 14(15?) most populous states to win an alectoral contest. That's more (three times more) than you need in a popular vote.
Most of your arguments point out the flaw in winner-takes-all allocation of electors (you only need 51% of the vote) but the fundamental idea of balancing state powers remains. So complain to your state legislators to change your allocation method to proportional rather than winner-takes-all. This is a matter decided by each state, not the constitution or the federal government.
I think the flaw is winner-takes all, which distorts the popular vote in each state and keeps third parties from ever achieving electors. But the college itself (or any other mechanism like the congress is based on) is a fundamentally sound idea, that you must have a geographically broad appeal throughout the 50 states in order to be a capable and responsive president.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Has anyone considered that Buchanan got so many minority votes because his running mate was a black woman?
We know that alot of people vote by emotion...not qualifications, so I think this is a valid thought...
Also, I think that if this district is allowed to revote, then we should ALL be able to revote.
God bless, what a sensitive mess...things aren't always what they seem.
"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)
That's fine, repoll, BUT to make it fair-
1. ONLY thise who voted in the original election may vote again
** AND! **
2. ALL those who voted in the original election MUST vote again.
1 is easy, but frankly 2 will be impossible, Just takinginto account the number of voters who will be unable to vote again for any number of reasons.
And finally how many of the voters who voted correctly in that district will change their minds?
If the ballot design was poor there were many many opportunities to correct it before the election. No system will ever be perfect sometimes you just have to live with it for now and work for change in the future.
That the ratio of Buchanan votes to Bush votes in Palm Beach is significantly different from the similarly computed ratio for other counties and that this difference is extremely unlikely to be expained by random chance alone is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the seemingly unexplained results are caused by confusing ballots or by voter error. In other words, you haven't demonstrated causality, and therefore there is no reason to suggest that the Palm Beach votes aren't legitimate.
The seeming anomaly could be explained by a number of other factors. For example:
I just made these up, but I hope that you can see that a number of reasonable circumstances could explain the anomalous results beside the much-touted "confusing ballot" explanation.
Demonstrating a causal relationship is difficult and requires much stronger evidence than has been presented so far.
Let's not be hasty.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
I think I heard somewhere that there have been seven times so far the Florida's deligates have not all voted as they should have. These delegates are usually chosen for their loyalty, and going against your parties wishes would probably kill any political carier (within that party at least), however in none of those cases has this decided an election, so people haven't really heard about it as much.
Now, I'm not sure what states have what laws about when the delegates can 'vote their concience', but there has been precident that these votes count as they were actually voted.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
The legal question is "do the alleged mistakes constitue grounds for a challenge under Florida law?" And none of the three conditions you listed appear to be satisfied. There are no allegations of official misconduct, all candidates were eligible to hold office, and even if some voters made a mistake on their ballots I don't believe that renders them "illegal".
The ballot design was public far in advance of the election. There was plenty of time to challenge it beforehand.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I am amazed, however, at the fact that people seem to be unable to follow a simple arrow.
If you look closely at the ballots you can clearly seem them marked with numbers AND arrows pointing directly to the hole associated with the candidates.
Also, I must ask, WHY would you punch TWO holes? You know that you've gone in there to vote for one candidate -- yet you vote for two? That's not very intelligent.
I agree with someone who posted earlier, if you mess up, don't turn in the ballot. Simply ask for a different one. It's over, it's done with, stop your complaining. If the situation were reversed and it were Gore winning and Bush's followers whining then I would be equally pissed. We're not children, guys. You screwed up. Accept it. Try again next time.
---
Rob Flynn
---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
"The political reality is that neither candidate has a mandate to carry out his campaign agenda, "
According to Constitution they do.
Only problem in your stellar theory are those precincts where there are the most complaints going on are presided over by democratic election officials (they are largely democratic areas). Sorry, but your conspiracy theory doesn't hold any water. If anything, the pro-Gore election officials would have been the ones punching Gore's name on Buchanan tickets. I think a person a few threads up showed the Reform Party got 10x as many votes in West Palm Beech in 1996. Is it really that hard to imagine that maybe there WERE 19000 people voting for Buchanan and the liberal officials fscked the ballots? No, I don't believe that either. I believe in the integrity of the system and I will stand by that. It is weird though that almost exclusively these ballot boxes they mysteriously find that weren't turned in tend to be all for Al Gore. How on Earth did they miscount 750+ votes that were for Gore in West Palm? In another county they accidently forgot to count over 400 votes for Gore. Where are these ballots coming from?? Why weren't they counted accurately in the first place? Are democratic officials stuffing the voting machines?
Do we get more karma if we vote for the popular guy? Will the votes be meta-moderated to ensure there's no fishy business going on? :)
Not yet at least. There are still millions of ballots unaccounted for or absentee ballots that need to be counted. As CNN reported, in 1996, there were 3-4 million votes outstanding but Clinton was projected the winner. He eventually ended up with 400k more votes than he had on November 7th. Bush could technically still win the popular vote since the difference is only 200k votes.. a statistically insignificant amount. What is that.. less than a fifth of a percentage point difference between Gore and Bush? I'm suprised the popular vote isn't listed as "too close to call" as well. Nixon and JFK had a wider margin between them as a percentage than Gore and Bush do right now!
-Bryan
Yes, 19,000 ballots were thrown out, but that was because those dumb people punched two holes for president. What kind of person doesn't know that you can't have two choices for president. These people obviously knew that something was wrong. They should have requested another ballot, rather than punch a second hole in the card. You can do that!
Wigs
Tackhead, apologies from here too. I've seen your other responses and they revealed a much more reasonable person than the first post would have indicated.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
*NT*
I didn't argue that following directions is too difficult for the average person. I argued that being able to follow directions isn't a sign of intelligence. I made this argument because various people have been saying things like "if someone is too stupid to understand the ballot, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote."
I also realize now that I was putting words into Signal 11's mouth, er, keyboard. He simply expressed skepticism that people were having a hard time understanding the ballot in question. In fact, I had no problem understanding the ballot when I saw it, but then again that ballot reminds me of ballots I saw as a kid in my home town.
Which brings up the point that the instructions for the ballots do change, from place to place and year to year. I don't know where my wife read this, but the person who designed the Palm Beech ballot made special changes just for the elderly (which ironically just confused more voters).
I agree that creativity is no excuse for not following directions. However, some voting booths have lousy directions that are difficult to find.
I would also like to make a distinction between traffic signs and voting directions. We should be able to mostly get along w/out traffic signs, if we could count on people to be courteous--traffic flow doesn't really change that much from place to place, just try to avoid endangering yourself and others. The same can't be said of voting booths. The whole idea of voting is rather abstract, now that I think about it.
-Paul Komarek
However, since you posted this,
the gap continues to narrow according
to CNN. Gore has been "finding"
votes even in heavily republican counties.
Now you can argue that it's just that
democrats are stuffing the ballots faster
than republicans... Which frankly
is what I think is going on. Personally
given all the accusations on both sides each
state that was with 10,000 votes should
re-cast their ballots. It would probably
cost Gore the election, but I think it's only
fair.
You can view the by county results at
foxnews.com
that bastion of the liberal press.
A Gore Voter in NC,
---
RobK
Myddrin
So stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote? Just how stupid? I mean, just how hard should we make this stupidity test?
What the rest of us are saying is that we don't necessarily think that stupid people should be banned from voting, or randomly denied their vote. At the very least this stupidity test is not acceptable.
Not only that, but human beings make simple mistakes, and complexity increases the rate at which that occurs. It's a simple fact. And we're saying that the error rate here is simply too high for average human beings, whom we believe should have a right to have their vote heard.
You really do live up your own arse don't you...
#3
The electors of Florida haven't been selected yet. It's not like they're 25 state employees.
The Republicans have chosen their 25 electors, and the Democrats have chosen 25 electors of their own. Whichever candidate is determined to have won in Florida, that party's electors will get to vote in the electoral vote.
These electors are chosen from each party's most faithful members. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that they'll vote against their candidate. (Yes, it has happened occasionally in the past that an elector didn't vote for the candidate he was "supposed" to, but in all cases the elector knew it wouldn't make a difference in the result of the election. And an elector never votes for the major party opponent of their candidate.)
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
As much as I disagree with everything Buchanan stands for, he IS a man of honor and ethics. (and wit - I say again, he may not be fit for president, but I have many fond memories of watching him make Michael Kinsey cry on Crossfire back in the early 90's). If only HIS ethics included people of other races and creeds.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Or do you think there are a lot of people who go vote just because they like punching holes/flipping levers/completing arrows, and thus punch more than one?
Take a walk through the downtown area of pretty much any large metropolitan area in the US and take a good look around. I bet lots of folks vote for precisely that reason.
Either that, or to get the free sticker.
I think your "thing" fits Gore perfectly.
Fairly well? You want a system that works fairly well? Electronic systems would allow for a quicker and more accurate vote tally. Of course, measures would need to be put in place to prevent fraud, errors, system crashes, etc.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
There is no choice for "crappy joke" so there you go ..
Hehehe. Yeah, if valid elections like this will be undermined by people like Gore then "an entirely new wave of political slight-of-hand will come about. "
Now, that being said -- I've seen another image of the ballots in question aside from the first one I saw on CNN. The example by CNN looked like both pages were viewable at one time with arrows obviously pointing to the correct hole -- no excuse for choosing the wrong one. But in this other photo I've seen, there is a list of candidates on the left side, then some arrows, then a blank page on the right, then you flip the page and the next right-sided page has more candidates -- so you cannot see ALL candidates at the same moment, which could explain why the holes would appear confusing. Of course, the arrow still points directly to the holes -- but with two holes close together and no OTHER arrow pointing to the second hole, it's feasible that a small percentage of people could punch the wrong one -- particularly if they are voting in person at the booth under the stress and excitement of a building full of voters running around.
It should be noted, though, that BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats verified and authorized the ballots in Florida before the election took place. If there was any reasonable expectation for confusion, one of them would have raised their concern. Obviously, they did not and there was not such a concern.
---
seumas.com
If we weren't still using punched cards to do our voting, we could prevent "voting irregularities" like voting for more than one candidate, and we wouldn't have 19,120 ballots being discarded in Palm Beach.
In an interview on 60 minutes, the daughter of Frank Sinatra admitted that her father acted as a go between JFK's father and one of the major mob bosses. Basically through a gentleman's agreement the mob boss agreed to give JFK all of their union votes likely in exchange for a lenient Federal government. Unfortunately for the mob, JFK's administration via RFK double crossed the mob and investigated and prosecuted them to the hilt. As a result of this double cross Frank Sinatra agreed to do a week's worth of shows for free at the mob bosses club.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
If Al Gore wins the recount, Florida's 25 electors should go to Gore, and Gore should become President.
If George Bush wins the recount, Florida's 25 electors should go to Bush, and Bush should become President.
What I'm seeing today - a bunch of Gore's lawyers looking to replace a bunch of unspoiled ballots validly marked for Buchanan because they believe those votes "should have been Gore's" - is terrifyingly close to a coup d'etat.
The Constitution does not give any party a "do over" because they don't like the results of an election.
I urge the electors of Florida to consider casting their votes according to the results of the mandatory recount, and to ignore the implications of any legal decision to throw out validly-marked ballots for any candidate.
(Note that spoiled ballots, such as those with two holes punched in them - are another matter entirely. I agree with the judge's decision to throw them out.)
Why does it take an MIT professor to make a monumental cockup like that (see link to mathematical argument for electoral colleges). It's a joke to say that in any form, someone who gains less votes than someone else should be the winner. Points, sets, groups and game theory are fine, hell I even study them for my degree, but it's preposterous to group people in this way, meaning that one person's vote in an "already lost" game is less valuable that someone else's vote in a "close tie". Basically, electoral colleges do /not/ represent the majority vote, as is clear from the numbers.
Yea, try this...
This isn't a troll, honestly, but why the heck don't people check the numbers on the damn punch cards once they are done poking around and finish their vote? Every punch card type ballot I've every seen has the numbers right on them, and corresponding numbers in the ballot book. I always check my punch card before I turn it in, and I can't believe that no one thought of it themselves. I mean, how difficult is that to figure out!?!
I just don't get it. If you're having problems being confident in your punching, check them after you are done.
Heck, I even included a picture that shows the effect that shifted holes would have.
Don't be so quick to judge. You're making fools of yourselves!
Lots of people mentioned that, but it isn't true. Several people have posted sample ballots. They look the same to me. Could you identify *exactly* what differences you think there were between the sample and the actual? "There are holes to punch in the actual ballot" isn't a reasonable answer.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
> If you go in there thinking only of two candidates, Bush and Gore,
Then you weren't participating in democracy anyway.
I have a very hard time thinking that "but they weren't paying attention to what they were doing in the poll booth" is a valid arguement that their vote should be more signifigant than anyone elses.
Eric
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I never said they can't vote, but if they cannot correctly do it themselves, they should ask for help.
Normally I'd excuse your ignorance of the psychology of the handicapped but obviously more than one person thought this was an intelligent statement so here goes:
You obviously don't have a clue about being handicapped. The last thing a handicapped person wants to do in a public place with a line of people behind them is to ask for help. Our society puts great value in personal independance. It is magnified 10 fold for those who have that independance impaired. Heck, there are times when I'm just grateful I can do my own grocery shopping. Something I'm sure you've never given a second thought to.
Asking for help for simple tasks that everybody else can do is a degrading experiance and I've often avoided doing things altogether rather than ask for help. Being handicapped from birth though has given me an advantage over those who have become impaired because of age. I am not self delusional about my limitations. Take my dad, he's great guy and doing well for man of 73 but he shouldn't be driving. Yet he continues to drive and literally risks his life and anybody elses life who is on the road with him. Why doesn't he just stop driving and ask for help? Well it's that pesky independance thing again and he convinced (all evidance to the contrary) that he's still a good driver.
And while I don't know how many votes were cast by the handicapped in error it is the ultimate irony that they probably are convinced that they voted correctly.
Or is it a subliminable message from Bush?
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The article about the Natapoff argument on the desirability of the electoral college system was interesting. It was a little light on details, but he seems to argue from the point of view that the only desideratum in designing an election system is maximizing individual power in voting. This seems like an assumption, not a research conclusion, and I wonder how widely it's shared. In light of the fact that Natapoff's quoted comments are, to say the least, deeply condescending to basically everyone, this seems like an important point. If he's going to claim to have proved the electoral college system is better than going by popular vote, at a minimum it seems like he ought to have a definition of "better" that is universally acceptable. Is the complete work available online anywhere?
Incidentally, it seems a little suspect to argue that democracy hinges on this system, when in the majority of elections it makes no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Correctly or not, people seem to feel they would have more voting power if votes for the second or third place candidate in your state could actually make a difference.
Legally wrong? This is the way the constitution was written - nowhere does it say that they cannot elect who they want to. This is the reality of the electoral college.
Morally wrong? Well, if you ask me, morality is a relative thing.
Here's the thing: they can tally those ballots in palm beach for Buchanan, but you know and I know that those people intended to vote for Gore. Well guess what - the electors from florida will know that too. The moral thing to do, then, is what the people in your state want. This is generally measured by counting their votes, but in this case we have a situation where we know there was an error. We know that Florida meant to vote for Gore (not taking into consideration, of course, the absentee ballots which slant republican, and haven't yet come in).
So why is it that Florida's electors would be legally or morally obligated to vote Bush? This kind of last-minute human disgression in the hands of a few elite, which you call "arrogant", is exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind. It's the electoral college, and it's the reason Gore hasn't won already.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I put my Gore in my girlfriend's Bush... Gore came first
:)
Might I suggest actually reading the United States Constitution? It would give you much valuable insight into how our Electoral process works.
In particular, please note Article 2, which describes the President, his powers, and how he gets elected.
For example, I quote Section 2, clause 2:
Do you not vote for your own state legislature? There is your say in how your Electors get chosen. Simple as that. Don't like the current system? Get cracking and write your state congressmen!First order of business: Everyone on my Christmas list gets a copy of the United States Constitution this year.
You have a point there, Roy. And they're doing a manual recount in Volusia as we speak.
yeah, i shot him... but he was gonna die anyhow!
what kind of logic is this? yeah it's true. but wrong is wrong and right is right.
Do you find the Palm Beach ballot confusing?
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Wow. First off, who are you to say that my right of freedom is speech is dependent on my responsibility to vote?
Interesting logical jump.Nobody said it would be illegal for you complain. Complain all you want, if you didn't vote then I personally don't give a rat's ass about your complaints. As far as I'm concerned you have to right to complain, but feel free under the first amendment to complain all you want.
Finkployd
Remember, the human brain is (loosely, oh so loosely) a parallel machine that can only in limited constrained situations emulate a serial one. It is not a Turing machine!
The Ballot is available WWAAAAY ahead of time, so no one can cry foul, that the ballot is messed up. They should have checked things over first, then complained *before* the 7th.
Daniel
How do you distinguish votes between the candidates?
Thats another advantage over the current system: You dont. Therefore f*ck ups like in palm beach county are not possible. You just have one hole you can punch to say "I voted".
Yes! There is something unsatifsying about connecting an arrow, I want machinery involved somehow.
I've looked at the ballot and there are BIG ARROWS by each candidates name pointing to the, how on earth can you miss that?
Sour grapes by the losing party....
good argument (fact). I think I spoke too soon at any rate. This picture:
0 9/election.president/index.html "the disputed Palm Beach County ballot"
/. that personaly doesn't see that the arrow pointing from between the canidate (to the hole) is where the voting apparatus is supposed to go? Even in haste? Is 30 seconds too long to think about things at the poll?
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/
I looked at the ballot again. How can this be disputed? I think its pretty clear. I'm going so far as to say that if a voter can't understand this, s/he has no grasp of the issues anyway. They should have stayed at home on election day.
Is there anyone on
Scott
Sorry, my quote was Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2. Oops. :(
Oh, sorry, I thought you said Patty Patty Duke Duke.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Nice try, but no.
The *final* ballot was printed in the newspaper, and approved by both someone in the Democratic party and someone in the Republican party.
There were no complaints whatsoever before the results were discovered to be so close, including in the several weeks leading up to the election.
Further, the same county had around 10,000 votes for Buchanan last election, and around 20,000 spoiled ballots then, too.
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
I'd call it "fuzzy math", but I don't want you to think I support Bush. :) This proof makes some base assumptions, a few of which I will list:
;)
1) Elections are (like) a sport.
2) States in an election are like baseball games in a series, with votes analagous to runs -- at the end of each state/games the candidate/team with the most votes/runs wins that state/game of the election/series.
3) A higher likelihood of one person's vote swinging the election is a good thing.
Now, I don't agree with these, and without these assumptions, the math holds, but what the math proves and what the writer claims don't correlate.
This next part is where I quit analyzing and expound my own views, in parallel, so if you were just interested in content, quit now.
1) Elections are not a game. The last paragraph is kind of insulting. As fascinating as I have found this election (I truly have), I don't think that excitement should be a _goal_ in elections.
2) If you make this assumption, you've already assumed that what you're trying to prove is true.
3) God, no.
Peace out.
-Puk
but i dont agree with you on this on:
pretty much proves that something was wrong
you cannot make cause/effect inferences on statistical data like these. this is basic statistics
as for a "badly designed ballot". if this is the cause for the high number of votes for buchanan-do you really want people two lazy to read the ballot deciding the fate of the country?
john
-- john
I often try to not reply to obvious trolling, but I think it is important to say that not EVERYONE over 18 is qualified to vote. For example, if you are incarcerated on a felony charge, you are not allowed to vote. There may be others, but the point is, not everyone is allowed to vote.
Let's say it all together, people...
...Fuzzy Math Sucks!
Let's ban the Electoral College!
I wonder if it's sure upfront how many absentee ballots _will_ return.
If we're expecting 2300, will we wait forever until that Nov-6-stamped ballot makes its travel from the inlands of Tibet to the US?
Just a question
<grub> Reading
It seems to me that the ballotson the websiteareeasierto read because they were scale down,and because there wasn't a machine getting n a way. Ifit's a fairlylarge piece of paper, with the hole-punching device in the center, the right sidewould be simply out offield of you of the voter..
What a load of crap! Everyone over the age of 18 (and in my opinion, even younger) is qualified to vote, regardless of whether or not *you* approve, asshole.
What a strong, factually incorrect opinion you have. Convicted felons are not qualified to vote. I know this isn't what you are talking about, but at least get it right.
Finkployd
Then Dershowitz is a moron (as if we didn't know that). The weight of large versus small states is handled by the House of Representatives versus Senate split. That's why we have a bicameral Congress, for Pete's sake! The House is what balances the Senate, not the EC.
The House is apportioned by relative population - hence California has 52 House seats and Vermont 1. It's supposed to be a direct reflection of the "will of the people", and has shorter terms (2 year) accordingly. The Senate is designed to be a more deliberative body, with 2 Senators per state (regardless of size) and longer 6-year terms. That is how small states and large states keep one another in check.
The Electoral College exists because the average person in the late 18th century was a illiterate nincompoop, and the Framers felt they couldn't be trusted to directly vote for a President (or a Senator, for that matter). So under the original design of the Constitution, the Congressmen were directly elected by the people, and the Senators, President, and Vice-President were appointed by state legislatures and the Electoral College, respectively. Eventually direct election of the Senate was provided for in a constitutional amendment (I forget which one), and only the Electoral College remains.
The Electoral College numbers are determined by the total number of congressional districts plus the two Senate seats. It's that simple. I suspect nobody anticipated the sheer size this country would grow to in designing the system, else they might have set it up differently. Remember, when the Constitution was written there were only a handful of states, and all were pretty much just hugging the East Coast. The rest of the states didn't exist yet.
And this potential dichotomy between the popular and electoral votes hasn't happened in over 100 years (though small shifts in a couple of elections, notably 1960, would have caused this to happen). The remarkable thing is that, unlike virtually every other nation in the recorded history of the nation-state, this election fiasco has not resulted in men with guns running around on the streets rioting for their candidates. Yesterday morning millions of Americans woke up and went to work - just like any other day. And any questions will be resolved through the legal system, rather than on the streets. More than anything else, that makes me proud to be a citizen of this country.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Doesn't it make more sense to use the Total:Buchanan or Gore:Buchanan ratio. I mean, more Buchanan supporters mean that an area is more "conservative", which would take a much bigger peice of the pie from Nader and Gore, and it would also deposit more votes in the "not _that_ conservative (the Boy Scouts are a hate group, but Gore is gonna take my guns away!)" Bush corner.
In Natapof's article about the advantages of the electoral college, he sites an interesting example about baseball games. He says that the Pirates won the world series over the Yankees 4-3, but that the Yankees had more home runs that year - and nobody complained that the Yankees should have won. This example is supposed to represent that the electoral college, but it is a very weak argument
People are not like home runs. Home runs are just one aspect of the game, and some home runs are worth more than others. A home run against a weaker team means nothing when it comes down to the world series. Is Mr Natapof trying to tell me that my Maryland vote is worth less than a Florida vote?
He also sites that the electoral system manages to increase voting power by applying a larger value to a winning vote in a close state. If my state wins 51% for candidate X, and 49% for candidate Y, then X gets all the electoral votes. This makes votes more powerful. But he neglects to mention that it makes candidate X votes stronger at the expense of votes for Y.
A better analogy is a more scientific one. Imagine a student measures 2.25ml of fluid in one experiment, and 1.1ml in another. If they round up the total is 3ml + 2ml = 5ml. Do we say this is a more accurate measure than proper rounding of 2ml+1ml = 3ml? Votes are more like fluid, rounded for convenience -- but we cannot lose accuracy. This is a scientific process!
My proposal is that the electoral college stay, but that the votes be given out proportionally. If Florida gets a 51-49 with 21 electoral votes, then the electoral should be given out 11-10. This would decrease the likelihood of electoral votes not matching popular vote, while mantaining the mathematical and political conveniences of the current system. (which I won't delve into now...)
I believe there is a legitimate concern with the controversy concerning the ballot in Palm Beach County. The ballots there were printed such that out of the three ballot punchholes next to the Democratic ticket section, the topmost represented a vote for Buchanan, and the second represented Gore. In spite of the arrow pointing to the correct hole for Gore, this confused many voters who asked poll workers which hole was the right one. The poll workers could not give a definite answer either way, and did not have any other authority to check with.
As a result, Buchanan had more votes in PBC (3407) than in any other county in Florida. This is strange because Gore carried Palm Beach county easily, 64%-36%. The next highest votes for Buchanan by county is Pinellas (1100), which also had the highest turnout for Nader, and was won by Gore, 52%-48%.
Just wait, I'll start heading toward my point now. Pinellas and Palm Beach represent the highest combined turnout of Nader/Buchanan voters by number, followed by Hillsborough (which neighbors Pinellas), Broward, Dade, Brevard, and Sarasota. These represent the highest population counties in Florida. Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Hillsborough had the top 5 voter turnout, respectively. In four of these counties, Buchanan voters represent .1-.25% of total votes, and ~10% of combined Nader/Buchanan voters. However, in PBC Buchanan gets .8% of the total vote, and raked in 38% of the combined, alternative vote.
This sticks out like a sore thumb, and I'm sure someone with a degree in statistics could prove my point. Why would PBC have SO MANY Buchanan voters if it is decidedly liberal? Why would it buck the trend set by counties of similar makeup and population? If one adjusts the Buchanan vote in PBC to correlate with the statewide average and the averages in other counties, One could assume that the total number of Gore votes miscast for Buchanan is ~2500.
I'm not saying that this is enough to win FL decisively for Gore, but if the final count and recount gives Bush the state with less than this margin, it will be a hotly contested point for years to come.
Addendum: I heard some republican flak on Crossfire claiming that Buchanan got 3000 votes in PBC in 1996 as well. If this were true, I would concede that the ballot confusion might not be the cause of these results. However, Buchanan wasn't ON the ballot in 1996. According to the FEC, Buchanan was not on the ballot in Florida, and must have got less overall than James Edward Harris's(?) 13 votes for president. According to this calendar from the 1996 election, he never specifically visited Palm Beach county in 1996. (He visited Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa, and Orlando in one trip.)
I've been googling steadily while writing this, and I can't find any further evidence of strong Pat Buchanan support in PBC, in 1996 or 2000. I am continuing statistical analysis on the county data as I type this. I want to look at the dramatic difference between PBC's Buchanan support and the rest of Florida, and see if any other states have counties which have this much of a flip flop.
The problem of applying mathematics to real world situations is how you define things. In particular, Natapof's seemingly counterintuitive assertion that the electoral college raises everyone's political power (in what otherwise would be a zero sum game) hinges on his peculiar definition of political power:
What is the probability that one person's vote will be able to turn a national election? The higher the probability, the more power each voter commands. To figure out these probabilities, Natapoff devised his own model of a national electorate--a more realistic model, he thought, than the ones the quoted experts were always using. Almost always, he found, individual voting power is higher when funneled through districts--such as states--than when pooled in one large, direct election. It is more likely, in other words, that your one vote will determine the outcome in your state and your state will then turn the outcome of the electoral college, than that your vote will turn the outcome of a direct national election. A voter therefore, Natapoff found, has more power under the current electoral system.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I voted in Alachua County, Florida. Here they used bubble sheets, where you had to fill in bubles, and the voter placed his or her own ballot in the scanner. If the ballot was invalid, the voter had the ability to correct it on the spot. If this system had been used in Palm Beach County, Al Gore would be the President-elect. This is very serious, and needs to be challenged in court.
So now the US election could turn into a marathon court case leaving the most powerful nation in the world potentially leaderless! All of this could have been avoided. Maybe now government money can be directed towards alternative methods of voting (most notably online e-voting). Companies such as Baltimore Technologies are already developing technology to facilitate just that.
On another note I'd imagine Buchanan is avoiding watching TV at the moment. How demeaning is that when everytime you turn the tube on someone is there saying "No way he got that many votes!".
"It's not what do we do next, it's whether we have the resolve to do it"
Agreed. There are also three or four people sitting there waiting to help you if you have problems or questions with the ballot. If you've been voting all your life, you should know that you *can't* vote for multiple people for president, and your ballot just gets thrown out if you do.
Both Candiates only received about 25% of the populations blessing (if I may say so). There are 200M registered voters in the country, and only 100M of them came out to vote. Out of those 100M, about 50M voted for Gore and 50M voted for Bush.
So, you could say that only a quarter of our population wants and supports our next president, no matter who it turns out to be.
Democracy only works when the people excerise their rights. Here (and in many elections past) few people have choosen to do so. Why is it that Germany can get 80-85% of its population out to vote, and Japan closer to 90%?
What will happen to Democracy when few people vote? It seems to me (please add some more thoughts on this issue) that you get a form of dictatorship, where the population that votes makes all the decisions for the population that doesn't. That population will get disgruntled and it could lead to anarchy. Or government will just get more out of touch with it's citizens.
The article-writer's arguments work fine for me personally, as long as there are only two teams. Unfortunately, there are many more than 2. The popular vote almost never represents a majority, as a consequence, in these elections. I believe an article posted here a month ago discussed alternate voting methods. The direct popular vote won't work either, imo. I think a pure rating system (5 candidates? rate them 1-5 and the winner is the one with the most points) will result in better voter satisfaction. Retain the electoral college and do it within the states, if you wish to retain that structure.
Most of the Slashdot posters can't bother to RTFM when it comes to their own government.
.sig :)
That would make a great
Finkployd
Well, as far as I'm concerned, whether or not people should have been able to "figure that out" isn't the real issue...especially since some reports now indicate that the ballot may actually have been illegal according to Florida state election law.
Check this link
Apparently, according to FL law, ballots are to be designed so that the X is made to the right of the candidate's name. Buchanan's hole should never have been located to the left of his name. This, to me, is the strongest case against the ballot.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
The only person who denied these people their vote was themselves... if they really cared that much, they should have read the directions more carefully.
On a side note I really find it disgusting that this country's leader, quite possibly the most powerful person in the world is going to end up being decided through a bunch of lawsuits.
Back in 1995, Quebec held the latest of it's two referendums on seperation. In the aftermath of the close (VERY close) desicion of the population to stay within Canada, it was reported that there were many voting problems at the polls. People turned away for no reason, slow lines at polling stations, rejected votes...and all located in areas that were either too close to call, or heavily in favor of staying in Canada.
Nothing ever come of the accusations, but since the result was so close, people wondered how close the actual vote was. From what I remember, the difference was about 15,000, but the number of rejected votes was close to 25,000...and all of them were for the NO side (No we don't want to seperate).
So it has happend in North America that a governemnt in power in the 20th century has tried to rig a vote to achieve victory. I'm not saying that Bush's people tried to secure Florida by fixing the vote, but it wouldn't suprise me if we found out they did.
if GWB upholds his principles, he looses the election, and thus deserves to win.
if GWB betrays his pricinples, he wins the election, and thus deserves to loose.
[as seen on a bulletin board in Fermi Lab]
"Never apply a Star Trek Solution to a Babylon 5 problem"
Looks like a Babylon 5 problem to me ....
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The arrows next the those buttons on ATM machines seems like they'd be unambigous too, but I'm still glad I know enough Spanish to get my money out.
I wonder how likely it was that the cards didn't line up correctly. That could explain a lot of the double votes.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Shows a scatter graph of Buchanan votes vs. Bush votes, by county. Assuming that Buchanan should get a fairly consistent percentage of the Bush votes by county (and this graph does seem to bear out that assumption), the Palm Beach results stick out like a sore thumb.
It has also been reported that 19,000 ballots from palm beach were invalidated because 2 holes had been punched for the presidential candidate. I wonder which two they were...?
It's important to emphasize that this does NOT mean that there was any sort of fraud going on. It was most likely an honest mistake, the official who designed the ballot said she was trying to find a way to use large fonts to help the elderly voters.
If it's clear that they were confused, though, it seems that the only fair thing to do is have a re-vote in Palm Beach, open only to those who voted the first time. (They all signed their names, right?)
---
The placement of the parties might have caused confusion. But, it is hard to avoid in a center puch ballot machine. If the county uses that type of machine they have probably used it for years. If that is the case people are either
a) Familar with the system and voting correctly
or
b) Voting wrong and have been for years only finding out now because things are so close
I worked for a time electronically laying out and printing ballots and we were by law required to pick placement at random. I am sure that they are required to do the same thing in Florida.
Basically, the main arguments are:
1. The EC was designed to help one group- white southern males.
2. Southern states gained disproportionately more power than northern states. Slaves in the south were allowed to be counted as three fifths of a man in order to award Southern states more electoral college votes.
3. Direct elections make states encourage its more of its citizens to vote because the more who vote in that state, the bigger voice that state has whereas in the EC system, no matter how many people vote, there are the same number of EC votes awarded for that state.
4. There is a fallacy that the EC system encourage candidates to care more about local state issues than in a direct system but candidates would still have concern for regional issues of the northwest, south, midwest, etc. to get their votes.
Read it and decide for yourself. It's an interesting piece.
How does someone even remember that they made a mistake? You punch a hole, fold it in half, drop it in a box, and then realize it was the wrong hole? Whatever happened to double and triple checking your work before it's too late? I certainly did with mine because anyone can make a mistake. You've even got certified election officials all over the polling places, and no one thought to ask them a question about this 'blatantly confusing' ballot?
Does anyone realize that sample ballots were mailed to each registered voter long before the election and no one brought up the point then? This seems to be just a last minute democratic ruse to steal the election if the recount goes south on them.
011001110110110001100101011011100110001001101111
There are two main points that I would like to address. The first is the bad ballots, the second deals with the medias reactions.
The question I have with the bad ballots is this, has there been a historical problem with this ballot system? How often do we see invalid votes?In Connecticut (at least all the towns I have voted in) use a voting machine where you make your selections with little levers. These levers are radio button style, so you can only select one in a group. And you can keep chaning your selections until you pull the red handled lever. This leads to very few mistakes. Why do these other balloting system exists if they cause so many errors?
My second point deals with the media. They screwed everything up by pre-announcing a winner for the state, even before polls had closed. I see this as leading to three main results:
- Bush supporters didn't vote because he already lost
- Gore supporters voting for Nader because Gore already won
- Undecides voting for Gore just to vote for the winner
I'm sure there are more, but my point is that the media distorted the voting process. When they first declared Gore the winner in Florida, most of the US was still voting. The media was talking about a Bush defeat unless he carried everything else, basically saying that Gore was the next president. How might this affect the voting in the rest of the country?One last point. Whatever the results, I don't think there should re-run the election in Florida. The JFK/Nixon election was also very close, but Nixon decided that for the good of the country to not contest the results. And there were voting irregularities in that election as well.
Lets all be good sports about this. There was questionable and bad calls, but the final gun has sounded and one team is the winner. We certainly can monday morning referee, but we should not replay the game. If there are systemic problems, let's fix them so the same problems don't occur again.
gThat seems like a fairer measure than probability, since how do you compute the probability for an actual election anyway? You are forced to make some assumptions.
I find the logic of the paper flawed. The goal of an election is to elect a popular candidate, not to maximize the voting power. The current election system is unfair anyway (specifically the ranking of candidates may change if people drop out). There is only one system which does not suffer from this problem, i.e. where each person gives his first favourite canidate n points, second favourite - n-1, etc. The score is then calculated, the candidate with most points wins. (So-called Borda's system). Recently it has been shown that this is the only system such that the results remain consistent , when candidates drop out.
Of course, remember we're all getting our news from the national sources, and they've proved to us last Tuesday night and Wednesday morning that they have been wrong before - twice.
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
According to Orvetti, Buchanan(-hole) has just conceded that the 3400 votes are "properly Gore's".
OK. I still have a problem with it (in the Constitutional sense), but if Buchanan's willing to relinquish his claim on those votes, now I can see at least some argument that might persuade a judge to grant a revote.
In any case, the recount results are skewing heavily to Gore, so my whole point may be moot. Let's hope so.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
What I think happened is the Democrats brought in busloads of senior citizens and told them "Now remember, punch the second hole or you lose your Social Security!" Since this was the only district in the state with this wierd ballot, anyone from out of the district busing in old folks wouldn't have known that it was really the third hole. Maybe one or two of them had enough clue to tell their shepherds when they got back on the bus something like "Duhh, I punched the second hole, but it sure looked like that was the vote for Buchannan."
Any way you look at it, it is clear where PHBs and other lusers go when they retire: Palm Beach.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Your statement makes no sense: First of all, the electoral votes are allocated to states based on population, so, the electoral college system actually makes this sort of domination EASIER - after all, now you only need 51% in the most populous few states (I don't know how many you need, but not many).
Another problem with this system is the fact that it empowers the individual voter far too much. This means that situations like these, in which a ridiculously small portion of the country (palm beach county) decide for the entire country happen far too often. For example look at holland... it has a far greater variety of parties too - meaning that the power is distributed in a much better fashion.
The electoral college argument is that it means the winners need to appeal to several groups. Well, the electoral college is also responsible for the lack of choice. You see, the people voting for Ralph Nader in retrospect should have voted for Gore - after all, Nader did not win anything, so they effectively harmed Gore's chances thus supporting Bush. In a system which simply counts individual votes, such as in many other places in the world, parties are forced to form coalitions to be able to nominate a president, making the representation much better than the electoral college system.
Furthermore, People sometimes think that the electoral college system prevents the majority from simply stamping the rest - after all, politicians must also appeal to minorities to win certain counties. However, if the people in the majority actually would be swayed by actions which disrespect others, A politician selling to them would be guaranteed to win at least 50% of the votes (it's pretty simple) That obviously doesn't work - so politicians need to seek support from various groups. In a non-electoral college system that is equally so - otherwise they will need to form a coalition which also solves the problem just fine.
Finally, the districts are not spread onto a randomized population! This can cause serious distortion:
Let's take a simple example, three regions a,b,c, and three voting groups, X-49,Y-30,Z-20, thus a total of 99 "people units".
each region is equally large (for simplicity).
a: Y-17,X-14,Z-2
b: Y-13,X-11,Z-9
c: Y-0,X-24,Z-9
Y wins all out and gets to dominate. And it isn't even 50% large, and furthermore, actually smaller than X!
So, depending on how your voters happen to be distributed, the electoral college favours you or not. This is unfair.
I am American. America is arguably the earliest democracy. But lets face it - America's voting system is an early beta version of the Good Thing (tm) (don't even get me started on campaign financing - that's much worse than EC stuff...).
Sorry about the inaccuracy. You are absolutely right about it being Bush v. Dukakis. Thanks for correcting my admittedly foggy at times memory...
Does anyone have a URL for an unmarked copy of the Palm Beach ballot? (Not the Orlando Sentinel's; one without arrows or filled-in holes.)
I'm considering using it as a subject of discussion in our company's UI design group tomorrow.
Thanks!
19,000 votes from a heavily democratic county would be interesting to know who those people actually wanted to vote for, i would hope that the florida electoral college would like to know who they wanted to vote for before casting their electoral votes the wrong way.
However, there is no way to know this now. Remember, ballots are cast secretly. This is a very important feature of elections, as it preserves the right to vote without being harassed.
However, since we don't know exactly who cast those ballots, we have no way of asking them. Trying to figure it out using some arcane mathematical formula is equally wrong; statistics break down when your subjects are sentient. So, as there's no way to find out in any fair way who these people were trying to vote for, there's nothing we can do but disregard them completely. It's nothing more than the fault of the people who cast the ballots without reading the directions; stupidity is no excuse.
By the way, who defines "the wrong way" for electors to cast their ballots? I hope you weren't going to say you, since you're only one voice among millions, with only your own beliefs backing you and not any hard data. I also hope you weren't going to say the people who cast those 19,000 ballots, since we will never know who they were and thus cannot fairly state who they would have picked.
----------
Palm Beach is a liberal, very Jewish community. I have a hard time believing Buchanan would receive a lot of support there.
He didn't receive "a lot" of support, he received 3407 votes. Out of several hundred thousand (can't find the exact number). The concern is that he received a pitiful miserable level of support there, compared to an even more pitiful and miserable vote elsewhere ion Florida.
Buchanan, among other things, has praised Hitler.
Do you think there are not 1% anti-semites in a "very Jewish" community? I think that is perfectly possible.
I know that they aren't allowed to vote, but, IMO, they are qualified and should be allowed.
No, they aren't qualified. They may be eligable to vote because they meet the age criteria, but the very fact that they are a convicted felon disqualifies them.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Great tension
National focus
Reno offering to help if need be
One side cautionsly claiming victory
One side saying we must respect the law
Time dragging out and even Thursday's count may not be the final word, as abesentee ballots may play a factor
A possible court battle
People are already getting sick of it
When it's all over they'll probably mistakenly send a boy to Cuba.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, upon reading this article I now know completely why the EC should be destroyed this very day. The good Dr. spends the entire time explaining how it increases each individual vote's power. He forgets to mention that to increase one person's voting power it is required to decrease the voting power of someone else's vote.
/lost/ their voice in the national election because California's EC votes all go to Gore. Their vote's power are transferred from their candidate to Gore, end of discussion.
Just a real simple example from his math. 3 voters, each have a 50% chance of turning the election. That's fine and dandy. However, in a 2-1 vote where one person's vote turned the election the vote of the single person that voted the other way is tossed out. IE, power was transfered from the losers to the winners, depriving the losers of their vote.
That's great for the winners, sucks bad for the losers, doesn't it?
For a real world example, since Gore got 54% of the votes in California (5,254,500) the EC grants him 54 EC votes. The 4,054,756 people that voted for Bush, the 372,543 people who voted for Nader, 40,263 people who voted vor Browne (of which I am one), 39,897 people who voted for Buchanan, 14,884 people who voted for Philips and 9,415 people who voted for Hagelin all
The mathematics of it are all well and good, but this isn't the world series, this is a presidential election. There are far better ways of giving people more voice in an election which were covered in an earlier slashdot story.
Furthermore people say the EC prevents the candidates from concentrating on the population centers. Flat out lie. Instead of concentrating on the population centers now they are concentrating on... oh, the most populous states. Also the EC prevents the candidates from going to certain states. If a state isn't contested, if it is solidly in one column or another, it is ignored. Bush hit California, what, 2-3 times early on then ignored it? Gore did the same thing. If Florida weren't a swing state this year they would have ignored it as well. Look at their campaigning and you'll see lots of states pretty much ignored because they knew they would get 100% of the EC vote regardless of the actual votes cast in that state. All the EC did was deprive large portions of people the effect of their vote and grant that power to others.
I'd like to see this man do the math to see where that power comes from and how it negatively effects people before saying the EC is "provably" superior to straight popular voting.
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
Most of the Democrats who were in favor of the electoral system last week are still in favor of it (for example, this guy named Gore who you may have heard of -- still in favor of the electoral college, as well as all his publicly speaking advisors).
I wasn't making a quantification of Democrats as a whole, just the "talking heads" that were complaining about it on TV (msnbc, cnn, etc). It's also only fair to note that the repubs on TV made the opposite switch when circumstances changed.
Finkployd
How does she know it was wrong? Like mmany Slashdot commenters today, she had the benefit of the media, other people and hindsight to formulate her opinion that she had voted wrong.
The complain to the democrat who approved them
As for the "democrat" approving it, what does that matter? First of all, the ballot is illegal according to Florida state law (the marks MUST go to the right of candidate names). So, even though she approved it, it is still not a legal ballot.
Secondly just because a woman in charge of the elections in that county happened to be a democrat doesn't mean that the Democratic party accepted it. What if she had been a Republican? Would that then point to a conspiracy? Only as much as you credit her for representing the whole party.
Yes, the democratic campaign did get a sample ballot, as did the voters of the county. However, the sample they were given was a paper booklet that did not demostrate where the holes will be, or the fact that the book would have some play in it allowing for the holes to misalign.
So anyway, it was confusing, now what?
I don't think we can revote. Nader voters who voted purposely might switch their vote to Gore out of fearof electing Bush.
We can't assume every Buchanan vote was intended for Gore. We can't even look at the restof each ballot's party trend to assume they would also have voted for Gore. It's just not full-proof.
Could we just throw out the county's whole vote? That too would cause an uproar.
Do we throw out the whole indecisive state of Florida? Then neither candidate would be able to reach 270. You could leave at that in which case Congress would pick the winner. Or, you could recalculate the winner based on a (538-25=513) electoral votes total. Would that be fair? Then we'd piss off all of Florida.
Let's remember that irregularities happend in other counties and undoubtedly, other states. It's just that the people in Florida, the deciding state because of the way the cookie crumbled, realize that the irregularities NOW MATTER. In other states, states with landslides, another 1,000 votes for Gore wouldn't topple Dubya's 50,000 vote lead. But in Florida, it can, so people are taking action.
How would you feel if your miscounted vote got the guy you DIDN'T want into office?
Same thing said here at the BBC, and here at Reuters.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
And in 2004 we will have several counties complaining because all of the votes were wiped out in a BSOD at 8:45 pm.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Of course, they waited until the last minute to go vote. I voted before 0700. There was no real reason to wait until the last minute. Come on, these people had 12 hours to get into the voting booth. The reason they showed up late was that the party went and rounded them up at the last minute. If they had been truly interested in voting they would have gone on their own, and earlier.
Best Slashdot Co
Officials in the heavily Democratic Palm Beach County said 19,120 ballots in the presidential race were thrown out before they were counted because more than one candidate was picked; only 3,783 voters made that mistake on the U.S. Senate portion of the ballot.
*shrug*
Out of the 6 times I've voted so far, 5 of them were electronically. For the local gvt, national govt. (Netherlands) and for the European parliament.
Guess the "most technologically advanced" country in the world has more faith in punch cards than computers.
<grub> Reading
Revote those countys. having the whole state of Florida revote is expensive for the voters. If Only 18K or so votes are in question lets eliminate uncertainty. Revote those countys! Isn't this the most fair?
Revoting just the county is very unfair. It gives them an extra chance to show up once they know the outcome elsewhere. The only fair thing to do is to revote the entire state. That brings up the question, is it fair for the rest of the country?
The whole idea of a revote is very very dangerous in this case. It is not a local election for you county commisioner. It is for the "leader of the free world."
Cost is not an objective in this. It really should not be revoted at all. A revote would be a hellish nasty process that would only serve to divide the country evn more than it already is.
This issue should be dropped for the good of the country. Just as Nixon did with Kennedy.
This is disingenous. In 1996, the Reform party wasn't running Pat Buchanan, and the proportion of Reform vote to Republican vote (*do* look at the URL mentioned in the article header) wasn't anything like this.
Furthermore, your hypothesis doesn't explain why over 19,000 ballots were ruled invalid for the selection of two presidential candidates, which is five times the mis-voting rate of the senate race in that county.
And the final, crushing blow to your argument is that this same confusion happened up and down the ballot. So, Socialist Party candidate McReynolds gets 302 votes in Palm Beach, almost half of his vote in the entire state, while Harry Browne, whose actual dot was in the same relative position as the Gore dot turned in a suprisingly poor showing in Palm Beach, as near as I can tell. (And, of course, the McReynolds dot is also one away from Gore's as well.)
And then there's the Constitution Party's extremely high showing in Palm Beach, when their dot is...yup, one up from Ralph Nader's.
The ballot was clearly an ergonomic nightmare that caused a significant number of votes to be spoiled or misrecorded. But, having said that, I'm not sure if there's any obvious legal remedy for this at all.
Babar
A few tidbits I picked up this morning:
Palm Beach has 15,000 registered Reform Party members and Broward County has less than 200 registered Reform Party members.
3400 votes for Buchanan is directly in line with every other Florida county that has a similar number of registered Reform Party members.
Buchanan has a residence in Palm Beach as does a close relative. He received 8000 votes in he Republican primary in Florida.
There are more Reform Party registered voters in Palm Beach county measured as a percentage of total registrations than in any other county in Florida.
And I'm sure other people are capable of following directions correctly or at least asking for help or clarification instead of randomly punching holes, then magically realising your mistake hours later.
People "magically" realized their mistake when they heard that they were only supposed to punch one hole instead of two, and recalled that they punched two. Given that a staggering 19,000 people in a single county made that mistake, there are going to be quite a few who realize this.
Or do you think there are a lot of people who go vote just because they like punching holes/flipping levers/completing arrows, and thus punch more than one?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If the final outcome is that Bush retains the electoral college votes and Gore the popular, whoever ultimately takes the White House is going to have a rough time. The opposition is going to carp endlessly that he doesn't have a 'mandate' and that he's in office illegitimately. With the narrowest of margins in the congress, I see this as a recipe for gridock. Maybe this wouldn't be so bad. For us.
The Constitution says that if an election can't be resolved, the the house of representatives decides who is president. Since there is a republican majority in the house, Bush would be the likely winner if it came to that.
Assuming Bush is still ahead after the recount, pro-Gore lawsuits from voters in Palm beach Florida will go forward. They will seek the right to revote, but are the courts allowed to grant that remedy? Voters have a constitutional right to be able to have their intended vote count. I think they will be able to prove that mistakes caused this not to happen in Palm beach.
But even if the Florida court grants a revote, there's room for a supreme court appeal to have the election decided in the house instead. Especially if any details in the new election could be interpreted as pro democrat, and there necessarily will be since alternate candidates will receive fewer votes the second time around, since people know the 2nd time around, they have enormously more power in deciding the next president. Gore's only chance is for a revote, and I believe it is likely that it will happen (barring Florida legal subtelties which Im not familliar with), and that Gore would win in the second election.
Basically, if there is a revote, the numbers will be more pro-Gore than could be explained by the initial irregularities from the first vote, and so give republicans a good case for requesting the decision be made by the house of representatives on constitutional grounds.
Can you imagine the campaigning in any state that gets a chance to vote again?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/466882_asp.htm
"On the other hand, the ballot had been approved by a Democrat who heads the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections.
"The ballot was laid out within accordance with the statute," said Roberts, the state elections director. "That's a voting system that's been in use for many years in many counties."
Awesome!
[Comic Store Owner]: Worst ballot ever !
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
-The Professor, Futurama
Someone else in this discussion said they were from palm baech and that the butterfly ballots had been used there for 30 years.
Originally, of course, the main purpose of the college was to overcome the communications problems of the 18th and 19th centuries. It just took too long to tabulate ballots and get all the results to the federal government. Instead, each state, based upon its representation in Congress, sent electors to vote on their behalf. And that brings up the second purpose of the electoral college.
It serves to provide a voice for states with smaller populations. You see, with simply a popular vote election, the candidates could just move up and down the east and west coast and completely ignore the central United States. The founding fathers were very concerned that each state in the Union have a voice in the election and the electoral college serves that purpose.
What's been lost, primarily since the early 1900's is that our government was designed to give as much power to the states as possible, limiting the power of the federal government. The electoral college is an example of the states' power.
As for the Palm Beach "fraud", I've seen the ballots. Bear in mind that they were published both in newspapers and in direct mailings to the residents, weeks before the election. They were designed and approved by the local officials, who happen to be Democrats. They are very clearly labeled as to where to punch the right spot. I mean VERY clearly labeled.
Quite frankly, if you aren't capable of reading simple instructions and following an arrow to the right hole, and if you won't ask for help if you're confused, then you deserver what you get.
It wasn't fraud that was committed in Palm Beach...it was stupidity.
-h-
As far as I'm concerned, Palm Beach likes the Reform Party - if you let one town revote, I really don't see how you can restrict others who felt similarly defrauded around the country from revoting - you essentially have to write off the election entirely.
Sorry, but the right thing to do would not to have kept the polls in St Louis open late in the first place. Its not fair to the other districts in the state to only allow a couple of districts extra time to vote. The rules should have been the same across the state, and the polls should have closed in St Louis at the same time as the rest of the state.
Or the discovery of an unopened ballot box in an African-American church, also in Miami
It was reported that this item turned out to be a box of voting supplies. Not missing ballots.
"Florida? But that's America's wang. . ."
-Homer Simpson
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_commen t110900c.shtml
In 1996, after the Republican nomination was all-but sewn up for Bob Dole, Buchanan supporters in this area registered almost 9,000 votes for Pat. It was the primary, not the November election.
Remember also that any place that is split 64-36 in favor of Gore in Florida is likely heavy in the elderly population, making them highly unlikely to vote for Nader. Nader supports, by and large, are young. Buchanan supporters are people who still curse the day horseless carriages came to pass. It wouldn't be surprising to see a large group of GoPatGo'ers in certain pockets in Florida.
Also, can you post the URL for the third-party vote (pre-recount) in PBC? I'd like to see if Harry Browne's data is extraordinarily low compared to the rest of the state -- perhaps Browne supporters were confused and accidentally voted Gore. I doubt it, but I also doubt 3,000 Gore supporters voted Buchanan.
Probably the same reason that Bush/Cheney have sent "legal observers" to FL. They're both looking after their best interests. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Eric
Nixon didn't contest Chicago because Illinios Republicans in southern Illinois were as corrupt as the Dems in Chicago
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
. . . and Microsoft.
you can freakin take them.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I like the preferential and instant run-off schemes as well...but take a look at this month's discover magazine, where they discuss some different types of voting systems. The basic gist of the article was that, even if every vote is cast by a rational person making a rational choice, there is no fraud, and there is no error in the count, you CAN NOT have a voting system that will always obtain the "correct" result. They give good examples...in fact, the best one is the example which shows that, given four voting systems and picking one system at random to use to "elect" which voting system to use in the next election, no system would ever be able to choose itself! Kind of contrived, but the point being that there is no "perfect" system...there will always be cases where someones rational definition of the "correct" outcome fails.
Never has the principle expressed in the above quote been more clear to me.
In Duval County, Florida (where I live) not all of the presidential candidates fit on one page. As a result, some idiots actually punched holes without turning the page and seeing the other candidates (Gee, where did Al Gore go? I guess he dropped out). These geniuses then bitched that the ballot was too confusing.
In Palm Beach, they tried to fit all the candidates on one page to make it less confusing, but morons there bitched that it was also to confusing. Have you seen the 'disputed' ballot in Palm Beach? They have a picture of it on the CNN.com front-page now. You would have to be a retard to fuck that ballot up.
In a nutshell, these people are complaining that voting in an election with more than two candidates is simply too much for their brains to handle. What they really want is a ballot with only Al Gore and one giant hole to punch.
A lesson can be taken from this experience, an axiom if you will:
There will always be morons in this world who are so stupid that they can fuck anything up, no matter how simple. There is no point in trying to accommodate these shitheads, because they will find a way to screw up no matter how thoughful you are in designing a supposedly 'idiot proof' system.
-Bruno
I think the only fair thing to do is for all of Florida to re-vote. Although I'm sure Bush won't like that because some of those 90,000 Nader voters are bound to switch to Gore in light of recent events.
-
What don't you understand about "In my opinion"?? I never claimed that they could legally vote, just that in my opinion they are qualified and should be allowed to vote. Ranessin
That said, those votes should stand. The ballot was approved by a democratic official and it was available for the public to review and challenge before the election.
I'm gonna be pretty adamant about this, since no one seems to be reporting this.
While the neighboring counties have a hundred or two registered Reformers (Broward with 189), Palm Beach County has 14,551! That's more than the rest of the state combined!!! The real question is why did Pat only get 3400 votes there? How many of those 19000 bad ballots were really Buchanan voters who got confused (who are arguably easier to confuse than the average voter)?
Good points I hadn't considered, but I'm unconvinced (even assuming his math is correct, which I have no reason to doubt). Here are some counter points --
There is no way to conclude that a voter in Texas has more power in the electoral system. If you were a Rep, well, your vote didn't matter because everyone else is too. If you were a Dem, your vote was 100% worthless, because it has 0 impact on the election, and 0% chance of turning the election.
This means that, not only were Texas voters without any power, there was also no need for either major candidate to campaign there. This would be like a world series in which it is a foregone conclusion that game 2 is going to the Yankees, so neither the Yankees nor the Pirates show up to play.
In a popular vote system, a voter in Texas - for any side - would have more power, as in > 0. This is the opposite conclusion than that of the paper - he calculates that the more lopsided the election, the more districting helps.
I can already see the faulty assumption that led to this conclusion -- he assumed that the national bias toward one candidate is the same everywhere, when this is clearly not the case.
So it is true that districting helps in a election with a large bias toward one candidate -- but only if the bias in your district is small. This means that the electoral college gives us Michiganders, my friends the Oregonians, etc more power, but strips it completely from people in Texas, Utah, etc.
The enemies of Democracy are
(If the preceding link doesn't work, try www.cnn.com , as they have the picture up on their web site for the news story.)
Then the local democratic elections administrator shouldn't have signed off on approving the ballot, which she did - thus officially endorsing the design on behalf of the Democrat party.
Haveing never voted before (sad .. i know) this election really made me want to vote. (Due to issues, and fieance` pressure I tried to). I registered in my state of residence, Maryland. Never got my little white card. I always thought myself a Republican .. but maybe im a conservative democrat .. who knows .. this election i decided to vote for Gore.
I am in VA right now, working on a project, and on Tues I went to a place that was designated by a big sign (on the road) as a place for out of state voters. I went in thinking "great! now i can vote." Went to some desk where a little kid (maybe 22) was sitting. he asked what state I was from, and I showed him my ID. (he never wrote anything down.) He said he had to check something with his manager, left, and came back in a min .. as we were waiting for his boss, he started talking to me about who I was going to vote for. (what party are you with? "Republican" .. So your for Bush ? .. "I may not vote republican" Oh, so Gore then? - we have had a lot of cross party voting today.
his boss or whatever came over, and they talked for a second, the kid gave me a ballot and put me in a line. (i never had to sign anything - or fill out any forms or anything) He had given me a VA ballot.
hindsite being 20/20 .. I have to admit, I was kinda bewildered (ANY gov't process for the first time throws you for a loop) and a little excited about voting. I really wan't paying attention .. I kinda thought (with no frame of reference) that this was just normal.
Until I got to work the next day. Aside from feeling like an idiot, (And having the bragging rights that I voted illegally for Gore in this election) im pretty dis-illusioned with the whole process. Add all this stuff in FL, and how MYSTERIOUSLY the whole election hinges on a state that now has all these coidiencal problems .. and its beginning to look more and more like a farce.
I did a lot of research on the issues, even the ones not important to me. And in doing so, have come to 2 conclusions:
1: most voters dont know more than 2-3 issues for each party, and a lot vote for their party, and fool themselves into believing what they want.
2: Almost every single woman I know .. from my mother - to my sisters - to my fieance`, should NEVER have been allowed to vote. My mother votes democratic because 'they are the best.' My sister voted for Bush because Gore lied about the internet. My fieance votes democratic because she thinks that all republicans are going to stuff a bible down your throat. (I can't even talk to her about politics now :P she goes off into a tyrant about how the EVIL republican empire wants to take away her job (she is a teacher) etc. *sigh* No offence ment to the women who actually voted for important reasons, or educated ones.
not TOO much off topic .. the illegal voting thing scared the crap out of me .. I mean .. if i voted illegally, how many others did ? let ALONE the unions fixing votes.
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Come on...look at the ballot. It isn't confusing at all. Not at all. The only people who are responsible for the problem are the people who couldn't follow simple instructions and take the time to look at what they were doing.
NH is winner take all. Most people do know that.
While you have been nitpicking everyone for their supposed "lack of facts", I just thought I'd point out that Maine has 4 electoral college votes, and 3 are expected to go to Gore while 1 may or may not go to Bush.
The time has come, the call to arms.
To pitchforks rather.
Light the fires, light the torches,
get out your guns.
We shall make wicker men,
men with no guts,
wimps,
wusses.
We shall drag them by noose to the public squares,
string them up,
put masks on their empty heads.
Paint the giant L of the Loser,
douse them in kerosene,
light them on fire.
I served in the army, I have been in harm's way,
I shall not respect this loser called Shrub.
I shall hurl rotten fruit should he set foot,
in my town,
in my city.
We of the brave,
we of the true,
we of the morally strong -
shall not suffer this fool's existence,
this man who has bought his throne.
Let loose the hounds of the media,
follow the trail of white powder,
follow the oil deals,
follow the abortions caused by this frat boy.
Let him be visited by that which his folk
visited upon this country.
Let him know the hell suffered by Clinton,
but four fold.
He shall be the flawed prince.
He shall be the sacrificial lamb.
His time on this earth shall be short.
He too shall crumble in flames,
his scarecrow shall turn into dirt.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
It doesn't take fuzzy math to show that 19k votes could easily change the results of an election that, last I heard, has only 800 votes' difference between the two candidates.
It's too bad there is no good way to handle this. IANAL, nor am I or have I ever been or do I know a resident of Florida, but I am pretty sure that in this situation Florida's law calls for, or at least allows, a revote. Being one who voted for Nader, I know that if there were a revote in my home state and the vote were as close as in Florida I would likely sell out and change my vote to Gore. I expect that would be the case with enough Floridans who voted for Nader to swing the vote towards Gore. A revote would give Gore an unfair chance.
When the networks announced Florida for Bush, the polls were closed for most of Florida, but they were still open in the Florida panhandle,which is in the Central Time Zone.
Remember that a lot of complainants were older people, perhaps with not the steadiest eyesight or hands. Do they deserve a lesser chance (or the insult of that thrity-something blonde bimbette who was explaining she "designed it to help the elderly"?)
More than the numbers are talking too....The head of elections in the county is FURIOUS...his exact words were "I saw people coming out of the booths in hysterics, they were so upset and angry....I know these people, Pat Buchanan wouldn't have gotten a *dozen* votes here...When I see a lot of staright Democratic tickets and the only vote that's not Democratic is Pat Buchanan...I know something's wrong."
I once heard someone on a radio call-in show say that Reagan lost to Bush.. I am still scratching my head on that one..
Lowmag.net
> Unfair in the sense that 4 populous states (CA, FL, NY, and TX) can't impose their will on the rest of the country,
> yes. You have to have AT LEAST a dozen states to win under an electoral system, but under a popular system you can basically promise every federal dollar to those four states and the rest fo the country can go to hell...
This is quite like the situation in Canada. Ontario, the most populous province by far, essentially elects the prime minister. It's an ongoing sore point with the western provinces, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, and is one of the reasons why many in the west support the idea of a senate system as practised in the States.
We need and want to elect politicians based on whatever the public wants to base it on...
Ranessin
And anybody who pays attention would never have a bug like:
if (foo = bar)
or
while(foo(&baz, bar)
or
setproctitle(baz)
Yet I'd bet that you've at some point compiled, or attempted to compile code with the above stupidities in them. Everything is obvious in retrospect.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
I personally feel that these people shouldn't even be voting. If you can't follow the arrow from the candidate's name to the corresponding hole/box/lever/split arrow, then you shouldn't be voting.
I personally hope that in your later years when your vision starts to fail you are handed a ballot that you cannot read easily. I hope the system they use then is arcane enough to make it difficult for you to understand it by inspection. I hope the people staffing the polling place are sufficiently surly and the lines long enough that you feel self-conscious having to ask for explicit directions and weather their pained stares and sighs.
I hope the youth of the future treat you with the same measure of respect you treat the elderly of the present.
If there is a replacement vote, it will only be open to those votes who, by their signatures on tallys at the polling places, can prove that they did vote on Tuesday.
It's not going to be opened to anyone, it's going to be an opportunity for those people who did vote to be certain that the ballots recorded truly show their real intentions.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I am curious as to how third parties affect the Electoral College. My problem with the US electoral system is not the EC, but rather the fact that candidates can win entire states with a plurality rather than a majority. Are there any math geniuses reading this that can provide a quick answer?
That's right, it's not democratic. It's not supposed to be. We are not a democracy, we are a "republic".
Several times before the election I posted electoral collige links and facts, but it does not do any good for the vast majority of people. It is like trying to explain to them that "personal property" != "private property".
So many of these folks seem to be just simpletons following the words of the TV person with the "best" hair and the slickest teleprompter delivery.
Now, for the rest of us who know what the Electoral College is, I suggest that we get our States to adopt the Maine/Nebraska Electoral system and also to end the practice of "faithless electors" (as 25 or so States have done already).
If this system is adopted we still get to tell our State how to vote while having some diversity between congressional district (those of us with more than one house member at least). It even opens the possibility of other parties to gain electoral votes in the final tally and perhaps a little more national exposure.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Go to the graph at A Curmudgeon Teaches Statistics and choose Nader as the Y variable, now the top point with X as Gore, Bush or Buchannan is Pinellas! I see another conspiracy!
The percentage of votes for Buchannan in Palm Beach is not the highest percentage in the state of Florida, Baker county has a higher percentage. The percentage for Buchannan in Calhoun is more than twice that in Palm Beach!
Given that the percentage of votes for Bush is almost the lowest in the state, I think that the poor voters who choose Buchannan actually meant to choose Bush! Bush -vs- Buchannan...logical mistake! You Decide!!
The MIT study is flawed - they restricted the study to the largest Florida counties for no good reason. Looking at all the counties in my analysis (http://64.6.194.14/Florida%20Scatte rpl ot.xls) it is clear that although the largest *absolute* vote for Buchanan was in Palm Beach, percentage wise there is no irregular bias for Buchanan. It is possible the MIT study selected only counties which supported a pre-existing bias.
Seems that there are lot of independant voters - who might well be legitimate Buchanan supporters.
I have heard this a few times and I'll respond to this one. This is West Palm Beach we're talking about. My grandparents have a condo near Palm Beach and I visited there once. It is just old liberal (lots of ex new yorker) jews as far as you can see. My grandarents are old liberal jews so I'm not knocking that, but the fact of the matter is that West Palm Beach should be a county with some of the LEAST numbers of Buchanan votes. When I read that a fifth of all Florida's Buchanan votes came from West Palm Beach, something has to be wrong.
-B
I'm having difficulty agreeing to the premise that congressional seats change hands between parties fairly often. [snip] we now have a system where seats are occupied by the same individual for decades at a time.
I don't think these two premises are inconsistent. That seats change hands is clear by the great shift from total Democratic dominance to total Republican dominance in the mid nineties, and the gradual erosion of Republican power in every election since supports the partial, if not total fluidity of party power in congressional districts. On the other hand, there are always individuals like my congressman (Ed Markey [D-Mass]) who have been in their seat for as long as I can remember. Much of his district, however, elects Republican local and state officials. Massachusetts Republicans are pretty toothless in a statewide race, but they could stand a much better chance even in this largely Democratic district of carrying a presidential race. That would be something -- the first vote from Massachusetts in living memory to a Republican presidential candidate. As a lifelong Democrat who believes in democracy small d, I'd cheer.
Counties are problematic because their populations vary so widely. Variation in population is somewhat more controlled in congressional districts.
I think breaking people into any kind of set of roughly equal blocks would work just as well. You could take the hash of the person's name modulo 400. Personally, I've always felt the need to make congressional districts contiguous geographically was anachronistic -- why not combine two small industrial districts on opposite ends of the state into a single industrial voter district?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
According to the Constitution, each State is given a certain number of Electors to choose the President. It's called 'indirect election'. It is up to the State to decide how to appoint those Electors. It just happens that all of the State constitutions decree that Electors should be themselves Elected.
So, when I'm going to the polling booth, I'm not voting for the president or the vice president, really. I'm voting for a set of Electors to represent my state.
Now, the logistics of having the Federal government run 51 different elections for 51 different groups of Electors (Washington D.C. has its own set) would be a nightmare. So, it makes sense that each State should have an Election Committee/Comissioner/Officer or something of the sort to handle the details. And in some States, that authority is further delegated to County election committees/comissioners/officers.
Another major reason why the ballot can't be the same in all states: We've got more than just the President (or, more accurately, our state's Electors) to vote on. A large number of the states usually have seats to fill in Congress. Should the Connecticut ballot have the name for candidates for one of Georgia's Senate seats on its ballot? Plus, there's representatives in State legislatures, Governors, Mayors, County Commissioners, Sheriffs... State constitutional amendments, County referendums, local tax issues... Heck, half the stuff on my ballot doesn't match the ballot my parents voted on, and they're only a couple of counties away from me!
When it comes down to it, out of the twenty-or-more separate issues on my ballot, I only share one issue with everyone else in the country... and then, I'm not really voting directly on that issue. I'm voting for someone to represent for my state. There are pros and cons to the system, but in most cases, it works, and it's practical. As any engineer will tell you, though, the real test of a system is under extreme circumstances... and I think that the results of this extremely close election will be, if nothing else, enlightening, especially after the dust has settled and we've had some years to think about it and look at it from a historical perspective.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Ask any convict, for example. **THEIR** vote doesn't count. . .or someone under the arbitrary age of voting (who still can't buy a beer, even if they WERE eligible to vote. . .)
And, do tell me, why it's ok for an 18-year-old with severe mental retardation to vote, and lock a 17-year-old genius whose birthday is November 8th ??? In many ways, a competency test for franchise might be a good thing. The problem is, of course, it's an AWFULLY slippery slope. . .
Oh boy....
... Now count down to the third Hole. It points to Al Gore! It looks as though Al Gore may have stolen votes from Harry Browne! This is so confusing!!!
This is really gonna throw a wrench in the election.
check out the Ballot and count down to the third Canidate (Harry Browne)
It seems obvious to me that Harry Browne should win the state of Florida.
Here are some things for you to ponder about this ballot:
1. At least 96% of the people were not confused by the ballot
2. The ballot was designed by a Democratic Party official
3. The people of Palm Beach County had an opportunity to view the ballot and comment on it before the election. No objections were entered.
4. The Florida Democratic Party approved the ballot before the vote.
Yeah.. it looks like Jeb Bush is all over this one. Jeb has allready distanced himself from the recount so that there will be no conflict of intrest. Maybe you can explain to me why Gore supporters are so idiotic that they can't figure out how to punch a hole pointed to clearly by an arrow?
As an artist.. here is my impression of the ballot.. which can be viewed on Neal's Nuze on www.boortz.com. I've also seen the same ballot on cnn and other places and it is very clear. My ballot here in Atlanta Georgia looked similar but had Gore on the top of the ticket instead of Bush.
Bush 2-> 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Is this really soo difficult?
You want to talk about statistics? Is it soo unbelievable that out of the 14,000 members of the
Reform Party in Palm Beach, that 3,000 out of those 14,000 would vote for Buchanan??? Is that SOO HARD TO GRASP? That's 21.4% of the Reform Party supporters voted for Buchanan.. yeah that's one hell of a spike folks. This is what you liberals get for pandering to the lowest common denominator.. a few idiots who will embarass themselves nationally by claiming they can't follow an arrow.
and while we are at it we can also recall that we have a free market economy, an independent judiciary, and coastlines on two great oceans -- none of which has anything to do with whether a particular method of voting is fair or not. Even in a republic, if elections are to be held at all they ought to be fair. That we have rejected "pure democracy" doesn't mean that anything goes electorally speaking. It is your last two sentences that, though debatable, are relevent to this discussion. Your first sentence is not.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
Let me remind you that voting is supposed to take the opinion of the people to decide something. Any electro-mechanical means inbetween should not have a bearing on the election.
To say that their vote is chiseled in stone because of mistakes caused by someting between their opinion in their mind and the final decision is downright mean.
I realize there are many implications of throwing or not throwing out votes, revoting, etc. Just keep in mind the big picture and the ultimate reason we vote.
It's also important to note that many voters who made a mistake were forced to submit their ballot once punched. The poll workers did not allow them to destroy their ballot and get a new one.
That's not cool.. When I was an election clerk here in texas we were allowed to void ballots if a person made a mistake, and give them a new one. We were also able to give assistance, and believe me, even with our IMO non-confusing tarrant county ballots there were still a lot of people that didn't understand them.
The polls in florida did close at X o'clock, with X being 7:00 pm local time. The thing is, Florida covers two time zones. When the networks called Florida at about 7:50 eastern, the polls were still open in the panhandle. Not a very long time, but it could still be argued that it made a difference.
If you want a URL, try this one from the Mimai Herald. It's a little ways under the "Just the Beginning" heading.
--
This is the fault of the Democrats! They've controlled Congress so long that they've had access to the schools--and now our kids can't read!
Oh, wait, it was the old folks that couldn't read. So it's the Republicans' fault, because they've kept down Medicare benefits for so long!
[I'll politely note that you can have a rant tag in XML, which makes me really want to convert all my sites to XML for that purpose--have a random-effects generator that changes what happens to stuff in rant tags, etc. Heh.]
Seriously, it wasn't highly wonderful of a ballot, but the ballot I voted on wasn't exactly clear from the first glance, either. Yet I took the bloody time to sit down and figure out the ballot, so I voted for the people and issues I wanted to see approved.
If nothing else, this is an indictment of our careless society.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
It never fails that when some dumb-ass wants to prove their point, they bring up Hitler and the Nazis as their "hypothetical" case. When will they realize that Hitler, as a figure is too polarizing to allow any realistic analogy to be drawn.
These people didn't die just to be used as "hypothetical" support for every moron's argument.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Your arguments are good, the resort into jokes sad, and I just like to remind you that nothing prevents even a true democracy to elect lawfully a dictator. One man - one vote doesn't prevent the majority of the people to vote for someone who might turn out to abuse power and turn a constitutional democracy into a constitutional dictatorship. Example : Hitler, who was elected democratically and had changed laws the minute he came into power.
On the other hand a dictatorship is also capable of using its power to change the dicatatorship into a democracy by changing the constitutional laws into more democratic ones. This almost never happened, but there are examples of so called benevolent dictators who have shown such capabilities (like in some African countries in the sixties and seventies) where democratic elections almost always resulted in electing a dictator which then gets overthrown by a military coup to reinstate another dictator, who has also "the guns under his mattress".
You will observe that mostly in Africa the average population will prefer a "civilian" dictator to a "military dictator" as they have rarely enjoyed the protection of their democratic human and civil rights by any government which was put in power with whatever means, military coup or elections.
Also don't forget that the U.S. president by constitutional design always has the "guns under his mattress". And be aware that foreigners are very aware of that, as well as your own volunteer military forces. I would say nothing in this situation is worth making fun of.
Having said that, I just hope that the current situation will initiate a change in U.S. voting laws, putting the laws under federal law, and getting rid of the EC as you have it. It's way overdue to do so and sad that something like this had to happen to bring this issue into the mind of the whole population.
Let's hope there will be a legal procedure to change the voting laws.
It is one thing to be very careful to solve the current situation/crisis according to the existing voting laws (Florida state law), but it is another thing (and I think the more important thing) to initiate a legal process to change in the voting laws, reassessing the fairness and legality of the EC.
I think this is a god-given opportunity to find legal means to overhaul the voting system in the U.S.
And BTW if you want to declare Hillary Rodham Clinton as your preferred, enlightened Dictator of the U.S., I will send Reno over to straighten you and Hillary out to teach you some lessons. As you might have heard, Reno had argued both, against and for the EC as a highschool girl and won both side's stands (according to what she said today).
I like to declare Reno as our Enlightened Lady, who might be capable of bringing the U.S. laws in sink with what the other Lady, your Statue of Liberty, stands for.
It's the laws, stupid.
Check out the CBS page for presidential election results in Florida, by county.
Now take a look at the votes for the Socialist Workers Candidate, Harris. Scroll down the page.
6 votes..
5 votes..
0 votes.. (what a loser)
88 votes.. (ok, I take that back)
0 votes..
36 votes..
Volusia County: 9,888 votes!!! That's 5% of the county residents, and 95% of Harris' total vote.
Same thing with Philips, the Constitution guy, who got 2,927 votes in Volusia, almost 3/4 of his total count for Florida. Hell, Browne, who only got 1% in other counties by generosity of rounding, beat out Nader in Volusia to get 3,211 votes. Is there some ultraeffective "pro third party, anti Green" ad campaign that decided to spam just one city in Florida?
Perhaps, but that's not enough for those wacky Volusers; apparantly they've been having some computer trouble, too. According to a section of this ABC News article, the vote count for Gore in Volusia may have decreased by about 10,000 votes while they were sending in returns Wednesday morning. WTF?
Yeah. So, I guess my point is that Florida sucks. I guess they weren't expecting to be swarmed over by national news coverage, though; this kind of stuff probably happens everywhere, but never takes on this kind of importance.
In some cases people did ask for new ballots, but were denied new ones.
Free Hans!
No. The Constitution is the law of the land and we must follow it. If the Electoral College cannot make a decision, it goes to the House. No re-vote.
--
The entire election-throwing machine of both parties would descend on a few more than a hundred thousand people. And the parties would KNOW that a fix here fixed the election. If there's a re-vote, I predict a huge turnout from dead people, pets, non-citizens, and inanimate objects. And I predict riots. Martial law is no way to hold an election.
People thought they knew how to use them. They assumed that the form would be arranged in the way they expected.
It was in the papers for weeks before the elections. Directions were posted everywhere. There were people on hand to help if needed. What more do you want. Yes it was a bad design, but if you are confused after ignoring the directions, ask for help.
Should you really go into an election expecting an elaborate fraud?
Fraud from a democrat no less. Look into who is in charge of the voting in that county and approved the design.
Finkployd
these individuals who requested new ballots, and were denied, -not the democratic party or the naacp - may have one hell of a demonstratable case to press a suit of denial of the right to exercise the franchise.....and if there are enough of them, it could get very very ugly.
all those Buchanan votes that accidently went to Gore?
I truely hope for the USA that 1) they will drop the electoral voting system and 2) THIS election the electoral voted persons will choose Gore as the next president, just because he has the MAJORITY of votes.
Read that again, supporters of a democratic US: MAJORITY of votes. Now... when should a person be elected as the president of a country: a) when he/she has the MINORITY of the votes or b) the MAJORITY of the votes? (no punchhole problems there ;))
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
don_carnage wrote:
Um...here's a good question: why the hell are we using punch cards still for something as important as an election?
Because they are (usually) easy to use, reliable, and can be quickly tallied with inexpensive equipment, saving on both volunteer time and equipment purchases. Granted, in Palm Beach they were used badly, but that isn't grounds to condemn the system as a whole.
Shouldn't we be using technology that isn't 50 years old?
Punched cards are much more than fifty years old. They were used in Jaquard looms since around 1810, I don't know if there are earlier uses recorded or not, but that makes them almost 200 year old technology right there. They were also heavily used in the 1890 census (and most censuses since).
Also, what's wrong with using old technology for something important? Old technology permits you to pick techniques that are proven and reliable. That is far more important than being "high-tech" for a presidential race. Don't you occasionally find yourself using a pen or pencil? Writing in that fashion is an even older technology than punched cards, and I don't see people throwing out their pens anytime soon.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
True, but you must have the basic motor coordination and reasoning skills to physically cast your vote.
It's nice to know what you'd like to discriminate against the physically handicapped. It gives us all a good look at the kind of person you really are.
Ranessin
ANY deviation from that at all implies that some people get greater than 1/N and some get less. The article suggests that this means that (assuming the electoral boundaries are chosen along the boundaries of groups with different views) minorities won't be trampled on. Basically it implies that some people ought to have more say than others. This means some people are empowered at the expense of others, and which bin you are in depends on electoral boundaries.
Well if you really want to be representative, allow the 3% of people that constitute some minority to have 3% of the seats in Congress, rather than zero. Popular vote clearly is the only fair way to run a winner take all system. Winner take all systems are themselves a good bit unfair - and if you want to address that issue, address it with a real fix, not the electoral college.
How can anyone with half
a brain think their vote will be valid by voting for two people for the same office?
In the case of MY county, there were some spots for city council where you were supposed to vote for TWO candidates. Instructions were pretty clearly marked tho.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This is the crux of it. No matter what your political persuasion, it isn't good for the country to have a long-running lawsuit over who is going to be the next President. One of these guys has to take over in January and we'd all better be ready at that point. It's not very long from now.
> Nixon, being the leader that he was, got up and said that he wouldn't challenge the vote because it was in the best interest of the office of the presidency to let it stand.
...
I'm not so sure Nixon did the right thing. Was the election his to give away?
I suppose there's something to be said for losing with dignity, but in elections the only reasonable thing to do is insist on the correct result.
> Kinda funny that the man later nearly brought down with an impeachment cares more about the rule of law
FWIW, at least one pundit (may they all rot in Hell) has claimed a cause and effect relationship between his concession in 1960 and Watergate. According to that theory, it was his decade-long rage at having been "robbed" of the presidency that led to his sub-legal methods of making sure he didn't get "robbed" again.
> throw out the ENTIRE 25 electoral votes in Florida as if they had gone to a different candidate
And this is justice for the voters how?
> the Constitution says it is up to the newly elected House of Representatives to select the President. It seems the only way to ensure the rule of law is obeyed.
How convenient. Why doesn't the "rule of law" insist on determining the correct vote? That would let us leave the SC out of it altogether.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You are confusing real life with "Survivor" again. Actually, it hasn't been too far off.
-B
... sorry, I meant announced for *Gore*
As if Bush would want the job on Saturdays or Sundays. That's time to P-A-R-T-Y!
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
. . . and they double-team the intern?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Florida state law mandates a recount when the candidates are separated by no more than 0.5%. And yes, if you lost by 1000 out of 6 million votes, and it affected the outcome of a national race, you'd be interested in the recount, too.
Do you honestly think dub-ya would do any different if Gore had come out on top by 1-2000 votes? Nah...
Eric
Take a look at the interactive graph here to see a how the votes break down by county.
Try different candidates on the x-axis, and leave Buchanan on the y.
I think it's clear that there were definitely people confused, and it could well have changed the outcome of the national election (though we'll have to wait for the overseas ballots to get a better idea of that.) Yet, I don't think there was any fraud or illegal action here, everything followed the legal procedures of designing and verifying a "fair" ballot, and there are no provisions to vote again. Especially after knowing the importance in a clearly Gore county, the people in that county will be hugely influenced by their heightened effect on the election.
Now, if blacks were obstructed from voting at all, (or dead people did vote) that's a totally different matter, and very illegal, though I'm not sure what the law dictates as the correct way to deal with it.
In any case, I don't think we should be ale to just make up what we think is a good remedy now. We have laws, we should figure out how they apply and live by them. If we don't like it, then let's change them, but we can't just ignore them when we don't like them!
I don't give a rats ass about your opinion and I'm lucky enough to live outside of the O.K.U.S.A.
How does that sit with you?
Just fine, you expect me to be pissed that you don't care about my opinion and don't live where I do?
Finkployd
All this means is that it wasn't fraud. It doesn't mean that the votes were cast as intended, which (AFAIK) is a perfectly valid reason to challenge for a new election.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Perhaps if the UN had invited a few Third World countries to send in some impartial observers, there wouldn't have been so much ballot rigging and election fraud in the US ;-)
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Surely you can understand the explicit difference between the two elections.
I'm not saying that this is the cause for the confusion, but I am saying that people are being irresponsible by blaming voter confusion on stupidity.
I have a visual condition known as "Central Serous Choroidopathy". I'm 31, in otherwise good health, and considered extremely intelligent by the going standards.
However, when I look at writing, arrows, holes, etc., I see a double image superimposed slightly above the actual location of the true image. I have to be extremely careful when lining things up horizontally.
The ballot in Palm Beach would have given me fits for this reason.
Now, how does this apply to the people of Palm Beach? Well, a good number of elderly people are afflicted with a condition called "macular degeneration", which can exhibit many of the same symptoms as my own condition. In fact, the vast majority of patients in the retinal specialist's office are elderly. Given the demographics of the Palm Beach area, confusion based on this condition is not unlikely.
The moral? People aren't stupid just because they aren't confused by the same things that confuse you.
Regards,
Regards,
-scott
- Lots of states were called before voting concluded in the West, should each one of these be a basis for a challenge on the legitimacy of the election?
- Even if the network call was wrong, who would that affect voting wise? Calling the election may affect turnout, but it wouldn't affect the percentage of Gore voters compared to Bush voters who DID turn out? Who do you think would be more affected by knowing the election was over?
That's all, I'm just tired of seeing people claim that call of Florida was an AWFUL thing: it wasn't. It really didn't matter (except that it made my night MUCH more exciting.)--
RumorsDaily
As an experiment, try looking at the sample ballot on CNN and cover up the right half in order to model someone who doesn't expect the right half of the ballot book to contain information or who's not interested in third party candidates. The Gore/Lieberman section encompasses two holes. It's easy to see how people might punch either the second hole or both holes.
GUI programmers should be aware of the "intuitive interface" that gives the wrong intuition problem. If you use one of these interfaces, you'll find you are bound to make mistakes, no matter how clever you are.
My credentials: MS in math, 4 years experience as a quality control statistician.
Here are some "flaws" in the analysis at http://web.mit.edu/norstadt/Public/election.pdf
1. The data at best supports the proposition that the Bush/Buchanan voting ratio for Palm Beach is significantly different than other Florida counties (but maybe not, see 5 below), but not that it is different from the "desired voting" ratio for Palm Beach.
2. Using Bush/Buchanan ratio is very weird - should use Buchanan/All ratio. Trying to introduce outside knowledge inherent in focusing on how "conservative" voters split introduces preconceptions that are non-statistical in nature. Why not Buchanan/Nader?
3. Normalization set chosen to be Florida. Why? Why not all US? Why not all of the South?
4. Expected distribution of Buchanan support rates by county is not known and cannot be determined by choosing a model. You must provide a non-statistical argument for why you believe the model holds.
5. In particular, even if the counties are normally distributed (doubtful), the maximum value should be chosen from an extreme value distribution, not a normal distribution. Extreme value distributions have very heavy tails. The fact that the choice of Palm Beach was made post hoc changes how the analysis should be done.
6. The basic premise is flawed because the vote rate might actually be from a different distribution than other counties. For example consider the distribution of voters born in Palm Beach. You cannot look at a model to infer that the emperical distribution is "wrong". In other words, maybe Palm Beach really does have more Buchanan supporters.
7. If the hypothesis is "the butterfly ballot causes confusion between candidate 2 and candidate 3", then it would be proper to test that hypothesis on ALL races using that ballot. In particular the Senate race on the same ballot did not display any anomoly despite having 3 candidates and comparable total votes.
I am not saying that the result is not anamolous, just that it is very easy to conclude that it is for the wrong reasons.
that's a concept I had not thought of before, simply divide into whole blocks by population alone (not by geography) for the sake of presidential elections. I like it.
However, I would be leery of suggesting such a device for any other voting population--geography (land use and resource management, infrastructure and schools are all hot-button issues) is still a motivating factor in many state and local elections.
Electoral votes are counted as (Number of Senate seats)+(Number of House Seats). Which equates to 2+(relative size of state). So Electoral votes are biased towards bigger states. It's the only way to remain fair, because if every state got 2 votes (All states are equal) Alaska would have the same power as California. Silly, yes?
The crazy thing about the electoral colege is that if you only get 50% of the state voters voting for you, you get 100% of the electoral votes.
Let's work a little calculation.
Lets say Al Violence wins only 11 states and he wins them with 51% vote. These 11 states are: CA, FL, IL, MI, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX, VA. No little weeny ones, only huge big states.
Then let's say GW Sex wins the other 39 states with 100% of the voters there voting for him. (This is just supposition after all).
And we'll use approximations of the 2000 numbers for this.
End result of this calculation:
Al Violence: 28 million votes, 270 Electoral votes, President.
GW Sex: 72 million votes, Something less than 270 Electoral votes, Loser.
This is a valid scenario, it completely ignores the little states "which are so important to the country" and it leaves a man with only 1/4th of the pople having voted for him in the white house.
Seem fair to you?
You're right. I never thought of it like that. Voters also didn't have a chance to pactice their vote after standing in a long line, or hearing the distracting sound of rain, or smelling dirty diapers from the toddler in the arms of the woman in the next booth, or having stomach cramps from the Gordita Grande you ate just prior to getting in line.
given the split in the popular vote, house and senate totals, a dual-party executive might be just what the VOTERS had in mind.
Watching any of the financial news channels, most commentators are rather OPEN about saying that they prefer gridlock, a system where government can't get anything done. This is because it is assumed that anything government gets done will be destructive in nature. gridlock is good for business.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In this case, Voter News Service's EXIT POLLS showed Gore leading substantially. The news channel decision desks then decided to announce Gore was winning about 15 minutes before the polls closed in the eastern time zone part of florida and 75 minutes before the polls closed in the western timezone. No actual numbers were released but the news channels seem to do a pretty good job of making it seem like their numbers are the actual numbers.
As to challenges to the ballot needing to be made before the election, if true, this will indeed be the most powerful republican argument.
All of the parties had to approve the ballot before the election and the supervisor of elections in Dade county, the person who made them -- with the intent of helping seniors by using larger fonts, is a democrat. ANYONE could have contested the ballot to get it changed before the elections if they thought it wouldn't be clear.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
That aside, I sincerely believe that the voters complaining about the unintuitive ballot have only themselves to blame. Voting is a right and a responsibility, one that many Americans take for granted or take too lightly. It's the voter's responsibilty to read the entire ballot, to carefully make their choices, to review their choices before submitting the ballot, to ask for help if they can't read the ballot or don't understand it, and to ask for a new ballot if they make a mistake (irrelevant in those precincts that use electronic voting). Those polling place workers are there to help and, being legally blind (worse than 20/200), I've asked for help before and have had no trouble. And I saw that ballot on websites, in newspapers, and on TV and I'm sorry, but that ballot is not that unintuitive. The voters there had their chance. They could've asked for help or a new ballot, but they didn't and instead waited until much later before complaining to anyone. They blew it. Let them live with it.
On a slightly related matter, anyone thought about the impact of TV stations and websites announcing election results before polling places were closed? For example, results were being announced for the East coast while polls throughout the rest of the country were still open. They were also announcing results for my state even though the polls in the state were still open. I know this came up in the `80s as well, but with the Internet as ubiquitous as it is now, I have to wonder if such instantaneous coverage might discourage some folks and send them home vote-less.
Florida still has 3000+ absentee ballots expected, from overseas.
FLORIDA RECOUNT 32 of 67 counties reporting
PRESIDENT Loss/Gain New Total
Bush +346 2,909,481
Gore +1,189 2,908,540
I doubt, from the recount's results so far, that Gore and Bush will be more than 3000 votes apart after the recount.
This means the absentee ballots must be counted. They're due within 10 days, if postmarked from anywhere in the world by Nov 7.
We won't know our next president until Nov 17.
[
Gore could beat up Cheney and Bush together, by himself, though Cheyey might put up a fight.
But Bush's piddly arms and legs would snap like twigs - you know he was a cheerleader? Liberman's probably a pacifist, so he'd stay out of it.
Of course, Ventura would twist the four of them together into a pretzel...
I can just picture it now - wonder if celebrity death match has done (or will do) this fight?
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Don't you find it ironic that you are using the Internet, which was invented by the United States, to call U.S. citizens "stupid"? When we created the Internet, the British could not even build a car with a reliable electrical system.
If you still think we are so stupid, please open your computer and remove all of the parts that were designed in the USA before replying to this message.
Anyone who was in line at 7:00 was allowed to vote. Your arguement would favor also favor an argument of someone saying, "I didn't know election day was Tusesday, can't I vote today" or pehaps the argument, "Gee officer, I didn't know the speed limit was 65."
in the last election, buchanan wasn't running.
I'm sorry, but that just sounds bigoted to me. Just because they're old, and have bad vision doesn't make them dumb, and doesn't make their vote count any less. You should hope that when you're old, and going to vote, and accidentally screw up because the ballot is confusing (at least to you), that some hip, cool, whippersnapper doesn't come along and say that it's your own damn fault and you don't deserve your vote to be counted (correctly). Damn, some people just have no respect.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
You need to consider the political fire storm that a revote would touch off. Some experts on CNN were discussing this Wednesday night, and on both sides of the fence they thought that a revote would be a disaster. All eyes would turn to a single county, and whether legal or not, campaigners would drive every single voter to that county. Plus, you have the change of third party candidates to the major two, don't say it won't happen. A revoted election in that county would not be the same as the fresh election. What really needs to happen is that ballots need to be redesigned and standardized throughout the modern world, with a automated technological system, like the one used in Riverside county CA that allows a voter to review their selections before commiting. The system that controls this should be Open Source, so that anyone can inspect the control system, but not networked to avoid hacking. Results of control system 'purity' should be verified at every polling station before it opens, and peroidically throughtout the day. From another point, Presidential elections should be a national holiday, with all the polls open during the same hours GMT. No news organization should be allowed to make any predictions whatsoever until the polls are closed.
I don't give a rats ass about your opinion and I'm lucky enough to live outside of the O.K.U.S.A.
How does that sit with you?
- Toby
I didn't say anything last time an election article was posted (in the who-else-is-sick-of-this dept), but this one (in the will-this-never-end dept) sent me over the edge.
What exactly are you sick of? What do you want to end? Democracy? Don't you want to make *goddamn sure* that the people's voice was heard *exactly as they meant it to be*? Are you sick of voting? I'm sure there's a young, poor single mother out there who didn't have time to vote. Maybe you could vote for her. Maybe you could give your vote to one of the *OVER A BILLION PEOPLE IN THE REST OF THE WORLD WHO DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE*.
It is things like this that make people sick of Americans. You have a system that many people in the world would like to have, but not only do you not enjoy it, you're actually "sick of it".
I'm sick. Of attitudes like that.
I was initialy skeptical myself, but further analysis has convinced me that all is not well in Palm Beach. I have since ranked each county by political persuasion (that is, the ratio of Gore and Nader voters over Bush and Buchanan voters). One would expect Buchanan's percentage of the vote to be greatest in Republican counties and least in Democratic counties. The graph should be linear or at least 1/x. Palm Beach country, however (heavily Democratic as evidenced by the 1.75 ratio), does not fit a 1/x curve at all, as shown in the graph at the bottom of my analysis page
You know, after seeing the actual picture of the ballot (rather than the artist's renderings), it is even MORE apparent that anyone who was confused by this thing just flat out didn't care enough to slow down, take a careful look, and make sure they cast an accurate vote.
I was initialy skeptical, but further analysis has convinced me that all is not well in Palm Beach. I have since ranked each county by political persuasion (that is, the ratio of Gore and Nader voters over Bush and Buchanan voters). One would expect Buchanan's percentage of the vote to be greatest in Republican counties and least in Democratic counties. The graph should be linear or at least 1/x. Palm Beach country, however (heavily Democratic as evidenced by the 1.75 ratio), does not fit a 1/x curve at all, as shown in the graph at the bottom of my analysis page
Also, here are some things for you to ponder about the Florida ballot:
- At least 96% of the people were not confused by the ballot.
- The ballot was designed by a Democratic Party official.
- The people of Palm Beach County had an opportunity to view the ballot and comment on it before the election. No objections were entered.
- The Florida Democratic Party approved the ballot before the vote.
I used one of these type of ballots for the first time in Fulton County, GA, two years ago and didn't have any problem with it. Prior to that, I had only used the fill-in-the-bubble type and an actual voting machine (the kind with levers).~ bytethoven
there is a FL law stating that the "bubble" to fill in/punch whatever is to be to the right of the canadate your voteing for, not in the center of two. So the complaint would have some legal merit, i assume.
- "yes but can you hit someone over the head with a rolled up internet?" -Foxtrot
The electoral college does nothing to prevent mob rule. The principle of a democracy is that the majority opinion is the one that is enacted. If you think this is mob rule, what's the alternative?
To guard against 'mob rule', if by mob rule you mean the majority maltreating the minority, you have a constitution which sets out basic rights which apply to anyone, and which in theory are not affected by the democratically-elected government.
This is where Natapoff is completely wrong: the purpose of a democratic electoral system is to allow the expression of the will of the largest part of the population. This is why a system of preference voting is better than a first-past-the-post election, because the choice is likely to be closer to what more people want. It's hard to see how an electoral college could deal with preference voting.
Despite what Natapoff thinks, the value of an election is nothing to do with allowing an individual elector to change the result: if we wanted to do that, the ideal electoral system for Natapoff would be if we XOR-ed all the votes together. That way every decision who to vote for would change the outcome. This, of course, would not be an expression of anyone's will, but for Nat that's unimportant.
It's also important to remember it's a scientific truth that there's no perfect system of voting. (Sorry no cite for this.)
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
Remember that states don't actually vote in blocks. Let's say that Wyoming went to Ford (purely hypothetical; I know not what states went where). Three Republican electors would be appointed, each one charged with voting for Ford. That's right: three electoral votes means three electors.
In 1976, one of them (again, not from Wyoming. I'm sure someone could look this up though, but I'm at work and I don't care) voted for then CA Gov. Reagan.
I disagree strongly. There's no magic correlation between popularity and competence. If the voters are informed, however, there might be.
How can you not punch the card right? I love here in Chicago and they used the same damn ballot! Should there be a recount in Chicago? No one will say that there should be because it doesn't matter, Gore won Illinois. Also, there were not so many errors in Chicago as there were in palm beach county and there are more people here. Are we just a bunch of more intelligent people? It must be! I think that everyone that voted wrong was in a hurry to get in and out of the place and realized at the last minute that they screwed up and tried to change their vote. Do we really want such morons voting anyway? I wish this was all over because I am sick of hearing of people too stupid to punch a card correctly.
Usability isn't just for the web. I wonder if any testing was done. http://www.useit.com Right column below the World Tour ad. Shouldn't the Spotlight feature be above the fold?
Lest we forget about the election as whole, Florida's irregularities are being brought to light by the recount. A number of regularities exist in other states as well (such as the problem in St Louis). If you looked at the popular vote as whole Gore is ahead by 150,000 according to the current results. If the nation as a whole were held to the same law Florida is requiring an automatic recount if the results differ by less 0.5% then the whole nation would be doing a recount, and wouldn't you see some serious allegations of irregularity then. One irregularity that doesn't seem to be getting much press in Florida is that some polls in Broward and Dade counties (the major stronghold of Democrats along with Palm Beach) stayed open well past the required 7PM closing time. Similar to the problem in St Louis but without a judge interfering this time. It those polls had closed on time then Bush might have been even further ahead.
You're right, the electoral college system does make it possible to compare the election process to a tense World Series. 'Nuff said.
Add to that the disturbing number of people polled who could not name the three branches of government, or even the running mate of the candidate that they had voted for, it's quite easy to imagine 4% of the voters spoiling their ballot.
(No, I don't have links to those polls. But they're out there, if anyone cares to find them. Those who don't care to find them may feel free to ignore my comment.)
The electoral college is not "sadly unbalanced." It is purposely unbalanced for a reason. Do you really want a president who won by campaigning in only a handful of big cities and ignoring the entire midwest and half of New England? I personally don't, and I live in one of those big cities.
Fortunately, we probably don't have to worry about a moronic ammendment to the constitution, because it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and the smaller states would (rightly so) vote it down.
And the World Series should go to the team that scores the most runs overall out of seven games...regardless of how many games they win.
(Note: "votes" == "runs" & "states" == "games")
-Vel
No, I didn't screw up.
Ranessin
St. Louis MO polls open an extra 3 hours in heavily democratic urban area. The ability to freely 'transfer votes' from a dead man to a woman who did not, in her own right, gain a single vote. If they wanted her, couldn't they have legally written her in? Milwaukee: reports are that minority voters were picked up by the busload and taken to the polling station, where they were compensated with packs of cigarettes for voting. (hearsay) A friend mentioned to me that when he went to his polling place in upstate NY, the campaign judges had "Clinton" badges on, and one was even caught on-camera INSIDE the booth with a non-english-speaking immigrant "helping her figure out how to vote".
-Styopa
I agree with you that exit polls are often used unproductively, but I would like to point out that in this particular case, the exit-polling data might actually re-inforce the notion that something went wrong in the actual vote tabulation.
In particular, we now know that 19,000+ ballots (out of about 450,000) were invalidated due to double voting in Palm Beach county. The strong presumption is that the huge number of invalid ballots was caused by the ergonomic problems the ballot used presented to voters in practice. If you're trying to project who will win Florida, your mathematical model for a Democratic victory almost certainly includes knowing how many votes are coming out of a Democratic stronghold like Palm Beach, and what the ratio was like. If over 20,000 ballots are misvoted or invalid in the county, your numbers are going to be screwed up, and your early projection will be wrong. Now, 20K ballots is only .3% of the state total, and can't explain the rush to call the state all by itself, but it's clear that if there were an error of this magnitude, you would have expected a much rosier outlook for the Gore vote in Florida than what got counted.
Babar
On a side note I really find it disgusting that this country's leader, quite possibly the most powerful person in the world is going to end up being decided through a bunch of lawsuits.
:-)
Considering that Gore is going to win in the recount, I doubt that will happen
Ranessin
The third rule broken, that may tie this all together is that according to my paper, the ballots are supposed to be one printed page, facing one blank page. This and all the talk about the ballots being "approved" makes me wonder at what point said approval took place. I wouldn't be suprized if the approval being touted was of the proof sheets (approving order, spelling, inclusion, etc) and then at some point in the printing process some genius decided to save space (or was confused by their instructions to have the first page be the presidential candidates) by throwing the two pages of the same section facing each other.
This makes a lot more sense, IMHO than the idea that there was an unquestioned acceptance of the final form of a ballot that broke counry election law and was at least partially confusing on its face (insert standard rant about /.ers who assume that their particular skill set is intelligence and for something to be confusing to someone else but not to them is a sign that the other person is stupid) and definitly confusing to someone who was used to the correct format of that ballot. (people have asked how someone could vote president, then everything else, then only realize they had made a mistake after handing in their ballot. It makes perfect sense to me if you consider these people as expereinced voters in this county. You get your ballot, you vote for president, just as you would normally. You barely even think about the facing page info. you flip through and do the rest of the ballot, then hand it in. as it is being fed through the reader, you see the facing page info again and realize for the first time that those ballot options (which you didn't look at carefully because you had already found your candidate) don't have their circles to the right, but on the left, intermingled with the ones you had been paying attention to. By this time your ballot is gone and you can only look at other blank ballots and try to figure out if this bizzare (and as it turns out illegal) irregularity in your normal ballot has caused you to misvote.)
If someone snuck into your office and replaced your qwerty keyboard with a dvorak (?) one during the night, and you came in and semi touched typed your password, are you a moron because the new keyboard has the correct key/letter combinations clearly labled, or did you make a reasonable mistake based on an unexpected, and somewhat confusing change in format? If you don't totally realize this until after you've hit enter, is that your stupid mistake, and you'll just have to be blocked out of your machine and deal with it, or is it something that needs to be reset and re-entered, now that you understand the changes made?
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Not really. You said that they shouldn't be allowed to make predictions. I said that they should be allowed to predict anything they want, but that the information they would most like to base their projections on should be kept secret until after all of the polls close.
In other words, keep preliminary vote counts secret and prevent exit polling. If they can predict outcomes without that data, then let 'em. They should be free to announce their guesses, but shouldn't be given the information to influence those outcomes.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What the majority of Americans don't realize is that Democracy, Pure Democracy, does not work. The U.S. is a Representative Democracy, otherwise known as a Republic. We elect others to handle the ugly details and trifling issues for us. In this way, we get to live our lives reletively free of the burdens of government.
The office of President is selected by the states for several reasons. The most important of which is to ensure the government is not monopolized by those few states with the largest populations. California has a buttload of people, whereas Delaware has very few by comparison. Ensuring that each state has a minimum of 3 votes makes each state count for more than if we had a "majority rules" system. The EC empowers voters, as they are "competing" with fewer other voters. This does cause some imbalance, as a voter in Wyoming (or Palm Beach County, Florida!) can be much more powerful than a voter in my home state of Texas. This is how it should be, tho', as it tends to balance out between all the states.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw
In VA, we got ONE sheet of paper, divided with thick black lines. Pres. candidates on the left, other issues on the right. You got a felt pen, colored in a circle next to the names, and fed it into a machine that read the dots. I have never seen one of these weird-ass pin-books, and am having a difficult time figuring out why they're so popular when all they seem to do is make it difficult for everyone...?
/."
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
The claim that voters voted for Buchanan out of confusion, meaning to vote for Gore, is all but cast iron proven by the statistics, particularly the massive outlier on the Bush/Buchanan popularity graph. Even Buchanan thinks it's true. It's more than just an eyewitness account.
--
Xenu loves you!
These people didn't wait until the last minute. Some were waiting in line since 5:30!!!
...
Sheesh...the polls were supposed to be open to anyone who arrived before 7. Why the hell should I interpret that as "the polls are open till 7, but get there 4 hours ahead of time just in case"
Got to the polling places at 6:00pm. I left work at 4:30. It sounds alot easier than it is.
What if we tattoo barcodes on the back of the necks of each candidate and let the voters scan them with a Cue:Cat. Haha! Bet you didn't think you would see Cue:Cat mentioned during this discussion.
I thought I had an appetite for destruction, but all I really wanted was a club sandwich. --Homer J.
How many times have I told you not to take things out of the toilet? The floaters are not playthings.
I find it suspicious that this poster has seemingly perfect recall for numbers, but has forgotten or omitted the source for those numbers.
You can never equivocate too much.
From National Review:
On March 12, 1996, Pat Buchanan won 8,788 votes in the Republican primary from the four congressional districts that share Palm Beach County. In Rep. Wexler's 19th congressional district, Buchanan won his largest vote of the four -- 2,961.
Buchanan's top strategist in the 1996 nomination race, Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey, explains that by the time of the 1996 Florida primary, the fight was essentially over. Buchanan had lost South Carolina on March 2, and five other primaries, including Georgia's on March 5. Still, with the nomination lost, and Buchanan not campaigning in Palm Beach (he made only a brief appearance in Miami on March 6), over 8,000 diehard Buchanan Brigaders voted in support of his message.
Jeffrey says that it is "completely believable to me" that there were 3,000 Buchanan supporters again voting for their man in the Palm Beach area this Tuesday. "Over 8,000 people cast a symbolic vote for Pat and his message after he was eliminated from competition in 1996."
Let this be a lesson to all the programmers and software designers that good interface design is really important. The interface is where the rubber meets the road. It doesn't matter how fast your Porsche or Pinto goes, if the roads are slick and your tires are bare, you crash and burn.
I think this situation is truly amazing. The media went on and on how the pre-election polls were within the margin of error. Well now we are seeing that the margin of error of mistakes in the voting booth can make the difference. No election process can perfectly reflect the will of the people, but everyone needs to do their part to make is as close as possible.
First, I'd like to shoot down the sports analogy. Competitions used to be single eliminations, not 'best of seven'. That's a modern innovation, solely for the purpose of garnering more money for the prinicpals involved (team owners, players, networks, etc).
Second, while the math for 'more powerful' is correct, there's an identical situation in the auto industry that's causing a lot of frustration. Sub-widget A is built with two American screws, one Canadian. Gets designated as 'American'. Two 'American' sub-widgets are combined with a wholly 'Canadian' sub-widget. The new assembly is designated 'American'. The process continues ... until we have a car that's designated 'American', which, strangely enough, is composed of a majority of foreign parts.
I think the underlying problem with Natapof's argument is pretty simple ... he doesn't agree with the 'One person, one vote' ideal.
The US has problems enough with rural votes being worth significantly more than urban votes. (Which, as an aside, helps explain why the Republican dominated legislatures are loathe to reform this aspect). Re-drawing districts has become a new way of rigging the election before hand. Isolating 'core' sections has become very popular. To illustrate, using a sample of 300 people, suppose candidate W is running at 34%, and candidate G is running at 66%. If W's friends, who control where the lines are drawn, split the district up so one district is 100% for G, and the other two as 51% for W. Which means, come election, W wins two out of three. Using the f!@#ing electoral college as an example, at the state level, that means W takes all three, despite having only 34% of the popular vote. It isn't quite that dramatic as that in the real world, but an analysis of the last re-drawing shows this to be a viable tactic.
I don't agree with the idea Joe from North Dakota has one heck of a lot more influence that Tom from New York city, in both the senate and the presidential race. It strikes at the fundamentals of democracy. Natapof makes plenty of good arguments to support his position, but I believe that none of the benefits outweigh the fact the system, in its current form, is fundamentally flawed. Democracy only works when a large percentage of the population buy into it. The current system creates one heck of a lot of cynicism. And no amount of 'mathematical models' will help to dispell that cynicism while the problem remains.
"All that happens is someone with fewer votes gets elected," temporarily Uh, I really hate to poke a hole in the mud foundations of his ivory tower, but it's a little more serious than that. Various corporations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get 'their' candidate of choice in. And they expect a return on their investment. When an archaic system like the electoral college overturns the popular vote - which is one of the few areas in which the average citizen can still fight back - then the coporations (and the existing political power structure) have won. Getting back to the sports analogy, this means the principals (i.e. the corporations and the entrenched parties), just like in the multi-game innovation, extract more money from the populace.
The math Natapof suggests works ... but so does the posibility that the EC can give the election to a person with less votes than his opponent ... a lot less. Using the above 300 person example, 34% vs 66%. Using the EC method, it can actually be worse. This is what, the fourth time the person with less popular votes got in? Isn't it about time the system gets reformed?
I have to argue that there are two entities in this country, people and states. The states, constitutionally, are entitled to certain protections under the constitution. To eliminate the 'extra' power under the EC system that states have would be to allow the 5 or 6 most populous states to ignore the rest of the country. The EC should be of finer granularity than the current system. Each district as a unit should cast their vote for one candidate, and then each state should cast their vote. This would be done by popular vote. The winner of each state, would get two votes. The winner of each district, one. Then you would see a real increase in the power of minorty districts in majority states. (Like Republicans in California, or Democrats in Alabama).
We've been subjected to that type of ballot out here on the Left coast for as long as I can remember. We have at least two precincts just in one city alone that are comprised of well over 70% senior citizens. Yet amazingly, the people in those precincts seem to be able to vote for who they want and not blame their palsy on a badly-designed ballot. I officially raise the BS flag on those so-called "irregularities." Sounds like political obfuscation rather than a poorly-designed ballot.
It's the census all over again. The Democrats want to make statistical arguments about why they deserve to win, while the Republicans simply want to count the votes.
So you say. Expert testimony says otherwise. Jakob Nielsen:
Nielsen doesn't go so far as to say that this is specifcally what cost Gore the election, but with 19K incorrectly filled out ballots in two counties, I'd say it's a pretty fair guess.
Additionally, from Dan Bricklin:
Nineteen thousand. People with poor vision, people who received incorrect sample ballots. It's obvious that the statistical anomoly is there, especially when graphed. So rather than grousing about how dumb people are, why not design a ballot that doesn't skew the result?They have been showing pictures of the ballots on all the news channels, and it is not confusing at all, its just like the ones here where i live. They point to the hole you should select, how could you get confused
Electronic systems have a much different risk profile... At least with the 'old fashioned way', it requires actual manpower to have signifigant election fraud. You *HAVE TO* have manpower in the precincts, in the counting rooms, etc. With electronic voting.. How do you know that the programmers didn't put a backdoor in the program. (Say, on the first second of every november, it switches 5% of the vote of democrat to republican)? Second, how do you know that the code the programmers wrote is the same that's actually installed in the machines? Finally, how do you deal with the issue that the 'old fashioned' technique creates out physical ballots instead of fictional bits. That's a paper trail. It's trivial for a computer to add 10,000 to a number in memory. It's a FUCKING LOT harder to create 10,000 fake ballots. This is the real issue. These problems aren't completely insurmountable, but they *ARE* damn hard to solve. Maybe the Netherlands has lower standards, but I damned hope that the US never gets them. FYI, check out comp.risks for some of the MANY problems with 'electronic systems'. Everything from inaccurate GPS recievers, to network outages, to vote fraud, to privacy, to security. Computers make things easier to screw up too.
This whole election has been nothing but a maddening experience. IMHO, neither canidate has done much to distinguish himself. The majority of friends I have talked to have voted for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils, which is hardly the way we should decide who our next President will be.
So now there is a big discussion about what we should do about the people who 'double voted' or thought they mis-voted. That's any easy discussion, but let's take it to street-level.
What happens if you color two circles on a multiple choice test? What happens if you tell the teacher you circled 'A' but you meant 'B'? Tough shit, my friends, you should have checked your answers before you turned in the test (or ballot, as the case may be). Granted, your election hall may be different from mine, but even though it was in a school, I still had no time limit.
So, the chips have fallen where they may. It's time to count the chips. If they voted twice, throw out the ballot. If they think they mis-voted, there's not a whole lot we can do, is there?
I mean, if you voted for Buchanan and now say you wanted to vote Gore, what's to stop the tide from saying I voted Gore, but meant to vote Bush?
Truly, I'm sorry you screwed up your vote. But it's not really anyone's fault but your own. Chalk it up to experience, and let's move on. I'm tired of hearing about the election.
But if they get to change their vote, I really bombed the English part of my SAT. Can I take it again?
Pokrefke
"I don't want the cheese, I only want out of the trap"
From: StevenM820@aol.com [mailto:StevenM820@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:44 AM
To: weschat alumni mailing list
Subject: Florida recount info
Hello again,
Thought you'd like another update from the inside. I spent much of Wed. as the Palm Beach County Dem. Party observer in the recount room at the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections. Also present were lawyers and a staffer representing GWB, several lawyers representing Gore, representatives of the Reform Party, the Fla. Democratic and Republican Parties, the DNCC, US Rep. Clay Shaw and his Dem. challenger Elaine Bloom (this race is still contested), a Dem. State Senator and a Dem. State Representative from the County.
The recount was supposed to begin at 1:30, was delayed until 4:00 and ended at 11:30. Our role basically consisted of sitting in a cramped room watching five staffers run stacks of puch card ballots through counting machines. Pretty dull all in all until it was discovered that one precinct had not been counted in full. This resulted in a net gain for Al of about 360 votes. The Bush boys lost their smug attitudes and began huddling and whispering every few minutes.
The absentees came through for Al too. When one votes at the polls in Florida, they provide a punch instrument which, if used correctly, completely perforates the ballot. However, absentee voters often use a pen or other implement which does not fully perforate the card. This was apparent to us from the fact that over 10,000 voters in the County, about 2.2% of the overall turnout did not make any choice in the residential race, but did vote in the US Senate or Congressional races. We theorized that many voters had partially perforated the card, but the machines weren't reading them. The more times the ballots are run through the counting machine, the more likely the loosened chits fall off.
When the absentees were counted, 221 ballots that had previously registered no vote now did show a vote in the Presidential race. These went overwhelmingly for Gore, leading to some whooping and high fiving from our side. The Bushies really lost it at this point and got a little hostile with the staffers, which in turn elicited some harsh responses from the assembled masses.
Gore's net gain in the County was 643. Word from other counties is that Gore closed the 1,700 deficit by over 1,200. Only half of the counties conducted their recounts on Wednesday. The rest are on Thursday. The bigger problem is that the ballot in Palm Beach County, which differs in its layout from the ballots elsewhere in the State, is illegal for several reasons. Florida statutes specifically mandate the precise layout of the ballot and the order of candidates. The law was not followed. Bush's name was first, with Buchanan below him and Gore third. This is completely improper, as well as the fact that the law requires the names to be placed to the left with the punch holes to the right of the candidates' names. On this ballot, some names were on the right and some on the left, with all of the punch holes in the middle. It was difficult to line up the name with the correct hole.
Moreover, 19,000 ballots were disqualified because they voted for two or more candidates. This is a direct result of the confusing layout of the names on the ballot. This represents over 4% of the total ballots. It was as high as 15% in some predominantly African-American precincts and about 10% in some precincts with large numbers of Jewish retirees. The Gore vote in many of these precincts was over 90%.
This explains the networks' exit polling which reflected voters' belief that they had voted for Gore, but in fact their ballots had been disqualified. This led to the initial awarding of Florida to Gore.
Folks, the bottom line is that if the names on the ballot were properly situated Gore would have had an additional 11-13,000 vote margin in this County, and the election would be over. We have done a precinct by precinct analysis of where the disqualified votes came from. By attributing the same percentage of the vote Gore obtained in those precincts to the disqualified ballots, Gore would be winning Florida by at least 10,000 votes. In other words, Gore has actually won the election both in the popular vote and in the electoral vote, but he may well still lose it.
You should also be aware that other large counties in the State disqualified about one half of one percent of their ballots for casting two or more votes in the Presidential race. In Palm Beach County it was 4.4%.
Lastly, don't expect the recount to be over on Thursday, as the media is stating. Legal actions are underway. The next question, will a judge order a re-vote just in Palm Beach County with a new ballot?
Steven Meyer
As you say, lack of EC gives unfair power to urbanized areas at the expense of the needs or rural ones, but I'm saying the that EC in place has the opposite effect, giving people in rural areas more than their fair say. (I theorize that this is one of the reasons religion plays a big part in politics - religion is more popular in the rural areas where people's individual opinions have more political sway.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The problem was that there were people IN LINE WAITING TO VOTE before 7pm. They were all told to go home.
I suppose it should be ok to have one booth for every district in the state and have every person in the district use that booth -- and if they can't get in there in time, tough shit. It isn't right. The districts that had the massive lines WERE NOT PROPERLY PREPARED for the number of people that showed up to vote.
The reason why this wasn't FAIR is because people who showed up before 7 in other places across the state were actually ABLE TO VOTE.
Funny, then, that it's not believable to Buchanan himself.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Buchanan has no say in this process. It doesn't matter whether he wants to cede his votes to Gore, Bush, or Zorkahn the Space God. He is not part of the picture.
Whining after the election about the usability of the ballot is too little, too late.
I'd support allowing a revote only by those people who officially complained about the accuracy of their votes before the polls closed.
Even if Natapoff were right and there were some magic sweet spot between popular elections and a random individual vote, it would seem to be mathematically better then to pick the blocs of voters that decide the electoral college at random rather than using the current geographical scheme.
Clearly, there are other issues involved in how to pick a president. Like democratic principles.
I can't imagine that really happening, however. Poll supervisors know their responsibilities and what happens for improper conduct on their part. All the supervisors I've ever come into contact with were very professional, and would not think of such behavior.
> The ballot was approved by a democratic official
/.ers in this thread are displaying.
That's irrelevant. The official in question might have the same cavalier attitude toward user interfaces that so many
At any rate, is the party system so entrenched that a party official speaks for the voters in his/her jurisdiction? This is not, IMO, a party issue at all. It's a matter of getting the correct numbers for the will of the people.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You got me sorry, I was pulling that one from memory.
Who have I been getting on for lack of facts?
Finkployd
If every state divided their electoral votes the way Maine does (by district) you could still have a disparity between popular and electoral votes. the only way to elect a president by popular vote is to abolish the electoral college. Anything else is mathmatically impossible.
by "the wrong way" i most certainly do not mean me, i am not even a citizen of florida. what i meant was the electoral votes should reflect the expressed wishes of the people of florida . personally i think that since the people are obviously divided, so should the electoral votes (13-12) but like i said, i am not a floridian and it is not up to me.
But it will be this way, regardless. The people of Florida voted, and while it was a close decision they said they wanted to send someone to the White House (just who is arguable at the moment, though it does seem that Bush is likely to win this).
That's the thing people don't realize about "the election." It is not a nationwide election, but rather it's 50 statewide elections. This is done in such a way as to balance out the effects of varying population density in the states so that small states still get a significant voice in the election.
neither deserves them all.
Frankly, neither deserves the Presidency. But barring some truly extraordinary events that's unescapable at this point. Given that, we may as well let the system run its course. Don't forget, either one can still win.
----------
There are 14,551 registered Reformers in Palm Beach County, more than the rest of the state combined.
Under the electorial system (which I agree is not perfect, but I don't know a perfect system), one must gain wide support from across the country. Without it, all you have to do is campaign in TX, FL, NY, and CA. The rest of the states are too small to care about. The EC system strikes a balance.
Finkployd
See this Slashdot article, with links to Florida's own documents, refuting this suddenly-popular myth.
--
Xenu loves you!
Borrowing from the poster in one of yesterday's articles who posted a shell script to parse cnn.com and tell how many more votes Bush had than Gore in Florida:
./bush references the script posted yesterday.
I present to you the web based Bush-o-meter!! It can be found at http://www.cs.luther.edu/~bumpusad/bush/
For those who are interested here's the source:
#!/bin/bash
while true
do
echo "<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV=\"REFRESH\" content=\"60\"><title>The Bush-O-Meter</title></head>" > index.html
echo "<body bgcolor=\"#000000\" text=\"#FFFF00\">" >> index.html
echo "<center><h1>The Bush-O-Meter</h1><br><br>">>index.html
echo "<b>">>index.html
./bush >> index.html
./bush
echo "</html>" >> index.html
sleep 60
done
</tt><P>In here
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
I'd think this was obvious, but why has nobody pointed it out yet?
If they let the Palm Beach county results stand, then GW Bush will have been elected by 2000 confused idiots.
If they let those votes be counted for Gore instead, then Gore will have been elected by 2000 people who had to backpedal on their inaccurate statements.
Either way, it sounds like a fair election...
That assumes that she would have considered exactly this case, that people would be confused by this design. For that to happen, she would have to have considered exactly the extent of the people's ability to understand the ballot. I'd say that oversteps the expected duties, doesn't it? Having to gauge exactly how smart or dumb (not dumb, I really mean some other adjective) must be to understand the ballot. She shouldn't be expected to have such a knowledge of the people.
--Xantho
(A Palm Beach County resident who understands the ballot just fine.)
Wrong -- there are only 337 card carrying Reformers in PBC. Sodium Attack was kind enough to find a link to official Florida voter registrations.
And to add insult to your injury, ChiChi, even Pat Buchanan doesn't think those votes are his. The man may be misguided and racist, but he's honest to a fault.
=====
First off, the registered voters all saw the ballot in advance, and none of them complained *then*.
=====
The problem did not become evident until the ballet was inserted into the voting machine. And voters WERE protesting AS SOON AS THEY GOT INTO THE MACHINE. I live in Palm Beach County and we heard about the problem on Tuesday at noon. This is not about sour grapes or after-the-fact realization. This is about people who were IN THE BOOTH trying to figure out which hole to punch for the candidate they wanted. These people were asking for help and no one was able to respond (due to laws against "electioneering"). These people's voice was not heard in our electoral process. Something must be done. I don't have any brilliant ideas.
Maru
This article puts the total number of Reform registrants at 304.
There are clearly some Buchanan voters in the county, but the notion that it goes into four digits is absurd and contrary to the available evidence.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is a case of Read The Fucking Ballot. Those that punched the wrong holes should just go beat themselves with an appropriate LART for being stupid.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Last, I keep hearing stories of 'thousands' calling up the Gore campaign in tears saying the voted for the wrong person because of the ballot. How on Earth did you realise that at home, hours later, and not WHEN YOU VOTED? The whole thing sounds pretty suspicious.
Yes, sounds very suspicious.
Here's another point worth considering: How many of these easily confused people actually DID cast their vote properly, but after seeing the coverage on television got nervous and managed to convince themselves that they had botched it?
Personally, I think the whole Palm Beach issue is being blown out of proportion by nervous Democrats who see their 8 year reign slipping away and are willing to grasp at any available straw to try and hang on to it.
He's a picture of it. http://www.boortz.com/ballot2.jpg Is it really that confusing?!
MarNuke
It's plain sad that there could be any contraversy as to the location of boxes or the vote count in this day and age and after hundreds of years of practice.
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Of course, one has to keep in mind that Jeb Bush, one candidate's brother HAS RECUSED HIMSELF from the investigatory commission, so as to reduce any appearance of impropriety. Not so the Attorney General for Florida, who was Gore's campaign manager in the state. Conflict of interest? Me? Nah...
-Styopa
So a blind person or
a person with no arms
or a person with spastic
twitches shouldn't
be allowed to vote?
I've covered this several times. You ask for help if you are unable to vote properly on your own (as I said in the post you replied to)
Finkployd
The principle of a democracy is that the majority opinion is the one that is enacted. If you think this is mob rule, what's the alternative?
A republic, like we have.
Finkployd
Correct, i attacked (but probly not destroyed) his(assumption) point of view. In balancing the Karma, I'll go babysit my friends kid for 4 hours, help out on the next habitat for humanity project, and re-educate (assuming they were educated before) some of similiar ilk that kick sand castles down and say "It builds character"
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
The idea that the electoral college is there to make up for a lack of technology is a myth. If they had wanted the election to be by popular vote, they could have had the electors carry the tally and add it up in Washington just as easily.
The electoral college prevents small yet populous areas of the country from taking control. Look at the map right now. Al Gore has the popular vote, but has very little area on the map. Bush is a clear winner because just about everywhere, you only have to travel a little bit to be in solid Bush territory. With Gore, there would be many places where for hundreds of miles around he lost. That would result in broad swaths of disatisfaction.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Besides, these voters used assumption to cast their ballot, which they should never do. It's the convict who wears the blindfold during a beheading, not the executioner.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
The EC seems to allow a candidate who gets +-10% of the vote to become president and the 90% guy to loose because only a few states force the EC members to vote along with the people's choice. Even when all the EC embers vote the way the people want, the guy with +-25% can become president and the 75% guy looses (SeventyFive%Guy gets 100% of votes for 50%-1 of the EC votes, and 50%-1 votes for the rest).
Am I the only only who thinks this is ridiculous? even for the already ridiculous representative democracy system (vs direct true democracy).
"All ideas must be run past our own intelligence. The planet needs the initiative, ideas and responsibility of each one of us. Each person must understand and believe in their power to use their own ideas on behalf of themself and all of us to change the planet for the better. We have underestimated ourselves and each other for centuries." - Judy Sole
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler, Decline and fall of the Athenian republic
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
In this age of "sue everyone/anyone for anything/anyhow" it doesn't matter if George Bush actually was the winner in Florida. The DNC and NAACP will not allow a chance to overturn an unfavorable election result to pass them by. They will simply generate what ever evidence they need. Look at Mo. Flat out, you have to be a resident to run for the office of the US Senate, yet they allowed a DEAD PERSON - meaning he is no longer a resident - to run for office. A CORPSE WON!, and why? Because the democrat govenor promised to give the seat to his wife if won. Do you honestly think the NAACP or DNC will sue if the recount favors Gore?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
In regards to the Palm Beach county ballot.
1. It was approved IN ADVANCE by an election official that just happened to be a democrat. You would think if the ballot was unfavorable to Gore, this person would have noticed it.
2. This ballot was available for PUBLIC INSPECTION many weeks before the actual vote was taken.
3. All voters have 3 chances to vote correctly. If at first, you punch the wrong holes, you SHOULD NOT submit your ballot, instead you go to the marshal at the polling place, explain the problem, and request another vote. Any voter can request a new ballot up to two times.
4. If the ballot was confusing, there were poll workings READY AND WILLING to answer any and all questions about the ballot itself.
Now, with all that said, I think it's a shame that people may have inadvertently voted for the wrong person (or voted twice which should be a no-no for anyone with an IQ over 10) but the sad fact is that they did so due to their own ignorance or unwillingness to ask for help.
19,000 people in Palm Beach County voted for TWO PEOPLE for President. TWO PEOPLE!?! How can anyone with half a brain think their vote will be valid by voting for two people for the same office? If these 19,000 people had asked for help, a new ballot, or simply taken their time to READ the ballot, this certainly would not have happened.
While I agree that the ballot could have been constructed better, its design is certainly not overly confusing for anyone willing to take the time to read and understand it. That is called BEING INFORMED people. Those who decide to be ignorant do not deserve the right to complain after the fact.
This is just one more example of how this country is turning into a society of victims. Nothing is ever the fault of the individual, it's always some larger social problem and we are all helpless. God forbid that voters actually READ the ballot, bother to ask questions, or UNDERSTAND the process they are participating in.
It's not reasonable. Period. Unless they show that there was willful misconduct and election fraud (which I've seen no evidence of there being), I can't see how they can allow them to vote again.
Imagine all of the Nader supporters going back to the polls... but THIS time, they know just how incredibly important their vote is for getting a liberal into the White House. I could all but guarantee you that the Nader vote shrinks to close to zero and those votes go to Gore. This would be true at the county level, state level, or national level.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
You are confusing real life with "Survivor" again.
That's funny you should mention that. For anyone, Republican or Democrat, who needs a little relief from all this, check out Joel Achenbach's column yesterday in the Washington Post. I nearly choked, and spit coffee all over the keyboard....
A sample:
Transcript of the First Presidential Ballot Counting Session, Nov. 8, 2000
JIM LEHRER (MODERATOR): Good evening from the Miami Beach Convention Center. I'm Jim Lehrer of the News Hour on PBS. On this stage tonight I am joined by the two major presidential candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and by these 17 plastic bins of Florida election ballots.
An eighteenth bin, containing 3,472 ballots, has been disallowed due to the discovery that every ballot was signed with the name "Hyram J. Spinkster." Still under discussion is whether to count a large sack of ballots that mysteriously descended by parachute this morning over the city of West Palm Beach. Both campaigns have agreed that any absentee ballots cast by a citizen who then expired prior to Election Day will be counted as one-half of a vote.
Under the rules established by the Emergency Presidential Commission on Counting, each candidate will be given 90 seconds to count ballots, at which time his opponent will be given 30 seconds for rebuttal. Each candidate has scratch paper and two sharpened pencils.
I alone control the pencil sharpener.
When all the ballots are counted, I will review the tabulations. The candidate with the fewest votes must bring me his tribal torch. I will then extinguish the torch and send him into the Everglades. The winner receives the presidency and one million dollars. We begin with Vice President Gore.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
They will, in all likeliness, have to do a re-vote for Florida. There are simply too many variables floating around in the mix... the punch cards could definitely have been misinterpreted, especially by someone who's vision hasn't been 20/20 for a while. Then there was the story of a few of the ballot boxes going missing for a few hours, then turning back up. And of course, to boot, Dubya's brother is the governor of the state! If both the Bush brothers don't want to commit political suicide on this, they'll have to go for the recount. Either that, or have the Democrats breathing down their necks, getting ready to accuse both of them of election fraud, and wanting to hang them both from the highest tree in the land...
In any case, the recount results are skewing heavily to Gore, so my whole point may be moot. Let's hope so.
That's because the big counties -- which went heavily to Gore -- have already reported. For the most part, the counties remaining are smaller, rural counties which were won handily by Bush. See for yourself.
Geez.. It was a mistake... You'd think somebody could correct you without flamming as well... ASSHOLE!
I have a feeling that many of the complainers didn't.
For the record, I did - I registered on the last day possible, and spent 1/2 an hour searching for where I should vote.
The Internet was invented by an englishman you fucking idiot, you just prove what the US thinks of itself, everything ever invented was invented in the US by a Yank, how wrong you are...
I'm sorry, but if someone didn't notice that arrow pointing to the correct hole for each candidate, then they are either morons, or they should have put on their glasses, or they should have asked someone to help them.
I'm sick of hearing this crap about people thinking the second hole should have been for the Democrat. If they bothered to even glance at this ballot they would have noticed that every-other hole went to the other side of the ballot.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
"I realized that I was the only person willing to see this problem through to the end."
Well, he thought farther than anyone else, but building on his ideas I just thought farther and just found the perfect system!
As Natapoff has said, by far the most important thing is that voters have as much power as possible. For example, more power to the individual voter means more people actually vote. Ths US already has the electoral college, which as Natapoff has shown, gives great power, so that explains the extremely high turn out for votes in the US.
As Natapoff said, power for the individual voter can simply be defined by your chance to change the outcome. Lets say the Reps win when the number of voters is even, the Democrats win when it is odd. Then you are GUARANTIED to influence the vote!!! This is maximum power!!
There are several other advantages as well:
I'm purposely not addressing the issue of whether or not competence "should be allowed," I'm addressing the issue of whether or not competence is desirable. I'm not saying that idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I am saying that idiots should choose not to vote. Unfortunately, most idiots aren't aware that they are idiots. Or, to put it more politely, most uninformed voters don't care that they're uninformed. (IMHO this is what makes them idiots.)
I do not favor the government arbitrarily limiting somebody's right to vote. I wouldn't mind some kind of "voter education program" that could be similar to the kind of education that we give to immigrants who wish to become citizens, but in the absence of that I strongly oppose any attempt to prevent somebody from voting.
I think that you're confusing my use of "should" with "should be prevented from."
A little more searching on CNN and I found this: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/ election.president/large.ballot.ap.jpg. (I would link to it, but Slash is mangling the URL.) It is linked from th is story and is supposedly the actual ballot. This does look more confusing than the original one I posted, but again, I would honestly expect that anyone paying close attention would be able to select the correct circle.
Just so you guys have a better idea of where I'm coming from, I do certainly think it is a problem if people checked the wrong circle and were unable or unallowed to get a new ballot. That's just wrong.
Does anyone else think that there is a big coincidence that all of this is happening in the state where Bush's brother is the governor? I mean come on...How can you have a SEALED ballot box full of office supplies? I think there is a lot more going on then the media is letting on, and I think that everyone is coming to the conclusion that there is something very wrong with the electoral process. Just have everyone vote and let the popular vote decide who the president is...what is wrong with that?
If you want to take a peek, here's the Ballot. Doesn't look too confusing to me. This morning, I heard Bob Dole say that the voters must take some responsibility. I'd have to agree. If Gore loses Florida because some voters in Palm Beach made a mistake, then they have no one but themselves to blame.
<rumor> I'm under the impression that the form was designed by a democrat. He said that the form was designed as such so that it would fit all the candidates on the page with sufficiently large enough print so that everyone could read the ballot. </rumor>
Here is a link to a picture of what the ballot looks like. How can you NOT understand this?!?! You FOLLOW THE ARROWS.
Jeez.
One woman said, "It was so hard to tell who and what you were voting for. I couldn't figure it out, and I have a doctorate."
Now, maybe my vision is better than the average Floridians(or whatever you call them =), but c'mon folks, a third grader could have filled this thing out.
I guess maybe it is true that the candidates up for election are a good indication of the intelligence of the majority. Heh, of course, I can't say anything either. Canadians are just as guilty. :P
Our Prime minister is about as thought-provoking as a pet rock...And he was elected twice.
But still, how can you not understand that ballot?! The only thing more idiot-proof would be to put each candidate on their own ballot. But, knowing people, they'd find a way to screw that
up too.
The majority of Americans I've met offline and off were for the most part pretty intelligent people, which makes me wonder why someone can raise such a fuss over something like this.
It's not like you need to be a brain surgeon to fill out a voting ballot. =)
LOL, I'm half asleep and lookin' for trouble, so feel free to fire away! *grins*
"The good thing about Alzheimer's is that you can hide your own Easter eggs"
I never said they can't vote, but if they cannot correctly do it themselves, they should ask for help.
Don't know if it's true but CNN reported that at least one individual did ask for help, only to have the person at that polling station unsure or how the ballot was set up, too.
Ranessin
I've been thinking about this. What you're asking, if interpreted literally, would probably be unconstitutional. As much as I disagree with the whole mess, the news organisations are perfectly within their rights to make any predictions they want, and to broadcast those predictions as they see fit.
However, it should be possible to keep the information used to make the predictions secret until after all ballots are closed. It shouldn't matter if NBC is incorrectly putting a state in a candidate's column if they're doing it after all votes have been collected. At that point, it can no longer influence the election.
How would I do this? Make it illegally, nationally, to release prelimary ballot counts until after every polling place in the US has closed. Furthermore, make all polling places and their parking lots campaign-free and media-free zones. No exit polls. No pestering the voters. No prediction data until after everyone has voted. This would give the people the right to cast their votes without undue pressure from the media, but it would not deprive anyone of their first amendment rights to discuss the election.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
More importantly, the machine you put the completed ballot into will not allow an improperly marked ballot to be input. The guy in line right in front of me kept having his spit back out at him because he had marked 3 instead of the 2 max for hospital trustee or some such minor office. So the offical voided his ballot and made him go back and mark another.
And when the election is over, the machines have a modem which dials up the auditor and delivers the vote totals (the ballots are kept inside the machine in case there is a challenge or recount). This fall when I ran for school board all the results were in to the auditor within just a few minutes of poll closing.
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
The photo doesn't show much. The pages are metal-framed, so they coudl've been sexured quite well as opposed to as if they were just cardboard. But, that doesn't mean they were. I'm only suggesting it as a devil's advocate and no one has refuted or confirmed it yet.
In my own experience where I voted, our books are mounted such that the pages leave a gap between them such that a different column of holes is exposed for eahc page turn. The whole book was quite loose in addition to the actual pages.
What are you missing? Well, one thing were missing is a better photo of the real setup to show if play in the book was possible.
Regarding what we're missing regarding other mistaken votes is this. We know that Gore and Bush both have extremely high precentages in ANY county ANYWHERE. Let's say 48% each to give room for third parties. With that large portion of Gore voters compared to a smaller population of [whatever-third-party-candidate-was-below-Buchanan ], and the same liklihood to "screw up", more Gore voters, as a number, would screw up than Buchanan voters. If we say there are 1,000,000 voters in the county, 480,000 would've wanted to vote for Gore, and say, 4,800 for [other candidate]. Assuming a 10% screw-up rate, that 48,000 Gore votes that wentto Buchanan and 480 that went to [other candidate].
So, yes, voters for [other candidate] could've screwed up too, but a much smaller number than for Gore.
I think that your US electoral systems has proved its unreliability and that you should switch to a two-turns, direct majority election system.
That the electoral college has to be put out of the loop seems obvious to me. Comparing the US, a prosperous nation with homogeneous ethnic distribution, to the former yougoslavia is so idiotic an argument that it takes all credit out of the one who uses it.
The reason why you have to go to two turn elections is to allow the freedom of giving one's vote to a minor party candidate for those who feel like it. What happened this week is that not only Nader likely changed the name of the 43th US president when he decided to run, but also he didn't get enough votes to secure his party through federal funding. Thus, supporters of the Greens who chose 'not to waste their vote' and went for Al Gore are not accounted for when it comes to assessing the real influence of the greens and other minor parties.
The two-turns elections, by using a first turn to narrow the race to the two top candidates, gives the best legitimity to the aventual winner, who is assured to be elected with more than 50% of the votes, and gives an accurate and fair assessment of the influence of non-dominant opinions amongst registered voters. It also puts back into the hands of the constitution, the selection of competing candidates in major parties, which currently is done by the obscure system of primaries.
When it came to write a democratic constitution in '91, the russians chose to copy the French constitution for their president election. Just imagine what would happen if they had chosen the US system , and that today's Russia was put into the current US situation.
Your system is outdated and dangerous, because stability, civil peace and prosperity might not be as obvious in your country in a few decades as they are now, and such times are good times for these kinds of reforms.
It's just a question of fairness.
No, it's a question of laziness and apathy.
If the ballot was confusing, they should have put forth the minimal effort required to clear up that confusion before they cast their vote. If they are now upset because their irresponsibility at the polls may have a consequence, then I can understand their frustration, but the opportunity to do something about it existed, and they let it slip through their fingers. Perhaps they'll be more observant in 2004.
Voting is a right. Along with that right comes the responsibility to make sure you understand the mechanism used to exercize that right.
Wonderful! In fact even every NON-voter gets maximum power to determine the election. Wow! 100% participation - the democaratic ideal!
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
In the Republican primary in that exact same area, thanks to support from a relative, Buchanan got up to 8,000 votes in 1996. In a primary, where a very small number of republicans actually turn out compared to election days.
You're not considering several very important factors...
First, that was the Republican Primary, meaning only Republicans voted for Buchanan. If your argument is to hold, the numbers for Bush should have been lower (because of Republicans jumping ship), not Gore.
Second, this was a few years before Buchanan's infamous Hitler quote. (Something to the effect of "He was a great stratigest.") That district is very heavily Jewish, and I think it is safe to say that quite a lot of the support Buchanan held in '96 has since evaporated.
Third, there are the actual voters, who went to the polls, and told about the confusion. They were there, you weren't.
Besides the fact that your argument is obviously partisan (wishing to send the vote to the Republican-controlled House), it's also wrong.
Bush didn't win the Popular Vote, and he will never be My president.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
Hey! That's my Slashcode site!
I have arrived; I've been quoted on Slashdot.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No. The reason Nixon didn't challenge the Chicago precinct results (which were, uhm, *enhanced* by the Daley machine) is that downstate Illinois precincts, which were controlled by Republican machines, were also, uhm, *enhanced* by Nixon's folks. As were precincts in Indiana, which Nixon won. Nixon weighed the probable outcome of a massive recount/challenge and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth it.
Madness takes its toll...
If there was one ballot paper for the whole country, or even one per state, then the Democrats' approval would be fatal to this argument. They would have hired a banel of experts to review them, and paid people from all over the country/state to come in and try voting for different candidates under realistic circumstances.
But when every tiny little county can design its own ballot system, you can't do this. The most you can do is get some party enthusiast at the bottom of the food chain to give them the once-over and make sure your candidate's name is spelled correctly.
So citing the Democrats' ratification of the ballot as if Al Gore himself signed off on it is misleading, to say the least. The voters certainly didn't like it: they were complaining as soon as they got into the ballot booth.
--
Xenu loves you!
You are obviously a fachist Republican dick. Every method you favor favors Bush, and any method that favors Gore you shoot down.
-Splat
The courts may have to decide on the Buchanan-Gore "ballot descrepency" issue. The number of votes in question are enough to turn the election one way or the other.
Does anyone else beside me find it unsettling that the Judicial Branch of government can essientially be choosing the next President of the United States?
I think that some states actually have laws forbidding this, though I do not know for sure.
8000 Votes for Buchanan in the republican primary were MOST LIKELY from democrats trying to sandbag your primary. DUH!
Hell, I voted for McCain in the Michigan primary, knowing full well that I wouldn't vote for him in the election.
So, jbridges, consider the source when you here these numbers whipped out by scared republicans who are now being caught at election hijaacking.
Those people voted Buchanan, period. If it was a mistake, I'm sorry but they blew it.
An election is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Every individual's ballot is supposed to reflect their choice. Since obviously several thousand people accidentally marked their ballots wrong, we have two choices:
Option #2 is, IMHO, the morally right choice. We have nothing to lose--we have to wait for the absentee ballots to come in anyway, so we have the time--and we stand to gain a more accurate election result. Your impulse to teach those voters a lesson ("it's their own fault") is much less important than the need for a fair and accurate election.
I'm a card-carrying liberal Democrat, but even if Gore were ahead and the recount/repoll threatened his lead, I would feel the same way. If I were a Republican right now, I'd want the county repolled so that my candidate could win fair-and-square and not spend the next four years shadowed by accusations that the election did not accurately represent the will of the people.
"It's also important to note that many voters who made a mistake were forced to submit their ballot once punched. The poll workers did not allow them to destroy their ballot and get a new one." IANAL, (and not intimately familiar with the terms and provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act), but there have been numerous reports of voters in Palm Beach who, (upon close inspection of their ballot prior to submitting it), began to suspect that they may have voted incorrectly and requested a new ballot. If, in fact, their request for a new ballot was denied and the ballot was voted against their will by an election official, (and all this can be proved); a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act may have occurred. If this is determined to be the case, a federal judge MAY have the authority to order a new election. (I don't know for certain if this is possible as I am not a lawyer.) However, if this turns out to be the case, could the judge order a state-wide (or only a Palm Beach county wide) election? Regardless of the legalities, if a judge orders a new election anywhere in Florida, (and the ruling stands), this is going to get nasty. Unfortunately, it may have already passed that point anyway: One side or the other is going to come out of this bitter.
Here's the problem:
Any system that allows a voter to submit an invalidly filled out form without feedback to allow him or her to fix it seriously flawed. In Virginia, we use with the machines with push buttons or a form with circles to fill out which is fed into a machine. In the former, invalid choices cannot happen in the first place. In the latter, invalid choices would presumably be immediately rejected by the machine. The fact that Palm Beach let 19,000 people submit broken ballots and walk off in happy ignorance says more about the election officials than the voters.
Statistical abberations aside, the system they used is still seriously broken. I wonder how many other communities have the same problem?
Does anyone know why Oregon still isn't decided?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
And this is justice for the voters how?
Given the margin of difference and the likely claims of fraud possible from BOTH sides, it's probable for it to take months or years to figure out what happened in this vote and then there's no way to know for sure( 3000 votes for Buchannan may have been 3000 votes for Buchannan and there's no way to tell because we have a secret ballot ). The loser is either going to have to accept Florida's recount as it is, not challenging it in court, or else Florida's electoral votes must be thrown out to prevent a Constitutional crisis. If they're thrown out, that means that it becomes a matter of nobody garnering at least half of the electoral votes and thus is up to the House. If it doesn't get thrown out, Bush wins(as it appears he will (up by 920 as of right now)) and goes to court for a lengthy period of time, Clinton and Gore get kicked out of office on schedule and due to lack of a President, the Speaker of the House, likely Denny Hastert again, will become president until the courts finish. In effect, denying Bush his rightful win and shortening his deserved term.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Would you mind telling me where you read/heard this?
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
So, in essence, you want to replace elections with moderation? /. :p
We all know how well this works here on
Sure. But look at it this way -- the position of the folks out in Pittsburgh is the same as if they were in the great national pot -- at least from the point of view of the power of the One Voter. Natapoff's position is that if you want to create a situation where some individual voter is pivotal then the electoral college is better than direct elections. Actually, I think that if you accept Natapoff's definition, then you have to ask : why break it down by state? What is the optimal size of a geographic block of voters?
I don't buy Natapoff's definition of political power, and thus I don't buy his entire argument that the electoral college is somehow more democratic. However, getting people feeling that their individual vote makes a difference is a very good thing for the health of our political system. It may be that in the most democratic of systems -- direct popular election, that we don't have the optimal system from the point of incentive to participate.
If we keep the electoral college, I'd like to see electoral votes tied to individual congressional districts. This would produce many more instances of individual voters holding the key to a candidate's success. It will also equalize the importance of people living in less populous states.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"I don't think you can claim Vast Right-Wing Conspiricy(tm) on this one."
I don't think many people are claiming that. Just because a Democrat approved the ballot doesn't mean that Democrat voters should have put up with their vote going to the wrong candidate if the paper was confusing. It's just a question of fairness.
Here's a twist:
Let's say florida goes to bush, and the west palm beach thing is ignored. What if ten of florida's 25 electoral voters think to themselves, "Well, that palm beach thing should matter. Besides, Gore won the national popular vote. I think he should be president."
Guess what - they can do this. The presidental election is decided on this vote, and not before. Whatever happens in florida, these elected electors can vote ANY WAY THEY WANT.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Do you find the palm beach ballot confusing?
Yes, I'm baffled!
Not at all
Kinda (or cowboy neal or something)
Seriously, what can they do about this? It seems to me like there's nothing they can legally do. Of course, IANAL.
Ballots like this are in use all over the country. My ballot a couple years ago was fairly simular to that one. Personally, I *always* study my ballot and make sure I understand it *before* I vote.
And as for the ballots that were disqualified because people "voted" for more than one candidate...there's nothing you can do about that! There are warnings all over the ballot that say not to do that!
Just my 2 billion nanocents.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
I think that this anecdote only solidifies the senile stereotype of Floridians.
It's the "stereotype of senile Floridians" -- if "Floridians" is even a word, which I doubt. Why don't you learn the fucking language before ranting about how stupid other people are?
Sorry, but the spectre of Slashdot posters dissing old people whose bodies and minds have dulled over the years, while simultaneously demonstrating such carelessness and/or ignorance despite being (for the most part) in the flush of their own abilities, is pretty sickening.
Does anyone know why Oregon still isn't decided?
Several reasons...
The polls were not closed at 7:00 anybody that was still in line had the chance to vote and that took almost another full hour. With people in the Panhandle waiting in line for another hour because of central time and they could have voted as late as 9:00 Est well after the Networks called the state for Gore. I wouldn't want to wait in line if it didn't make a difference.
But on the other hand if you belive what the media says then you are just as gulliable as every other moron out there.
People need to remember that these are projected winners by someone makeing and educated guess. Not solid facts and they can be wrong.
I heard a woman describe her experience in her own words on NPR. She showed her ballot to a poll supervisor and asked who she had voted for. When told, "Buchanan", she asked for a new ballot. The supervisor told her it was too late, took the ballot from her hand and deposited it in the ballot box.
Granted, this could be faked, but I wouldn't call it hearsay.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
First off, the registered voters all saw the ballot in advance, and none of them complained *then*.
I thought someone mentioned this already but...the ballot changed between the one that the voters saw beforehand and the one on the day of the election.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
So if I fold a poker hand with a royal flush, then I should get to replay the hand cause I didn't know what I was doing?
the only answer i want to come out of florida at this point is "who let the dogs out?"
No. I was channel surfing between CNN, CBS, and various others before, during, and after the bad call. Every single channel said "the polls in Florida will close at X o'clock, and we'll have announcements then". Then some commercials. Then "the polls in Florida are now closed, and our exit polls indicate..."
If you're going to throw out an accusation like that, you better back it up with solid URLs from reputable news sources.
I think you're missing the point. People aren't bitching about whether the system is a good implementation of what we're "supposed to be" or not. They are bitching because they want democracy instead of a republic. Communications are faster than they were in 1790. Republics are obsolete.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I don't believe that further recounts or reballoting will reduce the error below this level, so let's just accept that there will always be the chance that the "wrong" candidate won by statistical fluctuation.
Any election will have problems and redoing the vote will only introduce a new set of problems. Can you imagine that a new ballot in W. Palm Beach, with the entire presidency resting upon its outcome, would be free of irregularities? We have to do the best we can and them move forward.
If Gore takes this to court, then whoever prevails will have no legitimacy in the U.S. If Gore prevails on a re-election, then Bush partisans will believe with reason that they were robbbed, while if Bush wins in court and a re-election does not take place in W. Palm Beach, Gore partisans will believe with reason that they were robbed. The country could never come together behind the new president whoever he would be.
As much as it rankles (I strongly supported Gore) I would call upon Gore not to challenge the Florida balloting in court. This would just do far more damage to our nation than a Bush presidency. He must call on his supporters to support whoever wins today's recount and look to the future.
Nixon refused to contest the voter fraud in 1960 because he was concerned that tying up the succession of the presidency for six months or so would do more harm to the nation than Kennedy would. (He discusses this in his memoirs)
Nixon also realized that such a challenge would permanently label him as a sore loser and kill his political future. Gore can reinvent himself as well as Nixon could and I would not be surprised to see "the new Gore" emerge in eight years to win the presidency, just as the new Nixon did in 1968.
What if the democratic party sent out flyers to their party mailing list showing people how to vote for Gore. Well, if people are dumb enough to go in and simply poke the hole they saw on their instructions and not read the entire ballot first, then there is no valid reason to complain. To paraphrase a very relevant point: NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO MALICE THAT WHICH CAN BE EXPLAINED BY NEGLIGENCE/STUPIDITY.
The extremely low probability quoted on the PDF bage about the vote is only a probability statement assuming a certain probability distribution for all Bush and Buchanan voters in the state. That model says that all individual likely to vote for Bush have the same, small probability of voting for Buchanan. Under that assumption, the chances of getting the Palm Beach result are as low as they quote. The real question is the appropriateness of that assumption.
In the hands of people who only took two semesters of statistics, this type of analysis is easily misused.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
#3
> The Founding Fathers also rejected the idea of women & blacks voting.
Touché.
FWIW, I don't have any big emotional stake in the EC. I don't object to it, but I won't cry if they change it either. It's a human institution; there's no natural right or wrong involved.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In the discussion "Every vote counts" vs. "My vote doesn't matter anyway", did you think of those people Florida, people with 'supervotes' : those who might have to revote in Palm Beach, with each of the 3000 people having to make the definitive choice for 100,000,000 people (only counting those who voted)! That's more than 333,000 people represented by a 'single vote' in some way ! ------------------------- Hope It won't be Bush : USA is a modern country, and should not be an illustration of the most disgusting part of the bible.
Quit nitpicking over whether it was a primary or not. Palm Beach county is one of the strongest centers for the Buchanan Brigades in the country! Palm Beach _was_ the strongest Buchanan county in the Country in the 96 primary, and since there more than 14000 registered Buchananite Reformers in the county(more than the rest of the state combined), the real question is why didn't he get MORE votes there?
I'm curious about that too, but my response would be to ask another person at the polling station for help. If nobody there knew how it worked, then what does that say for Palm Beach?
Finkployd
Or you can look at this chart , with total number of Buchanan votes per Florida county. Granted, it's in terms of actual number of votes, instead of overall percentages. Anyone know of a similar-style chart in terms of percentage of vote instead?
make world, not war
The phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" refers to the oppression of the minority by the majority. Democracy is built upon majority rule, but when the majority use their voting power to marginalize and oppress, that is tyranny.
Don't get me wrong, i disagree with Natapoff as well, but the Tyranny issue is an aside. I just don't think his analysis matches the reality. There are better options than simple majority. Natapoff fails to acknowledge this.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Palm Beach =? Palm Pilot
I meant that the strong attention to it only after the closeness of the election is suspect. Not that this was planned out ahead of time. It would appear that they found a small inconsistency, and are making a mountain out of a molehill in order to reap the benefit of deciding votes that may not be theirs.
011001110110110001100101011011100110001001101111
By that time Nixon had already established a firm reputation as a person whose words could not be believed. He couldn't even be trusted to lie. (See Helen Gehagen Douglas [I hope I got that name right], and many others). I don't think that we can take his statements of why he did or didn't do something as evidence for anything.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Even if all parties acknowledge that the Florida election is severely flawed, there is no remedy. The actual vote count is all that matters. There has to be a better way that punching holes in cardboard to determine results. Those of us old enough to remember know that solution didn't last long with computers yet it has been done this way for YEARS in elections. We have to use a technology that even 90 year old half blind seniors (who are the only people that vote regularly) can use. My suggestion? I say we have all candidates at every polling place. Voters stick holes in the candidates with a pin to mark their choices. At the end of the election the candidate with the least amout of physical form left will be selected as the winner. For those of you who read Mad magazine: www.thenation.com/special/alfredw.mhtml
Hell, no. It's why "many" in Alberta and BC support the idea of freaking seperating from the rest of you losers!
Alaska, BC, Alberta, Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon all the way! Why we'd have it *ALL*! Oil, pot, potatoes, cattle, high-tech, salmon, lumber, moose and more!
I think we'd call our new country "Utopia."
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Doesn't Oregon also allow for Internet voting, or am I on drugs?
Must be drugs. We allow mail in voting. In fact, it's about the only way to vote. Maybe good, maybe bad. Turnout is high (~80%).
What are the odds that a no name candidate who got virtually no votes in Palm Beach County (very populous) gets almost 3000 votes in Volusia County (not very populous), more so than nader and buchanan combined! I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it would appear to be a huge anomoly...
Otherwise, politicians would really only have to care about the largest blocs of people. Farmers, people from small towns, and other small, local groups of people would be insignificant in a simple majority system. Under the current system, even though larger states have more votes, small states can still turn the balance. Just a thought...
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
My point, however, is that this MIT fellow with the figure of the Buchanan vote in Palm Beach County being a 1 in 3x10^15 probability, could just as well have said that there is a 3x10^15 chance that the distribution of vote between counties is not normal. Why, after all, would anyone expect a voting distribution to fall on a normal distribution? There are any number of statistical distributions we could choose arbitrarily (Weibull, Exponential, Raleigh, etc.), none of which is usually useful in matters of human behavior or politics.
What is MIT teaching people these days? To shove any list of numbers they can find into a canned stat program?
Nonsense. A popular vote doesn't really address the problem, because votes for Nader would still be "votes for Bush".
A sensible way to address the problem would be to introduce instant runoffs, or some other means of redistributing votes from defeated third party candidates.
They used a single sided ballot design for 30 years. This is the first time it was double sided. Eg. the first time democrat voters had to punch hole number three instead of hole number two.
#3
This proves to the American public that the Democrats are right. We are not responsible for our actions and the decisions we make. The goverment should make all of our decisions for us and take on all of our responsiblity. We are to stupid to make solid decisions. Lets give the Socialist citizens of this country what they want, give them Gore. Jim "Sad libertarian" Tessier from the south
"Life is art...Paint your destiny"
Yeah, I saw the picture of the ballot in USAToday, it's all a red herring. The ballot has heavy black arrows pointing at the candidates.
So I'd have to say they are fools to pick the wrong option.
Lowmag.net
Why would noone bother campaining anywhere but the top 6-7? Because if you had two parties that were only campaining in those two states, you could guess that the votes would be split evenly between the two possibilities. If 5 states would give you 1/2 the vote, then having half of those 5 states would give you only 1/4 of the vote. So you still need to be able to fill the other 1/4 of the votes.
You're right that they may only campain in the larger states, but isn't that the case with how it is now?
I don't see that it's reasonable for one district to get to vote again (assuming that happens) and not let the whole state, or even the whole nation, vote again.
If they to allow the district to vote again, is it OK for me to go down there and cast a ballot?
I found the map confusing. I really MEANT to move to Florida, but because of the confusing layout of the map I was looking at, I ended up here in Iowa.
Clearly, I should be allowed to cast a vote in any re-vote that is held in the state of Florida.
-That county has significantly more Jewish people than the rest of the state.
-Pat Buchanan is anti-Semitic. He is also against the Jewish state of Israel.
Why would there be so many more votes for Pat Buchanan in a predominantly Jewish county when the other counties have less Pat Buchanan votes yet they have less of a Jewish population?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
2->Bush,
3->Gore
4->Nader
The (1) votes are counted. At this stage someone (suppose Buchanan) is coming dead last. So Buchanan's votes redistributed based on who the Buchanan voters placed at (2). Whoever is winning on the two-(leading)-party-preferred test wins. IMO this is a fairer way to do things, and you avouid having the voters jump through hoops to circumvent a flawed system (for example, "vote swapping")
"If you are dumb and not rich, you don't desert the right to vote. If you are dumb but your daddy is influential, you get to be the president -- even if you screw up, did drugs, get DUI's...and lied to the public about it."
Welcome to the land of oppurtunity. You helped make it this way.
I had a similar punch system in Colorado, and I didn't have any trouble at all figuring out what I was supposed to punch.
Given the layout of the form, I can't see how it would be possible to pick the second hole and think you were voting for Gore. It's right in between Gore and Bush - did they think it meant they would vote for both of them at once?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have poor eyesight (narrow field of view or can read large party name but not smaller number). They should have worn their glasses.
Left-handed and use right hand to steady the Vote Recorder, covering list on right. They should look at the whole thing, it only decides the future of the country.
Are spatially challenged (can't read maps well) but can count. Seems like the only valid point, but thousands of spatially challenged folks? I dont think so.
Doing things by rote from last time (double column is new for Presidential race) ?????
Cultural issues (don't understand the arrows) If they don't understand the arrows, how can they understand the issues?
Thought arrows pointed to entire column, not specific hole, and are used to SAT-type tests with separate grid and ordered questions down the column. Once again, ????
Nervous or confused by new voting style (just moved to warmer climate) I voted for the first time ever this year, I didn't find it at all confusing...
In a hurry because voting lines are long and you're unexpectedly late for an appointment. They are in a hurry? this is the freaking future of the country, people! Make some freaking time.
Sigh.... I feel slightly better now...
Actually, I was rather surprised to hear about/see those ballots. In my state, we use automatic voting machines... walk in, pull red handle, pull down one lever per column, push red handle, leave. No holes, no alignment problems.
There are two problems, though. When you pull a lever, a red-on-white "X" is visible, implying "No." And any propositions are up above the candidate lists, visually lumped with the voting directions. Only 1/3 of the voters that turned out actually voted on the proposition this year (to run $3.8 billion into debt to fix roads.)
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
Is it fiscally responsible to disenfranchise over nineteen thousand of your county's voters? When the reprecussions will involve court challenges, possible revotes, etc?
Many people have commented here that even idiots have the right to vote. I fully support that. But if you're going to allow idiots to vote, your voting method must be idiot-proof.
Where I voted, they used a push-button electronic system which would not allow you to cast more than one vote for each office (except for one local board where you were supposed to vote for three candidates, and there it did not let you vote for more than three). With this punch-card system, people can punch out more than one circle for a given office, and there's no error checking, nothing to tell them right then and there that they did not cast a valid vote. This is an unacceptable voting method.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
#3
"The excrement has hit the airconditioning."
amar
Clarification: 1/3 of voters that went into a booth voted on whether or not to go into debt. A mojority of those voted No.
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
Uh, don't you have to PROVE that you are a citizen?
No. You just have to claim to be one.
If there *was* a usability issue - that had its time and place to be discussed and fixed.
If it wasn't at the right point, then it can't be now. Shouldn't be. The second-guessing of the system never ends. Do we need to check all the other close states? Perhaps people didn't MEAN to vote for Gore. Maybe people who MEANT to vote for Buchanan voted for Gore!
We don't know. There was a review period.
http://www.newsma x.c om/archives/articles/2000/11/8/161334.shtml
Nielsen doesn't go so far as to say that this is specifcally what cost Gore the election, but with 19K incorrectly filled out ballots in two counties, I'd say it's a pretty fair guess.
Nielsen's a smart guy. And he knows that you can't tell, with the info we have.
http://www.newsm ax. com/archives/articles/2000/11/8/161334.shtml
Seems that there are lot of independant voters - who might well be legitimate Buchanan supporters.
The fact that 19k versus 3k punched 2 boxes on the Senate also isn't statically proven - the Presidental vote historically gets a lot more, people abstain on other races that they don't know/care about. So that, in and of by itself doesn't mean that there WAS an error. Further, I don't know if it checked WHICH two where punched. I don't think it does.
So rather than grousing about how dumb people are, why not design a ballot that doesn't skew the result?
Because its after the fact.
And because everybody had a chance to object before the election. If nobody did... Well, we've got checks and balances, and if they're unused....
Then you can't complain that they didn't catch problems.
Addison
Why should you have to spoil your ballot in order to vote none of the above? It should be legitimate option just like all the other ones.
You mean a high density of elderly people, many with limited vision? They should have just as much of a say as anyone else.
Also, don't you think it's somewhat ridiculous to elect a president based upon such a narrow margin of uncertainty? I think perhaps a national revote would be more in order.
Let's face it, the point of elections is to find out what candidate the people want to elect. If the elections are misleading, then the valid opinion of the people isn't fully expressed. I don't think a revote is unconstitutional at all, as long as it's done fairly.
I do think it's unfair that the media projected states to one or another candidate before the polls were fully closed. Very interesting is that Florida was projected to Gore after only a small percentage of votes, yet Bush was actually leading in the percentage of votes thus far. Hmm, was the media trying to sway the voters in some way? Anyone know of pyschology of voting? are people more likely to vote for their candidate if (s)he is winning or losing? And by alot or a little?
make world, not war
I thought all rednecks voted republican. But I'm only stupid eurotrash, so I'll keep quiet now...
#3
If they called those tags back they could easily change their mind now that they KNOW that Buchanon cant win and vote their 2nd choice.
I think that should it be decided that florida needs to revote then the ENTIRE NATION should be required to revote.
It would be giving Florida too much power to allow it to decide the presidential race on its own. If Florida's voters get a chance to change their mind then so should the rest of the country.
FunOne
FunOne
Many people have pointed out that challenges to the ballot should have been made before the election. But the potential confusion between the Gore dot and the Buchanan dot were only the lesser part of the problem. The issue is that the ballot didn't match up with the sample ballot that was given out before the election and posted at the polling place. People who looked at that ballot to figure out how to vote (I know I did) might well have gone by position, especially if the name-hole correspondence was the least bit unclear. That's the basis on which to challenge this ballot.
Also worth noting is that Buchanan himself has stated that he doesn't think he deserves most of those votes, and he'd like us to find out who they were meant for. You have to admire that, considering that the man can't be a Gore fan...
- Michael
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
I think that you're confusing my use of "should" with "should be prevented from."
I think I am as well... My apologie. I do like your voter education program idea, though.
Ranessin
Forget a Royal Rumble. Have them do BattleBots and then we'll get to see how much of a geek Al Gore really is.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
The fact that a democrat didn't recognise a usability problem doesn't make the problem not exist!
The fact is that some CITIZENS had their vote taken away by the design of this ballot. That's
illegal.
All citizens have the right to vote, even those that have poor eyesight or cognitive skills.
tj
The ballot was prepared by and approved by Democrats. No objections then. Gore's complaint is his own party's incompetence. Everyone looks at ballots to check for spelling, part affiliation, etc. Every election has spoiled ballots, they are always discarded, everywhere. And remember, this will set a precedent for every election to follow....
I just want to exercise my literacy by adding something about Alan Natapof's article. First off, you really shouldn't use baseball to descibe why the electoral college is "a good thing". But, lets take what he says as true, and think about it like that world series (as asinine as that may be). So, it's not a matter of who has the most runs, but who wins the most games (so, runs as being voters, games being states). Okay, so after the games are won, the runs themselves no longer matter, just the amount of games the winner won. Okay, but what if some of those games really didn't count as much because of how many runs were hit? Was that in his equation? But, if you're voting , you're voting on who the state chooses for president, not who you personally want. In the long run, all of us runs don't really matter. Personally, I'd rather be benched.
Yes, it is. With punch cards, you can punch out the circles for more than one candidate for an office, and there is nothing to indicate to you that you have not cast a valid vote. If a punch-card system were modified to have some immediate, error-checking feedback, that would let a voter know right away if he had not cast a valid vote when he might have thought that he had, that would be OK.
Idiots have and should have the right to vote. But if you're going to allow idiots to vote, your voting system must be idiot-proof.
Also, what's wrong with using old technology for something important? Old technology permits you to pick techniques that are proven and reliable.
The punch-card system is not proven and reliable. There have always been problems with it (as there always have with any voting system, but some more than others)--it's just that most of the time, the irregularities don't make a difference in the election, so they are not reported in the national press. Here they do.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Oh, I'm sure it will... at least sometime in the next four years, by which time we get to do it all over again. ;-)
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
IMHO, rejecting spoiled ballots is a much better practice than accepting them as "none of the above."
--
Heaven forbid for starting this thread, but a thought occurred to me.
Since Gore camp insist that absentee ballots composes of mostly American Jews living in Israel and not the military like Bush camp purported to be.
I've checked every Israel major media's website and they are all rooting for Al Gore.
If this is true for rest of Israel, what is to prevent forging the postmarks by the Israel Postmasters, et. al., of their absentee ballots?
Just a reminder, I believe that each voting district uses it's own ballot. The ballot here in Orlando has a broken arrow by each canidate, you simply fill in the line completeing the arrow by your choice. Here is some crappy asci art:
Bush Gore to chose Gore you fill in the line
Gore I think I would have been to figure out the Palm Beach ballot, but I think some people might have found it confusing, so they should change the ballot for the next election.
I want Gore to win as much as anyone but I think it's too late to go back on this election.
If there were 19,000 potential errors in Folorida (heck if there were only 3,000 from the crappy ballots), it makes you wonder what it was like elsewhere in the country. Granted there are going to be errors in counting 100,000,000 votes, but the only reason it has come to light in Florida is because it was the deciding state, and the vote was so close. But what about errors in California or New York? Won't there potentially affect the outcome there too?
-MR
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
Heaven forbid for starting this thread, but a thought occurred to me.
Since Gore camp insist that absentee ballots composes of mostly American Jews living in Israel and not the military like Bush camp purported to be.
I've checked every Israel major media's website and they are all rooting for Al Gore.
If this is true for rest of Israel, what is to prevent forging the postmarks by the Israel Postmasters, et. al., of their absentee ballots?
Must we let a foreign nation dictate our election?
well, after blundering myself, at least I am trying to defend stupid mistakes :). I can't reproduce the layout, unfortunately, but just imagine there being a page fold instead of the punch-holes. This caused people to think the real ballot was to have two lines of holes.
It isn't the "largest blocs of people" but the largest bloc of "swing" voters that politicians would most care about. In modern times, at least, it seems to me that Democrats tend to have a lock on cities and Republicans on the suburbs. If anything the "farmers, people from small towns, and other small, local groups" are exactly the groups that would get more attention in a simple majority system.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
Then by chance, why don't we allow 14 years olds to vote? Why not allow the mentally ill to vote?
I am just amazed at the number of people who back these idiots in Florida. Its beyond reasonable doubt that that many people suddenly came to the conclusion 12 hours later that they voted incorrectly.
Its called the power of persuasion, in other words, the press and DNC has put doubt into the minds of these people, just so they will say what the DNC needs them to say.
Finally, if that don't work, the NAACP is lined up to go their tried and true route... invent racism where it wasn't, all the time conviently ignoring it where it is.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I live in St. Louis county, and can tell you that the St. Louis city polls were only open about an extra 40 minutes. A city judge originally ordered the polls help open 3 additional hours in order to handle the large turnout and give people time to sort out all the problems people had with the Board of Elections (The BoE was totally overwhelmed by the turnout, the original judge has stated that the entire BoE should be fired). That decision was overturned by a 3 judge court of appeals soon after. The polls were closed almost immediately after the appeals court ruled. Many people who were waiting at the Board of Elections were prevented from voting because they chose to wait outside the front door instead of inside the extremey crowded office.
Also, we did not 'freely transfer' votes to Jean Carnahan. We voted for Mel, leaving the seat 'open'. The governor, who appoints people to fill open seats, has said he will appoint her, but of course he could change his mind and appoint someone else, though I can't imagine him doing that.
Another important point is that she will not serve the full term, but only 2 years. There will be a special election in 2002 to elect someone to complete the remaining 4 years of the term, and I doubt she will run. If Ashcroft had won, he would have served a full 6 year term.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
For the ignorant masses who've decided in their infinate wisdom that the ballots were NOT confusing, here's an example in ASCII showing how the ballot functioned in the voting booth:
First "Page"
=================|=|================
| Bush -> |O|###############|
| |O|###############|
| Gore -> |O|###############|
| |O|###############|
[...] |O|###############|
====================================
Second "Page" (plastic divider flipped to the left)
====================================
|################|O| |
|################|O| - Buchanan |
|################|O| |
|################|O| [...]|
====================================
So, when looking at the first page, the second hole was beleived to be for the second candidate on that page.
Although all the Smarter-than-thou's complaining that this is NOT confusing, since even the poll workers have stated they too were confused, I'd have to say that the voters themselves are not to be blamed or ridiculed as being too stupid to vote.
The other note of importance, especially where the lawsuit(s) are/will be concerned - Florida law states the the candidate shall appear to the RIGHT of the checkbox/punch-hole on all ballots. Since this particular ballot has candidates listed to the LEFT of the punch-hole, it is technically an illegal ballot. Therefore, a re-vote for that county would be considered necessary.
Unfortunately, all of the examples in the major media show just the ballot card, not the card inserted into the device used during voting. Hopefully, my lame ASCII art shows at least the minimal concept of what took place.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
According to her story, the official then snatched the ballot out of her hand and stuffed it in the ballot box. This, contrary to the instructions that were written on the sample ballot, which said that if you made a mistake, you could exchange the bad ballot for a new blank one.
There was no independent confirmation of her story, so I am skeptical, but if things like this happened, then there is cause for concern. Even so (see my other comment in this forum), I think we must just move forward and be more careful with the ballots next time.
The other problem with the article is that it seems to be based on the premiss that you only have two choices. The districting idea may still be valid with multiple choices, but I'm pretty sure the method used for districting becomes *much* more complicated, perhaps intractable. And since my biggest problem is with the two choices we were given, the article really needs to take into account 3rd party choices before I would buy into it.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
I read the article and checked his math. Natapof is mostly right, about the math. (In case you wonder about my credentials, I have a Ph.D. in physics, also from MIT). But he's wrong about his conclusion!
His math predicts that the electoral-college system increases the probability that a single vote will be the deciding factor, relative to a popular-vote system. He's right (though, technically, he underestimates the effect by a factor of about 50).
As an analogy, he uses a world-series. If we decide the winner by "popularity", we add up all the runs from the seven games. If we go by winners of most games, that's like the electoral college system. Clearly, the latter method (the one in use) increases the probability that a single run will be the deciding factor for the whole series.
But what Natapoff neglects is that this current method (most games instead of most runs) method also maximizes the probability that the decision will be made by a single error!
Likewise, the electoral-college system maximizes the probability that a single relatively small "voting irregularity" will be the deciding factor for the whole country.
We need only look at the current situation to see the effects. Some confusing ballots in one county of one state could be the deciding factor for who the next president will be. And even if the ballots are fair, the present system allows accusations of a small irregularity to cloud the whole issue.
What Natapoff has proven mathematically is why the electoral college must go.
With an electoral college, you can get elected (in a 2-way race; the ratios are probably the same for more) with ~31% of the vote while the other guy gets 69% of the vote. Without the electoral college you need over 50%.
Don't forget that another purpose of the electoral college is to trim the number of candidates who ultimately get voted on in the electoral contest. We do require a mojority of the votes to be elected by the college, but rarely are presidents elected with a majority of the popular vote.
So no, you wouldn't have to get 50%+ to win under a popular vote -- you would need still only 30% or so, because the third parties and such chip away pretty significantly, especially in a situation where you're not "wasting" your vote by voting for a third party (in other words, the electoral college winner-takes-all discourages voting for a third party).
if it were purely popular we would have a LOT more third-party candidates, and you'd probably wind up with presidents being elected by 25% of the population, all grouped geographically. You'd get the whole Northeast together to elect a Boston guy who everyone else in the country hates, but their vote would be fractured among multiple parties, and with no electoral system to "recombine" their votes, they would essentially eat their own.
As bad as it is that we discourage third parties with the electoral college, the other side of "pure" democracy is a place like Italy, where you have 30+ political parties, and no one even remotely has a consensus. Pure popular vote isn't all fun and games like most portray it -- I can't think of a single successful government on Earth that uses popular vote that hasn't fragmented badly into numerous factions.
Most places have parliamentary systems where your representatives elect the president. Surprise -- that's a lot like the electoral system, except the electoral system is actually more democratic because we specifically vote the electors for that purpose, as opposed to having it be merely one job of the legislature. We are still, by far, more democratic that any other long-standing government, and we've accomplished that by carefully using the pragmatic aspects of a republic when necessary...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You're right about those damn red "X"s. The first time I voted (1988) I stuck my head outta the booth and asked if my choices were right. It should be a green check or something.
You can't have a re-vote unless it's the whole country, and that isn't going to happen.
It throws the whole thing off if the people from Palm Beach County know ahead of time that the election hinges on their vote.
I've heard it suggested that only those people who voted before be allowed to vote again. OK, so will all of those Nader supporters vote for Nader again? Or will the switch their vote to Gore because they know that the election lies in the balance?
It's done. Count the votes and lets move on. If a few thousand people in Palm Beach County screwed up, then that's just something they'll have to live with. They had ample time and opportunity to familiarize themselves with the ballot before stepping into the booth.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
HAHAHAHAHA....adopt someone else's system. Oh no, we'd have to spend a billion dollars to design the thing and hire a batalion of lawyers to make sure it passes muster and doesn't discriminate or otherwise predjudice (sp) someone's choice. Maybe we could get a "stealth" voting booth...:)
What exactly is an intensive purpose?
i believe you mean intents and purposes?
</troll>
Need a Catering Connection
On election night, Brokaw talked with a Florida Election Commision official who said that the 10-day rule applied to overseas absentees (i.e. postmark by 7th, receive by 17th).
Sounds pretty official to me.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
OK, I'm a little more clear on what you mean. I agree that fair representation within the state is ideal, but it's up to the state. Meaning if you want to change that, change it at the state level. It is also interesting to note that Main does this, and 2 of it's 3 EC votes are going to Gore while 1 is going to Bush.
Finkployd
Those people that did accidently punch the wrong hole and noticed it perhaps didn't think to get a new ballot as they should have, but rather punched the hole for the candidate they wanted.
I'm not apologizing for them, but we don't have to go to an organized conspiracy to explain a doubly-punched ballot.
If they are truly interested in checking for irregularities, why not check election procedures in all 50 states?
Why not check Iowa, too. Gore carried this state by only (roughly) 5000 votes.
In the precinct I voted in, there was quite a long line of us waiting to get a "special" ballot because our names did not appear on the rolls, even though we had all registered well (months or years) in advance. Those of us in that line also had one other thing in common, we were all registered Republicans.
Personally, I'm willing to chalk that up to an honest mistake, a simple matter of some paperwork falling through the cracks. And I did get to vote, but my trip to the polls took me over an hour, when it should have been just a few minutes.
My points are:
A.) If anyone wants to whine and cry about irregularities, then we need to go back and look at things nationwide, and...
B.) Anyone who felt there was a problem at the polls should have done as I did, and resolved the issue right then and there.
No, I didn't vote for certain things (Community College Board Members - Pick no more than 7 out of 30 people), and the ballot validated fine.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
It gives a whole new definition to Breaking News.
I missed the privacy of the old voting cards, where no one could glance at your form and see your vote.
.004% of the voters! 99.9% accuraccy is far too sloppy! (based on ~ 6,000,000 votes, and a delta of 225 votes.)
This can be fixed tho, and I really like the idea of avoiding invalid ballots. If all votes in the ballot are valid, it would make any after the fact tampering much more obvious.
This election is being decided by less than
The spoiled presidential votes in ONE COUNTY alone were ~19,000, which is only %99.68 accurate, out of 6 million. If strlen failed 3 out of 1000 calls, you'd be damn pissed!
rbb
actually, people DID notice their mistake and DID ask for new ballots...many were denied new ballots (same story as the afam voters).
hmmm...sure hope no one hacks in...
This is significant: good information design might take a little more thought and effort, but in the end it is more than worth it.
How stupid do you have to be to take on a project THIS IMPORTANT and not pay attention to usability issues. If they had taken the extra (and obvious, in my mind) step of including the feedback from a representative group of users, they would have found out early on that this design had some serious problems.
I just gotta say: I look around today, at the press, at the goverenment, at software design, at professionals everywhere, and I see this decline in performance standards. Is this the dumbing down effect of a degrade educational system? Is the lead in the water? Why is everyone acting like they don't know how, or don't care to, do their jobs properly?
When he had his press conference. Anyone who believes he intends to allow a recount favor Bush is just ignorant.
KEY WORDS IN SPEECH.
"Even though we won the popular vote" - misquoted I am sure, but why if he is so damn concerned with the EC would he make a POINT to mention this? He seems to be dwelling on it lately!
"Leiberman and I will not contest the results of the recount" paraphrased... I don't have the words... he continued on explaining why the EC must be followed.
Sorry folks, he was playing a political game.
OF COURSE HE ISN'T GOING TO BE THE BAD GUY AND CONTEST THE RECOUNT!
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
He has the DNC and NAACP to do it for him. Hence his hands are clean. Get the blacks to do his dirty work... it always works.... if you can't win then scream racism
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Ooooh... Name calling. I bet you're almost mature enough to vote!
Every method you favor favors Bush, and any method that favors Gore you shoot down.
A revote, either in Miami-Dade county or in the entire state simply wouldn't be fair to the other 49 states who didn't get to select their candidates with the foresight of the results of the other 49 states. 95k people picked Nader over Gore -- how many do you think would switch to Gore in a re-vote? That wouldn't be fair to Nader and his supporters. They had their chance to vote and it's THEIR FAULT if they fucked up. Get out of the victim mentality.
The Constitution proscribes for an election by the electoral college to give a majority, rather than a plurality, to a candidate. If the losing party, whomever it is, decides to challenge thousands of votes in court and the court ends up switching votes, you've violated the Constitution by making the courts the deciders of the Presidency rather than the people/electoral college. That is a violation of the Constitution because nowhere in the Constitution do they give federal judges the ability to switch votes( as partisan judges could use to to veto the will of the people ). If the votes are going to be desputed in that manner, the _ONLY_ other option under the Constitution would be to invalidate the entire florida presidential election and leave it up to the House. And like I said before, the House doesn't get one vote per rep but one vote per state. I have no idea who that favors because districting doesn't represent the entire state but small areas (for example again, Texas has 18 democratic reps out of 30). It may be the the House, despite having a republican majority, could elect Al Gore. In any effect, I'm sure you'll agree that it would be better to have a representative, who is responsible to their constituents, elect the President than a federal judge, who is accountable to nobody.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
The really sad part is that if Jesse, Bush, and Gore all split 3 ways (replace Jesse with your 3rd party choice) we'd have the Republican controlled House of Representatives electing Bush since no candidate had a Majority. The US system is really screwed up when you get three parties IMOHO.
- the existence of more than 2 candidates.
- variable voter turnout in different states
The EC diminishes the power of people voting for 3rd party candidates to effectively nil. Case in point: Nader (and no, I didn't vote for him). Nader captured somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5% of the popular vote, and a flat 0% of the EC vote. This means that if you voted for Nader ( or any other 3rd party candidate), your vote didn't even equate to a blip on the radar.Variable voter turnout can give voters in different states different amounts of voting power. Let's say that two states with the same number of EC votes have different levels of voter turnout. People who vote in states with lower levels of voter turnout then have more power than those in states with higher turnout. This translates into a more apathetic voter base that has more individual voting power. So much for all [wo]men created equal.
As for comments about "if you weren't smart enough to figure out how to use the ballot, you aren't smart enough to vote", just realize that this country used to have laws like that. Literacy tests to keep blacks from being able to vote in the south.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government!
Look at the map right now. Al Gore has the popular vote, but has very little area on the map. ;)
And Gore also has a few more electoral votes going for him right now than Bush does. If he wins Florida, yet another densely populated area compared to Bush's electoral constituency, he wins the office.
I'm not saying that a purely popular vote would be the best. But I am saying that the electoral college system needs to be rethought. I refrain from doing that thinking, though; I'm going to go hide from the world for the next four years, since our nearly evenly divided House and Senate, together with Bush or Gore's influence, probably aren't going to get a lot done.
In light of the problems and irregularities in the Florida election I propose that it be treated like the 1990 election in Nicaragua. The Election should be reheld and the United Nations should send in an independent team of observers to monitor.
Yes, the irregularities will be investigated, but it in no way will effect the current election. All votes will be counted, multiple votes for a sigle candidate will be thrown out. There is legal precident for this. If there is a tie, or not, it goes to the electoral college. If there is a tie in the electoral college, it happened, it goes to the house of representitives. Mark my words George W. Bush will be the next president!!! As for the grammar Nazi, shut the hell up. It's slashdot for christsakes. We all know you go to Wisconsin and are from Glenview, Illinois. Should we start giving out your real name, phone numbers and address? Go away you annoy me.
1) those numbers are damn small and the ballot books are fixed to the booth so it can be very difficilt to read and compare.
2) I asked for another ballot and was denied.
3) It can be done better and usually is. It is possible to have unused holes covered and leave spaces between separate issues. when presented with a group of 2 to 7 holes it is much easier to figure out which hole corresponds to which candidate.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
Assuming every representative voted for the candidate in thier party the breakdown would be as follows:
;)
Bush:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorodo
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hamshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvana
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming
------------
25 States
Gore:
Arkansas
California
Hawaii
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missippi
New York
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont (Independant)
Washington
West Virgina
Wisconsin
------------
17 States
Tie:
Conneticut
Illinois
Maryland
Nevada
------------
4 States
To close to call:
New Jersey
Source: cnn.com
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
However, another part of the statute specifically states that the elector must be provided with assistance if they ask for it. (See below for excerpts from both sections, courtesy of Florida's "Online Sunshine" web site.)
I imagine that this time limit exists to prevent dishonest people from camping out in the booths (especially near closing time) and thereby deliberately discouraging or preventing other voters from making use of the facilities.
Because George McGovern should not have been able to legitimately claim to be the Democratic party candidate after highjacking the primary (in 1972)?
Face it, he and his followers are nutjobs, and they only got the Democratic party nomination because they were fanatical enough to flood the primary. I don't think his nomination was representative of Democratic party feelings at large.
-- (signed) Richard J. Daley
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Maybe, maybe not. If it weren't for mathematicians, we wouldn't have Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. (Do a web search for it if you don't know what I mean.)
I'm willing to believe that Natapoff's argument is actually quite correct, for what it proves.
Here are some assumptions that his model included that I'd like to see removed for a true analysis:
The other assumption, of course, is that in real elections (except in places like Australia where voting is compulsory), not everyone turns up, and a significant proportion of those who do not turn up (possibly not
The two candidate assumption is not a bad one to start off the analysis, because it's a lot harder to analyse three-plus candidate elections. Preferences can be quite complex and "the will of the people" can be inconsistent.
The main problem, IMO, with the electoral college system is precisely this one: non-major parties are discriminated against. In this election, something like 3.6% of the population did not vote for a major candidate. I'm certain that a lot more wanted to but feared a split. Let's call it 5% since that's a not unreasonable round number. The highly dissenting opinions of one in every twenty people in the USA, not confined to a few areas (which is one of the issues raised in Natapoff's analysis, that of intense lobbying or "vote stacking" in some district tipping the election), but across the board, were effectively ignored by being completely unrepresented amongst the electors.
Natapoff's analysis, while valuable, should definitely not be taken as the last word on the subject.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Gore is ahead in the popular vote. He hasn't won shit. He lost over 100,000 votes in less than a day of counting, and has less than 100,000 to loose before Bush pulls ahead. Considering the humongous ammount of deployed members of the military, many of whom have a vendetta against Clinton, the democratic party is making a big mistake by staking a claim on a fleeting moment and is doing much more damage by challenging the rules set down by the constitution. The will of the people is not determined by the popular vote. It is determined by the electors that the choose in the electoral college.
California and New York voters have limited power as a resident of the state that they live in. That is my point. They can choose their elector. Their impact on the national vote count is not what matters, but who the people of that state chooses for an elector. Becuase each state has limited power, the politics of 2 big states can never gain exclusive control of federal politics, no matter how small the voting pool is in other states.
> or else Florida's electoral votes must be thrown out to prevent a Constitutional crisis.
I hardly see how you can avoid a constitutional crisis by throwing out a state's votes. There certainly isn't any constitutional basis for such a move.
> If they're thrown out, that means that it becomes a matter of nobody garnering at least half of the electoral votes and thus is up to the House.
Ah, but the XIIth amendment says The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . If Florida appoints electors, they get to vote. If Florida does not appoint electors it does not go to the House after all; Al Gore wins on a simple majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.
I still reject the scam^w scheme, even though it now puts "my" man in office. IMO, the only correct solution is to get the correct number of votes from the good citizens of Florida.
> In effect, denying Bush his rightful win and shortening his deserved term.
GWB doesn't have a rightful win without an electoral win, he doesn't have an electoral win without Florida, and he doesn't have Florida unless Florida's laws and voters say he does.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't care who wins. This is ridiculous, and people wonder why Americans are so sick of politics. Once I graduate, I'm moving to Australia. At least most Marsupials seem more competent than some of the people I'm seeing on television.
The reason that there is not "national ballot" is that it is up to each district to design their ballot. I'm not sure it's a good reason but it is *the* reason. The ballot in question is a good example. This ballot is very different from other ballots in FL due to its redesign using large print for the elderly voters....
The last time I checked, 'official' and 'accurate' were very unrelated words. Especially within the Flordia Election Commission. This is the state where they're finding ballot boxes all over the place and finding within them anything from school supplies to drug paraphernilia to actual ballots.
I really went to simple on the analogy, but the reason I used hitler is not only because he was extremely popular in Germany, but that the followers he had were extremely devoted to him, to a point that is hard for us to see anywhere nowadays. Take a small mass of people, such as 11-year-old Backstreet Boys fans, and multiply their devotion by 20 times, and maybe we'll get close.
;)...
Most people outside Germany didn't treat Hitler so warmly, especially once he gained power.
The devoted supporters of Hitler in Germany would have bowled over an unsuspecting Europe if in fact they used a popular vote to determine who would become the leader of a group of nations, and essentially the will of one nation would have been imposed on the rest of the nations.
Back to the United States, I must admit that there has to be a reason why California and New England are so strongly behind Gore and the rest of the country, is not (to varying degrees). Essentially the pro-bush states seem to be saying "What works for you guys won't work for us". And, yes, the same argument could work for Gore. Kinda. Gore seems to be a bit (honestly, a lot. Makes Clinton looks like a catcher way out in right field.) further from the middle. If Bush were any closer to the middle, he would say that his position on abortion is "Kinda."
"Rhetoric aside, your argument is that some people's votes should inherently be worth more than others, because of where they live." Actually, because this pertains to a federal government, I believe that many laws and social programs that are fine for the Bronx won't work for Gopherville, USA. The electoral college puts polarizing issues that are viewed differently depending on where you live back where they belong, in state and local government. It also keeps extremism at a minimum, making both political parties as bubblegumish as they've become. Many of us think that's a good thing
AMEN! Gore is just grasping for straws. If by 5 pm we have the answer, both men should stick to that decision and who ever the loser is should concede. Also, this is a matter that should be resolved by the next election so a similar thing never happens again. How about DITCHING the ancient punch card technology and going for flat screen computers or all electronic? Personally, I think we should have an ATM style voting machine where you stick your smart card or driver's license in the machine and then you vote. At the end of your vote it should give you a couple are you sure y/n messages to really make sure. Also, the only way a vote could be frauded in this case is if someone stole your wallet and we know the thief would not do that because it would be a sure way of getting caught! Also, the votes should be tallied online so that as soon as the polls close, we have the answer and it's right.
Gorkman
A friend of mine lives in Palm Beach county, and he agreed that the ballot was confusing and difficult. He spent a good long time looking it over in the voting booth before he stabbed it with the little toothpick thingy that they used.
Is it reasonable to pick the most powerful job in the world because a minor clerk didn't understand good user interface design?
This could be stuck in the courts for months. If it takes until New Year's, I hope Gore will gracefully concede rather than force a national crisis. I'd rather have a calm nation grumbling about President Nitwit than risk rioting and martial law and whatever else could happen.
I've collated several links and images about this on my personal pages:
p.s. Having half the candidates in a second row may be a violation of Florida election laws. I've heard that mentioned several times on NPR but unfortunately don't have a link.
You're right. I'm sure his fucking children would be much smarter than to do a stupid thing like that.
-Bryan
Here's the relevant section of Florida law:
alright...someone has to call BULLSHIT! Not trolling here but: where did you get your "facts"?
With the exception of the "15,000 in 1996" stat, I got them all from the Florida Election Commission web page. I got the 15,000 from a conflicting report on CNN. It may very well be wrong.
Fact: the reform party in 96 was a FAR different animal that the reform party in 00 (source: simple analysis)
Fact: Over 8,000 people in that county voted for Buchanan in the 1996 Republican primary. (source: Florida Election Commission web page.)
Another fact: the person doing the complaining for the Gore camp, Mr. Daly, is from Cook County, Illinois, which also used a "butterfly ballot" this election, for their judges.
He's never complained about those ballots.
-
Must we let a foreign nation dictate our election?
Fuck off, that's not allowing a foreign nation dictate the election, they are legitimate voters that are in Israel, i.e. RESIDENTS of the US.
Think next time before making such a generalization!
----
You're assuming that election is a single round process, but nothing says it has to be. You can have a first round between every candidate, and then a second round allowing only the two candidates that got the most votes in the first round. This is how the president is elected in most countries where he is elected directly by popular vote. Thus, small parties can exist without spoiling the election, because on the second round they must instruct their legions to vote for one of the two popular candidates.
Moreover, I don't seem to see people including the fact that each party has to approve of the ballot, which means the ballot had Democratic approval before the election.
On another note, at what point can we simply say that if you can't follow instructions, or you're really that confused, maybe voting shouldn't be your major concern. You shouldn't have to pass an IQ test in order to vote, but you should at least understand what's going on.
I have also heard that the number of Buchanan votes, while high compared to neighboring counties, is consistent with the number of Buchanan votes in the 1996 election. Maybe the ballot was bad then, too, but I didn't hear people complaining.
I know this seems to lean as being Bush biased, but I did not vote for him and make no claim as to his ability to lead. I tried to keep this neuteral, but these are my thoughts on the matter. I think the whole election was great because of how exciting it became, and voter turnout was high (higher then what they claim, but that's another topic) but I think it's a shame that, regardless who wins, we will have a sore loser who is going to drag this into court and generally make the election feel "dirty."
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Sounds like a good idea and Idon't hear anything about people picking two candidates for president and then claiming they were confused.
80% turnout is unheard of in most parts of the country.
Rick
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Maybe next time we should have computer monitors with great big colored buttons and a windows-style "are you really sure yes/no" dialogue boxes for the voters in palm beach.
This is actually a very good idea. Really.
Large colored buttons on a monitor make it easier to map the candidate choice to the action of voting for that candidate. This is particularly useful for many elderly people who may have trouble reading the small print and arrows on a ballot. The confirmation step "You are voting for Jane X. Doe. Yes / No" will further minimize any possibility of mistaken voting.
An additional level of confirmation would be to print out the name of their choice on a slip of paper for the voter to deposit in a box after leaving the voting booth. This step also provides for a backup method of counting the votes in case of computer problems that might prevent an electronic tabulation.*
*Such as hardware problems or software crashes. You might also want to require that the software running the system be open source so that all interested parties can be sure that the code is honest.
By the way, what is with this method of voting by using metal stylus to poke a hole in a piece of paper? This is pretty ancient technology that was developed by the precursor to IBM to count the census in the late 1800's. Surely a world leader in technology such as the United States can come up with something a bit more modern?
Trickster Coyote
Reality is an option.
Ideology is for ideots.
I can easily make the counter argument.
Bush is the main-stream conservative choice. One would assume that Bush and Buchannan would roughly track. Where there are more far right conservatives there shoudl be mreo main-0stream conservatives.
The terrible showing of Bush v. Gore in that county shows the LACK of a conservative base. nevertheless the Buchannan vote is way UP.
In fact, thus, tracking against Bush is one perfectly VALID way to measure the effect.
"I must confess, a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -- Simon and Garfunkle, The boxer
In fact, it has the highest Independent registration in Florida.
Untrue. Other counties have even more members registered with the "Independent Party".
Buchanan received 1 percent of the vote in Palm Beach County. In all the counties in Florida where there is significant Independent Party membership, Buchanan got a similiar 1 percent.
Palm Beach County gave Buchanan no more support proportionally than any other county with high Independent Party registration
Again, demonstrably untrue. Other counties with greater "Independent Party" registrations had less than 1/3 the votes for Buchanan that Palm Beach County did.
I don't know much about NewsMax.com. Are they deliberately lying, or just stupid?
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
abcnews watchdog scroll over halfway down and read 'Possibly More False Information'. -sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
It's absolutely amazing that a something like this could affect the election. I hope that someone investigates this.
Ehm yes...thank you, that made it even more clear to me that the Electoral College system is totally unfair, I would even go as far as saying that it's NOT democratic at all. People should choose the president, not states.
it won't happen.. its unfair to bush, because all of the nader votes (people now knowing they are useless) will go to gore. gore has lost this one.. he's just making it harder on himself by keeping his hopes alive.
I've seen the palm beach ballot (I assume most of us have by now) and it's not that confusing. Could it have been designed better? Sure, complain to County Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore, a Democrat. She basically said the ballot was drawn up that way because there were so many candidates and because she wanted the names to be large enough for older people to read. I don't think you can claim Vast Right-Wing Conspiricy(tm) on this one.
:)
We aren't talking about a processor schematic here, it was very simple to follow the bold arrows from the name to the punch hole next to the name. If you are too ----ing stupid to follow directions and do that, then how did you even find the voting place to begin with?
It's been said by others, but it bears repeting. Buchanan has relatives in Palm beach, and often gets pretty good turnout there.
Last, I keep hearing stories of 'thousands' calling up the Gore campaign in tears saying the voted for the wrong person because of the ballot. How on Earth did you realise that at home, hours later, and not WHEN YOU VOTED? The whole thing sounds pretty suspicious.
Finkployd
> Both parties approved them in advance.
Does a party official's approval outweigh my right to a clear ballot? This shouldn't have anything to do with partisan interests. (Though it obviously already has.)
> At that point, it's unfair to the *other* 100,000,000 voters that none of *US* are allowed to reconsider our votes based on what we know of nationwide turnout.
You mean, like everyone west of the Rockies does during every national election?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The number of electoral college votes each state receives is based on the 1990 census; would the result be different if we used the 2000 census? Does this explain how Gore could win the popular vote but (possibly)lose the election.
Another interesting point, Washington DC only gets 3 votes in the Electoral College(The most votes it can have is the same number as the least populated state). DC gets underrepresented in the EC, probably not enough to sway this election, but interesting...
My other sig is extremely clever...
Buchanan is not conceding any votes. He admits that some people who may have meant to vote for Gore voted for him, but he said on MSNBC last night that the votes are still votes for him, even if cast by mistake.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
But according to yesterday's NY Times, some people messed up, realized it, asked for a new ballot, and were told 'nope, no new ballots'.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
As long as we're talking Florida law...
2 000Nov9.html:
From http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57142-
Florida law offers aggrieved candidates and voters broad opportunities to challenge the results of elections. The relevant state Supreme Court case, a 1998 opinion in a disputed county sheriff race, says election results can be thrown out, even without evidence of fraud or intentional misconduct by election officials, if there is "reasonable doubt" about whether the officially certified results "expressed the will of the voters."
And...
For example, under Florida law, voters are supposed to be able to make a mark in a box immediately to the right of a candidate's name, but some of the punch holes on the Palm Beach ballots were placed to the left. The law also calls for the Democratic ticket to be listed right after the Republican ticket. On Palm Beach's butterfly ballot, the names of Al Gore and Joseph I. Lieberman appeared directly beneath those of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, but the Gore-Lieberman punch hole was third in line, below the one corresponding to Reform Party nominees Patrick J. Buchanan and Ezola Foster.
Because of these illegalities, the argument goes, the ballots were so confusing that more than 20,000 voters either accidentally voted for the wrong candidate or marked two candidates, thus disenfranchising these voters.
"There was no animus," said attorney Mark Cullen, who filed one of two lawsuits pending before the Palm Beach County Circuit Court on behalf of aggrieved Gore voters. "It was just a boneheaded move that resulted in people being denied their right to vote."
An interesting tidbit is that legal challenges can only be made to certified election results, so legal action really couldn't start until Tuesday.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I see your point (although it seems to me that your point proves that people SOULD ask for help when needed, just don't) however, I don't think there were 19,000 handicapped people in Palm Beach, not to mention the 10,000 that didn't have ANY hole punched for president.
I've seen the protestors out there. A few were elderly, a few were visably handicapped, but by and large, most appeared to be idiots. I saw signs spelled wrong, incorrect grammer, etc. I know that is a mean thing to say but I've seen the ballot and it is not confusing AT ALL. Poorly designed? Sure. But if you can't figure it out, and you are too ignorant to ask for help, then TOO BAD.
Finkployd
Friedman has suggested we set up a unity government, similar to what parlimentary states do in wartime. It's explained in the article here.
His basic idea: If Bush wins, he should make Clinton sec of state, Gore sec of interior, Nunn sec of defense, etc...
If Gore wins, he should make Powell sec of state, Bush sec of education, Cheney sec of Defense, etc...
This would reflect the will of the voters - a perfect split. It would also force the parties to cooperate. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
If Bush would have called "No do-overs". I mean, come on.
--Mando
It's true that Kennedy would still have won without Illinois, but Texas was also pretty close, and a guy named Lyndon Johnson had a lot of influence there. If both states had gone for Nixon, Kennedy would have lost.
--
The stupid 19000 double punched ballots thing is really getting on my nerves. In the 1996 election there were 15000 !!! double punched ballots in Palm Beach County! I hate the fact that people assume conspiracy at every turn without looking at history. History shows that Buchanen has been popular in Palm Beach County and that they consistenly double punch their ballots. Neither is different this year. Also when they first predicted a win for Gore in the state of Florida the polls were still open in the Panhandle and Bush was actually leading in the votes that had been counted. The only fraud I see that has been commited is that of the voters in the Panhandle that walked away when they were told by the television that their votes didn't matter. That is the true injustice and I think this entire thing would be over by now (in Bush's favor) had the TV stations keep their damn mouths' closed and let the people vote. They couldn't wait to call Florida, you could see they all wanted to call florida and there was absolutely no reason to do so especially with Bush up in the limited number of votes counted. I think the people of florida should be sueing the television stations instead of the government.
It's certainly not democratic that the electors can vote for anybody they choose regardless of how the people voted (as they can in america), however that "republic" should somehow equate nodemocracy is utter rubbish. It has absolutely nothing to do with voting. A republic denotes a government which has a chief of state who is not a monarch(which would make it a Kingdom) and who in modern times is usually a president. (Merriam Webster defines it as a political unit that has a democratic government )
The rational behind the EC was to have the states elect the president, with the states using the popular vote to decide how they voted.
Indeed, the upper class didn't trust rabble, so they designed a system where they could safely ignore them - is it any wonder the US has the lowest voting attendance in the so called free world...
This also prevented the "mob rule" problems inherent in true democratic governments.
One of those "problems" would be that a tiny minority of goverment has the majority of the country against them. Of course most countries have more than just two parties, which tend to keep things in balances. But given the nature of the american entertainment industry I suppose it's a good thing that the "mob" can be summarily ruled out.
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Fact: the reform party in 96 was a FAR different animal that the reform party in 00 (source: simple analysis).
Fact: the votes for Buchanan in Palm Beach amount to a one in three QUADRILLION chance (source: the guy from MIT).
Fact: 15,000 ballots is NOT the number from 96...in fact, the real number is closer to 5,000 (source: CNN)
The networks called Florida before voting in Florida had even finished. The pan handle of Florida is in the central time zone. There was still almost an hour of voting left when Florida was called. Anyone who was channel surfing through the networks might have noticed that NBC/MSNBC was showing raw scores along with their predictions. Throughout the "Gore takes Florida" phase of the evening the raw scores were consistenly in favour of Bush by at least 3 percentage points.
As for the Palm Beach ballot being confusing:
A week before elections, every registered voter in Palm Beach receives a sample ballot in the mail that looks exactly like the one bolted to the voting "booth" (it's really a table with partitions). At your discretion you can mark up your sample ballot and take it to the voting "booth" with you. This makes it so that there are no surprises when it's time to punch holes and you have a week to think your options over in case you see more choices or issues than you were expecting to have to vote on.
Some notes on the voting "booth" in Palm Beach:
1: If you insert the punch card into its slot incorrectly, all your holes will be made incorrectly. The worst that can maybe happen is that you'll vote for a republican congressman when you were on the presidents' ballot page thinking you were punching a hole for Gore. That'd be terrible because your presidential vote wouldn't be registered and by the time you got to the end of the ballot those votes wouldn't register on the card either.
2: If you insert the punch card into its slot correctly, then the arrows on the ballot pages point directly to a pin hole. The arrows are about 1 cm in size and the pin hole maybe 1 mm. All you need to do is follow the big arrow pointing to a well spaced little hole.
3: The ballot layout was created by the staff of the Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections. She, a democrat, personally approved it. The democratic & republican parties of Palm Beach then both approved it, too. Why? It was designed to avoid the confusion that could have been caused if all the candidates were crammed onto one page or were spread out over two non-facing pages.
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
> That having been said if Gore doesn't win it after the recount he just take the high road and bow out. This will actually be pretty good for the Dems anyway. Whichever party gets the whitehouse is going to loose big time during the mid-term elections. Plus, I have a sneaking feeling that Dubya in office for 4 years (if he even makes it that long...) will probably hand the Dems a nice chunk of votes in 2004. He really is a flaming idiot.
I generally agree with your post... in fact, I have already told friends off-line that I don't expect Bush to last a full four years. If you look at his dubious brainpower, his oft-reported "part time" approach to governership, his longstanding pattern of avoiding responsibility for his personal and political actions, his, errrm, "colorful" past lifestyle (admittedly relevant only in The Land of Investigative Reporters), his clintonesque way of lying^w avoiding the truth when it makes him look bad, his childish tantrums when things don't go to suit him (e.g., his complaint to the FEC about the first parody website that slipped through his domain-squatting blockade, and his abrupt abandonment of family and friends during his election night dinner out, when word about Florida first came across, and his response to Al's second phone call)... when you consider all this, and add in the grude the nation's democrats have over seven years of scorched-earth anti-Clinton investigations, his success at playing president does not seem to be a foregone conclusion.
However, I would like to make one point about this part of your post:
> That having been said if Gore doesn't win it after the recount he just take the high road and bow out.
Lots of pundits (and Republicans) are saying that in the mainstream media. But why is it up to Al to take the high road? Shouldn't it be equally incumbent (no pun!) on George to admit that there really were flaws in the Florida elections?
I'm not really convinced that either candidate has a natural right to bow out, or even to concede on election night, since it's really up to the voters rather than the candidates. That said, I would probably (grudgingly) respect either guy who bowed out before things got too tangled up in the courts.
Unfortunately, a few spot checks of CNN during the day today indicates that this has already become thoroughly politicized, and the odds of either side bowing out are becoming quite slim now. I suspect that Florida will make an official announcement by the end of next week, but I think we'll have court cases and appeals going on well past January 20th.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
They are on Rush Limbaugh's site, because that is the only link I have handy (a republican friend of mine sent it to me). Here it is
And I agree. What? You can't follow an arrow?
I'm tired of this Bullshit! Everyone's votes counts, and everyone should be allowed to vote. Just because someone doesn't meet your standard of intelligence doesn't mean they're not worthy of voting for the candidate of their choice.
Ranessin
And how would that be fair? We know that the Rep. kept hold on the house (by a small margin) but it still gives us a pretty good foresight into what would happen if that scenario was put into action and not based on the peoples vote. Yes I know indirectly it does but when you figure Gore has the majority vote and Bush has the electoral you have to wonder what this country is going to do when someone is in office and how much power that person will actually have. Especially if that person was not a majority holder. It's time to reform the electoral college a bit and get something that echo's the peoples opinions in our government. We all need to be watchdogs for this office now. Just because the elections over doesn't mean our job as citizens stop. Finally I think the press rigged this for the ratings.
What matters here is that mistakes were obviously made. It matters not one bit whether they were made by stupid people. Stupid people have as much right to vote as smart people.
The linked-to article claims that there are 15,000; one below links to Florida State documents showing the correct number to be 337.
--
Xenu loves you!
I assume that neither you nor I are capable of reading people's minds. I have no idea what those voters were thinking. I do know that all they had ample opportinuty, before and after filling out the ballot, to clarify any confusion or correct any mistakes they may have made. I also know that in the 1996 election a comparable number of ballots were thrown out because they were invalid. The 19000 voters who allege that they were confused are a small percentage of the total votes cast using the ballot, and the vast majority of voters did not have a problem with it. Is it fair to say that _their_ carefully considered and cast votes don't count now?
No election procedure can ever measure a voter's intent. We can only measure their actions, and trust them to take the responsibility to assure that their actions accurately reflect their intent. Anything else would be a nightmare. Do you _really_ want someone else looking at your ballot and deciding who you _meant_ to vote for? Can I also look at all Nader votes and conclude that, since they knew Nader wouldn't actually be elected, they really deep down intended to vote for Gore? Or maybe Bush?
No, the electors are bound by oath to vote for the candidate to which the electoral votes are pledged, as determined by the state's particular allocation rules. Electors are not free agents, they're just the instrument by which the state's electoral votes are represented. Otherwise why even bother with the popular elections at all?
-Bryan
What a great idea! ..
but uhm, on my ballot here in Texas, we only had 4 presidential candidates listed. Not all the candidates make it onto all of the ballots in every district. This is a fairly common struggle for third/fourth/etc parties. Getting on a ballot is a different process in several states, and many don't even qualify for the write-in status.
Personally, I think it'd be great to have all the national candidates listed, and to have some similarity (or possibly something more high tech than punch cards -{mine was so small that I had doubts i did the right one, and i have better than 20/20 and it was just one column!}) across the nation.
Source for the 15,000 number (it's not the number of voters registered to "Reform party", rather the number registered as the "Independent Party")
Here is the article, judge for yourself:
Article& lt;/B>
In Palm Beach County, the Reform Party's Buchanan received 3,407 votes - 1 percent of the vote - at the final tally.
In neighboring Broward County, which Democrats argue has similar demographics to Palm Beach County, Buchanan pulled just 789 votes - close to 0 percent of the vote.
But NewsMax.com reviewed Board of Elections records for both counties.
Records show that Palm Beach County is not similiar to Broward County in voter registration. There are far more members of the Independent Party in Palm Beach County than in Broward County.
According to the Florida supervisor of elections, Broward County has only 119 members of the Independent Party.
Palm Beach County, on the other hand, has a whopping 14,551 members of the Independent Party.
In fact, it has the highest Independent registration in Florida.
Buchanan received 1 percent of the vote in Palm Beach County. In all the counties in Florida where there is significant Independent Party membership, Buchanan got a similiar 1 percent.
Palm Beach County gave Buchanan no more support proportionally than any other county with high Independent Party registration
So the ballot was flawed in 1996, too. The only difference being it didn't matter in that election. Now it does, and deserves due attention.
The beauty of this is that you never have to avoid supporting the candidate you really like in order to avoid helping the one you like the least. I.e., you could vote for Nader (or Buchanan) without having to worry about tipping a close election to Bush (or Gore). Of course, this is exactly why it will probably never happen here - neither of the two major parties wants to make it easier to support third parties.
What happens if there is a revote in Dade county? It is a highly Democratic area with several voting irregularaties, not just the ballot. Some people were turned away because 'their race didn't match the voting registration' and others were told there were no ballots when there were. 19,000 votes were thrown out, with a high probablity that most were for Gore, which would have made him a clear winner in florida, no recount.
So if the challenge goes through, and Dade gets a new election, one county in the US decides the president
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
As for the Electoral College needing to be changed -- that's bullshit. Everyone says "but it's such an unfair system!" -- untrue. The electoral system was intended to make things simpler and fairer in a multi-party system and was designed in a time when there were no political parties, but many were expected to exist.
The problem isn't to kill the electoral college process, but to bolster its importance by encouraging a greater choice in candidates and parties. Of course, it is in the best interest of the GOP and DNC to oppose that and, instead, agree with the downfall of an otherwise worthy electoral system.
---
seumas.com
Hey all! We want to vote again here in Illinois!
We had over 120,000 ballots in Cook County declared invalid because of double voting or no holes punched.
Not to mention the thousands of voters in DuPage County who were not allowed to vote because their registrations were lost by the DMV's Motor-Voter program.
Come home, Bill Daley! Your state needs you!
Viv
-----------
I Use Napster. I use DeCSS. I buy over $1000 a year in CD/DVDs.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
I heard from ABC politics guy George Stephonopouls(!Snupholupigus?) that that same ballot style was used in other states as well as Florida, and those states havent reported nearly the problems that Florida has. I wonder if that has more to do with the amount of seniors in florida or that the other states didn't have a close enough race to bother reporting/contesting it. Can anyone verify this for me? (i.e. what if any states used similar ballots and what the results there were) ...
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
Well, I trust that the fact that those people are out yelling and waving signs saying they want Gore means they meant to vote Gore. Have you seen a county by county breakdown of buchanan votes in florida? Take a look over here.
Anyone with any understanding of statistics will have to acknowledge that something is amiss. Now let me be clear - I don't think there should be a revote. That would set a horrible precedent. However, I do think the electors representing florida should be mad aware of this glaring statistical anomaly. Say just 10 of those electors decide to switch their vote because of it. Well, that would give Gore the magic 270.
If you think electors violating party lines is unheard of, you are wrong. It's ben done by electors from several states before, including Florida.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
What a load of crap! Everyone over the age of 18 (and in my opinion, even younger) is qualified to vote, regardless of whether or not *you* approve, asshole.
Ranessin
Who said the 19,000 ballots were double-punched? I heard the ballots were simply 'invalid' which could mean any number of things. Maybe 19,000 incorrect ballots is standard for that county. Do we know that for sure? I don't, but that would also be a possibility.
You can certainly theorize all you want about what happened, and maybe even justify the theories to yourself. However if you don't have all the data you aren't creating theories that have a good probability of being correct, no matter what your emotions or 'intuition' may tell you.
All it shows is that something is different in that county. I heard a report on the radio yesteraday that Buchanan has a cousin that lives in the county and that that county cast a lot of votes for buchanan in some other election.
Note: IANAL
For reference, here's the prescribed format of a ballot to be used for general elections in the state of Florida:
(slashdot is mangling it) I can't post a proper link. the URL is:_ mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0101/titl0101 .htm&StatuteYear=2000&Title=%2D%3E2000%2D%3EChapte r%20101
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App
There's the first stub for official signoffs, the second stub for other signoffs, then the actual ballot. Notice the wording:
It's set up this way because people read English from right to left, then skip to the next line. The butterfly ballot is in violation of this wording by having checkboxes to the left of the candidates, and breaking from the single-column format.And as far as a lot of Buchanan friends and family - his daughter was quoted on our news as saying that something is wrong, because he would never have gotten 3 times the state average of votes, especially not in that county.
For those of you who want stats, tat PDF document up there basically says that the Buchanan/Bush ratio across almost all of FL was between 0.001 and 0.011, with the bell curve centered at 0.004 and a deviation of 0.0021. Palm Coast fell at 0.22, 8 S.D.'s above the center.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
How can one have a *mathematical argument* for the US electoral system? Game theory says that no system can be perfect - although some may be better than others in particular circumstances. The decision is a matter of politics, and just because a mathematician argues one way doesn't make it a *mathematical argument*. BTW, here in Ireland we use STV, and it works quite well. But then we have more than two parties...
although it's a pretty disappointing way to pick the president, i basically say tough shit to those who erred on their ballots, regardless of the election officials actions. i don't expect it to lead to a revote, although the officials may have broken the law and get punished accordingly. i think the rest of the country doesn't care about palm county and if the democrats do try and force a revote there will be a huge public outcry against them. i expect most people to say if you're to stupid to figure out how to vote, tough shit, it's your fault, not george bush's.
The majority of people on Slashdot who have commented about the layout of the ballot form seem to think it was OK and that the fault lies with the people who filled it in wrongly.
As a gross generalisation I would guess that the majority of Slashdotters are young, bright with good eyesight. I would also guess that few of them have continual contact with the elderly or the less bright.
If you are one of these archetypal Slashdotters then be a little more understanding of people with less abilities than yourself.
Ehm yes...thank you, that made it even more clear to me that the Electoral College system is totally unfair, I would even go as far as saying that it's NOT democratic at all. People should choose the president, not states.
:)
That's right, it's not democratic. It's not supposed to be. We are not a democracy, we are a "republic". The rational behind the EC was to have the states elect the president, with the states using the popular vote to decide how they voted. This also prevented the "mob rule" problems inherent in true democratic governments.
I find it humerous that the democrats that were on TV last week expousing the virtues of an electorial college system (when it was assumed that Gore would win the EC, but lose the popular vote) are now calling for it's removal and complaining how unfair it is
Finkployd
Hopefully we will hear more about this.
There's more to it than this.
Well, definately C has taken place, the number of ballots rejected because of questions raised was 19,000, and last I heard, the race was as narrow as 799 votes. That's um, tight.
I wholeheartily disagree with your assumption that "C" has taken place. The criterion is that legal ballets have been rejected. However, the ballets rejected were double punched, and hence no longer considered legal ballets. Now, the person that double punched them was legally eligible to vote, but they invalidated their ballet when they double punched. This happens all the time, to the tune of over 15,000 ballets in 1996. Heck, when we had dorm elections in college, we usually had to throw out >1% of the ballets because they were not filled in correctly. Here, we are talking about much less than 0.5%, well within normal losses.
However, both you and the author of that article are mistaken on your second point. I call your attention to the following section of the Florida election statutes, as found on Florida's "Online Sunshine" legislative information web site: (http://www.leg.state.fl.us)
The "names must be on the left" section of the law (as found in "101.191 Form of general election ballot" and "101.151 Specifications for general election ballot", both same source) explictly states that the requirement in question _only_ applies to manual ballots that are not counted by machine. And not to electronic or electromechanical ballots of the type used in Palm Beach and elsewhere in the state. It seems like a very clearly written set of laws and I have no idea why reporters aren't going to the source (like I did) instead of bouncing around these same vague friend-of-a-friend allegations.As for the order of the candidates, the only mention of this that I could find makes it very clear that it only applies to the _names_ of the candidates, which are, in fact, in the correct order. The order of the dots/holes/etc. is not specified anywhere that I can find. In fact, the section quoted above ("special printed marks and holes as required for proper positioning and reading of the ballots by the automatic tabulating equipment") leaves a lot of leeway for whatever layout is required by the voting machinery in use.
You were very civil in your response. Please do me the service of checking the above information if you doubt my sources. And, by all means, tell me if I'm wrong. Or right.
-Bryan
Numbers of registered voters is taken from this document. Number of votes cast for each candidate are here.
This table lists those Florida counties with 5000 or more registered Independent Party Members. /. doesn't allow <pre> :(
Spaces had to be replaced with periods since
County.....#.Ind....%.Ind.....#.Buch.....%.Buch.
---------..------...------....------.....------
Brevard......6815.....2.40......570........0.26
Duval.......10298.....2.43......650........0.25
Hillsborough10939.....2.19......845........0.23
Orange.......7751.....1.92......446........0.16
Palm.Beach..16336.....2.49.....3407........0.79
Pinellas....17614.....3.06.....1012........0.25
Volusia......5229.....2.01........0........0.00
# Ind. = Number of voters registered as Independent Party members
% Ind. = Percentage of registered voters who are registered as Independent Party members
# Buch. = Number of votes cast for Buchanan
% Buch. = Percentage of all votes cast for president which were cast for Buchanan
OK, Volusia county is itself suspicious because there were no votes counted there for anyone other than Bush or Gore. But that's a separate issue. (Strange that no one has brought that up yet. I would have thought conspiracy theorists would be jumping all over that one.)
As jbridges says, decide for yourself. I've linked the primary sources. Check those out yourself if you don't believe me, or the NewsMax.com article.
Don't get me wrong--I do not advocate a revote. I just find it very hard to believe, given these numbers, that everyone who voted for Buchanan in Palm Beach County meant to do so. So does Buchanan.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Rahga,
Calm down, boy.
First, as of this writing, the Gore lead has increased to over 218,000 votes. So your claim of Gore's popular vote victory being "a fleeting moment" doesn't look strong. There are aren't that many oversease ballots left, but as of this moring, most of the remaining uncounted absentee ballots where in Washington, Oregon, and California -- not exactly Bush strongholds.
As for "what the country wants," well, let's agree for the moment that the popular vote is a perfect tie between the Bush and Gore. You said "the country." What about the 3% of the country that didn't vote for either? These went overwhelmingly for Nader. So if we are going to gauge the _country's_ intent, it sure as hell ain't for a Bush presidency
the politics of 2 big states can never gain exclusive control of federal politics WRONG. Thanks to electoral college shennanigans, Virginia controlled the presidency for 32 of the first 36 years of the Republic.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
I would caution, however, that I've not run a T test or a chi-squared test or any other measure to see if this is really an outlier. It looks like one to me. However, with so few data points, it is hard, statistically speaking, to know for sure if it is an outlier, or just an unlikely, but statitically insignficant event. Mean and standard deviation do not tell the whole store.
I know I have a bias here. My personal solution to all the problems would be to apportion the invalid votes. If there's a vote for Bush and Buchanan, each gets 1/2 a vote. Add up the numbers, round down to the nearest whole vote and you are golden.
I've also seen references to Florida law that specifically states that ballots have an "X" on the right side of the name of candidates only. Don't know how true that is, but that would make these ballots illegal. If they are illegal, then the courts would have to deside what the most appropriate legal remedy would be. I don't envy them that task.
It would also would like to see a statistical analysis of the delta in the votes as a percentage of voters done. It seems on its surface that the 700-odd votes that were missing in the original count seems high for a county the size of Palm Beach. Almost all the other country results seem to be about what I'd expect. But all the counties aren't in yet, so it is hard to know for sure.
I'd also compare this year's results with prior years that Buchanan ran to see if there are any statistical differences between the two.
There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics :-)
I don't see a problem if there was 100% voter turnout. Isn't that what this country is about?
I also have a big problem with people dismissing the elderly or anybody else that got confused. They aren't so feeble minded to not know how they wanted to vote. In an ideal world they would vote in a way that made it clear that were little or no room for errors. Having helped the elderly on many occasions, I know they need special attentions that younger folks don't need. On the other hand, younger folks tend to need other things the elderly don't so the accomidations made to the elderly aren't that special all things considered.
Another mathematical fact. Right now the electoral college gives smaller states more power because they have proportionally more votes than their large bretheren. If we subtract out this bias by subtracting 2*states one from each candidates total, one see that Gore wins with 220 votes (219 needed in this hypothetical situation).
Finally, damn this is a barn burner.
Quote "If the legal issues in Florida have not been resolved by Dec. 18, a judge could conceivably grant an order restraining Gov. Jeb Bush, George W. Bush's younger brother, from issuing what is known as a Certificate of Ascertainment, identifying which slate of electors won on Nov. 7 - Republican or Democrat. Without that certificate, no Florida electors could vote in the electoral college ballot which is to take place that day. As things now stand, that would mean Mr. Gore would win.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides that a president is elected by "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed" - not an absolute majority of the 538 who are named in normal circumstances." End Quote
I think we're essentially in agreement. A revote would be a mess no matter how it turned out, and it would set an absolutely terrifying precident.
I'm aware that electors have changed votes in the past. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. But I'd still maintain that it would be the wrong thing for an elector to do under any circumstances short of massive (millions of votes) statewide fraud, which is definitely not what we're seeing in Florida. For the reasons we've already discussed. You disagree, but I think I do understand your perspective.
Whoever loses in Florida, Bush or Gore, should either just request one more recount or let things stand. To fight over this idiocy in Palm Beach is lunacy! One, the ballot was that way because the old folks complained in the first place that they couldn't read the standard font. Two, voting correctly is a PERSONAL RESPONISIBILITY! Three, these same old people would have a fit if the county tried to raise their taxes to buy new voting equipment they could use. Finally four, they would still figure out a way to mess it up!
If you call a new election in Palm Beach, you have to do it for the entire state do to the way things happened. It would take at least a month of court wrangling and at least another month to get things together. Can you say Constitutional Crisis????? There is no way this could be settled intime for the inaguaration.
The loser has to do what Nixon did with Kennedy and accept defeat with grace. Nixon could have pushed the issue against Kennedy. However, he understood that for the good of the nation, the right thing to do was step aside.
I can not imagine the chaos if an new election is called. I have even heard scenarios that put Sen Strom Thurmond in as an interm President. Do we REALLY want to go through this becuase some old folks did not take the proper time and effort in the voting booth to verify their selection??
This is bigger than a "confusing ballot" Besides, I looked at the picture of the ballot in the voting machine on CNN. It is only confusing if you do not read it carefully.
For the good of the country and the world, DROP THE IDIOCY!
This is no sillier than tha current system.
--
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
I think that we're watching intently, not because the actual candidates are in any way interesting, but because it's a morbid fascination to watch the electoral system on its death throwes. According to a poll today on the Election 2000 news site and also the Electoral College FAQ, more than Two Thirds of America want the Electoral College banned from the Constitution, and have so since at least the 1960's!
I hate to defend this process in any way, but fact is stranger than fiction: It was the Electoral College that led us to discover the level of irregluarity in just on state due to the focus of an entire nation on this outcome. If we went solely by popular vote, we may have heard just as little of these scandals as we have from the other 49 states combined! =-O
The process:
It explains much of the way Washington works. . .
and b) can vote whichever way they damn well please First off its up to the individual states whether they pass laws to make the electors vote the way the state did. As it stands now half of the states have those laws in place. Second electors allways vote the way they should, I believe its only happened once where an elector voted differently. The electoral college has its uses! its to make shure canidates travel all over and not just to the places with many people live(like the east and west coasts). It may not be a perfect system but I believe the general idea is sound.
Stupid things kids do.
It is indeed nice to have the actual statutes, as opposed to vague references from news folk.
... (6) Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates
Ballot requirements.--
Note that a lawyer might find room to object here. In the disputed ballots, squares were in front of *and* in back of the names; one might argue that it needs to be one or the other, but not both. Seems a bit tenuous though.
The "order of names" issue also seems only to be in the manual ballots section; the ordering is done based on the results of the last governor's race. (See 101.151.4)
However, you should also check out 101.191, which as far as I can tell applies to all ballots; the disputed ballot is quite dissimilar from it. I don't have the time to read further and investigate whether it does not in fact apply to machine-counted ballots; it does talk about marking an X though.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The problem here is that the will of the people is probably for Al Gore. It may not be, but to prove that, there would have to be a revote. Without that, Bush would not be a legitimate president, because he intentionally blocked a measure that would have made sure he won. The only reason he would try so vehemently to block such a measure is because it would make him lose. Gore isn't gaining any more voters now, especially with the Republicans spreading so much nonsense about being a sore loser, so, assuming Bush really, legitimately won the election, what harm could a revote do? Oh right.. make you precious George Bush lose... The right thing for Bush to do is allow the citizens of Florida to prove him right.
-Splat
Why would you expect children to be confused by the same things that confuse adults?
This means the subjects were primed to concentrate on one aspect of the task, rather than the whole task.
This is the most egregious failure. He asked the subjects how to perform the task instead of asking them to perform the task. This forces the subjects to reflect on the process, drastically altering their behavior.
If you ask my wife which exit to take from the freeway to get to our house, you'll never get the wrong answer. If you ask me which exit to take from the freeway to get to our house, you'll never get the wrong answer. If you ask me how to get to our house, you'll never get the wrong answer. Once in a while, however, I take the wrong exit!
Pat hijacked the reformed party nomination to get the millions of dollars of federal campaign matching dollars.
The reform party is ross perot and jesse ventura (and their friends and constituents).
my livejournal is interesting and worth reading - I swear. I know everyone thinks their blog is interesting. mine is.
Section 101.191 also appears to apply only to manual ballots. Like the other manual-ballot sections of the law it refers to "marking an X". This is expected to be a literal mark made on a paper ballot for a human to read, as the other manual-ballot sections go on to discuss in great detail. Marking an X isn't possible with any of the electronic or electromechanical ballots that use a punch-tool.
-Bryan
Hmm, recall when Barbara Bush said she worried that Gore was going to hit poor little George during the third debate. Gore's much bigger, and I'd guess in better general shape (that's just an impression, though). Lieberman's a slight dude, but I think he could take Bush and of course Cheney has that heart thing.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Point of fact - the alleged confusion is supposed to arise due to the placement of the Democrat and Reform party punches, not the Republican one (which was pretty clearly located first on the ballot). Since the ballots in question were used in the West Palm Beach area, it might be useful to check how the numbers broke down there. Acc ording to CNN:
Since the original margin between the Bush and Gore was only 1784 votes, I'd call that signifigant.
Additional evidence that the ballots may have caused widespread confusion, from the same article:
So, another comparison, this time of the two-selection error rate on two different parts of the ballot. More than 19,000 voters selected two presidential candidates, which is more than five times as many as made the same mistake for senators, and more than ten times as many as Bush's lead statewide.
Say what you want to about Daley, Jackson, Mfume, and whomever else you feel is a little too leftward leaning for your tastes. But the numbers do tell a story here.
I think only two states out of fifty, use any sort of representational electoral college. The rest are all winner-takes-all, which seems to me, to defeat the purpose of limiting the power of the majority.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
As for the actual numbers, 3,500 people in Palm Beach voted for Buchanan, while Buchanan amassed less than 1000 votes in both Broward and Dade, both of which are heavily Democratic and both of which are bigger than Palm Beach. As it was said on CNN (and I paraphrase), "There is no way that 3500 elderly Jewish people voted for Pat Buchanan."
Butterfly Ballot Not a Big Problem Everywhere
By Chris Slemp
CNS Correspondent
November 09, 2000
Charleston, WVa (CNSNews.com) - The "Butterfly" voting system, currently under intense national scrutiny in Florida, is similar to the voting system used in several counties in West Virginia and is nearly identical to the one used in Cook County, Illinois - home to Gore campaign chairman William Daley.
The Butterfly Ballot used in Cook County, which is dominated by Chicago Democrat Mayor Richard Daley, brother of William, has been used there for some time with success. The ballot is nearly identical to the one currently in dispute in Palm Beach County, Florida. The ballot was reportedly approved for use by Mayor Daley. Phone calls to the mayor's office for confirmation were not returned.
A similar Butterfly Ballot is also used in a dozen West Virginia counties without any incident. But the Butterfly Ballot in Florida is under intense fire after a narrow loss by Al Gore in the presidential election Tuesday, in which some voters complaining the ballot was confusing and they accidentally cast their votes for Pat Buchanan rather than Gore.
The 12 counties in West Virginia that rely on the Butterfly system, which uses a punch card method, have had no complaints. Deputy West Virginia Secretary of State Jan Casto says she doesn't fully understand the problem Florida voters had with it, as its use does not require a degree in rocket science.
"We have a very knowledgeable society. I mean, they use VCRs, computers, and recording equipment. We're talking about a very technologically sophisticated society," said Casto.
Much of the controversy in Palm Beach County, Florida centers around the claim that the ballot placed Pat Buchanan second on the ballot-but staggering his name between Bush atop the ticket and Gore directly under him, causing voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan. Casto says she can understand how that happens, but at the same time if people would pay closer attention, according to Casto, there wouldn't be nearly as much trouble.
"I think they have to be sure they read the whole ballot so they'll know when they're finished and when or if they need to turn to the next page," added Casto.
West Virginia certainly saw its own share of close races, including the race for the Second District Congressional seat, which eventually went to Republican Shelley Moore Capito.
Capito won by 5300 votes and received 5100 in an area of the district comprising three counties. The largest of the three counties used the punch card system-but had three counting machines break down. The final tally wasn't known until 3am Wednesday.
Casto says counting machines break down, but she says it is important to understand that is a separate issue from a voting problem.
"Equipment breaks. It's just like you're car. It may be new and it may be old-but it could still break down at any moment, even if you just had it serviced the day before. Believe me, though, when your counting system breaks-it's an election official's nightmare. I know because I've been there."
Casto doesn't condemn the punch cards, but admits some voter education might be in order.
"I think we may have to look at some voter education before the next election, especially in light of the Florida situation. That may be through direct mail or television and radio time-but as technology evolves we have to evolve with it."
Legislation may also be a key to keeping down any potential confusion. West Virginia has a very detailed law when it comes to ballot position. Under the West Virginia statute the party that won the last election gets the first slot on the ballot. The number two vote getter has the second position. The rest of the ticket is determined in the order they applied for ballot access. Casto says it's a detailed system.
Asked how West Virginia would fare if the state were under the same microscope as Florida's election system, Casto is optimistic.
"I think we would fare extremely well. I think we have some really detailed laws about how ballots are counted and recount laws. We also have strict laws about the ballot position. So I think we would do very well-time consuming, but well."
That being the case though, Casto stresses she would just as soon do without the scrutiny that her counterparts in the state of Florida are presently enduring.
"I have a lot of empathy for them, that's for certain."
Seastead this.
the other argument often used for the electoral college system is that it requires the candidate to look at the whole country rather than just a majority of people, but IMHO it results in exactly the opposite. If you are a democrat why would you even try to campaign in Texas? Your money and efforts are much better spent in Florida or California.
anyway, most important argument for a national popular vote to decide for the president is that all votes are equally important, which I think is imperative in a country that holds equality as one of its most important principles!
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the alleged turning away of Haitian voters who were told that there were no ballot papers left, in Miami. Or the discovery of an unopened ballot box in an African-American church, also in Miami. Or the (again) alleged illegal extension of the opening hours of a polling booth in St Louis.
Isn't it this kind of stuff that the USA (and the rest of the world) was condemming Yugoslavia for, and demanding the election results be ignored, about a month ago?
Seems Slashdot readers think that there are some people just too stupid to live. I'm guessing most of them work tech support and have the arrogance that's been lampooned in Saturday Night Live (with Jackie Chan and somebody else, I don't remember). Benefit of the doubt, eh?
-- A.J.
"Um. Yeah."
No, that is incorrect, they can be recieved up to 10 days after the election, but must be post marked prior to the election day.
Finkployd
I thought this was the last of it? Oh wait you know this is also a great way to sensationalize the event, I almost thought CNN was dragging it out on purpose until I learned about florida
Conspiracy theories abound, I heard on the radio that some poll boxes were just plain missing... Who knows about that one.
I liked the Georgia polls, they had clear boxes sepearting everything, showed who was running with the posible presidents, you used a #2 pencil and filled in the one you wanted, it was real easy... that punch card business does seem a little annoying even if it is not misleading it seems a pain..
Jeremy
1) When trashing media, consider that NPR was far more responsible in assigning states to candidates. Just trash the commercial media.
2) Why prosecute people that had difficulty with the ballot? I had to transcribe about 50 answers on my SAT when I discovered I had accidently skipped a bubble. There's no eraser in a 'punch'-type voting booth. Look for numbers of how many Palm Beech or Florida ballots were punched twice, and hence discarded. I think the number is around 19,000. Of course, they should have just asked for new ballots, but humans are humans.
2.5) Especially, why prosecute elderly people who had problems with the ballots? These people have seen more wars, recessions, and changes in their lifetimes than anyone 'smart' enough to write "First Post" on slashdot. The ability to mindlessly follow arbitrary directions (for instance, working with computers...) is a learned skill, not a sign of intelligence. Saving enough money over your lifetime to retire to a warm climate, OTOH, is probably a better sign of intelligence.
3) Majority Rules? Our entire system of government is built around thwarting "Majority Rules". Go read the Federalist Papers and Constitution for more insight into the subtle problems of democracy and majority tyranny.
Most of the Slashdot posters can't bother to RTFM when it comes to their own government.
-Paul Komarek
So you can't read a ballot. I don't see that it's reasonable for one district to get to vote again (assuming that happens) and not let the whole state, or even the whole nation, vote again.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
#1: The popular vote does keep changing, and it will have to be waited out. My comment about neither winning the election still stands.
#2: Virginia's vote may have been a deciding vote in many of the last few elections. My point was not that, but that if 500 times as many people voted in New York and Cali than all the other states, they still would have little (not controlling) efect outside of their chosen electoral college representatives.
Loophole? Never happened? What are you talking about? I'm assuming that you mean for an electorate to vote "against" the "will of the people" that elected him. OK, first let me say that some states do make it illegal for the electorate to vote against what they are supposed to... FL, however, to the best of my knowledge does not have such a law so the electorates are free to vote their conscious.
That being said, in the past, it _HAS_ happened. I believe it was back in the Reagan vs. Dukakis race, but I'm not positive. One of the few electorates for Dukakis changed his vote when it actually came time to vote... And I vaguely remember one guy voting for Mickey mouse or something at sometime in the semi-distant past.
I'm not sure that Jesse would go for that. He's always been in favor of converting Minnesota to a unicameral. I think that it mostly that he figures he'll be able to cram crazy-ass shit through faster without 2 houses. Anyhow, I think that you better just invite the Senate.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
thanks,
this is exactly the info I was looking for.
if I could moderate you up I would.
many thanks,
me
---
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
Ok, I can buy his argument that as the size of the group increases towards towards some asymptote we'll call "majority", the power of the individual vote should go down in some proportion so that the minority isn't swamped by the majority. The way this is done, I suppose, is to just give slightly proportionally less electoral votes to really really large states. But that's still at a macroscopic, very high-grain (or is it low-grain) level.
Even if he is theoretically correct, and that we could formulate the optimum "minority"/"majority" point (is it at 75%? 85%? 51%?), I think that in the current state of politics this wouldn't matter anyway. The whole presumption is that each voter is 1) trustworthy/caring, 2) informed. The percentage of people who actually fulfill both of these requirements may themselves a minority! The fact is, people aren't voting for politicians based on the facts, based on their records. Many people vote based on fuzzy things like "likability", and "appearance". They vote because the million dollar hype machines have stuck the right memes in their heads. They vote because Britney Spears told em to. And if you think this is a one-sided tirade against the "average American", I happen to believe that it is also largely the political parties' faults for playing right along - they're all too glad to lower the criteria for the election process to things they can win: convincing people win tons of commercials paid by PACs and soft money, going around repeating the same tired old scripts.
Now consider *that* case and the electoral college. The actual *merits* of the candidates matter much less than the money they can spend (funded by those interests who want to buy policy) to convince voters. So given an equal amount of vested interests (hey, many of these big corporations give money to *both* campaigns just to make sure that no matter who wins they get their agenda pushed), and consequently a pretty equal amount of hyping and advertising, you can imagine voter results to be much more uniform than you'd otherwise expect (*cough* win popular vote by a fraction of one percent *cough*).
So the choice is either 1) clean up the damn system so the above scenario doesn't happen, and the electoral college works correctly, or 2) reform or abolish electoral college. The ironic thing is, 1 cannot be accomplished *because* of the electoral college stemming any progressive change. So it may be that we have to reform or abolish the electoral college, so that we can actually have a chance to clean up politics, so that the system works as it was intended to in the first place!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
In other words, if Gore and his cronies can litigate this for a couple months by constantly raises issues county by county, precinct by precinct, he could litigate his way to the presidency even if he loses Florida (as it very much appears that he will if the remaining military ballot is mostly republican as usual and votes for Bush don't magically get lost in the hand count of the democrat run Palm Beach County)
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Section 101.191 also appears to apply only to manual ballots.
I direct your attention to 101.27 (3):
(3) The order in which the voting machine ballot is arranged shall as nearly as practicable conform to the requirements of the form of the paper ballot for that election.
---
I think it's pretty clear that the disputed ballots fail that test. Frankly, I see this as a good argument for eliminating winner-take-all in state elections, rarely would more than a single electoral vote be in dispute if electoral votes were distributed to the candidates based on percentage of the vote received.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Voters were not intended to have a direct one-to-one impact on the election from day one.
---
seumas.com
...at this stage of the game, if there was a revote, then the most powerful office in the world would be decided by someone who can't read instructions.
and why do many convicted felons lose the right to vote?
To try for a paperless ballot would be sheer lunacy. The possiblity for fraud would be just too great. Nothing as important as this should be left to something as unreliable as a big government run network. If the white house can't even keep it's email straight, well, I think you get the point. Either they couldn't operate it correctly, in which case they're idiots or they sought to conceal the errant email, in which case they're corrupt.
The thing is, how would you know what was being reported electronically, on your behalf? How hard would it be to tweak the system, just enough? Again, a remarkably bad idea. INTERNET voting is perhaps an order of magnitude worse. "In cyberspace, no one knows that vote was cast by a dog." Thanks for voting; your IP has been logged. The thought police will be by later to explain why your votes were incorrect.
Fraud with absentee ballots is bad enough. Spam ballots?! eeesh!
You know, I'm starting to have doubts... A friend of mine worked at an election, and in comes a man, she asks: "may I see your voting card, please?" he looks at her, she repeats. Well, it became obvious that he didn't have a voting card. Well, she told him not to worry, "what's your name, sir, I can find you in the files?" she asked. "Carl" he responded. "Carl, what?" she asked "what's you last name sir?" Well, he didn't know. So, he couldn't vote. Well, one hour later, he comes back guided by his son. Goes into a locker and comes out again, with the ballot. To ensure a secret vote, you get an envolope to put the ballot in, but he hadn't managed to put it in there. His son had to do that for him.
Well, it is quite clear that someone who doesn't know his own name, and is incapable of opening an open envelope is rather incapable of making an informed decision on candidates. Yet, his vote counts as much as mine.
Well, it is a slippery slope, this. Who do you want to exclude from voting? Therefore, I don't want to say that someone like that should be excluded, but I do feel bad about it. And, it does say something as to the performance of democracy.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Oh my god! So glad there is another slashdotter that agrees with me on how insane Ruth Dwyer is! I was getting so sick of all of the "Take Back Vermont" bullshit going on in VT, this certainly is way far from the Vermont I grew up in and love.
Likewise!
Fortunately, Vermonters appear to agree with us on this, out of a record setting voter turnout 51% voted for the incumbant Democrat Dean, who supports civil unions, 10% voted for the Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina, who supports full scale gay marrage, and 38% voted for Dwyer. Many of the Dwyer voters cast their vote for her because of her opposition to the school funding law and could care less about civil unions. Many people who don't like civil unions voted for Dean or Pollina because they are simply tired of the divisions caused by the issue, and the classic "live and let live" attitude toward persional freedom that Vermonters are famous for won over in their minds.
The Republicans did manage to take the Vermont House, but the Senate maintained a (very slim) Democratic majority. I think it is safe to say that not much is going to get done legislatively in the next two years.
Today in the Boston Phoenix, Ruth Dwyer and the Take Back Vermont crap was on the front page, titled "Gay Bashing: Vermont Style". Inside there is a picture of Ruth and her supporters waving, but it looks damn near close to them giving the Sieg Hiel salute, scary!!!!
How absolutely dreadfull! Ruth is no longer a player in state wide politics at this point. There may be others in the future who are equally odious, but I am confidant that they will be defeated.
Another bit of Ruth Dwyer trivia: in her hometown of Thetford, Dean's margin of victory was actually larger. Dean got 63% to Dwyer's 30%. This is largely due to what transpired during Dwyer's stint on Thetford's school board, where she managed to push through draconian budgit cuts which caused dammage that took years to repair. Thetford residents actually placed ads in newspapers statewide urging Vermonters to reject her.
--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
The press is being more kind to the people who voted wrong - when you placed the card inside the machine, the holes were replaced with numbers. There was a large number in each box of the candidate, there was an arrow pointing to the correct hole, and there was a number corresponding with the number that was placed inside the candidate's box. Personally, I don't think it'd be that hard for myself or anyone I know, including several octogenarian, to figure out.
Could it take a second or two to make sure? Sure. But in waiting 4 years for a Presidential election - and god knows how many years for a presidential election this close - you can take the extra minute.
Look, the first problem is not with the pages alone. Its how the pages lined up with the holes. Check out the mock image I threw together. The black dots are where holes might have been if there was play in the ballot book. The light grey dots is where they should've been (and where the one news photo I've seen shows them).
The stories from people just don't match that perfectly aligned news photo. But if you consider that the holes could've been shifted (really, the book would've been what shifted, but for all intensive purposes...) you can see how it could be confusing. One lady said she saw a dot RIGHT NEXT to the word Democratic, not the separating line above -- that turned out to be the Buchanan hole.
But there is another problem people have cited. If you go in there thinking only of two candidates, Bush and Gore, you look only for those two. In English, we read left->right, top->bottom, left_page->right_page. You could easily say "First one is Bush, so that's teh first hole... Second one is Gore so that must be the second hole!". Why read further? Why examine the right page at all when your candidate isn't over there? Remember, your hindsight is 20/20, so don't be so quick to label these people as "stupid" or you might be so yourself!
The fact is, the ballot was redsigned on to two pages so they could use bigger fonts to make it easier to read. That was a nice idea. But, they never evaluated what the other ramifications were.
Furthermore, the sample ballots sent out to the voters, etc. were paper books! There were no holes in there, no gap, etc. It was not what the ballot actually was. No one could've guessed.
Is it just me or is Volusia county (where I live) the only county that uses scan-tron style ballots and not punch cards. we have not used punches for years because of the problems people had with both the cards and the machines. Now I know some areas of FLA are back asswards, but I consider where I live to be pretty backwards. Hell some areas around me dont have digital cable and have really crappy phone lines. I think the major problem here is that each county controls how its elections are handled instead of having a state standard for the method of casting ballots. of couse maybe we have a patent on the ballot method here...?
I sig therefore I am...
In regard to the "voting irregularities" on the part of elderly Florida resisdents, perhaps the best solution is to discard those votes entirely. If a citizen is incapable of such a basic mental function such as choosing the right lever to pull, how in the world could that citizen possibly make an informed evaluation of the candidates at hand? I couldn't beleive that some of these people would apppear on national network news and essentialy confess their own complete ignorance.
The sad thing about a democracy is the opinion of the ignorant has just as much sway as the informed decisions of those with proper mental facilities.
Some of us have fallen in love with the notion of giving without reserve-Raoul Vanegiem, Revolution of Everyday Life
1. Both the Democratic and Republican parties reviewed and approved the ballots. If a different party complained of the layout, I could understand. But for a member of either of these two parties to cry foul is irresponsible.
2. RTFB before you punch a hole. If there is ANY question, ask somebody. Perhaps the ballot design needs to be addressed. Perhaps not.
A friend of mine from Florida indicated that she had no problem figuring it out. That does not mean that there is no problem with the ballot layout. But neither does the fact that some people were confused mean it IS a problem. If it does need to be addressed, it will be for a future election.
I was confusing my irregularaties. There were problems in both Dade and Palm Beach I was lumping them together
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
1) Print out the alleged bad ballot.
2) Now place it horizontally about chest to collarbone level and at half an arms length away.
The arrows seem a lot closer together!
If it is like my poll the holes are physically under the ballot book by nearly the distance the holes are separated from each other. This means that unless you can look at it from above, which is not possible if you are short and the ballot and book are in fixed positions, again like at my poll, then the arrow appears to point between two holes.
In other paper ballot elections I attended, the ballots and books were designed so that unneeded holes were covered and there was never any doubt which holes to punch.
The palm beach ballot design my seem ok at first glance, but in use it would be quite ambiguous. This also explains why it was initially approved by the dems.
My ballot had similar problems but only on pages that were for the reelection of judges. Some other issues had several places between them. I noticed when i got to the right half of the page and the punch was already punched. This is a bigger problem for me since i am short.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
It's probably that darn right wing conspiracy. Or was that the Illuminati?
check this out at msnbc.com. from the article:
Three people filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking a new election in Palm Beach County, claiming the punch-card ballot was so confusing that they accidentally voted for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Vice President Al Gore
Finally, a reply.
I don't mean to sound like such a conspiracy theorist; I'm sure it was really just a computer glitch. But seriously, the fact that there were about 15,000 changing votes in a 300-vote difference race, and that the national media was almost completely ignoring this... well, it was quite disturbing. Add to this the fact that nobody on Slashdot seemed to care... and it was like dropping into the movie "Brazil..." Am I going nuts? Is everybody else already there?
Good to hear that the county's returns will be straightened out, and that the Democrats and Republicans are at least paying attention.
As was stated elsewhere in this story, and on MSNBC, of the 19,120 invalidated votes, only 3,783 were mistakes in the senate portions of the ballot. It implies that the other 15,337 were errors in the presidential portion (though they didn't report that). That says one of three things: there are 22,500 idiots in Palm beach county, There was a very confusing ballot in Palm Beach county, or there was voter fraud in Palm Beach county. I heard the fraud speculation by a newscaster last night that it was possible that someone took advantage of a confusing situation and double punched a huge number of ballots for gore. I don't believe that at all.
But there was a confusing ballot.
We have center punch in Michigan, and the candidates were all down the left side, not on both sides like the Palm Beach ballot. This particular ballot design (on both sides) was new to this election in Palm Beach.
Regards,
Regards,
-scott
I'm not sure I understand your point exactly.
I think it is likely, though not certain, that Kennedy won fairly, that is, if the election could have been held without fraud by either side, Kennedy still would have won. Nonetheless it was very close, and I merely mentioned LBJ to emphasize that the result *might* have been fraudulent, and such claims ought to be taken seriously. However, there is almost inevitably some fraud on both sides, and there are also claims that fraud in *favor* of Nixon in Illinois outside of Chicago was just as much a factor as fraud in favor of Kennedy.
In any event, Nixon's advisors told him that he was unlikely to get anywhere by contesting the results. Whether Nixon brooded about it for eight years, reinforcing the paranoia that contributed to Watergate, is another interesting question that probably can't be answered. Nixon, with all his faults, or probably because of all his faults, is a fascinating character, which is probably what keeps all these 1960 legends alive. I doubt either Gore or GWB has that kind of historical staying power.
The reason is that the Reform Party was a moderate party pushing Perot at the time. Buchanan was a Republican which was pushing Dole. The only election that might have occured with Buchanan on the ballot would have been in the primaries, and while he might have picked up a large number of votes, it would have been from Republicans, most of whom would have voted for Bush today.
Naturally, someone who supported the Reform party then wouldn't be supporting it now - why would a moderate vote for fascism?
On the understanding point, I semi agree with you except I have the following reservations. First, Democrats I chose as friends whose intelligence I rate highly who voted in that election were similarly confused. While the photostats of ballots shown on most websites already show some confusion, looking last night at the TV and the way the ballot papers were laid out in practice (two pages, a row of holes to the right of the first page), it was easy to see why someone might initially think they should punch the second hole.
But the other reason is that this "intelligence test" skewed the vote. Republicans had to punch the first hole. Democrats had the candidate beneath the Republicans but had to chose between three holes to punch. If the ballot papers had been dealt out such that "who's on first" was evenly distributed, the skewing probably wouldn't happen. But this was a ballot that exclusively caught careless Democrats and not careless Republicans.
That's my thought on it anyway.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The electoral college has the option of voting differently from the popular vote in that state, but so far hasn't. I support the present system. All that could be done to improve it is to simly do away with the human element entirely, and just count the electoral votes. The electoral system helps offset the tyranny of the majority.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I've put together a histogram of the proportion of votes that changed by county. In one county, Gore's alleged gain (past bush's) is nearly 1% of the total votes cast.
This county is 50 standard deviations out--far less likely than winning the lottery (the big tens of million ones) every week for three months straight . . .
hawk
it's at http://personal.ds.psu.edu/reh18
I personally feel that these people shouldn't even be voting. If you can't follow the arrow from the candidate's name to the corresponding hole/box/lever/split arrow, then you shouldn't be voting. I think that this anecdote only solidifies the senile stereotype of Floridians. However, Buchanan must be laughing in his chair right now, since he got thousands of votes due to morons who can't read.
This just goes to show that you should never forget the two axioms of voting: read the fine print, and don't assume anything.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Each county in each state chooses its own ballot system. Each county buys their own equipment and prints their own ballots. Each ballot is scrutinized for weeks before use. For the most part, voting systems in use have been around for quite some time and everyone in that county knows how to use it, or they ask a poll supervisor for directions.
I agree that electronic scanning of ballots at the box does reduce the number of spoiled ballots that get cast; the guy right in front of me in line to the box had his ballot rejected due to a half-filled mark that would have voided his intended vote on one issue. It would not, however, catch mis-voted ballots. As long as a ballot is valid it's accepted. The ballots cast for Buchanan in Palm Beach county were valid ballots and would not have been caught by the tallying ballot boxes.
There's no need for a court case; indeed, there's no grounds. The one thing we get from this is a good lesson on why it's vital to completely understand a ballot before even approaching the act of marking it. Blindly following a sample ballot brought from home doesn't abdicate the need for completely reading and comprehending the actual ballot to be cast.
Ballets are always confusing or unfairly worded to somebody. If you do not like an amendment to the state constitution or a sales tax increase you may want it worded different to reflect you point of view. Yes no votes on such things are often worded so you have to answer in the negative to approve. This is so common that the ballet approval process has become as vital to insuring a good and fair election as stopping miss information. Maybe the ball was dropped on this one but the election official who approved this ballet was a Democrat. This was an official ballet and it was an official election. The ballet was Okayed and if the voters did not know how to read or was confused they should have asked for help or just stayed home. There comes a point to stop whining. You should always read each and every ballet carefully and pull the lever or punch the holes or fill in the blanks with the caution one pulls the trigger of a gun. If you cant handle that you are not ready for Democracy plane and simple.
As peoples beliefs change through time the intent of the electoral system is blurred. Im sure that considering the state would have been the all-powerful government back when the US constitution was written, the system was designed to take into account the wishes of small states. However as US politicans, esp in federal arena, beat their chest in the last hundred years about "democracy", the original intent is forgotten. The system has preserved states rights and thus ensures that the federation of states continues.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
And also, the instructions on the ballot say very clearly "Vote for Group"... putting two holes in the ballot is idiocy.
Its quick and easy..
best 2 out of three?
also the though of those 2 in short makes me a little quessy.
There's an interesting loophole in the electoral college and is perfectly legal and possible, though it has never happened.
All we're doing is choosing "electorates," people who will select the president for us. We assume that the electorates will vote for who we tell them to, but are not bound by law to do so. So theoretically some of, say, Bush's electorates could decide late in the game that Bush is a putz and cast votes for Gore or Nader.
Dewey/Truman or Kennedy/Nixon
There's more to it than this.
that made it even more clear to me that the Electoral College system is totally unfair
Unfair in the sense that 4 populous states (CA, FL, NY, and TX) can't impose their will on the rest of the country, yes. You have to have AT LEAST a dozen states to win under an electoral system, but under a popular system you can basically promise every federal dollar to those four states and the rest fo the country can go to hell...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The winner (even tho these votes were among the first cast) will be decided by a margin not exceding 0.036%
Should Bush win, he will with a minority of votes.
Hundreds or thousands of elderly jews in West Palm Beach mistakenly cast votes for anathema. With all this in mind, I'd like to apply for a grant to supply an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters. Screw Shakespeare, they can bang out a copy of W's inaguration speech before he's written it.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The basic flaw in Natapoff's argument is that he considers a system of election good if it allows a minority to defeat a candidate that the majority wants. He tells us that this is good because it is bad for a majority to be able to elect whatever candidate they want, because then they will elect a candidate that does not have the best interests of the minority at heart. For some reason, he considers this threat greater than the threat that a minority would do exactly the same thing, given their increased power at the voting booth. But most importantly, he neglects the fact that he is defining a "majority" as "people who like a given candidate," not as "people who are in any way related by class." Yes, Germans occasionally oppress Jews. No, Gore supporters do not normally wantonly slay Bush supporters.
Also, his method for "giving more power" to the oppressed minorities is a bit dumb. But I'm tired of arguing that point.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
2. I'm not saying the ballot wasn't bad, I'm saying that a democrat approved it. I want a fair, clean election just like most people. However, complaining after the fact, and after it was approved by a democrat is, IMO, pretty bogus. Change it for the next election? OK. Whine and complain after the fact because your canditate lost? Sorry, that's really reaching.
3. Don't know what to say about your response. It seems it was that way everywhere - most polling stations were overwhelmed by the turnout (which is pretty sad, seeing as how they are saying only 50% of eligable voters actually turned out). However, it doesn't excuse anything.
4. I didn't say the reform party, I said "Buchanan". However, you are right - I may have been confused, I have heard both about Buchanan in the 96 election, and Buchanan in the *primaries* having a higher than normal number of votes.
Again, I'm not trying to be biased, I dislike Bush probably more than I dislike Gore (I voted for neither). I want the ballots to be counted and recounted until there is no option left but for everyone to agree the results were fairly counted - and then let the winner take the white house. But all the crap about misleading voters and "disenfranchised" voters is a boatload of crap. One of the analysts said it best: "since when does 'disenfranchised' mean your candidate lost?"
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Gore gets to be president on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
Bush gets to be President on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.
On Saturday night, they engage in fisticuffs; the winner gets to be President on Sunday.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
No, it is completely unfair. It allows voters in one county to act on information that is not available when they were supposed to ballot (i.e., the final results of the voting in the rest of the ocuntry) as well as considerable undue influence from the media regarding the interpretation of these ballots.
There are complaints about vote fraud in every election - and it certainly isn't limited to Palm Beach in this election. In New York state there have been significant complaints, affecting more individual votes than in Florida (althoug they aren't being contested as they would not change the final electoral vote in the state).
It is fundamentally unfair to the rest of Florida and the rest of the country to give any single county special rights to act upon complaints - I think the only fair thing to do would be to toss the entire election and start over, which isn't going to happen.
I would argue that the very act of predicting an outcome will cause people to believe that there is some reason for it, and therefore any prediction will influence outcome, whether it is justified or not.
What you are suggesting would be to say that they don't even have to justify their predictions at all.
The only question is, how should the power be distributed? One obvious answer is equally. One vote to each. Any other voting scheme operates by taking power from one voter and giving it to another. Therefore, I believe that this mathematical argument is hooey.
Now on the other hand, I can see great political benefit for the states (rather than the people directly) electing the president. Look at how the federal government routinely infringes on states' authority by controlling the flow of funds. These are funds gathered from residents of these states. Would this happen if we reverted to the state governments electing a president? I think not.
-Dave
How true, how true... All you did was mention the truth, and you got moderated down as flamebait. Apparently some Democrat got lucky and had some moderation points to blow...
I think the confusion lies in the fact that although the ballots must be received before election day. The state of Florida has 10 days to count them after election day. In an election that is not this close, this probably gets brushed under the rug. The absentee votes are there already, they just haven't started counting them yet.
Uh, isn't the House of Representatives there to make up for the Senate imbalance? Alan Dershowitz was talking out his ass. A closer truth would be that the Framers didn't trust Joe Luser to be up on the latest developments in Washington (valid in those days), so the EC was instituted as a buffer.
--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
If it works fairly well why not? Ever look at how the coins are made? For part of the process they use 200 year old designs for eteching the coins. And those are very complicated machines. Nothing yet has been found to be better so they still use them.
guvf vf zl fvt
I'm tired of this Bullshit! Everyone's votes counts, and everyone should be allowed to vote. Just because someone doesn't meet your standard of intelligence doesn't mean they're not worthy of voting for the candidate of their choice.
True, but you must have the basic motor coordination and reasoning skills to physically cast your vote. If you cannot communicate your choice on a simple ballot that 99.999% of the population either understands, or has the forsight to ask for help before randomly punching holes, than that is YOUR problem.
Maybe next time we should have computer monitors with great big colored buttons and a windows-style "are you really sure yes/no" dialogue boxes for the voters in palm beach.
Finkployd
Well, I noticed things that I consider voting irregularities here in Massachusetts. Like I walked into the polling location, and up to a table where all the district voters names and addresses are taped out on the table. Then they asked me my name and address but asked for no proof of identification or anything. I could have claimed to be anybody just by looking down in front of me. Of course, it doesn't really matter here, since the vote in Massachusetts was so clearly decisive. It only becomes an issue when it's just too damned close to figure out what the will of the people really is.
It does appear that even overseas ballots are required to "be completed and returned as soon as possible so that it can reach the supervisor of elections of the county in which your precinct is located no later than 7 p.m. on the day of the election. " It even mentions that when mailing absentee ballots to overseas electors, instructions should be included to ensure that they understand when they need to mail it in order for it to arrive before 7pm election day. All this from the FL statutes...
Learn something new every day. ;-)
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
Here's a plot of the distribution of votes in the relevant Florida precincts.
Actually, that's not true, just as the state cannot bind you to vote in a particular way(except maybe with a confusing ballot), the states cannot make Electors vote for a particular candidate. What the states can do is penalize electors who vote for the "wrong" candidate. The term for such an elector is a "faithless elector"
If a faithless elector's vote changed the outcome of the election, the actions of the state could only punish the elector, not reverse the outcome.
There is a serious question as to whether it is legal to punish a faithless elector.
Basically electors are making a campaign promise to vote for the candidate they represent, as we all know campaign promises are broken all of the time, and no one goes to jail for it. Why should it be different for Electors.
Consider this scenario, what if one of the candidates dies before the electors cast their votes? Penalizing electors for voting for a living candidate (presumably someone from their party) seems ridiculous!
My other sig is extremely clever...
Actually, everyone over the age of 18 is legally entitled to vote. Qualified is an entirely different matter. Uninformed votes are meaningless. I would say that a large portion of the populace is not qualified to vote (qualified means capable of making a rational, informed decision, whether anybody else agrees with it or not is irrelevant). In fact, I would wager that most of us are not qualified to vote on at least some of the issues that appear on the ballot (for example, when you get to the part about whether judges should be retained, I bet the percentage of the voting population who actually has an informed opinion on each judge is fairly small).
Click Here
So what you're saying is that the media called "First post!" and then got moderated down?
If only we could moderate (most) of the media down to -1 so we wouldn't have to see the inanity they kept throwing at us.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Um...here's a good question: why the hell are we using punch cards still for something as important as an election? Shouldn't we be using technology that isn't 50 years old?
The problem is not that the technology is too old, it is that it is too complex. In Vermont, we have simple paper ballots with bubbles that you fill in with a #2 pencil. The way the ballots are designed, it is impossible to inadvertaintly vote for the wrong candidate, unless you are really stupid. It is also impossible for a machinacal defect to obscure the procedure, which was the real problem with those districts in Florida. Of course, in Vermont, you can vote even if you are a convicted felon (in fact, Billy Greer, currently in federal prison for drug trafficking, was on the ballot for US Congress in Vermont)
Happily, Ruth Dwyer, the Nazi/Republican candidate for governor of Vermont, was religated to the dustbin of history on election day. She was forced to admit, in her concession speach, that Vermonters don't appear to agree with her on the issues. She actually got a smaller percentage of the vote this year then she did two years ago, when she did not have the whole civil union issue to harp on.
I cannot imagine there being any vote fraud in this state, that may be my own rosy picture of my home, but I think that anything of that nature would be quickly discovered and there would be massive public outrage. The stories I am reading here suggests that in many places such fraud is rampant, and that's pretty sad, espacially if people are taking it as par for the course.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
I apologize if this is already posted, but hasn't anyone recognized that the membership rolls for the Independence Party (the Florida extension of the Reform Party) reach to around 14,000 members in Palm Beach County? For that matter, in all of the state of Florida, it has the most members of the Reform party... SO, maybe it's not a mistake after all.
--
Never knock on Death's door.
Ring the doorbell and run
(He hates that).
Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
Consider all the voters that were torn between Nader and Gore. Many of them are doubtless wishing they had chosen differently - and what voters are more confused than they?
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
I've actually been told both ways. The sources that seemed the most intelligent (ie, they got the fact from anywhere but the media) are what I was going on. Most of the sources cited as contradicting me are from the media. But that doesn't make them wrong. It just goes to show that nobody really has a strong clue what's going on. ;-D
THIS ELECTION MUST BE RESOLVED WITH A TAG TEAM STEEL CAGE MATCHUP OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS!
Gore vs. Bush in a steel cage. Cheney and Lieberman waiting for the tag. Both houses of Congress on the sidelines threatening to turn the match into a full-on bicameral brawl!
There has never an opportunity like this before, and there probably won't be one again.
What are you waiting for?
Bruce
Bruce
You are the real Bruce Perens.
"although it's a pretty disappointing way to pick the president, i basically say tough shit to those who erred on their ballots, regardless of the election officials actions."
So what you are saying is that if the ballot itself is confusing and misleading to people to the point that the actual vote itself is altered by layout or wording, we should go with it rather than what the people want?
"i don't expect it to lead to a revote, although the officials may have broken the law and get punished accordingly. i think the rest of the country doesn't care about palm county and if the democrats do try and force a revote there will be a huge public outcry against them."
Well actually, (most of) the rest of the country does care about palm county and the rest of florida, as they are the deciding 25 votes in who the next president is. The fact that the ballot was misleading and confusing should show that it needs to be changed. If they could identify those voters who voted for two different presidential candidates, which they obviously can't, and if they did so because of a misleading and/or confusing ballot, they should be allowed to revote. The news sources I have seen state that over 19,000 ballots have been thrown out because of such errors. The Florida vote could very well be decided by less.
"i expect most people to say if you're to stupid to figure out how to vote, tough shit, it's your fault, not george bush's."
I can not believe that statement. That's all I can say about it now.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
I apologize for my math un-geekedness but how the hell do you say 3,000,000,000,000,000? from the pdf file it seem like Buchanan was about a million times more likeley to get hit by lightning than get 3,407 votes in palm beach.
The "mathamatical proof" By Alan Natapof has some flaws. For instance, Natapof claims that the elector process is similar to baseball games in the World Series, where the winning team doesn't necessarily hit most of the total amount of home runs, but rather wins most of the total amount of games. However, there's a major difference: in an election you know beforehand how many voters ("home runs") you have, and it can therefore be argued that the winner of the popular vote should win the election. A baseball game with a previously determined number of home runs would be pretty ridiculous if the winning team didn't score the most runs. Just my $0.02 /arneMan
If you can't figure something out as simple as follow the arrow to the hole and punch it, what the hell are you doing having ANY part in choosing who becomes the most powerful man on earth, the one who can blow us all into itty bitty pieces? If you're that stupid, you deserve to have Pat Buchannan running your lives.
You're using her as bait, Master!
I just love how the people figure out they voted for the wrong person afterwards as though some great epiphany comes with lights from heaven and angels singing.
It was "figured out" by the rep for the district who said something along the lines of "There's no way that many people here voted for Buchanan, something must be wrong". Even though a similar amoung of votes for the Reform party came from there last election...
I HAVE seen the pictures of the Florida ballots. Come on, if someone can't figure that out, they really shouldn't be voting. In fact, they'd probably struggle with the games here: http://weazel.iwarp.com/games.html
In the Republican primary in that exact same area, thanks to support from a relative, Buchanan got up to 8,000 votes in 1996. In a primary, where a very small number of republicans actually turn out compared to election days. Of course, that was way before he left the party, but it is more than reasonable that he still has between 1/3rd of the supporters that he did back then. Saying "this is wrong because every other country voted differently." is complete bull. And, as most of us who's visited know, you never visit Palm Beach without seeing something odd. Anyway....
I would like to remind everyone that the electoral college works. Just because New York and California really really want Gore to win doesn't mean that the rest of the country wants what Gore represents. Imagine if the EU existed during Hitler's rise to power, and Nazi Germany dominated the popular vote for the elections to president of the EU. This is all hypothetical, but I'm simply afraid that a lot of people don't understand the power balancing that the electoral college brings.
If they are truly interested in checking for irregularities, why not check election procedures in all 50 states? Gore won California by only 5%. Let's check and see how many CA voters were illegal aliens. Nah. Democrats aren't interested in that since the illegal aliens prefer Gore over Bush.
The method by which the House would select the president is that each state would get a vote, not each representative. Take for example Texas... although heavily republican, 18 of the 30 districts in Texas elected a democrat -- meaning Texas would actually vote for Gore in the House. I don't have time to break down every state but I think it'd be a pretty close margin and not necessarily in favor of Bush.
but when you figure Gore has the majority vote and Bush has the electoral you have to wonder what this country is going
Actually, a large reason for the existance of the electoral college is to give smaller states a louder voice. The ~300,000 votes in North Dakota pale in comparison to the 6 million we're arguing about in Florida. If we go purely popular vote, the urban areas then dictate what happens to the rest of the country( we actually have this same problem here in NY with NYC dominating the entire rest of the state in state elections ).
Finally I think the press rigged this for the ratings.
We definitely agree there. The media stands to gain a lot of money in advertising revenue by making the election draw out as long as possible. The whole purpose of the Voters News Service, which is made up of the major news networks, is to help them "guide" their coverage. I don't see why we can't just wait 12 hours and wake up to see who won the election (of course, that means less ratings and thus less money for the tv news companies) rather than calling states before their polls close or influence the western states by calling the major eastern states early.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
-pf
PS -- Not to mention we have another month and change before the electoral college vote; if Bush ends up with 271 of the electorals, no telling what could happen there.
Make affiliate bucks
There is nothing unusual about this at all.
When networks and other news organizations call a state for one candidate or another, there are typically two things that they take into account: exit polling (which is separate from the actual vote, and which they have the results from much earlier) and the results of certain "key" precincts. The "key" precincts are identified using statistics as those precincts that have consistently picked the winner over time.
When the exit polls are clearly indicating one candidate, and when the key precincts are clearly indicating one candidate, that is generally all the networks need to call a state, even if the actual vote count is just getting started. Obviously, it's a bit more complicated, but that's the general idea behind it.
Now, as to why the state was called for Gore even with Bush three points ahead in the current count, consider a state like Pennsylvania. If the ballots are being counted in largely rural areas, and the votes cast in the urban areas haven't even been considered yet, of course you're going to see a candidate like Bush far ahead of a candidate like Gore. Hell, it's not uncommon to see a state called for a candidate that's ten points behind in the current count, simply because those regions of the state that are Democratic (or Republican) strongholds haven't been tallied yet. The networks have the benefit of exit poll results, and they can use those to characterize the election in ways the general vote can't (until it is completely counted, that is.)
Really, it is extremely rare that the networks would get a call like this wrong. This is why the situation in Florida appears all the more anomalous. And this is hardly some kind of "liberal media" conspiracy
We'll have to see how this comes out.
--
--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.
Second, every vote counts, every vote. Those who did not vote have no right to complain about the outcome
Third, how hard is it to vot? I am having a hard time buying the fact that people were confused by the ballot layout. I have taken a look and it seemed pretty easy to me. I also have a hard time believing that elderly voters, who presumably have been casting their vote for years, all of the sudden have become too feeble to understand how a simple voting machine works.
Finally, I think the Electoral College needs a second look. Majority rules, and the popular vote should be the determining factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I think the media needs to report the facts, and not speculate on possible outcomes.
--
--
You are a fucking moron.
I didn't see an actual ballot, but rather saw an image of it on various news sites. While you (and many others in this and other election threads) make a case that paying attention should have been enough to figure out the election, I can see where someone might make a mistake. Put yourself in the place of, say, my grandmother, an 80-year old voter with glaucoma. She doesn't see especially well, and she had difficulty voting on election day even with a better designed ballot. (She voted in Iowa).
I've even seen threads to the effect of "If you can't figure out the ballot you have no business voting." Elitist piffle. Being able to figure out an arcane system with unfamiliar equipment no more disqualifies one from voting eligibility than inability to pass a polling examination or pay a poll tax. Perhaps these same people wish to claim that "The president is on TV much of the time. Only voters with perfect vision, who can reliably gauge the president's comeliness are qualified to vote." Perhaps you should make the ballots "red writing on a green background" since colorblind people obviously can't gauge a candidate's sense of style and color coordination. Perhaps we should phrase the directions in a convoluted way so that those who don't have formal training in logic are exempted. Or, possibly, use 11 different languages to express each ballot, so that only extreme polyglots, who are, on average, smarter than your regular Joe, can vote. Having an unobfuscated system that all can use is undoubtedly the most fair system.
Human beings are trained to read from top to bottom of a page. They are not trained to read from left page to right page and back to left. With the center piece which guides the hole-punching apparatus in place on the ballot even the most cynical Bush supporter has to admit that it is unnatural to associate the second hole with the top entry on the right instead of the second entry on the left. In addition, according to CNN last night, the directions given indicated that one is to punch the hole next to the candidate's name, no reference being made to the guiding arrows. No reference being made to there being only one hole for each candidate. (Many ballots were voided when voters thought that "Gore has two holes. I had better punch them both to make sure I vote for him.")
As an experiment, print out the ballot yourself onto cream or grey paper. Hold it away from you at arm's length, darken the room, and blur your vision somewhat. Now you see things like many of the elderly voters do, and you can maybe appreciate that what is obvious and effortless to you may not necessarily be so to others.
I think it is safe to say that ballot design will receive much more attention in future elections. Few things are less democratic than having page layout cause a voter to unintentionally void a ballot or vote for the wrong candidate.
I remember reading that article in 1996. I thought at the time it linked to the original paper at MIT for perusal.. which actually gave a nice solid proof not just for electorial college but using
House/Senate versus direct election on all laws/rules.
The main issue is that it does seem to logically cause a 2 party system to occur. Reasoning being is that with only 1 winner available that the "co-alitions" that one sees in parliaments are done at the large party level versus smaller party
-- SJS smooge at smoogespace dot com
Most of the Democrats who were in favor of the electoral system last week are still in favor of it (for example, this guy named Gore who you may have heard of -- still in favor of the electoral college, as well as all his publicly speaking advisors).
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Tackhead, you don't need to get so sanctimonious and theatrical. A coup d'etat?! Good grief. Untwist your panties a little bit, and go through the WayBack machine to the dark ages of last week, when Bush was plotting his own legal challenges to an electoral-college loss. In that benighted time, everyone was worried that Nim would win the popular vote and Rod would eke out a victory in the electoral college. It now appears the other way around, which is the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.
According to sources within the Bush campaign, their battle against an electoral college loss would include media blitz, radio and tv ads, and a "popular uprising".
So far, the Democrats have expressed full faith in the laws of the United States, and made a few noises, not yet written in stone, about challenges within the legal system.
Now, which approach sounds more like a coup?
I've worked up close to political campaigns in local races, and I've been an election judge. The process of a recount or legal challenge to ballots involves discrediting certain votes, which are thrown out. The losing party in these cases always asks for a new election, but judges rarely grant them. The judge can rule on a process for disqualifying ballots, or she can just throw a number of them out, depending on the extent of the problem or the applicability of state election laws. The vote as determined by the judicial challenge becomes the official and legal vote.
Election laws exist for a reason. Every candidate is within his rights to pursue those laws to the very end. It's legal, and if it overturns the original result, that's legal too.
Stuff your coup talk up the hole it came from.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
why not just have a revote? looking at the issues, it seems to me that it comes down to fairness, and that the ballot in palm beach is construed by a large number of people to be unfair. where is the harm in having palm beach vote again? only legal voters in that county will be able to vote, and they'll most likely vote (this time) for who they want to be president. the rest of the united states has already shown that it's a toss up for who we want to be president... i'll admit that i'm leaning towards gore, but at the same time, i can't see how i would be able to rationalize a revote as 'unfair' if i were supporting bush...
I know, I'm one of them. Does it really appear to you that they're campaigning anywhere else, anyhow? Look at the map. Gore, with only a very small number of states, is ahead of Bush before Florida's results are determined. He is also ahead in the popular vote. Do you think for a minute that any candidate gives a rat's ass about anyone outside of urban areas anyhow? That's where the population is that they need to win the electoral votes for a state.
Just curious. What are the legal precedents for having another vote in Pal Beach County with a new ballot for only the president? Could people who didn't vote before vote now? Or how about only everyone who didn't vote gets to vote now? And is there any consideration being given to recounting ALL VOTES in every state, given the number of problems that have cropped up here? I am not saying that any of the above SHOULD happen, but I am curious as to the possibilities of any of these things happening? Who makes the decisions on issues like this? The AG for the state? Does the federal government have any say in the election issues of a single state? Finally, what happens if this issue is not resolved by inauguration day? Who is in charge at that point?
Scott Plumlee
http://www.howstuffworks.com/ ele ctoral-college.htm
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Amen. Regardless of the shady goings-on I'm seeing in Palm Beach - the second-guessing of the voters by Gore's lawyers - I see the Electoral College as serving a very useful purpose.
The electors of Florida are not bound by any law, and can cast their votes any way they please.
- If they decide to abide by the results of the recount, the winner of the recount wins the Presidency.
- If they decide to abide by the decision of a judge who awards 3400 valid Buchanan votes to Gore , Gore wins the Presidency.
- If they decide to say "a pox on both your houses, we don't know who won, and we", we get a President selected by the House (Bush) and a Veep selected by the Senate (Lieberman). Given the split in popular vote, House, and Senate totals, a dual-party executive might be just what the Framers had in mind
;-)
While I'm scared by the attempt to second-guess the voters of Palm Beach, I have faith that however Florida's electors carry out their duties, whatever happens will still be within the bounds of the Constitution.Which is a long way to say "whoever wins the Electoral College" is the guy who deserves the Presidency.
From this site:
To make things far for all parties, and to stop the confusion, there should just be a re-vote. Everyone in Florida should have to re-vote for the election. Even further you could have a emergency debate for both candidates for one more chance to win votes. Limit this just to Florida since it is the deciding factor. This way it is fair and both parties can't complain. I think that however loses is going to complain about something that was unfair. Just my thoughts...
But one thing that's been absent in news of this is an analysis of how many papers spoilt in a similar way Palm Beach County would normally expect, given the demographics.
Does anyone know what the deal is there?
For more news on this, check out The Palm Beach Post.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I heard Alan Dershowitz on the radio yesterday talking about the electoral college and he mentioned something I had never considered before. The electoral college balances out the extra voting power that the smaller states have in the senate. Hawaii has just as much voting power in the senate as California, so to balance that, California has more sway in the presidential election.
You know Rob, I'm experiencing Frusteration at the way you spell things around here.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
As big a fan as I am of my country of birth, it has to be said that the American system of "democracy" which we are so proud of is no democracy at all. And if there is one thing that this farce of an election has shown, it's that something needs to change. Any nation that elects a leader who got less votes than the opposition cannot be said to have any kind of representative government.
In fact when you consider that the Electoral College a) doesn't even have to be voted in democratically and b) can vote whichever way they damn well please, you've got a situation in which democracy is nothing more than the current paradigm, but is not part of the law of the land! I honestly find this scary, as it opens the door for a strong government (if we ever get one) to introduce all manner of ills - socialism, liberalism or hell, even communism! We've seen how little the Constitution matters when it becomes inconvenient for those in power.
It's scary that the foundations of modern America are so flimsy, and it's scary how little people care. Hopefully this election will result in some changes being made, but at the same time a deadlocked government will probably be unable to do anything at all for the next four years. In fact, whoever wins this time will probably lose next time, because they will be seen as ineffective due to the even split in the Senate, HoR and Congress.
Jon Erikson, IT guru
The ballot in Palm Beach was reviewed and approved by both the Democratic and Republican parties well in advance of the election. Barring out and out fraud, should we redo the whole county/state because of a particularly high density of stupid people?
Maybe its because I don't really feel too sorry for the people in Florida who voted for the wrong guy. You're expected to at least pay attention when you're voting.
Icebox
There were also 19,000 ballots that were thrown out because they voted for more than one president. I highly doubt this was some sort of intentional civil disobedience.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Reagan never ran versus Dukakis. Reagan received electoral votes in three elections: 1976 (1 vote, major candidates were Ford and Carter), 1980 (>270, ran vs. Carter), 1984 (>270, ran vs. Walter "Fritz" Mondale).
George HW Bush ran v. Dukakis in 1988. One elector, perhaps accidentally (I am unsure of the folklore) gave Dukakis an electoral vote for VP and gave that presidential vote for Dukakis's running-mate, Lloyd Bentsen.
You can't throw out the electoral votes because that would leave Florida's residents without an influence on the presidency, something that's out of their responsibility.
The cleanest thing is to revote in the whole of the US.
And while you're doing that, CNN and others shouldn't be allowed to do any reporting until the last polling station has closed.
I agree. As someone else mentioned, Ohio's ballot is also not very easy to decipher. It is very obvious if you look at it long enough. (I voted with it.) People should pay attention if they are concerned with who they are voting for. On the other hand the designers and evaluators of the balloting process have produced a product that is somewhat confusing and the attitude should not be that people need to pay attention. For example the layout of my phone bill is easier to make sense of than the Ohio or Florida ballot. Most web based forms are less visually ambiguous than the ballot in question. The IRS has made progress in the area of form design, so it stands to reason that other parts of government could find it useful to get the help of designers with expertice in form design and the evaluation of those designs. if anyone wants to see some of the observations we have regarding the ballot design it is on our website at http://www.sonicrim.com/red/us/ballot.html
< sarcasm> /sarcasm>
I'm in favor of letting Florida Re-vote because some people voted for the wrong person.
<
I'd also be in favor of being able to re-pick the lottery numbers in the Michigan Lottery. I think I picked the wrong numbers.
For you and I looking at the ballot now, it is decipherable, but to someone with poor eyesight, in a hurry, mistakes could have been made. What's significant is that the dual column format was only used for the presidential candidates...for the house and senate everything was in a single column on the left of the holes.
Basically, in West Palm Beach County, Buchanan received between 2300 and 2600 more votes than predicted by simple statistics. That result is 4 standard deviations above the expected -- something with 15,000 to 1 odds!
Regardless of what happens with the recount, this thing won't end, as they have to wait for the 2,000 or so more overseas ballots, and undoubtedly a ridiculous litigation bonanza.
Nice spelling there Malda. Have you graduated college yet? We thought that the election was bad enough, but this guy cannot even spell Mathematics right! AHHH. At least it is not another Jon Katz story!
The most cheesiest lesson learned in this election is that "Every Vote counts." Wrong. The only locality where one vote makes a difference is in Florida. Even there, its not clear that the votes in Palm Beach will count...
I live in Virginia. As I read the returns, I was struck by the notion that if only 210,000 votes had been for Gore rather than for Bush, Gore could have carried the election without Florida. Wow. To think that my vote really made a difference... The feeling of personal power is just intoxicating.
Whether Gore wil win this election will be decided by handful of voters in Florida. It will be decided through legal wrangling, through disqualifications, and the end result will most probably smell.
The electoral college is a holdover from a very long time ago, when it would have been impossible to keep track of the popular vote on a national scale, and the counting would have been completed sometime after the end of the president-elect's eighth term in office. Now, however, the media keeps such careful track of the popular vote that they actually influence elections. We have the technology at last to not only count all of our citizens and keep track of statistical data about them, but to keep track of how many voted which way. The electoral college is sadly unbalanced, unevenly distributing its electorate. It supposedly could still deal with a 'mass misjudgement' on the part of the voters, but it seems to me that we already have Bush and Gore running...
Every presidential election year, Discover magazine puts out an article about election math. This years was really good - it discussed the different types of election systems that could be used instead of a popular vote.
Unfortunately, I don't have the issue handy, but I think it is still on the newsstands. It's worth a read for anyone interested in other possible voting methods.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Sorry, but look at the picture of the ballot in question on CNN. There are huge arrows pointing to the proper locations to punch for each candidate. You would have to be serieously obtuse to find it confusing.
See the ballot for yourself here.
They'll justify it by saying that as broadcasters must do public service to use the public airwaves, that predicting winners before it's ALL over is NOT in the public interest. . .
In other words, it won't be over until the wee hours of the morning, as they're still voting in Honolulu. . .
Remember when your elementary school teachers always told you to reread the instructions before starting your homework?
I'm sorry, but this is utter bullsh*t. When you go to vote, there are numerous instructions laid out for you to read, there are instructions in the voting booth itself, and if you still do not understand, you can have election judges (one republican, one democrat) go into the booth with you to help you vote.
Cnn.com had some pictures of the ballots, and they hardly look confusing. People are just looking for something to whine about.
-- bearclaw
Is that a new Al Gore invention, just like this wonderful internet I'm on?
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
Radio commentators are claiming that the number of Buchannan votes in the county in question are in the same proportion to the number of registered Reform Party members in the county as in other large Florida counties with significant amounts of Reform Party membership. A neighborhood full of Buchannan voters in a retirement community would hardly be surprising.
Norstadt's graph doesn't show the proportion of Reform Party registrants. So it is useless in distinguishing between the hypotheses (Democrat confusion vs. a concentration of either Reform Party voters or Buchannan supporters.)
More interesting might be a scatter-plot of Buchannan votes/Reform registration vs Gore votes/Democrat registration in counties with non-trivial Buchannan vote counts.
Such a graph would be so much MORE informative than Buchannan/Bush ratio that it raises the question of whether Norstadt chose that ratio because makes a good-looking graph for the Gore camp's "confused seniors" argument.
(Note, if you try to check this stat, that the Reform Party is called the "Independent Party" in Florida.)
(And no, I haven't researched this myself.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I read Slashdot everyday and wade through the sometimes interesting, sometimes boring, sometimes funny stories and posts. I come back because every once in a while a story makes me REALLY stop and think and broadens my thought process. The article by MIT Prof, Alan Natapof is one of those. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and keep up the good work! Regards, Barrie Selack
Photo of Ballot thanks to cnn.com and the AP.
While I aggree that the math proves there were irregularities in the votes for Buchanan, it does not seem to prove that Gore received less votes, contrary to what it says on the graph. Very deceiving in my opinion.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Real elections are almost never that closely contested.
OK, maybe it's rare, but that doesn't seem to help us at all. We have this situation NOW, and this is the ONLY time that the popular vs. electoral college decisions will differ.
In a fair election, he saw, each voter's power boils down to this: What is the probability that one person's vote will be able to turn a national election? The higher the probability, the more power each voter commands.
Wait a minute! But what is the probability that you are that voter that gets to swing the election? Is there any reason why a Floridian vote should really be worth more per person than one from Oregon? It is not possible for everyone to have more say than anyone else. That premise seems flawed to me. Can anyone justify it?
(for the record: I'm an independent, I care about the math and not this year's particular result.)
And according to ABCNews and various other news sources: "Democratic Party officials said sample ballots handed to Florida voters by volunteers as they entered the polling places in precincts in Palm Beach listed the candidates in a different order than what voters saw in the voting booths. The result, they said, was voters who referenced the sample ballots to cast their votes may have voted for Buchanan when they thought they were voting for Gore."
My info on this might not be completely accurate, but, what I heard on NPR was that the recount is taking so long because the judge that has to be present for the recount had to do his normal work yesterday, so they couldn't start the recount until this (thursday) morning.
Now, I can see the value in not rushing things, but it seems to me that this is a little more important than whatever his normal judge work is.
I dunno if that was the full story or not, but I didn't see this posted yet, so I figured I'd throw it out, maybe someone else knows more.
I have to say, the "maths" on that Palm Beach story are pretty shonky. "The probability that Buchanan would get so many votes in Palm Beach by chance is less than 1 in 3,000,000,000,000,000" ?! Come on.. votes aren't evenly distributed, there are such things as demographics.
That graph makes it look some huge landslide to Buchanan in Palm Beach, but according to CNN, he got 3407 votes in that county. According to the mean, you'd only have expected 800-900. You know, there are a lot of reasons why he could have pulled an extra 2500 votes in that county beyond mass voter confusion.
What was his campaign like there? Are there a few big churches that were leaning on their worshippers to get out there and vote for him? Did he have 4x as many supporters out canvassing for him as in other counties? (come on, you know that could mean 4 people compared to only 1 elsewhere). Has anyone even asked the Buchanan campaign for an opinion?
Anyway.. I'm just a UK-resident Australian, it's nothing to do with me.. but that bullshit graph made it look like every voter was a dice that got tossed and was 100x more likely to come up "Bush" or "Gore" than "Buchanan", rather than an actual thinking human being 1.
1 - OK, I don't think anyone who voted Buchanan was really doing much "thinking". ;-)
Does anybody else have a problem with the fact that the same people that can't figure out the ballots are the ones that are working to try to figure out what the numbers are now? Every picture I see is of a bunch of confused people staring over their bifocals trying to figure out the difference between their ass and their elbow.
Yes, something seems fishy in Palm Beach, but without actually holding another election I don't see how we could possibly sort out what the people in that county intended.
I saw the ballot in question, it did not seem all that confusing to me, but what do I know. A big arrow next to the ballot bunch seems unambigous to me.
What is fascinating is that if this ends up in a protracted legal battle it might bring about the demise of the electoral college system. The foreign press is already wondering why we are still arguing when Gore won the popular vote (albeit by a slim margin).
Another way to reform the presidential election process which is much simpler than scraping the electoral college is to change the state laws that govern how the electors in the electoral college vote. Most people don't know this, but each state determines how their electors vote - most states implement winner take all (New Hampshire is an exception I believe). The states have the power to change it so that the candidates divvy up the electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state or in any other way they wish.
-josh
Think of it as a UI design problem.
I had a similar problem with a UI a did for a Palm Pilot application that had to do with spacing of labels in closely spaced checkboxes (you don't have lots of room on a pilot). The users complained that it caused lots of problems, even though if you looked carefully at it, it was clear which checkbox belonged to each label and the users worked with the application every single day.
Naturally, I had to change it and split the form across multiple pages.
It's also important to note that many voters who made a mistake were forced to submit their ballot once punched. The poll workers did not allow them to destroy their ballot and get a new one.
So, you have a bad user interface that gives you one chance to get it right.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What's slightly more disturbing is that the article goes on to say:
Is it just me, or does anybody else see this as a significant problem? Especially with the outcome of this election hinging on Florida's vote.Since the Electorates?Electorals aren't required to vote the way their states voted does anyone think that the closeness of this race will sway them to vote diffrently? Some people say this happened in the Dewey/Nixon election. Any thoughts. And who here feels that the press isn't loving every damn second of this?
Anyways... The ballots in Miami-Dade county should stand by law because all challenges to the ballot format must be made before the first vote is cast and ALL voters and campaigns in that county received an instructional copy of the ballot weeks before the election. That leaves outright fraud( forged absentee ballots, dead people voting, etc ) and the suppression of republican voters in the west(due to the early miscall of Florida going to Gore) as the most likely challenges.
I think a court ABSOLUTELY must not allow a revote. It would be unfair for one county or one state to have the power to elect the president knowing the status of the rest of the vote before walking into the booth. It also wouldn't be fair for a court to statistically modify the vote of Miami-Dade county based on demographic or other information as the votes were cast and if people were truly unsure of their vote, they could have asked for help from the officials at the polling center.
If there isn't a decisive winner, I think the ONLY fair thing to do, and this may rise to the level of a decision by the Supreme Court, would be to throw out the ENTIRE 25 electoral votes in Florida as if they had gone to a different candidate. Because neither man received a majority of the electoral votes(270), the Constitution says it is up to the newly elected House of Representatives to select the President. It seems the only way to ensure the rule of law is obeyed.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Sean
abcnews (or it might have been cnn) stated that over 19,000 ballots from palm county were thrown out because more than one vote for president was punched. this is in comparison with something like 3,000 ballots which were thrown out due to senate races, etc. 19,000 votes from a heavily democratic county would be interesting to know who those people actually wanted to vote for, i would hope that the florida electoral college would like to know who they wanted to vote for before casting their electoral votes the wrong way. also, anyone else read (also on cnn or abcnews, i cannot remember of course) about the fbi investigation into phone and election fraud by a republican phone bank in california? apparently, democrats in west virginia were being told by callers that the WV governor had not endorsed Gore, when in fact Gore was the first Democratic candidate the WV governer had endorsed since LBJ. Also another state received calls from the phone bank telling voters if they tried to go to the polls without their actual physical voter's registration card, they could be in serious legal trouble. anyway... -sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
It just so happens that there are 14000 (14551, tbe) registered Refomers in Palm Beach, more than the rest of the state combined, and has long been considered a center of Buchananism in the state.
Many people are claiming the there _must_ be an irregularity b/c the neighboring counties with similar demographics only gave 700-1000 voted each (Broward with 789 is brought up). However, the neighboring counties only have 100-200 registered Reformers (Broward with 189).
The question in my mind is how many of those 19000 bad ballots really were "supposed" to go to Buchanan?
I'll second that. ;>
011001110110110001100101011011100110001001101111
Even if you have different candidates on it for senate/house/initiatives/whatever else, it should not be that difficult to define a certain format. I think it has a significant impact for a example in which order the candidates are presented, how easy it is to tell where to make your cross/punch a hole even if you are old and far-sighted.
What I'm trying to say, have the same layout everywhere, the same mechanism for voting, and no-one is going to complain afterwards because 100s of lawyers would look at it before. As I understand it at the moment every county has its own ballot paper (is that right?). Is there any good reason for that???
Well, the way I see it right now (~11 AM in the east) is this (someone check my math):
;)
CNN is reporting that thus far in the recount (32 of 67 counties reporting), Bush has gained 346 votes, for a new total of 2,909,481 and Gore has gained 1,189 votes for a new total of 2,908,540.
So, therefore, of the 32 counties reporting thus far, Bush has picked up an average of (346/32) = 10.81 votes per county and Gore has gained an average of (1189/32)= 37.15 votes per county.
So, if we extrapolate that to the remaining 35 counties, we find that Bush should pick up a further (10.81*35) = 378 votes and Gore an additional (37.15*35) = 1300 votes.
Add these to the current totals:
Bush: 2,909,481 + 378 = 2,909,859
Gore: 2,908,540 + 1300 = 2,909,840
And Bush wins....by 19 votes.
Of course, this is utter BS, since I didn't look to see which counties have reported and which remain unreported, so I have no way of knowing whether the reporting counties are heavily skewed towards one party or the other, but it's interesting to doodle on my pad instead of working
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Foxnews.com reports that it was a democrat who designed the ballot and it was approved by both parties. If it's anyones fault than it's theirs. Also, palm beach has the most reform party supporters in all of Florida, according to Neal Boortz. I can't confirm the accurracy of this information, but if it's true than could this be the reason for so many Reform party votes? http://www.foxnews.com/election_night/after/confus ing_ballots.sml and http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
That's "to consider casting", not "to cast".
An elector should vote according to the law of your state (if one exists), or to your interpretation of the will of those who elected you.
My "to consider" request was merely to "question whose will was being expressed" in any legal wranglings over the next few days.
And all that aside, I hope to God the results of the Florida recount are unambiguous - either way - so none of the legal wrangling and vote-reassigning concerns matter.
What matters most in this election is no longer who wins the Presidency, but how.
...Not the other way around.
Yeah, I've seen the Palm Beach ballot, and I could figure it out. But that's not the point. If anyone actually read the PDF file in the story they would have seen that the probability of there being this many Buchanan voters in Palm Beach is less than 1 in 3 quadrillion.
When this many people make a mistake, it is quite clearly the fault of the interface. One of the primary rules of UI design is that the interface should accommodate the user, rather than the user being forced to accommodate the interface. In this case, statistics quite clearly prove that for whatever reason, the "interface" for this ballot is flawed. Well, unless you beleive that there are a bunch of closet Buchananites in Palm Beach.
-WintermuteThe article's fascinating, but in the end I don't think I buy it. He measures voting power by the chance that your vote will turn the election. Which I see no real problem with untill you bring districts (i.e., the electoral college) into it.
There, part of what determines whether or not your vote turns the election isn't your vote, it's *where* you vote. So to say that using districts increases the power of individual votes is disingenuous at best.
It simply takes the (pseudo) random factor of the votes themselves and creates a new random factor of how the votes are aportioned into districts. It doesn't give voters more power; it just throws a new element of chance into the race.
Um, I think we all know who the 'irregular vote' goes to.
It's unbelievable to me that someone could write, and perhaps actually believe, such drivel. I don't vote for "excitement" and I certainly don't vote because I feel the whole thing is some sort of sporting event, or because I'm in the mood to "gamble". I vote specifically for a certain individual because I feel they are the most competent for the job and they most closely reflect my own beliefs about government, and I would like to see them elected.
I can understand the need for representatives and senators, simply because there are too many issues for everyone to stay informed and vote on daily, but in its current incarnation, we to live in a Republic (we don't make decisions, we elect people who make the decisions), not a Democracy. However, I feel that the electoral college should be abolished, simply because it's members are free to vote against the popular vote and I think that is clearly wrong in this instance. Let's turn America into a Democracy like it was meant to be.
--It's Pimptastic!--
If EVERY polling place used the EXACT same system we would not have this problem. The voting equipment should be agreed on ahead of time by a "non-partisan" (at least as much as that is possible.)
Federal elections should be federally funded and organized, including purchasing / maintaining equipment.
Popular Vote vs. Electoral College should be examined, but let's not be too quick to toss out the old. Perhaps a system like Maine where the Electoral votes are split, but the winner of the state gets a bonus?
Big deal... so the old people don't know how to vote. Could it possibly be fair to hold a re-election in just those counties? Absolutely not... Voter turnout would be close to 100%.
Discounting those of you that think this is a "vast right wing conspiracy", the confusing ballot was written by a Democrat that thought that the big text would be easier for the elderly to read. The people in the two counties were given sample ballots clearly explaining how to vote, giving them nothing other than their own ignorance to explain for the voting. Can we hold them accountable for that? I know that we can't hold the whole nation accountable for their mistake.
Also, there's the "liar" factor. The government does not now, nor ever know who I voted for. I could SAY that I mistakenly voted for Buchanan, and that they should just take a vote away from him and give it to Gore. That wouldn't be fair, because I could have voted for Gore all along, effectively giving him TWO votes by me. The only fair way would be to hold another election (which would be unfair for the other party, since George W. Bush WON and should be our next president.)
What then can we say for the old people? Sorry... pay more attention next time. It's no use complaining now, they should have paid closer attention (or asked for assistance if they didn't understand.) Their only recourse is to sue the Democrat that made the ballot, but they cannot overturn the electoral process because of incompetance on their part.
According to a report I heard on the radio yesterday, Independent and Reform registered voters in the county number over 15,000, so it's not the least bit difficult to imagine that a quarter of them would vote for a Reform candidate. But since "we all know" all of the voters in Florida are elderly Jews who vote the straight (D) ticket in lockstep, there simply must be Something Going On Here.
It reminds me of a baseball game I saw on TV years ago. The late KC Royals shortstop Fred Patek was thrown out stealing second base. The umpire had his thumb out as soon as the ball hit the glove, long before Patek reached the bag... but the tag was not applied until after his foot touched second. The ump never even looked, having decided "There is no way this guy beats the tag". Ever since that day, I've been suspicious of people who decide something must be impossible, and never consider any other possibility.
Umpires (and election officials) should not be in the business of deciding how people should have voted. If they are allowed to do so, then they can throw out election results any time they want, which scares me far more than either Bush or Gore being elected via a recount of the actual ballots cast in accordance with the rules established before the election.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
OK Spacemonkeys, time to make soap!!!
Happy people make bad consumers.
Hi:
I think it's a mistake to judge the Nixon of 1960 by the Nixon of 1972. Nixon was a fairly good-natured vice president, for all that he was a nasty politician. He didn't become personally bitter and vindictive until 1962, when he was defeated for governor of California (the famous "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" quote).
In fact, you can argue that being magnanimous with the White House is precisely the sort of thing that will make a person bitter and cynical in reflection (not to mention having thousands of stoned idiots calling you names on a regular basis).
With the irregularites that exist and the higher than expected number of votes thrown out in the presidential race, it seems that a rerun of the election in FL may be a good thing. Why are people so afraid of this possibility? If you want to make sure noone extra decides to vote because of the closeness of the race, just allow those who voted on tuesday to vote again.
.plan.
Some day I hope to have a
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Okay, this is an obvious troll, but someone tell me, is this misspelling meant as a pun?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
first off, I didn't vote for nader, gore, buchanan, or bush. I live in Ohio. I voted in Ohio.
Here is a controversial point, one that many may find appalling. But since it is a free country still (I'm parading my 2c)... Here. Revote those countys. having the whole state of Florida revote is expensive for the voters. If Only 18K or so votes are in question lets eliminate uncertainty. Revote those countys! Isn't this the most fair? I welcome all critism to this idea. Please don't just reply with "thats stupid". Explain why. Thanks!
Regardless of how things turn out in Florida (which is bound to be bad no matter what happens), couldn't the EC still pick Gore come next month? What would be the ramifications of that?
1. disproportionately high number of buchanan votes from a heavily democratic area. much higher numerically and percentage wise than other comparable counties. 3500 compared to less than 900 in other democratic counties. Even in a heavily republican county, buchanan only got around 500 votes. So, possibly 3000 mispunched votes. Those votes would decisively swing the florida contest to gore. of course, there's no way of knowing if they intended to vote for buchanan but they can compare it with the rest of each voter's choices. it would be unlikely if the person chose democratic candidates for the house, senate, etc but selected buchanan for president.
2. unusually large number of disqualified ballots. over 19000 ballots had 2 holes punched for the presidential candidate. compare to only ~3500 double punched senate votes. This would go along with the theory that people were confused, made a mistake, voted for buchanan, realized they made a mistake and punched a second hole for gore. of course, we will need more details to see whether or not this is the case, that 2 holes were punched for gore and buchanan and not other combinations. these 19000 ballots would clearly put gore over the top.
3. the problem was noticed on election day, by as early as 11 am by some accounts. people were confused, complained to the election organizers and the democrats printed up fliers informing people to be careful. so, this isn't some excuse being manufactured after the fact. they had informed the people in charge about the problem while the election was still in progress and there were many reports of people being confused early on.
4. a legal technicality. apparently, the rules say the holes shall be on the right of the names. on the ballot in question, half the names are on other side, so the holes are on the left, in violation of what the law mandates. therefore, the ballots could be illegal.
5. the problem with the ballots is a usability problem. it's not some sort of conspiracy to defraud the democrats, just an honest mistake in design. i can easily see why it might be confusing, especially if the holes don't line up precisely, the person hasn't seen it before and there's a time pressure to vote quickly.
all in all, very interesting stuff. if they do a revote, it should only be people who actually voted the first time.
According to Fox News this morning, they have been using that ballot design for 30 years. If it has suddenly become confusing, that probably says more about the Palm Beach electorate than about the ballot design.
OK so xpdf doesn't provide the best clarity (sometimes I can't even read documents using it) but Acrobat reader is available for Linux for free and it works great. Now if they would just release a version that supports searching.
I don't understand what the problem is with a .pdf file. It's a fully documented format, as opposed to, say MS Word, and I suspect that Ghostscript renders it, which would provide a reader for a wide range of platforms, if you aren't using one of the wide range of platforms that Adobe Reader works on. If Ghostscript isn't open-source enough for you, the format is well-documented enough that it would be as easy to write a reader for this as for any other typesetting format.
PDF preserves typographical appearance very well, allowing the author to include mathematical formulas, etc., unlike a pure text or HTML document. It's also closely related to PostScript, so that one can produce high-quality printed copies, unlike a bitmap graphic.
What alternative format provides all of these qualities?
That said, the document itself is pretty ugly.
With lunatic Rep. Wexler claiming he "personally saw 3000 people vote" incorrectly for Buchanan when neighboring counties only gave him a few hundred votes, it's important to note that that while the neighboring counties have a hundred or two registered Reformers (Broward with 189), Palm Beach County has 14,551! The real question is why did Pat only get 3400 votes there?
- improper punctuation(three instances)
- Subject-verb agreement
i looked at the ballot.- capitalization
I have to wonder how stupid people if they can't read a nameGrade:F-
Go away. You're too stupid to post on a public forum.
What? You say there's no IQ test to post on Slashdot? Guess what? There isn't one to vote either.
If voting irregularities like this go uninvestigated, then an entirely new wave of political slight-of-hand will come about. Forget drawing the district lines. Laying out the ballot will be where the real power is.
You can never equivocate too much.
Palm Beach wasn't the only problem area. Take a look at the vote breakdown for 3rd party candidates in Volusia County (Daytona Beach, Deltona -- where I live).
The Socialist Worker's candidate and the Constitutional Party candidate received almost 13,000 votes. This is about 12,990 more than in any other county -- 95% of all their votes in Florida and over 70% of their totals nationwide! Local news was reporting that the numbers modemed in didn't match the ones recorded to the vote-counting disks with Bush getting a +30% and Gore getting -10% of the real numbers!
The corrected numbers were reported to the State and the official totals about 2:00 a.m. 11/8 but the bad numbers are still being shown on many news websites (CBS and CNN for two).
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
where did you pick up this tidbit?
Oh, of course we can't have direct elections, because then we'll have the tyranny of the majority. Oh, heaven forbid that majority should rule in a democracy.
What the argument fails to actually do is demonstrate whether the will of the people is better represented in direct elections or electoral college elections. What would really best serve everyone is to look at the way other nations represent their people - the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world with a two-party system. Instead of actually having parlimentary representation with multiple parties that actually reflect the will of the people, we have to funnel everything into two parties that can blatantly ignore issues that are brought up by folks like Nader.
If we had direct elections and had more parties, we'd have more choices, and we'd be able to get a better voice in government. In other countries, five different parties can win seats in a parliament, get proportional representation of the people's vote, and then the parliament actually has to work together and talk to each other to get consensus. Imagine being free of the gridlock caused by only having two parties that won't budge against each other!
ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; WE WANT DIRECT ELECTIONS
GIVE US MORE PARTIES; WE WANT MORE CHOICES
Mike Caprio, mikecap@nospamldbw.com
Mike Caprio, mikecap@nospamworld.stdspam.com
Digital Renaissance Man - Writer, Coder, & Artist
People have said that the actual ballots and the sample ones were "different", but I've seen pictures of both, and I don't see the difference. Maybe one of the pictures was faked up?
:)
A friend of mine has a sample ballot that was faked to him, and he has a "real" ballot. The only difference is that the sample ballot does not have the holes in it; the placement of names and arrows is the same.
He tried his kids (8, 10) on the sample ballot. He gave them 20 seconds to indicate "how do you vote for Gore". Then he asked them "how do you vote for Buchannan", and at this point, the 8-year-old had to ask how you spell Buchannan. Both were able to pick the right dot.
If that's "too confusing", we have more serious problems than who gets elected.
Or maybe they were just the same, and people are scrabbling to find explanations.
Mistakes were made. Both parties approved them in advance. We don't overturn elections over stupid mistakes, *even* if we think they might have changed the outcome. We certainly can't give one county the option of *CHANGING* their votes based on new information - but there's no way to prevent a do-over from being a *change* in the vote. At that point, it's unfair to the *other* 100,000,000 voters that none of *US* are allowed to reconsider our votes based on what we know of nationwide turnout.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Not only did both parties approve the ballot, but it was a Democrat who designed the thing. It's therefore ludicrous in the extreme for Gore babblers to even suggest that there was evildoing afoot with that ballot.
Not only this, but the ballot was sent out in advance to all registered voters. No one complained. No one.
I'm sorry, but Gore's people had three chances to correct what is really a perfectly clear ballot: at design time, at party approval time, and at voter approval time. No one complained. So now that they've possibly lost, they're sobbing about the ballot? This is ridiculous!
Last but not least: I agree with the other posters who have called for comparing the number of spoiled ballots in Palm Beach with the number of spoiled ballots from previous elections and from other areas around the country with similarly high concentrations of elderly voters. And I'd like to know how the Reform party did in Palm Beach in 1996 and 1992 before buying the assertion of the whiners that Buchanan could not have gotten all those votes legitimately (but even if it was due to voter incompetence, this is no reason for the Gore-ites to be screaming).
Oh -- and no, I didn't vote for Bush.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
That is exactly what the electoral college promotes. How often does Rhode Island see the presidential canidates ? The candiates pick the states with the most electoral votes, and campaign the crap out of them. Look at Al Gore vs George Bush's state votes. If we exclude Florida, Bush has a massive number of states on his side, remember on the news, 95% of the US was painted red for George Bush. Yet Gore had California, New York, and several other New England states. That shows that although the "broad appeal" belonged to George Bush, the electorate belonged to Al Gore.
The guy that wrote this article is an idiot, who thinks he can trick laymen into agreeing with his arguements by analogies that do not make sense, and fuzzy headed logic. The TRUE reason the electoral college was implemented was that the early thinkers including Andrew Jackson, did not trust the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the common man.
But all the electoral college does is give some state's voters more powerful votes than mine, yet allow the majority vote of my state to invalidate whatever they decide anyway. It's an absolutely nonsensical system, and no amount of babbling about the World Series is going to change that.
And the most important reason why I hate the electoral college is this: I voted for George Bush, yet my "vote" went to Al Gore. Did I punch the wrong hole on my ballot ? I think not.
Not to mention, missepelling.
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
Assume a nation of 60 people, 38 white and 22 black, which is divided into 3 districts: A (20 white), B (11 black, 9 white) and C (11 black, 9 white). This nation would elect Mr. Black as president because he would win in 2 districts, even though the popular vote would be 22 versus 38.
This example illustrates that the voting power of a black elector and the voting power of a white elector may differ hugely. A good mathematical model must not focus on the average voting power as a good measure, but on the fairness of the election, which is more related to the standard deviation of the voting power than to the average. (Note: I used black and white, as in chess. Please use red and blue if you prefer.)
CmdrTaco, on behalf of all writers, English teachers, linguists, crossword puzzle solvers and spelling bee champions, I would just like to say: "We love you!"
Got Rhinos?
I don't understand how the U.S. thinks it can keep up with handing over voting laws to the states and
allow a system which doesn't guarantee equal procedures and rules for every citizen of the U.S.
And what is this argument that the U.S. is not a Democracy but a Republic be good for ?
If you are not a democracy, why don't you go ahead and write this in big letters on top of every immigrant's application papers ? That might be a very efficient way to cut down the influx of cheap immigrants who take away the U.S.'s high-tech jobs. They might actually get the picture on time and go home again.
Why do you look back at arguments which made sense presumably sense for your founding fathers, but seem not to make any sense any more in today's societies.
I am looking for sites which compare the voting systems and procedures of US, France, Germany and Switzerland or Sweden.
May be it can give you some ideas about how other countries are dealing with it.
I think my login had "Submit" and "Preview" reversed. Um, yeah, that's it.
I meant to clarify that by saying that the EC could still vote for Gore if Bush were to win Florida, which is what I currently see happening, lawsuits or not.
Wouldn't they have to have a margin of error of less than .02% (2 ballots per 10,000) to be able
to call this election?
(942 votes/5818021 = 0.000162)
I would think that given things like the carboard punchouts coming stuck/unstuck that you couldn't get that accurate of a count.
can you provide a source for this?
john
-- john
Then we would have about 50 times more lawyers and bureaucrats occupied with counting X-marks, punch-holes and mechanical readouts than we do now. Sounds good to me.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
let's assume that only two candidates are running, A versus B, and each vote is like a random coin toss, with a 50 percent chance of going either way. In your let's assume that only two candidates are running, A versus B, and each vote is like a random coin toss, with a 50 percent chance of going either way. In your nation of three, there's a 50 percent chance that the other two voters will split, one for A and the other for B, and thus a 50 percent chance that our single vote will determine the election. There's also, of course, a 25 percent chance both will vote for A and a 25 percent chance both will vote for B, making your vote unimportant
The probability that the other two will agree with each other is 50% not 25%, I wonder about the rest of the article and 2 decades worth of research.
See the bold part above, the one where he states that there is a 50% chance that the first two votes will split? That's mathematically equivalent to saying there's a 50% chance the first two votes will match, as well. The only place 25% is brought up is when he says that there is a 25% chance the first two votes go to candidate A and a 25% chance the first two votes go to B.
It's like this:
1=A, 2=A
1=A, 2=B
1=B, 2=A
1=B, 2=B
That's 25% chance both vote for A, making your vote unimportant; 25% chance both vote for B, making your vote unimportant; and 50% chance the votes will split, making your vote the decisive one.
That being said, I don't wonder at all... when's the last time YOU testified before Congress?
Eric
3 in 10 quadrillion chance. Statistics don't lie. You can't argue this one.
------
Maine's vote is split into 3 and 1 votes. Not sure what area the 1 vote comes from. (I heard this on NPR)
- sigs are for wimps.
First off, the registered voters all saw the ballot in advance, and none of them complained *then*.
Secondly, I think we should consider the implications of allowing a re-vote in this one county. These people would be voting, not based on what option they chose on election day, but based on the knowledge that the entire election outcome depends on them. I bet you'd get a lot more republicans coming out to vote. Some Nader supporters might switch.
However, this *isn't fair*. You aren't allowed to wait until you know what other people in your area do, *then* vote. If they get to re-do this, the only fair thing is for *everyone* to re-do this. In which case, several *other* states will probably flip-flop, one way or another, as apathetic voters who thought the state was a wrap-up for their side run out and make sure it is this time.
Yes, it sucks if people were confused. The time to bring that up was when people in *BOTH* major parties *REVIEWED* these ballots, quite some time ago.
In the mean time, whatever the recount says, it's better if we accept it and move on, than if we spend the next four years throwing accusations around.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
One member of my family who happens to be a Political Science professor is enjoying this election. In his words, it's good every now and then to 'dust off' some of those clauses of our Constitution that are rarely used. Clauses like those providing for impeachment. Helps to remind us of how things -really- work. He thinks that the vote going to the House of Representatives (as would happen if the Electors can't come to a majority agreement) would be -really- neat. We've never even tried that portion of the Constitution out....
:-)
:-)
Truth is, each state choses on its own how to pick its Electors. Some states require Electors to vote along party lines, other states don't. Most Electors vote along party lines anyway. The only reason an Elector might not vote that way is if he/she got an impression that his/her candidate practiced some Dirty Politics right at the end. If you think your state's Electors should be -absolutely- required to vote party lines, well, write letters to your state legislature representatives! You can amend your state's constitution much more easily than you can amend the national Constitution!
Another interesting twist is the winner-take-all rule in all but two states. That's what really make it easy early on to count how a state's Electoral votes are gonna go. I personally think it would be both more fair and more interesting if more states divided their electoral votes proportionally, especially for states with more Electoral seats. So, for example, if Bush had gotten 60% of the vote in a state with 10 electoral seats, he'd only get 6 seats, and Gore would get 4. And though you can often tell early on who's got the majority, it can take quite a while to tell exactly how big the margin is, as the Florida situation has shown.
And again, this is something you can make happen in your state with just a little lobbying.
To all you folks complaining of just how 'undemocratic' this election has proven to be: Show me one place in the Constitution where the word 'democracy' is even written. Democracy is a concept of an ideal. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution had ideals, but building a government is a practical matter, as they knew all too well.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Two facts should be noted: first, that the sample ballot was released without indicating the actual punch-holes, so the ambiguity wasn't clear for review, and second, that the ballot design itself is against Florida law regarding ballots: ballots in Florida are required to list the candidates in an agreed upon order (which, for this election, was Bush first and then Gore, but the punch holes for Gore were actually 3rd on the line: it was Bush, Buchanan, and Gore) and that all marks or punches occur directly to the right of the listed candidate.
the ballot was that way because the old folks complained in the first place that they couldn't read the standard font
It makes sense, but do you have proof on that statement?
The loser has to do what Nixon did with Kennedy
You mean Kill the winner?
Do we REALLY want to go through this becuase some old folks did not take the proper time and effort in the voting booth to verify their selection??
Do you really want to have a president in the white house that has zero legitimacy? The popular votes are for Gore. There is fraud all over the place in a state governed by Bush's brother. It doesn't make any sense. :
Even stupid people have the right to vote. It's being a Nazi to say that stupid people should note be voting in the first place. Don't get me wrong, you said
they would still figure out a way to mess it up!
When you say:
For the good of the country and the world, DROP THE IDIOCY!
Are you realizing what coutry you are living in? Do you know what the average education level is in the US? So you realize that it's because of these "stupid" (understand old retirees without 20/20 vision) people that you are a free man?I feel sorry for you.
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
done intentionally or by accident.
I would prefer to believe that all buchannan voters
did so because they forgot their glasses at home.
Amazing magic tricks
link to story about disqualified ballots and i can't currently find the phone fraud link atm, i'll post it when i do. -sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
If Gore wants to stick it out, there are nine more days for the absentee ballots to arrive; Gore could also want to make legal challenges that might make this even longer. There is a potential for a long slog ahead of us.
Anyone who has tried to teach their mom how to program a VCR should know that older voters can easily get confused. From what I can see these ballots are confusing.
That being said, what can Florida do about it? It's up to individual voters to take the time to understand what they are doing at the time they are voting. These ballots were submitted for approval before the election and no one complained. If voters were confused, they had the opportunity to get help when they were casting their ballots. I think this is an example of how little thought process some people put into their voting.
This is the electoral equivalent of getting caught behind a Florida driver who doesn't understand the concept of the passing lane.
This is an argument between those who favor strict process and legal rule making versus those who believe that the constitution protects all citizen's voting rights.
A good example of this was St. Louis Missouri, where long lines of voters were turned away at the voting booths after the polls closed. This was after a local judge had ruled that the polls should remain open until after voters had their chance to cast their ballot. However, attorneys for the Bush/Cheney team appealed this decision in Federal court and got the polls closed while voters waited in line.
So, here we are. Choosing between strict rules, such as parsing what the meaning of "is", is versus trying to do the right thing, which I define as giving EVERY registered voter their opportunity to vote.
Bush/Cheney should welcome voters, even those who may vote against them. Why? Because their status as elected officials are now on the line. If they win this election after having turned away voters and misrepresented ballots with a confusing selection process, our very voting process is in jeopardy. And that is a real constitutional crisis.
Newsflash!
In today's election, the National party beat the Non-National party by a landslide. The final vote was 14 - 67 nationwide. There was an 66% voter turnout.
The 2 voters from Georgia commented that "This place was really crowded today, it seemed like everyone that was allowed to vote was here at the same time."
In reality, there were only up to 30 of the country's 122 allowed voters in the building at once.
- AP Newswire
He justifies the electoral college based on everybody having greater value to their vote AND everybody's vote having equal value. Doesn't seem to work that way to me, people in extremely close states have a relatively high value to their individual votes as opposed to those in a not very close state. In the case of this election, a block of 2000 voters in florida are immensely more powerful that a block of 2000 voters some other state that is fairly one sided. Therefore the electoral college does not adhere to the principle of everybody's vote being of equal power, it allows some people votes to carry more weight than others. This guy is supposed to have a phd in physics or something. Basic math dude, check it out. If every individual person has an equal amount of "voting power", then does it shouldn't matter if you rate such voting power as x or x+1. the RELATIVE voting power remains the same. Studied physics and mathematics eh? check out frame of reference, studied engineering and learned it my freshman year. The only way to increase any one person's RELATIVE VOTING POWER is to decrease somebody elses (hmm . . . closed system?). Almost makes you think of that basic of physics laws often referred to as conservation of energy. It also makes me think about the whole set of equality issues that the constitution and bill of rights is supposed to address. Personally, I do not like being given the shaft in favor of somebody else based upon geographical location and the circumstances of how other people in that region vote.
In other words, she tried to do what you said would be proper, and was not offered the chance.
Of course this was just one person's assertion. NPR did not present any confirming or contradictory evidence from witnesses, so I would urge a grain or two of salt here.
so it's unfair that california should get to vote at all, since the polls are still open in california after the results of a lot of states on the east coast have closed....
A few FACTS (given that the news source is correct - link below) that paint a completely different picture.
1 /8/161334.shtml
"Buchanan received 1 percent of the vote in Palm Beach County."
"In all the counties in Florida where there is significant Independent Party membership, Buchanan got a similiar 1 percent."
"Palm Beach County, on the other hand, has a whopping 14,551 members of the Independent Party.
In fact, it has the highest Independent registration in Florida."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/1
and... regarding the statistics used. it is looking at the ratio of bush/buchanan. since there is a relationship between candidates ( a vote for buch is not a vote for bush or gore ) the ratio will show an exaggerated spike in counties where bush does not do well ( because the ratio of bush/buch relationship is being measured ). this is obviously one of the better statistical 'tricks' that could be used to make this datapoint stand out.
the real tragedy... is that the technology is here. each branch of government needs their own slashdot site. Let 'we the people' do the moderating and issue posting. they can then put *our* words into law, listen to *our* needs, but most importantly *we* get role in government that extends beyond picking one of the two electable losers every 4 years.
j. herber
I think you're right when it comes to states being perhaps too large a classification to provide a voting incentive, but I'm not comfortable with an electoral college by congressional districts that change shape every 10 years either. The next logical step (imo) is at the county level, but as each state has a different number that doesn't seem feasible either.
Ballot Link
If I don't understand something on my tax form, and fill it out wrong, it is my problem. The same rule applies here. Yes they should consider ballot construction more carefully, but the vote was done in accordance to all the rules of the union, no laws were broken.Too bad!
love is just extroverted narcissism
going after all those 'uneducated' votes has finally bitten a democratic politician in the ass.. you can give a bum a carton of cigarettes.. but you can't teach them to read..
The electoral college was created to do mainly 2 things:
1. Prevent the president from having more power than congress--so he's elected as a summation of votes of the type that elect congress (by state).
2. Give smaller states a reason for existing. Without the electoral college, the candidates would campaign in New York, L.A., and Chicago--but not many more cities (and certainly not states).
Gore's popular vote, and his victory in the larger states is what the electoral college was INTENDED to prevent. The power is not supposed to come directly from the people, and it's not good for the country to only appeal to big cities.
The electoral college did it's job.
http://cnews
Also, if you read the cnn.com article, you will notice that the ballot was approved by a Democratic election supervisor.
-- bearclaw
...using Quake 3. I pitted Sarge (representing George W. Bush) against Gorre (representing Al Gore). The map was Q3TOURNEY3, fraglimit 10, hardcore skill. Sarge won both; first 10 to 9, then 10 to 6. However, I'm wondering if I should do it again with the fraglimit set to 270.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
With all that is going on, it will only divide the nation further. People on both sides will complain about how the votes should go. Is this what we really want? Do we want to be divided over this issue? Either way it goes, people will fight and complain about who should've won. Rep's will scream for Bush, Dem's will scream for Gore, and kids will scream for Ice Cream. This will only serve to destroy our country.
Another point, Gore could not accept his defeat in the electorals so he decided to sue. Is this the kind of man we want as a president? Do we really need someone in charge who behaves this way? If I were sided with any party I'd be ashamed of them, doesn't matter which one.
"The American people have spoken. Now, we just have to figure out what they said." --Bill Clinton.
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=4.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
(Slashdot doesn't allow pre tags for some reason)
e.g.
CandidateYes No Don't care
Bush X
Gore X
Buchanan X
etc
Yes=+1, No=-1, anything else = 0. Add the points up for each candidate. The one with the most positive or least negative wins.
However if the winner has negative points he or she only gets to be called "Acting President" (or Acting ), and maybe the term should be shortened.
This way I'm sure more people will vote, even if it's just to say No.
A better way to implement the ballot is to put the picture of the person next to the name, the No is thumbs down, the don't care is an icon of a shrug, Yes is thumbs up. And the ballot should have a consistent format for every state.
Link.
Hello people! Palm Beach had more buchanan votes cast simply BECAUSE THEY HAD MORE VOTES CAST.
Is this some Democratic spin or just hopeful whining?
Here are the Buchanan votes as a percentage
by county.
Any questions? Thought not.
0.003061105 Alachua
0.008952661 Baker
0.004217328 Bay
0.007497981 Bradford
0.00260995 Brevard
0.001376228 Broward
0.017394666 Calhoun
0.002721088 Charlotte
0.004724079 Citrus
0.003242678 Clay
0.001324043 Collier
0.004808731 Columbia
0.004611246 Desoto
0.006215174 Dixie
0.002458117 Duval
0.004319506 Escambia
0.003062731 Flagler
0.007105943 Franklin
0.002682256 Gadsden
0.005375348 Gilchrist
0.002676978 Glades
0.011578604 Gulf
0.00580222 Hamilton
0.00481232 Hardee
0.002705029 Hendry
0.003710575 Hernando
0.00361319 Highlands
0.002345841 Hillsborough
0.010349993 Holmes
0.002115997 Indian River
0.006257669 Jackson
0.005140021 Jefferson
0.00399361 Lafayette
0.003263877 Lake
0.001654219 Lee
0.002734864 Leon
0.00526564 Levy
0.016229713 Liberty
0.004708557 Madison
0.002468038 Manatee
0.005484336 Marion
0.001809195 Martin
0.000897214 Miami-Dade
0.001387331 Monroe
0.003784375 Nassau
0.003781602 Okaloosa
0.00436371 Okeechobee
0.001592965 Orange
0.002605196 Osceola
0.007881356 Palm Beach
0.003993526 Pasco
0.002541998 Pinellas
0.003163108 Polk
0.005609616 Putnam
0.006180568 Santa Rosa
0.001895116 Sarasota
0.001416472 Seminole
0.003769175 St. Johns
0.001589968 St. Lucie
0.005121064 Sumter
0.008667041 Suwannee
0.003970588 Taylor
0.009670674 Union
0.000000000 Volusia
0.005359431 Wakulla
0.00655487 Walton
0.010989011 Washington
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
http://www.rocketaware.com/>rocketaware.com
has over 30,000 links to
source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
I was reloading the CNN page about once every 10 minutes, because I'm psychotic.
And I saw a thing, above the angry guy, that said, "Breaking News: A federal judge has called an emergency hearing to review voting irregularities in Palm Beach this afternoon. Updates soon." The next time I refreshed, that was gone, and no update.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
That's the thing, we're all (Americans) stuck on this idea of "democracy" and it's not really our fault. It's "their" fault. They. Them. The ones who taught us in kindergarten how great America is because we're free, and a democracy. The ones who go to the UN and get permission to bomb someplace because they're "not a democracy" those poor Americans, living under the opressive tyranny of a republic. Let's send in a few hundred tomahawks, bomb some democracy into em. Yeah! Let's arrest and try the electoral college on crimes against humanity! yeah!
To be fair; Gore showed his moral fiber, and his worth, this morning by standing up on national TV and announcing that even though he won the popular vote, he may have lost the electoral vote, and if that's the case, he respects that, and that it should not be challenged because it's constitutional, and it's the foundation of everything that we believe in as a nation. Well, that's not quite true (the electoral college was a concession to get smaller states to join the union, a political compromise - in geek terms, a kludge). But anyway, it sure eased my mind a bit about the questions I had about the man's sense of honor.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The link above doesn't seem to work. The picture is linked from the picture at ;ht tp://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/el ection.president/index.html
Here's another direct Akamai link which may or may not work. Remove the space (or '%20') to make it work.
Why don't we start with you, fuckhead?
So it looks like this might be the first presidential election in which user interface design is a critical factor.
What we have here is
A. The "will of the nation" by popular vote was for Gore.
B. The "will of the state of Florida" by popular vote in Florida was for Gore.
C. Thus, Gore in theory has won the electoral college.
D. We have just elected Texas Governor George Walker Bush
Must we accept this? Probably. Must laws be made or changed to prevent this. Yes. As much as I am concerned about GWB's ability to run this country, I am more concerned that this country will corrupt its electoral process causing no end of damage in the long run. That said, Go Al!
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
A democrat was the one that designed the ballot, and they had a chance to be vehement about rejecting it before the election. I guess it could be a simple oversight, but they still had long enough to look at it. I think this is a silly stab at the fact that they are losing, even by such a small margin. Christ, I'm out of coffee!@#
"If it's got Gates, or got Windows, it's not Open."
Actually, Buchanan himself questions the result: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53689-2 000Nov9.html
Also, the Wash. Post reported that the socialist party (the one below Gore on the ballot) got 12 times the number of votes as its registration in the county.
The Post said that Buchanan got around 10 times his registration rates in Palm Beach.
Last I heard, Gore is winning the popular vote by less than 100,000. With 100 million votes cast that is less than 0.1%. Now, we're waiting for the Florida recount because it was mandated by law for elections closer then 0.5%. For those of you saying that Gore should be the next president because he won the popular vote, it seems fair to say that a national recount would be necessary.
One advantage of the electoral college is that we only have to recount them in Florida. Can you imagine what a nightmare it would be if we had to verify all the popular votes to determine the next president?
It was "figured out" by the rep for the district who said something along the lines of "There's no way that many people here voted for Buchanan, something must be wrong". even though a similar amoung of votes for the Reform party came from there last election...
I might have something wrong here, BUT in the 1996 election Perrot scored an impressive 9% overall, and, as you claim, about 3500 votes in that county.
Now fast forward to 2000. Buchanan had what? A tenth of that? So he should have had by your logic, 350 votes!
--