"That means you cannot distribute copies of your article without their permission."
So what exactly would happen if all of these scientists planning the boycott simply decided to go ahead and do it anyway? Wait until the article is in the pipeline or in print, and then make the article freely available. Or simply refuse to accept the limits on distribution.
Seriously, would the journals sue the scientists? Would they refuse to publish their other work as punishment? Those sorts of tactics would clearly compromise their own reason for existence. The scientists obviously have the position of strength in this sitation; they should use it.
What contract? The general rule is that contracts only really apply when both parties agree to the terms, and when there is a chance for the person bound by the contract to refuse those terms and move along. There is also a limit on what kind of terms are considered reasonable.
This is what prevents me from writing up a secret contract that says "Stonehand must give me all his money and his firstborn child", hiding it in my desk drawer, and then sending out police/lawyers/etc to enforce it whenever I need extra money or whenever Stonhand does something I don't like.
The alternative isn't much of a contract--it seems more like a protection racket.
You're right. Searchable databases are the real issue here. However, I think the authors are dead wrong. A searchable database loses a great deal if utility it is no longer complete. Whether it's Lexis/Nexis, another third party, or the paper's own online archive, it's absolutely vital that every word that appears in the paper is available as part of the archive. For a researcher 10 years hence, the absence of a story about a certain subject might be just as important as the presence of a story.
Newspapers are not just ephemera--they're part of the historical record. This isn't a new phenomenon. I don't think any author can claim that the existence of article collections, newspaper morgues, or electronic databases took them by surprise.
In the 19th and early 20th century they might not have had to smuggle guns in. I remember my grandfather telling me stories about he and his brothers taking their hunting rifles to school with them, so they could shoot squirrels and such in the woods on the walk to and from school. No different than a fishing pole.
Exactly. I think the reason most banner ads fail to draw clicks is that they're poorly targeted and poorly designed. I think there are also some problems with the who banner ad implementation.
The average banner ad these days gives no clue about where the ad will take you or even what the ad is attempting to sell me. They're more interested in being clever and cutesy. I don't mind adverting, but I hate _bad_ advertising.
Examples of good ads are either engaging enough to make it worth my time, or concise enough that they don't consume my time.
Other forms of advertising have the same problem (how often have you watched a funny TV commercial, only to come away with absolutely no memory of what product was being advertised?) But other forms of advertising aren't expected to produce instantly measureable results.
And that's the other problem. Most ads are damned annoying to use, even if you're intrigued by what they're selling. If I'm reading some interesting content I'm probably not interested in just stopping in the middle and leaping off into the void for the sake of an advertisment. I might click on it when I'm done, but there's a good chance that its rotated away by then, and I'm almost certainly not going to go randomly refreshing pages to hunt for it.
One site I visited recently has some kind of an "ad clip" thing that lets you tage interesting banners to revisit at your convenience. This particular implementation seemed confusing and tedious to use, but I think the idea is pretty good. When I read a paper publication or record a TV show I occasionally do flip back/rewind to see certain ads. Can't do that on a banner ad. How about a list of advertisers for future reference, like many magazine have? Nope.
I don't think any form of advertising would work well if it were done as badly as banner ads often are.
You've apparently forgotten about the 9th and 10th Amendments:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, it's not necessary to outline categorically who can pass what sorts of laws. All rights are understood to ultimately rest with the people. Unless the Constitions says it's OK to do it, the Government can't do it. The States can make their own laws, of course, but no state law can superscede Federal law, which is bound by the US Constitution.
People keep getting this backwards. The whole point is that your rights are not granted by the US Government, or the King of England, or the United Nations, or the Holy Church. They're part of your birthright as a human being and are completely, permanently, and irrevocably yours. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. I think the people who wrote the Constituition and the Declaration understood that quite well.
Ah, the noble savage of the Third World. Or maybe the Eloi and the Morlocks.
Of course, we fat American pigs and our evil industialized brethren also create most of the medicines and medical procedures that cure the horrible diseases that once wiped out entire populations, the vitamin supplements that alleviate infantile blindness and the myriad other results of an inadequate diet, provide birth control options for those that choose to use it, etc.
You can't blame the US (or other countries) for all the ills of an industrial economy without acknowledging the many benefits to the entire planet that only highly developed technology makes possible.
Actually the Victorians were really good with mechanical tech. They had to be, it was pretty much all they had. You'd have a hard time finding anyone today who could surpass the intricacy of some clockwork and steam powered mechanisms they made. If the necessary investment of money and expertise could have been made I think they could have realized Babbages's Engines on a large scale. Not easily and not overnight, but I think they'd have managed.
There's another Asimov story I was thinking of, or maybe it's actually a portion or prequel of the one you descibe.
It was called "Not Impossible!" or something like that. A (millitary?) scientist is trying to determine if those same agressive inhabitants of Jupiter could ever pose a threat to humanity. He happily determines that humanity is safe, because the Jovians require intense atmospheric pressures to survive, and there's no way to maintain such pressures anywhere else. Force-fields? They're useless because they decay so quickly, and it's physically Impossible to make them last for more than a few seconds. Try it and everything blows up.
The story concludes with another scientist specializing in force-fields cruising to Earth in his new invisible force-field ship. After loss of eye and limb to exploding force field generators pushed past the danger point, he figured out that you can cycle the force-fields on and off so rapidly that no atmosphere can escape and achieve the same practical effect. Won't the folks back on Earth be thrilled!
Drifting further off topic, I wish there was some sort of giant short-story keyword index out there. Is there one I don't know about?
But on the third hand, the very fact that the government-run services are not out to make a profit can severely hamper their ability to react to changing market demands. Look at the kinds of insanely expensive and substandard phone services that government-run phone systems in other countries often provide.
And short of privatizing at some later date there's no possibility of competition if the government screws everything up. Yes, you can vote out the politicians who are nominally in charge, but politicians don't administer networks or lay fiber. The entrenched beuracracies who would end up in actual control tend to operate with flagrant disregard for customer service, and they're incredibly resistant to change.
Monopolies are generally bad things. We should think long and hard before we create new ones, particularly ones with explicit legislative sanction.
What are you talking about? Human life expectancy has been increasing gradually for a very long time now. Better diet, antibiotics, and proper sanitation are a few dramatic examples of why this has happened. Were scientists wrong to develop these technologies and discoveries and better the human condition? Why are these hypothetical future advances any different? Why is it OK for people to live to be 80 years old, but "disasterous" if they make it to 121?
Amen. I could make a lot more than I do now, but until such time as I really need the money I plan to hang around.
I have a good boss (much like yourself), a relaxed work environment, sharp co-workers, and a pleasant set of responsibilities. If they'd just let me hire an assistant I'd be thrilled.
I'd say that the rest of the IT folks feel pretty much the same way. We'd all like to make more money, of course, but for the moment we understand the realities of the situation and are willing to be patient.
The things that make us, in particular, very angry are the things that the company _can_ change, but doesn't want to. Interdepartmental space allocation, for example, so that we're not cramped into inadequate space while other areas have vacant offices. And a bizzare budgeting process that still views technology as a convenient luxury instead of an essential part of doing business. IT people are generally a logical and pragmatic bunch. Meaningless and archaic rules, byzantine procedures, and irrational policies will generally be contested or ignored.
Actually it's quite probable that NASA didn't know much at all about how those cosmonauts died. Or even that they _had_ died. The USSR was extremely secretive about its space program, and much of what we now know has only been fleshed out fairly recently. It's hard to learn much from other people's mistakes under those cirumstances, unfortunately.
No, I'd have to agree that the deeply hirearchal structure of the.us domain is very much a part of the problem. As someone who is intimiately involved with an organization using such a domain name I can assure you that most people simply do not understand them.
They're too long to easily remember, difficult to convey over the phone, frequently mistyped, and generally just darn inconvenient. That's why people want top-level TLD's in the first place.
Yes, maybe such a setup does make sense in some abstract fashion. So might 50-digit telephone numbers. But in most real world cases that really doesn't matter. Convenience and familiarity win every time--as they should.
In regards to the "in front of or in back of" issue, I hadn't thought of that interpretation. As you say, it does seem pretty tenuous. Especially since it is clear that each name is associated with only one hole.
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.
I'm sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear in my response. Yes, I'm sure that a lot of people want Gore to win. However there's no way to know for certain who they are. I'm sure that some Nader voters, for example, would lie and say that they voted for Gore in order to influence his election as the lesser of two evils. The same applies to voters for other third-party candidates on both sides, and even for folks who might, with the best of intentions, illegally alter their vote for Bush or Gore to satisfy what they believe to be the voice of the people. We can't have that.
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.
I haven't seen the court decision you reference, aside from reading that same article, so I'll withold comment.
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)
Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 101 Voting Methods And Procedure
101.5601 Short title.--Sections 101.5601 through 101.5615 shall be known as the "Electronic Voting Systems Act."
101.5609 Ballot requirements.--...
(6) Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as is compatible with the type of system used. Ballots and ballot information shall be printed in a size and style of type as plain and clear as the ballot spaces reasonably permit. Tear-off stubs shall be of a size suitable for the ballots used and for the requirements of the voting device. The ballots may contain special printed marks and holes as required for proper positioning and reading of the ballots by the automatic tabulating equipment. When ballots are bound into pads, they may be bound at the top or bottom or at either side. In the case of the paper ballots, all offices and questions may be printed on the same sheet of paper.
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.
I don't understand your first point. Are you agreeing with me? The electoral system is the only system the Constitution allows for in choosing the President. It may or may not be time to reconsider how well this system works, but it's too late to change things for this election. Like every candidate before them both candidates understood how the system works and tailored their campaign strategies to fit. The system worked as designed.
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?
The time to ask about the ballot is _before_ you go into the voting booth. This is both blindingly obvious and the standard procedure which has been in place in every election I've ever heard of. Everyone who's ever voted (especially older people who've been at it for years) should understand that. However, even if you fail to do so, the law _does_ make some provisions for assistance. If you bother to ask.
Here's the relevant section of Florida law:
Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 101 Voting Methods And Procedure
101.051 Electors seeking assistance in casting ballots; oath to be executed; forms to be furnished.--
(1) Any elector applying to vote in any election who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may request the assistance of two election officials or some other person of the elector's own choice, other than the elector's employer, an agent of the employer, or an officer or agent of his or her union, to assist the elector in casting his or her vote. Any such elector, before retiring to the voting booth, may have one of such persons read over to him or her, without suggestion or interference, the titles of the offices to be filled and the candidates therefor and the issues on the ballot. After the elector requests the aid of the two election officials or the person of the elector's choice, they shall retire to the voting booth for the purpose of casting the elector's vote according to the elector's choice.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to be in the voting booth with any elector except as provided in subsection (1).
So you voted without reading the ballot, evem though you had ample reason to know in advance that it was different form the ballot you've used for the past 40 years. And even though the ballot design has changed many time times in that 40 year period?
You're right. I'm sure his fucking children would be much smarter than to do a stupid thing like that.
Actually, it looks like FL, at least, does have a 5-minute time limit. Unless the person voting (the elector) requests more time and, in the eyes of the officials, has a good reason for doing so.
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.
Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 101 Voting Methods And Procedure
101.51 Electors to occupy booth alone; time allowed.--
...
(2) If an elector requires longer than 5 minutes, then upon a sufficient reason he or she may be granted a longer period of time by the election officials in charge. After casting his or her vote, the elector shall at once leave the polling room by the exit opening and shall not be permitted to reenter on any pretext whatever. After the elector has voted, or declined or failed to vote within 5 minutes, he or she shall immediately withdraw from the polling place. If the elector refuses to leave after the lapse of 5 minutes, he or she shall be removed by the election officials.
----
101.051 Electors seeking assistance in casting ballots; oath to be executed; forms to be furnished.--
(1) Any elector applying to vote in any election who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may request the assistance of two election officials or some other person of the elector's own choice, other than the elector's employer, an agent of the employer, or an officer or agent of his or her union, to assist the elector in casting his or her vote. Any such elector, before retiring to the voting booth, may have one of such persons read over to him or her, without suggestion or interference, the titles of the offices to be filled and the candidates therefor and the issues on the ballot. After the elector requests the aid of the two election officials or the person of the elector's choice, they shall retire to the voting booth for the purpose of casting the elector's vote according to the elector's choice.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to be in the voting booth with any elector except as provided in subsection (1).
Your numbers don't mean anything without context. From what I've heard, a "staggering" 15,000 Palm Beach residents made similar mistakes in 1996, using a completely different ballot. And they also had the improperly voted portions of their ballots invalidated in accordance with FL state law. See...
Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 101 Voting Methods And Procedure
101.5614 Canvass of returns.--
(6) If an 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, the elector's ballot shall not be counted for that office, but the ballot shall not be invalidated as to those names which are properly marked.)
Based on that 15000 voter number, it would appear that only about 4000 bad ballots, at most, could be blamed on the new ballot format. And given population increases and (I think) a higher voter turnout this year than in 1996, I would doubt even that. It's possible that the 15,000 is wrong, but it's an absolute certainty that some people screwed up in the last election, and a similar number would probably have screwed up in this one too.
The 2000 Florida Statutes
Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 101 Voting Methods And Procedure
Section 101.5609 Ballot requirements:
(1) When an electronic or electromechanical voting system utilizes a ballot card or paper ballot which is distributed to electors, the ballot shall meet the following requirements:
...
(6) Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as is compatible with the type of system used. Ballots and ballot information shall be printed in a size and style of type as plain and clear as the ballot spaces reasonably permit. Tear-off stubs shall be of a size suitable for the ballots used and for the requirements of the voting device. The ballots may contain special printed marks and holes as required for proper positioning and reading of the ballots by the automatic tabulating equipment. When ballots are bound into pads, they may be bound at the top or bottom or at either side. In the case of the paper ballots, all offices and questions may be printed on the same sheet of paper.
As you can see, there is absolutely no legal requirement that the names be on the left when pertaining to an electronic or electromechanical ballot such as the one used in Palm Beach.
As for the order of the candidates, they _are_ listed in the correct order. The names are read down in one column, and then down the other column. There's nothing in the law, at least as far as I can find, about the order of the voting squares, which is what you're disputing. (Section 101.151 "Specifications for general election ballot", paragraph 3. Same source.)
It's really quite remarkable what you can discover by reading things for yourself. Maybe you should try it sometime.
Slashdot Mirror
So what exactly would happen if all of these scientists planning the boycott simply decided to go ahead and do it anyway? Wait until the article is in the pipeline or in print, and then make the article freely available. Or simply refuse to accept the limits on distribution.
Seriously, would the journals sue the scientists? Would they refuse to publish their other work as punishment? Those sorts of tactics would clearly compromise their own reason for existence. The scientists obviously have the position of strength in this sitation; they should use it.
-Bryan
This is what prevents me from writing up a secret contract that says "Stonehand must give me all his money and his firstborn child", hiding it in my desk drawer, and then sending out police/lawyers/etc to enforce it whenever I need extra money or whenever Stonhand does something I don't like.
The alternative isn't much of a contract--it seems more like a protection racket.
-Bryan
Newspapers are not just ephemera--they're part of the historical record. This isn't a new phenomenon. I don't think any author can claim that the existence of article collections, newspaper morgues, or electronic databases took them by surprise.
-Byran
The average banner ad these days gives no clue about where the ad will take you or even what the ad is attempting to sell me. They're more interested in being clever and cutesy. I don't mind adverting, but I hate _bad_ advertising.
Examples of good ads are either engaging enough to make it worth my time, or concise enough that they don't consume my time.
Other forms of advertising have the same problem (how often have you watched a funny TV commercial, only to come away with absolutely no memory of what product was being advertised?) But other forms of advertising aren't expected to produce instantly measureable results.
And that's the other problem. Most ads are damned annoying to use, even if you're intrigued by what they're selling. If I'm reading some interesting content I'm probably not interested in just stopping in the middle and leaping off into the void for the sake of an advertisment. I might click on it when I'm done, but there's a good chance that its rotated away by then, and I'm almost certainly not going to go randomly refreshing pages to hunt for it.
One site I visited recently has some kind of an "ad clip" thing that lets you tage interesting banners to revisit at your convenience. This particular implementation seemed confusing and tedious to use, but I think the idea is pretty good. When I read a paper publication or record a TV show I occasionally do flip back/rewind to see certain ads. Can't do that on a banner ad. How about a list of advertisers for future reference, like many magazine have? Nope.
I don't think any form of advertising would work well if it were done as badly as banner ads often are.
-Bryan
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, it's not necessary to outline categorically who can pass what sorts of laws. All rights are understood to ultimately rest with the people. Unless the Constitions says it's OK to do it, the Government can't do it. The States can make their own laws, of course, but no state law can superscede Federal law, which is bound by the US Constitution.
People keep getting this backwards. The whole point is that your rights are not granted by the US Government, or the King of England, or the United Nations, or the Holy Church. They're part of your birthright as a human being and are completely, permanently, and irrevocably yours. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. I think the people who wrote the Constituition and the Declaration understood that quite well.
-Bryan
Of course, we fat American pigs and our evil industialized brethren also create most of the medicines and medical procedures that cure the horrible diseases that once wiped out entire populations, the vitamin supplements that alleviate infantile blindness and the myriad other results of an inadequate diet, provide birth control options for those that choose to use it, etc. You can't blame the US (or other countries) for all the ills of an industrial economy without acknowledging the many benefits to the entire planet that only highly developed technology makes possible.
Actually the Victorians were really good with mechanical tech. They had to be, it was pretty much all they had. You'd have a hard time finding anyone today who could surpass the intricacy of some clockwork and steam powered mechanisms they made. If the necessary investment of money and expertise could have been made I think they could have realized Babbages's Engines on a large scale. Not easily and not overnight, but I think they'd have managed.
"Ah, another visitor. Stay a while. Stay FOREVER!" "Destroy him, my robots!" Cool game. I remember it well.
It was called "Not Impossible!" or something like that. A (millitary?) scientist is trying to determine if those same agressive inhabitants of Jupiter could ever pose a threat to humanity. He happily determines that humanity is safe, because the Jovians require intense atmospheric pressures to survive, and there's no way to maintain such pressures anywhere else. Force-fields? They're useless because they decay so quickly, and it's physically Impossible to make them last for more than a few seconds. Try it and everything blows up.
The story concludes with another scientist specializing in force-fields cruising to Earth in his new invisible force-field ship. After loss of eye and limb to exploding force field generators pushed past the danger point, he figured out that you can cycle the force-fields on and off so rapidly that no atmosphere can escape and achieve the same practical effect. Won't the folks back on Earth be thrilled!
Drifting further off topic, I wish there was some sort of giant short-story keyword index out there. Is there one I don't know about?
And short of privatizing at some later date there's no possibility of competition if the government screws everything up. Yes, you can vote out the politicians who are nominally in charge, but politicians don't administer networks or lay fiber. The entrenched beuracracies who would end up in actual control tend to operate with flagrant disregard for customer service, and they're incredibly resistant to change.
Monopolies are generally bad things. We should think long and hard before we create new ones, particularly ones with explicit legislative sanction.
I have a good boss (much like yourself), a relaxed work environment, sharp co-workers, and a pleasant set of responsibilities. If they'd just let me hire an assistant I'd be thrilled.
I'd say that the rest of the IT folks feel pretty much the same way. We'd all like to make more money, of course, but for the moment we understand the realities of the situation and are willing to be patient.
The things that make us, in particular, very angry are the things that the company _can_ change, but doesn't want to. Interdepartmental space allocation, for example, so that we're not cramped into inadequate space while other areas have vacant offices. And a bizzare budgeting process that still views technology as a convenient luxury instead of an essential part of doing business. IT people are generally a logical and pragmatic bunch. Meaningless and archaic rules, byzantine procedures, and irrational policies will generally be contested or ignored.
-Bryan
They're too long to easily remember, difficult to convey over the phone, frequently mistyped, and generally just darn inconvenient. That's why people want top-level TLD's in the first place.
Yes, maybe such a setup does make sense in some abstract fashion. So might 50-digit telephone numbers. But in most real world cases that really doesn't matter. Convenience and familiarity win every time--as they should.
-Bryan
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
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.
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
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
Ok. So maybe _now_ they will care. Live and learn.
Here's the relevant section of Florida law:
You're right. I'm sure his fucking children would be much smarter than to do a stupid thing like that.
-Bryan
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.
-Bryan
Excerpts below taken directly from Florida's "Online Sunshine" site:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_ mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL= Ch0101/SEC151.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0101->Section%20 151
As you can see, there is absolutely no legal requirement that the names be on the left when pertaining to an electronic or electromechanical ballot such as the one used in Palm Beach.
As for the order of the candidates, they _are_ listed in the correct order. The names are read down in one column, and then down the other column. There's nothing in the law, at least as far as I can find, about the order of the voting squares, which is what you're disputing. (Section 101.151 "Specifications for general election ballot", paragraph 3. Same source.)
It's really quite remarkable what you can discover by reading things for yourself. Maybe you should try it sometime.
-Bryan