I've been reading all the political posts for days now, and I don't think anyone's touched on some obvious problems with recounting votes. The reasons why people are calling for recounts are so-called 'irregularities' in Democratic counties. These perceived irregularities are 1)Pat Buchanan received what some say is a large amount of votes in Palm Beach due to a 'confusing ballot', and 2)That many ballots were discarded for either voting multiple times or not voting for a presidential candidate. Recounting votes will not rectify these problems. If someone voted for Buchanan by mistake, a recount will not solve that. You can't take away Buchanan's votes. In the second case, where a ballot contains multiple punches, you can't assume which hole they meant to punch. Again, recounting will not change this. The ballot is still disqualified. Which leaves us with the ballots that were discarded because there was no vote for president, or the hole wasn't punched all the way through. This happens everywhere, regardless of the level of confusion of the ballot! By recounting votes, you are not correcting any of the perceived irregularities that people are using to justify a recount. You are simply taking an unbiased machine out of the equation, and replacing it with a human, with no objective criteria for counting a vote. Recounting without machines is unfair, and it should be stopped everywhere. After these Democratic strongholds are through with their biased recounts, George Bush should let the results stand. It would be the honorable thing to do. Two wrongs definitely do not make a right in this case. ------------------ People like to slam Bush's education record, but at least Texans know how to punch holes.
I thought it was from one of Dr. Seuess' lesser known works: The Cat in the Hat Runs for Office. As for the comments contained within the post, the law in Florida allows candidates to request a hand recount. The canvassing commission has decided to grant that request. Since it is the law, I don't particularly care whether it is fair or not. I want overseers there to make sure the count is proceeding accurately, of course. To me, it only becomes a problem if the counters miss the Tuesday at 5pm deadline and then expect to have the results count. If the law is clear on the matter (and it apparently is), they should be aware of that deadline and follow it. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I thought it was LAw in Florida IF the machines were ruled wrong. But last night they said that the problems they encountered were VOTER ERROR. Voter error happens everywhere, in every state. To me, and about 50 million people, it is absolutely crazy to allow votes that, due to VOTER ERROR, were missed by a fair and balanced way of counting the votes originally (Computer) ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
The Secretary of State lady said the candidates can request a handcount in any county that hasn't already certified, and it's up to the County to grant or deny the request for the handcount. I didn't hear her say anything about a requirement of the machines being proved wrong before the handcount could be considered. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
The election officials said last night that they had previously performed manual recounts (Mac-something election) that had nothing to do w/ computer error. It's just something they do. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Which leaves us with the ballots that were discarded because there was no vote for president, or the hole wasn't punched all the way through. This happens everywhere, regardless of the level of confusion of the ballot! The other reasons you mentioned (the double votes, etc) are not going to be determined by the hand count. However, the reason listed above is the basis for it. Yes, it happens everywhere... Statistically, it will be insignificant and will not change an election. This is why it's not normally done. However, when the difference is 300 votes, it may make a difference and thus a hand-count is a viable solution. The theory is that a hand-count is the slowest but most accurate way to count votes (you may disagree with this, but that's a different story). If you accept this to be true, and you understand statistical accuracy, then the procedure makes sense: You do the quickest count first. It's good enough to tell you who won most of the time. If it's close, then you do a slower but more accurate count (the machine recount that took 2 days). If the totals don't change much, you're probably done. However, if they do and you feel even more accuracy is necessary, you go with the slowest but theoretically most accurate method. That's all it is. Automated counts are used to speed up the process, but anywhere it's close, you want to check and double-check. Remember, this assumes hand-counting is the most accurate method. If you disagree with that, that's a separate arguable issue, which is what the Bush lawsuit is based on. But the logic of the hand-count makes sense. Think of it like this -- you have a bag full of blue and red marbles and want to know if there are more red or blue. The quickest way to do it is to just eyeball it. If there's a significant difference, you're done. However, if it's close, you might pile them up or separate them or whatever then eyeball it. If that's still too close, you ultimately count each one. It's all just a matter of trading off speed for accuracy. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
Did I just hear on the news that Bush, passed legislation in Texas that calls for hand counting of Ballots in such a situation??? If so, then why is he trying to stop it in FL, where there law allows for the same hand counts as it does in his state? ------------------ "I have amazing, powers of observation"...Pink
Did I just hear on the news that Bush, passed legislation in Texas that calls for hand counting of Ballots in such a situation??? Yes. Texas, and GW Bush, believe it to be the most accurate method of counting votes. If so, then why is he trying to stop it in FL, where there law allows for the same hand counts as it does in his state? Who knows. A couple of possibilities: * The Florida method is different from the Texas method. I don't know the methodology of Texas. * The selective county method is unacceptable to Bush. However, then you'd think Bush would demand a full manual re-count, unless he's not interested in accuracy. * Bush doesn't want to know the results. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
Dreamshake I believe the law he passed was on the Manual Written ballots. Not the Hole Punch type. Here is a GREAT fact that what is happening is only happening to get Gore votes.. Earlier this year, a republican woman ran for office. She lost by a TOTAL of 14 votes county wide. She asked for a revote. Theresa LaPore, the woman that made the ballot this year, said NO. That a manual recount is reserved for times when the lead is in SINGLE DIGITS. Ms LaPore is a strict Democrat. Who has contributed money to the Gore campaign. She is also the lady that Seconded the motion to WAIT and find more information on the consequences of recounting the ballots, THEN after getting whispered in the ear by a democrat that helped count the votes, she pulled her second BACK! That is on LIVE TV folks! That story above can partly be found in the article below, along with some more interesting facts about her and her ways to Get Gore the win, no matter what. http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000590 ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE" [This message has been edited by DUDE (edited November 12, 2000).]
The Republican asked for a manual recount, rather than a revote, and was refused, apparently because the margin was too large (14 votes was the margin). I know that's what you meant, but you wrote "revote" so I wanted everyone to be clear. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited November 12, 2000).]
Yes, I am sorry, I meant RECOUNT. ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
Not to mention, you run into a problem of asking which count is correct, and which count is fair. IMHO I don't know how a manual count of hundreds of thousand ballots, or even millions in the state, can be any more accurate. There's a lot of room for error with humans, and I imagine more so than a computer on a count of this scale. So then which one do you count? The entire state's ballots were hand fed through a tabulator three times in order to get the first recount -- which would seem to be about as accurate as you would hope for. How is a one time pass through thousands of ballots by tired people supposed to be more accurate? Do you have a third count, by some other method, and pick the winner two out of three? But the thing that really scares me is the criteria used by those doing the hand count -- they are trying to "Interpret the will of the people." It seems too dangerous to have three people trying to determine "the will of the people" by trying to decide how voters intended to vote, by criteria such as, one of four corners is detached. By inference, they are "interpreting the will" of the American people, by examining one county's votes. If it comes down to "interpreting the will" of the American People, I want it to be someone a lot higher than three elected officials in some county in Florida -- Like the Supreme Court or House of Representatives. ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited November 13, 2000).]
Here's the newest thing that hacks me off. In this case, it happens to be a Gore thing, but the reason it hacks me off is not because it's a Gore thing. If this were a Bush doing, it would severely hack me off then, too. After all the talk about respect for the process and the rule of law, after all the talk about the rights to demand a handcount and whathaveyou, the Gore campaign is now saying they don't like the law and claiming that since the Secretary of State wants to enforce the law, she's engaging in partisan politics. Gore's advisers call the 5pm Tuesday deadline "arbitrary and unreasonable". But it's what the law says. Either you respect the law and what to follow the process in place, or you don't. This having it both ways (We want to follow the process as long as it favors us. The second that the process in place doesn't suit us, we'll play politics, smear officials in Florida and go to court to block enforcement of the law) is maddening. Either you respect the rule of law or you don't. There is no in-between. (And it is especially troubing when the man who wants to be the guy who enforces the laws of the country comes out and says he doesn't want laws enforced that affect him). I'll tell you what, we, as a country, need to do a far better job of picking our candidates. Neither one of these yahoos deserves to be President. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
We're turning Florida upside-down. If we do that in every state, we're not going to be happy with what we find. Ultimately, I think the real casualty is the integrity of the system and the faith of the people in all of our elections from here on out. This is the argument I don't understand. What exactly are we not going to be happy finding out? That our vote-counting procedures are bad? That fraud is going on? That morons are running some of our elections? Why is this bad to learn? Should we instead hide problems and keep using flawed procedures, moron election officials and so forth? The only way to fix future problems is to know what the problems are. What is so bad about finding that out? ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
How is a one time pass through thousands of ballots by tired people supposed to be more accurate? Given that 6 people go through each ballot, I think it's a pretty accurate system. Given that computers can't make judgement decisions, I'd trust a hand-count of this sort. Remember, our nation has always relied on hand-counts until recent developments in technology. The only reason computers are used is for speed, not accuracy. After all the talk about respect for the process and the rule of law, after all the talk about the rights to demand a handcount and whathaveyou, the Gore campaign is now saying they don't like the law and claiming that since the Secretary of State wants to enforce the law, she's engaging in partisan politics. I agree. This is getting loony. Stop saying stuff if you don't really believe it. This applies to both campaigns -- just shut up. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
This is why, plainly and simply, a partial recount by hand is GROSSLY UNFAIR. Consider two counties - County A favors the Democratic Party, and approximately 90% of the voters, vote for Gore. County B favors the Republican party and hence approximately 90% voted for Bush. Lets say that they decide to manually recount County A only, and lets assume that it IS more accurate. Finally, lets assume that when the computer made the first count, it missed/got wrong 5000 ballots. When they re-count the entire county, the 5000 ballots that were wrong are now correctly accounted for. Using statistical averages, of those 5000 ballot papers that are corrected, 90% of them, or 4500 will be in favor of Gore, and would represent a major swing away from Bush. If the same scenario occurred in County B, but was NOT MANUALLY RECOUNTED then it is plainly and simply, statistically unfair. Regardless of how the manaul recount transpired, and who demands what, it is just not fair. You cannot remove statistical uncertainty from some portions of the state and not others - it introduces a non-uniform basis for the overall vote count. ------------------ Maybe all the rulers are wrong. Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
They're actually arguing that there is a conflict in the laws (you can tell me what the legalese is for that, b/c I don't know)... that the state allows for manual recounts but doesn't give enough time to actually hold a manual recount. Also, someone pointed out earlier today that it is up to her discrepancy since they've postponed that timeline before. I will concede that both parties are walking pretty silly lines right now. The republicans ironically, are asking a federal judge to overrule a local law. The democrats are... no nevermind the democrats are in the right. LOL. I'll get an update on what's happening now and I'm sure I'll be able to see something wrong that the demos are doing. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
I've heard this alot. My only response is so? The Bush/Cheney ticket has the ability also to ask for a manual recount. There is no restriction from them doing so (imaginary 72 hour clause not withstanding). ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
